icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

[djconklin]

Amen, Jim!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The shoe does not fit me, and I personally don't know of anyone who hold the SOP over the Bible in the SDA church. The IJ needs some work in our church, that is obvious but most of the conservative SDA's I know are more than willing to take another look at what the IJ is really about.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

have you read the offical statments of the GC. they call it an inspired comentary. Sda's do hold it on equal par with the scriptures.

 

[PrKirkpatrick]

Hello NightEternal,
I was interested in your description of a "TSDA" and your indication that GreatControversy org (GCO) is "TSDA." I thought you might be interested to know that your description of the TSDA does not correctly portray Seventh-day Adventist teachings as presented on GCO.

o We accept and uphold the Fundamental Belief that says that Mrs. White's writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth. We do not hold them to be superior to the Bible in authority, nor do we hold them to be equal in authority to the Bible. Since the Bible tests and confirms (or denies) the legitimacy of these writings, it cannot logically be equal to them in authority, but is superior. We do view her writings as inspired in the very same way as those of the Bible.
o We do respect EGW just as we respect any other prophet of God. Venerate is technically correct, but that is not the charge. The charge against us actually is that we venerate EGW with inappropriate respect. I hope that you venerate Paul and Isaiah and Micah and Moses and John, that is, respect them as prophets of God--but not inappropriately.
o Our understanding of the humanity of Christ is the same as held by the Adventist church for its first century, and as held by a long list of non-Adventists, and the same as taught in Scripture. Guilt is not attached to birth-nature, Jesus is not guilty having a disordered human organism like those He came to save.
o Like the Bible we teach that some, through the power of God, will cease from sinning before Jesus comes. We like the counsel of Jesus, "Go, and sin no more."
o The IJ is important, although revered and idolized seem rather loaded and unfair expressions to use. We simply agree with what other SDAs around the world have affirmed in the Fundamental Belief. We did not write the FB, but we uphold it as true.
o On the Heavenly Sanctuary, it seems very unfair to allege that we are literal only and ignore its symbolic aspects.
o Adore the decalogue? It cannot save; it shed no blood for me; it has no life for me; it has a ministry of death written on stone. I do not adore that. Nevertheless, it represents the character of God in a concrete application, and I do adore the character of God.
o Despise the Reformation gospel? No. We Appreciate--and strongly--aspects of the Reformation that come from all three of its branches, Magisterial, Elizabethan, and Radical Reformation.
o It is true that sanctification--the work of God--we see as being of equal importance with justification (also the work of God). Indeed, separating these is only possible in a theoretical sense.
o We believe that Christ's righteousness is both imputed and imparted. I think you need to do some further research on your supposed Protestant "positions." If you mean do we hold the same position as some specific denominational entity, then say so, or that we don't, then say so. But Protestantism is a much larger umbrella than you seem to know. Arm yourself with accurate historical information.
o Arrogant, bold prideful about remnant status? Not at all. But willing to affirm Bible truths about His purpose for His remnant, yes.
o Diet is not salvific, but God wants us to be holy, healthy, and happy. So an intelligent diet along with exercise can help us have clearer minds and give a better witness about our Savior Jesus.
o The behavioral standards we adhere to regarding adornment, food, liquor, drugs, etc., are those we agreed to uphold when we joined the SDA church. We believe they are sound and appropriate. We are not in any position to judge the heart of another.
o We oppose any doctrine that is not Scripturally sound, and that means teachings that violate male headship as taught in the Bible. Women's ordination (as offered by most WO advocates we have interacted with) violates and contradicts this teaching, and in order to contradict it, undermines sound hermeneutics of biblical interpretation which would have grave long term effects on how we view Scripture. So we oppose the teaching of WO, although it seems unfair to say we hate it. I can oppose a person or a teaching without hating. Surely you can too?
o Contemporary worship styles, as commonly experienced, have many negative traits which we see as impeding the interaction of God and worshipper, and so for spiritual purposes, we think there is a better way.
o I don't think I have ever heard anyone say or suggest that QOD was on a par with the Satanic Bible. There are some limited areas in QOD and certain teachings that we find to be unbiblical and thus oppose.

