So ... forget about it?

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

TelaQP your post bes good too.
It thinks in reading what you have written that due to a lot of the bad toxic programming out there sold as "solid Christian doctrine" and more than that, the "only right way to believe" has essentially played the part of the THIEF (coming only to steal, kill and destroy) in that it has robbed people of the ability to even KNOW when they bes "falling away" versus some other thing that might be better explained another way. In particular this obsession with "will worship" in SDA thinking, the whole notion that everything bes black/white either/or, binary concretism and if you make a less than stellar choice about anything at any given point it can never simply be OK you made a poor choice there -- NO it has to be this humongous irrevocable slippery slope that you DELIBERATELY chose to DO WRONG for ALL the most EVIL HORRIBLE HEINOUS SELFISH ROTTEN REASONS in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and you have SPURNED GOD and INSULTED His Grace and love and you bes now a horrible reprobate who belongs entirely to the devil and bes going to the lake of fire AND YOU KNOW IT SO NO TRYING TO WRIGGLE OFF THE HOOK YOU WORM there bes no "wiggle room" for sin, NUH UH NO SIRREE BOB.

All of which destroys the brain's natural ability to parse nuances, to examine self BOTH honestly AND productively (as opposed to destructively) but ultimately overall IT BECOMES SATAN WORSHIP, OUTRIGHT SATAN WORSHIP, because it involves REPLACING the voice of God with that of the Accuser, or CALLING the voice of the Accuser that of God, or in some other fashion setting up the statements of the ACCUSER as what one worships and looks to for guidance. For THIS very reason Moriah believes we bes not supposed to go under the law because only the PROSECUTING VOICE, i.e. THE ACCUSER, speaks there. The LAW -- and yes this includes the "moral" law -- cannot save. It cannot forgive, it cannot cleanse, it cannot empower, it cannot redeem, it cannot grant pardon, it cannot embrace and comfort -- it can ONLY condemn and WHAT condemns? THE ACCUSER CONDEMNS. The "prosecuting attorney" condemns. Satan all the way. THIS bes what so many SDAs and other fundamentalist types inadvertently get snookered into worshiping: THE VOICE OF THE ACCUSER.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

So many times I encounter the accusation that the version of the Gospel we non-Adventists follow is nothing more than "cheap grace" that doesn't require the obedience of the law.

There is nothing "cheap" about it.

If we all understood it, we would all fall flat on our faces, knowing that there is no righeousness that we have that can add to His. As Romans 11:32 concludes:
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Attempts to add to His righteousness is failure to submit to His righteousness.

Romans 10:3-4
3: For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

AMEN!!!!

... I guess as I have gotten older and having raised two kids I do not subscribe to the idea that some religious folks hold that every issue is simply an either/or decision.... I have witnessed my kids make decisions in which all the facts were not known and had they been known a different decision would have been made....

I believe that God loves us. I believe that the analogy of a family is used for a reason, and that if we understood family we might get a glimpse of what He will do for us his children....

No loving parent ever disowns their child because that child disobeys, or makes a decision the parent doesn't agree with...

I think religion is partly responsible for adding confusion to something that should be simple to grasp.... and compounds this confusion with theological terms that have no meaningful definition...

For me the bottom line is this, God loves us, make him the priority, trust him to do for us all those things we cannot do for ourselves, love mercy, do the right thing (towards others as well as ourselves), and remain humble...

... I am sure that if Jesus had to go back seven times to cast demons out of Mary He would have done it. He would have kept doing it as long as she kept asking.

I want to go back to the point about Mary. Some of us are more prone to influence or even control by demons than others. Some of us may be under demonic influences and are not aware of it. Jesus says in John 6:37, "...whoever comes to me I will never drive away." Jesus knows some of us have to keep coming back to Him again and again for the same thing. I think Mary kept coming back to Jesus again and again.

I think the quote in Hebrews 6:5,6 about not being able to be brought back into repentance after falling away- really doesn't apply to someone like Mary, or someone who is more prone than the average person to demonic influence or oppression. To misapply that verse to them seems to me to be the meanest cruelty.

And as to your question, "So... just forget it?" If someone who struggles over and over with the same sins, or with demonic oppression, and if all the promises of