So there you have it. Our teachings in their "raw, horrific form"? On the contrary, we seek to be fair-minded and reasonable and kind. It is true that we from time to time publish reviews in which we carefully document and reference our concerns, such as the Bradford book review we are presently publishing. Hopefully you understand that in an introductory segment usually you state something straightforward about your findings. I thought I saw elsewhere on this forum a place where it was said that our review of Bradford was "nothing but ad hominum." You will have to show us that. I don't think you will find any. Nor is there any need of it even if we were so inclined, as the hundreds of footnotes show, Bradford's teaching itself sufficiently demonstrates its own flaws in easy to understand ways. Anyway, remember, an introduction is an introduction, a conclusion is a conclusion. In the intervening six segments we will provide evidences for problems we believe adhere to the work.

We have no ill-will towards Bradford or anyone else, but you need to take at least one other point into account; all of our main writers on GCO are pastors, elders, and worship leaders. We were educated in this denomination, we are credentialed and ordained in this denomination. We do not labor in a closed room in the back of a campus somewhere. We pastor churches, we are on the front lines with real people throughout the week. We see the positive impacts of some trends and the negative impacts of others. It is from a pastoral heart that we offer our concerns.

We are not just a bunch of narrow and creepy people out there at the fringes shouting complaints. We are active church members, contributing our energies to advance the message of Jesus for this generation. Are we imperfect? Certainly! Do we love Jesus? Certainly! Are we concerned about how the lives of our children are impacted for the kingdom? Oh, yes. So when you see our concerns, please pause and take a breath before you criticize us or our motives. Before you name us legalists and jackals, check your facts. When you are kinder, it makes your concerns seem more potentially legitimate. We see ourselves not as "TSDA" or "Historic Adventists," but as "Last Generation Theology" (LGT) Adventists (for those who insist on using a label). (Obviously I cannot and would not speak for any other group that you have mentioned, nor would I necessarily identify myself with them. I only added this post to help set the record straight for yourself and for anyone who has an interest, whether they agree or not with our ideas, in fair-mindedness. Let each of us consider just what spirit we are demonstrating to onlookers. And please consider yourself invited to visit our sites with a renewed sense of fairness. If the articles and book reviews are too much for you right now, try some of the sermons. The next two weeks we will be posting some biblical sermons on adoption. Few of our sermons (and they are the bulk of the material on the site) are very controversial. And may God bless you as you continue to seek His guiding. Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick

 

[Friend123]

First of all let me apologize to NightEternal for assuming he was a "she." Yes, that icon does indeed make gender clear, but I was looking at the image you chose and at first glance it looked like a female to me. My bad.

NightEternal, I must say that your post that summarizes your view of traditional or fundamental Adventists contains some things that I feel are either a misunderstanding on your part of bad representation on the part of conservatives that you have met. Either way, they don't seem accurate to me, but I fear that if I list them and then make a comment, it will be more of us just going back and forth with neither of us making any progress in persuading the other of our view. Thus I will leave it alone, but my conclusion is simply that much of it was inaccurate.

Regarding the issue some raised (and this is continually raised in almost all debates) of "placing EGW's writings above the Bible," this concept has never made sense to me, and if folks would look at what is actually being alleged here they would understand how preposterous the notion is. Either God speaks through a person or He does not. How is adhering to God's messages placing anything above any of His OTHER messages? The fact of the matter is, the only way to lose the "placing it above the Bible" label is to basically disregard it. Simply throw out those portions we don't agree with and now we have finally "arrived." God can now work with us, for obedience, after all, is legalism. It is only when we wisely place God's counsels in the corner and move ahead in our own course that God can at last breathe a sigh of relief and see that His children on earth have finally "gotten it." They have "progressed" into the light that He has waited for them to experience for 6000 years -- the light of human wisdom. This view sees God as actually pleased with a setting-aside of His instructions. One pastor with this view actually said it was a sin to want to overcome because then we wouldn't need a Savior! He also stated that to want to be like Jesus was blasphemy since this is what Lucifer originally wanted and thus such thoughts are akin to Satanic ambitions. Now most of you are probably surprised by such conclusions, but actually he is just bringing the inconsistent views about authority and submission to their logical conclusion.

Suppose God gave you the gift of prophecy tonight and told you to go and speak to the Adventists about such and such. Let's assume that it has been proven that it is Him and not the devil, etc. Okay, now, what do you do? Do you tell them or do you keep quiet about it, for fear that they will "place you above the Bible"? And suppose the counsel was life or death to the listeners. Do you say "well, Lord, you don't understand; they HAVE the Bible already so I'm not saying a WORD. Listening to me would be earning their salvation, anyway." Do you see how illogical this line of reasoning is? There IS NO placing God's word above God's word. There's no placing God's messages above God's messages. There's no placing God's will above God's will. If a prophet is of the devil then she should not be listened to AT ALL. Period. Not even if you are bored on a Saturday night and all there is to read in the house is Counsels on Diet and Foods, do NOT PICK THAT BOOK UP! Why? Because we don't play with the devil, much less place him above God. But IF (and I know for some of you out there this is a big "IF"), IF by some chance the messages are from God, then THANK HIM FOR THEM AND CONSUME THEM LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW. How could it be any other way? People often say "If only God would speak to me. I would LOVE to know what He wants from me" and then they put down anyone who wants to check with the S.O.P. writings for counsel. Our attitude toward God's counsel is our attitude toward God. We can't despise His will now and then when we get to heaven, suddenly appreciate and love His government, it just doesn't work that way.

When did we invent this new category of prophets that are unreliable yet still "inspired"? Such a one does not exist. Never has. God never operates this way. We see from Balaam what happens when a prophet diverges from the path of truth. God certainly doesn't keep using them to speak to His people. God and Satan are never partners.

Remember, faithful ones, any time you EVER use the writings of EGW as a blessing you WILL be accused of placing her above the Bible. Just expect it and learn to live with it, for until the shaking, those accusations are going to be thrown at you.






Now, to my dear friend RC. RC, I have some shocking, but wonderful news for you my friend. You are going to love this. You see, I am going to like you -- no, LOVE you, no matter how you try and show me a tough and cold albeit pseudo-progressive exterior. Why is this? Well, for one thing, if you and I were to meet under ANY other circumstances, we would be pals. That's right, I said pals. Now how do I know this? Well, because I love making friends and seeing the good in people. You would be FAR more open to a conversation with me after we got to know each other and your defenses were down. Then you could open your mind and listen without being so trigger-happy, ready to shoot any and everything down. We'd be cordial to each other then, so lo and behold, I'm going to be cordial to you now! Another reason is because that prophet we love talking about once wrote that within everyone is a precious gem and that if we dig deep enough we will find it. RC you are a gem. Which leads me to my next point. Jesus died for you. If He did, then how can I speak (okay, TYPE) rudely to you? I simply can't. Finally, you are part of my Adventist family. Though we may not agree, you are still (supposed to be) my brother.

I once went with some in-laws to spend some time with a man who had written one of the books out there that just TRASHES Ellen White. Do you want to guess how this man and I got along? We got along JUST FINE. We had never met, but we hung out together and had a fine time. Now, I will admit, the man seemed empty and his life had taken a downward spiral in many areas after rejecting the counsels, but for a moment -- a brief moment over the weekend, this man and I had some fun in town. And RC, if I ever come to your house you'd better believe we'd have a grand ol' time. Why, I'd probably even sing that little cola jingle "Me and My RC!" (okay, you've got to be over 30 and maybe from the south to even get that joke, but I couldn't resist.).

RC do you remember the story where the Samaritans forbad Christ to preach to them and His disciples asked Him if they should call fire down upon them like Elijah had? Jesus made it plain, He came to SAVE man not destroy him. Likewise, God has given us a nuclear arsenal of Bible texts that could render the human structure of compromising beliefs into a distant mushroom cloud. But what good would that really do, friend? So we would have proven our point. But we lose a soul who is turned off by the unkind spirit? What point does it serve? Nothing. Thus the spirit of our dialogue does volumes of good or evil where our theology itself may not sway anyone.

I see now that nothing presented to you, no matter how conclusive, will change your view on the conditional prophecy issue. Thus there's no need for further dialogue. You've asked me to prove to you that her statement was conditional and passages like it in the Word aren't sufficient for you. Then there's nothing more I can do. You have deemed that what is okay for the Bible is not okay for EGW. So be it. And if you don't want to tell me your position on EGW that's fine, too. I understand.

So there's my two cents, dear one. I love life, I love the Lord, and I love the peace and happiness I have daily. The more I read the Bible and S.O.P. the more blessed I am and the more equipped I am to bless others. I pray I have blessed you in some way. I probably won't be coming around a whole lot more since my schedule is about to get a lot busier. There tends to be way too much arguing on forums anyway (whether they are religious forums, health forums, political forums, technology forums, ANY kind of forum -- same thing).

I wish you the best, my friend, I really do. If I have time before Friday I may be able to slide in an answer or two if you comment right away.

May you just keep seeking truth and ask God to help you to be willing to submit to it in all aspects, no matter how crucifying to self.

God bless,

Friend123
</IMG>

 

[djconklin]

have you read the offical statments {sic} of the GC. they call it an inspired comentary. Sda's do hold it on equal par with the scriptures.

Commentaries are NOT "on equal par" with the Scriptures. Never have been, never will be.

 

[freeindeed2]

Again you attack my sincere motives.

I attack nothing, for to do so would mean someone reporting my post in an effort to get me to go away.

What am I going to do with you my friend? If you have a problem with what I said then you have a problem with what Christ said in the Bible. He is the one who said in order to follow Him we must take up our cross to do so. It was His apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that said we must die daily to our self and allow the Holy Spirit to change our natures.

You may want to check the context of this passage. (Read the entire chapter!)

A mere mental ascent to existence of Christ and His sacrifice will not save anyone.

Believing in Jesus 'FOR OUR SALVATION' is not a 'mere mental ascent'.

It is a personal relationship with Him that will save. This relationship is something we must cultivate everyday we are alive. This will allow the Holy Spirit to change us, praise God.

I'd respond, but I'd proabaly get reported again for lifting up Jesus as my salvation. Truly amazing, and on 'Christian' forums!

 

[Jimlarmore]

have you read the offical statments of the GC. they call it an inspired comentary. Sda's do hold it on equal par with the scriptures.

I haven't read it but I can't see how they could hold her writings on a equal par when she told everyone herself that her writings were not on an equal par with the scriptures. That doesn't make sense to me. I think there is probably no doubt some in our church does but certainly not all. I do think some of her writings are inspired but not all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I attack nothing, for to do so would mean someone reporting my post in an effort to get me to go away.

I can promise you this. I have never reported anyone on this forum to get them to go away or for being abusive to me and I certainly don't plan on doing that to you.

Believing in Jesus 'FOR OUR SALVATION' is not a 'mere mental ascent'.

I realize that but some may take it that way as the semantics used could be taken that way from a cursory treatise of the text/s.

I'd respond, but I'd proabaly get reported again for lifting up Jesus as my salvation. Truly amazing, and on 'Christian' forums!

I don't think you will get reported for lifting up Jesus for your salvation. What gets you reported is the skewed view you have on what righteousness by faith actually is. Your rendition of it allows for unconfessed and unrepented of sins after justification and behavior does not matter in a saving relationship. That part is truely not Biblical at all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

I can promise you this. I have never reported anyone on this forum to get them to go away or for being abusive to me and I certainly don't plan on doing that to you.

I wasn't referring to you necessarily. There are pleanty here who are sensitive enough to make regular reports, and have.

I realize that but some may take it that way as the semantics used could be taken that way from a cursory treatise of the text/s.

Most have already made assumptions and do not seek any clarification outside of what they already believe.

I don't think you will get reported for lifting up Jesus for your salvation.

You'd be surprised.

What gets you reported is the skewed view you have on what righteousness by faith actually is. Your rendition of it allows for unconfessed and unrepented of sins after justification and behavior does not matter in a saving relationship. That part is truely not Biblical at all.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's amazing how many words get put into people's mouths for them.

 

[NightEternal]

Hello NightEternal,
I was interested in your description of a "TSDA" and your indication that GreatControversy org (GCO) is "TSDA." I thought you might be interested to know that your description of the TSDA does not correctly portray Seventh-day Adventist teachings as presented on GCO.

o We accept and uphold the Fundamental Belief that says that Mrs. White's writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth. We do not hold them to be superior to the Bible in authority, nor do we hold them to be equal in authority to the Bible. Since the Bible tests and confirms (or denies) the legitimacy of these writings, it cannot logically be equal to them in authority, but is superior. We do view her writings as inspired in the very same way as those of the Bible.
o We do respect EGW just as we respect any other prophet of God. Venerate is technically correct, but that is not the charge. The charge against us actually is that we venerate EGW with inappropriate respect. I hope that you venerate Paul and Isaiah and Micah and Moses and John, that is, respect them as prophets of God--but not inappropriately.
o Our understanding of the humanity of Christ is the same as held by the Adventist church for its first century, and as held by a long list of non-Adventists, and the same as taught in Scripture. Guilt is not attached to birth-nature, Jesus is not guilty having a disordered human organism like those He came to save.
o Like the Bible we teach that some, through the power of God, will cease from sinning before Jesus comes. We like the counsel of Jesus, "Go, and sin no more."
o The IJ is important, although revered and idolized seem rather loaded and unfair expressions to use. We simply agree with what other SDAs around the world have affirmed in the Fundamental Belief. We did not write the FB, but we uphold it as true.
o On the Heavenly Sanctuary, it seems very unfair to allege that we are literal only and ignore its symbolic aspects.
o Adore the decalogue? It cannot save; it shed no blood for me; it has no life for me; it has a ministry of death written on stone. I do not adore that. Nevertheless, it represents the character of God in a concrete application, and I do adore the character of God.
o Despise the Reformation gospel? No. We Appreciate--and strongly--aspects of the Reformation that come from all three of its branches, Magisterial, Elizabethan, and Radical Reformation.
o It is true that sanctification--the work of God--we see as being of equal importance with justification (also the work of God). Indeed, separating these is only possible in a theoretical sense.
o We believe that Christ's righteousness is both imputed and imparted. I think you need to do some further research on your supposed Protestant "positions." If you mean do we hold the same position as some specific denominational entity, then say so, or that we don't, then say so. But Protestantism is a much larger umbrella than you seem to know. Arm yourself with accurate historical information.
o Arrogant, bold prideful about remnant status? Not at all. But willing to affirm Bible truths about His purpose for His remnant, yes.
o Diet is not salvific, but God wants us to be holy, healthy, and happy. So an intelligent diet along with exercise can help us have clearer minds and give a better witness about our Savior Jesus.
o The behavioral standards we adhere to regarding adornment, food, liquor, drugs, etc., are those we agreed to uphold when we joined the SDA church. We believe they are sound and appropriate. We are not in any position to judge the heart of another.
o We oppose any doctrine that is not Scripturally sound, and that means teachings that violate male headship as taught in the Bible. Women's ordination (as offered by most WO advocates we have interacted with) violates and contradicts this teaching, and in order to contradict it, undermines sound hermeneutics of biblical interpretation which would have grave long term effects on how we view Scripture. So we oppose the teaching of WO, although it seems unfair to say we hate it. I can oppose a person or a teaching without hating. Surely you can too?
o Contemporary worship styles, as commonly experienced, have many negative traits which we see as impeding the interaction of God and worshipper, and so for spiritual purposes, we think there is a better way.
o I don't think I have ever heard anyone say or suggest that QOD was on a par with the Satanic Bible. There are some limited areas in QOD and certain teachings that we find to be unbiblical and thus oppose.

So there you have it. Our teachings in their "raw, horrific form"? On the contrary, we seek to be fair-minded and reasonable and kind. It is true that we from time to time publish reviews in which we carefully document and reference our concerns, such as the Bradford book review we are presently publishing. Hopefully you understand that in an introductory segment usually you state something straightforward about your findings. I thought I saw elsewhere on this forum a place where it was said that our review of Bradford was "nothing but ad hominum." You will have to show us that. I don't think you will find any. Nor is there any need of it even if we were so inclined, as the hundreds of footnotes show, Bradford's teaching itself sufficiently demonstrates its own flaws in easy to understand ways. Anyway, remember, an introduction is an introduction, a conclusion is a conclusion. In the intervening six segments we will provide evidences for problems we believe adhere to the work.

We have no ill-will towards Bradford or anyone else, but you need to take at least one other point into account; all of our main writers on GCO are pastors, elders, and worship leaders. We were educated in this denomination, we are credentialed and ordained in this denomination. We do not labor in a closed room in the back of a campus somewhere. We pastor churches, we are on the front lines with real people throughout the week. We see the positive impacts of some trends and the negative impacts of others. It is from a pastoral heart that we offer our concerns.

We are not just a bunch of narrow and creepy people out there at the fringes shouting complaints. We are active church members, contributing our energies to advance the message of Jesus for this generation. Are we imperfect? Certainly! Do we love Jesus? Certainly! Are we concerned about how the lives of our children are impacted for the kingdom? Oh, yes. So when you see our concerns, please pause and take a breath before you criticize us or our motives. Before you name us legalists and jackals, check your facts. When you are kinder, it makes your concerns seem more potentially legitimate. We see ourselves not as "TSDA" or "Historic Adventists," but as "Last Generation Theology" (LGT) Adventists (for those who insist on using a label). (Obviously I cannot and would not speak for any other group that you have mentioned, nor would I necessarily identify myself with them. I only added this post to help set the record straight for yourself and for anyone who has an interest, whether they agree or not with our ideas, in fair-mindedness. Let each of us consider just what spirit we are demonstrating to onlookers. And please consider yourself invited to visit our sites with a renewed sense of fairness. If the articles and book reviews are too much for you right now, try some of the sermons. The next two weeks we will be posting some biblical sermons on adoption. Few of our sermons (and they are the bulk of the material on the site) are very controversial. And may God bless you as you continue to seek His guiding. Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick

Semantics and hair-splitting.

All the sugar coating in the world cannot disguise the type of M.L. Andreason, Joe Crews, Historical, Gestapo Adventism being proferred at GCO and I will fight it until my dying breath. They do not represent what I want for the future of the denomination I belong to in any way, shape or form.

My assessment stands as my own personal opinion of the place, and I have read enough there to know exactly how they feel about the Evangelical SDA agenda, Knight, Ford, Cottrell, Heppenstall, LaRondell, Thompson and Bradford.

Pure, unadulterated, ultra-conservative rhetoric and dogma.

As for Questions On Doctrine, may it long reign as representative what we are capable of as a church if we put our minds to it. They didn't go far enough IMO.

I will be sticking to Good News Unlimited, Present Truth Magazine, Adventist Today and Spectrum for my website needs thank you very much.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's amazing how many words get put into people's mouths for them.

I have never put words into anyone's mouth including yours. I have asked direct questions that you have not been able to or unwilling to directly answer, but spun on them. For instance the idea of behavior doesn't matter. You've said that more than once but what does that really mean in the reality of what salvation is all about? To my knowledge you have never given any good examples to explain that. When I say things like, "What do you mean, is ok to comit adultery now or steal or break the Sabbath, you generally go into a tirade of " I dare you accuse me of such". Confusing? Yeah, it is.

Bottom line is this: Does it make any sense or is it in the Bible that The Lord would save us from sin then tell us that it's ok now to go back and sin again as much as we want? Don't worry if you fall a little you don't have to repent or confess anymore, I've got you covered? Is this right?

Think about the encounter Christ had with the woman caught in adultery. What was His parting words? Wasn't it "Go and sin no more"?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Friend123 wrote

I see now that nothing presented to you, no matter how conclusive, will change your view on the conditional prophecy issue. Thus there's no need for further dialogue. You've asked me to prove to you that her statement was conditional and passages like it in the Word aren't sufficient for you. Then there's nothing more I can do. You have deemed that what is okay for the Bible is not okay for EGW. So be it. And if you don't want to tell me your position on EGW that's fine, too. I understand.

I have never said we could not get along of you were not a nice and friendly person, I asked for you to show me the evidence that you use to say that EGW's food for worm prophecy is conditional. I never asked you to prove that it was conditional just what the evidence was you said you used to come to your conclusion.

As I have pointed out already if your assumption is that all prophecy is conditional which is not Biblical but often heard in Adventist circles because of an EGW statement. Then you will never be able to test anyone claiming to be a prophet on the one truly objective test of a prophet which is do their predictions come true. For example you can ask a Mormon does Joseph Smith meet the test of a prophet and they will say yes. They will say he leads to God and that he does not disagree with the Bible, right down the line they will subjectively verify that their prophet is a true prophet. If we allow the presumption that a prophecy is conditional and we don't even need to know the conditions then we are left with no objective test.

Equally troublesome is the idea that we extend to a person claimed to be a prophet the same respect which the Church has given to all those in the Bible. Which is a universally accepted Christian canon. You can't really test a prophet by the canon if we begin by assuming that person has all the rights of acceptance as those who made up the Christian canon.

Now if you want to discuss the issues we can but you have to provide some of the evidence you say you have used and it really needs to be evidence, the only evidence you have given was a poorly reasoned argument about Paul. Well Paul is not the subject and Paul has stood the test of time and is universally accepted by Christians, not the case with EGW. That is why I requested your evidence, again not proof just your evidence for the statement being conditional. Circular reasoning whereby the prophet explains away their prophecy is not evidence because by that method anybody could predict anything and then explain it away. So unless you are willing to accept everybody out there that claims to be a prophet of have a message from the Lord you have to rely on something objective and rational, and that is the evidence I want you to share.

 

[djconklin]

I don't think you will get reported for lifting up Jesus for your salvation.

You'd be surprised.

I would be very surprised. But then, where does it say in the Bible that those in the last days who are doing the devils' work will think that they are doing God's work? Aka Paul Hill, et al.

 

[freeindeed2]

I have never put words into anyone's mouth including yours. I have asked direct questions that you have not been able to or unwilling to directly answer, but spun on them. For instance the idea of behavior doesn't matter. You've said that more than once

You just put words into my mouth again.

but what does that really mean in the reality of what salvation is all about?

Do your behaviors save you?

To my knowledge you have never given any good examples to explain that. When I say things like, "What do you mean, is ok to comit adultery now or steal or break the Sabbath, you generally go into a tirade of " I dare you accuse me of such". Confusing? Yeah, it is.

It's the Holy Spirit living IN the believer that you accuse of leading them to do these things.

Bottom line is this: Does it make any sense or is it in the Bible that The Lord would save us from sin then tell us that it's ok now to go back and sin again as much as we want?

This is why God lives IN us. Who controls the mind of the believer? The Holy Spirit, or themselves. Only one can be in control.

Don't worry if you fall a little you don't have to repent or confess anymore, I've got you covered? Is this right?

If you're connecting behavior to salvation, then yes. We have been credited with the righteousness of Christ, which completely covers us. We are lead by his Spirit who lives in us. Should we be worried that we are not in capable hands by being in the hands of our Savior?

Now, if it's left up to YOU to 'save' yourself by your behavior, then you have every reason to worry.

Think about the encounter Christ had with the woman caught in adultery. What was His parting words? Wasn't it "Go and sin no more"?

Do you believe she didn't break the law she was under any longer after that?

 

[Jimlarmore]

You just put words into my mouth again.

LOL, some folks are halarious.

Do your behaviors save you?

Can your behaviors make you to be lost or die in the end even after justification?

It's the Holy Spirit living IN the believer that you accuse of leading them to do these things.

The Holy Spirit will never lead one back into sin again. It's the other way around my friend. The spirit that leads one to think that sin is ok or that salvation gives one a license to sin is not from God.

This is why God lives IN us. Who controls the mind of the believer? The Holy Spirit, or themselves. Only one can be in control.

Yep, exactly right. Now sit back and think about what you have just said. Then think about the other statements that you have made which says behavior does not matter. If the Holy Spirit is truely in control He would convict you that comitting adultery,stealing or breaking the Sabbath is wrong and a sin. Remember 1 John 3:4?

If you're connecting behavior to salvation, then yes. We have been credited with the righteousness of Christ, which completely covers us. We are lead by his Spirit who lives in us. Should we be worried that we are not in capable hands by being in the hands of our Savior?

Works will not save us but they can kill us. Faith and works go hand in hand. Wickedness and work go hand in hand as well. Works shows what side we are really on. We keep God's commandments because we love Him and are saved. We can't keep them to be saved. We are given the power by His grace to keep them and His commandments are not a burden in a Christ filled life. If they are then that indicates Christ is not living in our lives. It all boils down to love. You cannot love your Savior if you break His royal laws and teach others to do so. Christ Himself counseled against that.

Now, if it's left up to YOU to 'save' yourself by your behavior, then you have every reason to worry.

I could never save myself that is only accomplished by Christ and His power living in me. My part is to allow Him to work in my life. Christ will not force my will and make me to do that. I have a part to play in my salvation.

Do you believe she didn't break the law she was under any longer after that?

I don't know but if it was Mary Magdelene she probably did because the Bible says Christ cast seven demons out of her. However, the point is Christ told her to go and sin no more after pardoning her. If her behavior didn't matter anymore then He wouldn't have said that.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[PrKirkpatrick]

But NightEternal,
What we present is undisguised. We are completely open advocates of ML Andreasen, Joe Crews Adventism. But "Gestapo"--what do you mean by that? Do you mean to imply the use of coercion or force? Or is this just smear tactics on your part? There seems a vicious streak in your response to our work. You consistently write-off specific concerns and reply with a spirit that perhaps you do not realize you are displaying. It is interesting to see the attitude that emanates from Good News Unlimited, Present Truth Magazine, Adventist Today and Spectrum. Be that as it may, may you seek and find all the leading of Jesus, and may you be a faithful member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in every way. May you find evermore peace in our Lord. Pr. Kirkpatrick

 

[Adventist Dissident]

But NightEternal,
What we present is undisguised. We are completely open advocates of ML Andreasen, Joe Crews Adventism. But "Gestapo"--what do you mean by that? Do you mean to imply the use of coercion or force? Or is this just smear tactics on your part? There seems a vicious streak in your response to our work. You consistently write-off specific concerns and reply with a spirit that perhaps you do not realize you are displaying. It is interesting to see the attitude that emanates from Good News Unlimited, Present Truth Magazine, Adventist Today and Spectrum. Be that as it may, may you seek and find all the leading of Jesus, and may you be a faithful member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in every way. May you find evermore peace in our Lord. Pr. Kirkpatrick

You support ML andresen and Joe Crewes.......Why? Why would anybody want to support that.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Semantics and hair-splitting.

All the sugar coating in the world cannot disguise the type of M.L. Andreason, Joe Crews, Historical, Gestapo Adventism being proferred at GCO and I will fight it until my dying breath. They do not represent what I want for the future of the denomination I belong to in any way, shape or form.

My assessment stands as my own personal opinion of the place, and I have read enough there to know exactly how they feel about the Evangelical SDA agenda, Knight, Ford, Cottrell, Heppenstall, LaRondell, Thompson and Bradford.

Pure, unadulterated, ultra-conservative rhetoric and dogma.

As for Questions On Doctrine, may it long reign as representative what we are capable of as a church if we put our minds to it. They didn't go far enough IMO.

I will be sticking to Good News Unlimited, Present Truth Magazine, Adventist Today and Spectrum for my website needs thank you very much.

QOD Good stuff. represents Good leadership in the church.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

PrKirkpatrick wrote:

We accept and uphold the Fundamental Belief that says that Mrs. White's writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth. We do not hold them to be superior to the Bible in authority, nor do we hold them to be equal in authority to the Bible. Since the Bible tests and confirms (or denies) the legitimacy of these writings, it cannot logically be equal to them in authority, but is superior. We do view her writings as inspired in the very same way as those of the Bible.

It is the same inspiration as the Bible but is not equal to the Bible? He began correct that her writings can't be equal to the Bible if the Bible is to test them but then he denies his own logical statement and declares her writing as inspired the same way as the Bible. It would be more logical to just come out and say that they are equal. But of course that would go against protestant theology and it would make testing her work by the Bible of no use. In short he presents a completely illogical position.

Read the other articles on the website and you will see just how they use her above the Bible and complain that the editors of Questions on Doctrines did not simply use Ellen White's material.

The trouble is, QOD is a very selective book. If you really want to know what Adventism is all about, you could take Great Controversy or Early Writings, along with either Desire of Ages or Steps to Christ, and any one of the health books, and you would basically have it. Questions on Doctrine on the other hand, is a spin-book; it masquerades as representing true Adventism while being thoroughly at odds with true Adventism. The book proposes that we use its interpretive rules to reinterpret our belief system so that we fit in much better with the Evangelical mold. Hear what they wrote about the historic Ellen G. White/Adventist view of the atonement:

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature&#8212;even in the writings of Ellen G. White&#8212;that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made at the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests.48​

What they said was that you must turn a statement of progressive action (&#8220;is now making atonement&#8221 into a statement of completed action in past time, present mediation being removed from atonement. Thus, we are now told that Christ currently is only &#8220;making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made at the cross.&#8221; That is, whenever, in the writings of Ellen G. White, you come to a clear statement that Jesus is presently mediating for us in the heavenly sanctuary and is making an atonement, you must always interpret&#8212;spin&#8212;this phrase so that it fits the evangelical concept of what and where atonement is: all at the cross; all in past time; all already accomplished.
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-qod-atonement.php3

Their complaint with QOD is that it uses the Bible instead of Ellen White, since the Bible has nothing about "presently mediating for us in the heavenly sanctuary and is making an atonement".

 

[woobadooba]

It is the same inspiration as the Bible but is not equal to the Bible? He began correct that her writings can't be equal to the Bible if the Bible is to test them but then he denies his own logical statement and declares her writing as inspired the same way as the Bible. It would be more logical to just come out and say that they are equal. But of course that would go against protestant theology and it would make testing her work by the Bible of no use. In short he presents a completely illogical position.

I can certainly see where you are going with this. However, is he really being illogical?

To illustrate:

If I have to test my strength by measuring it according to the strength of someone else to determine if I am equally as strong as he, does that then mean I am less strong than that person simply because I had to measure my strength according to his to make such a determination, even though the end result proves that I really am just as strong as he is?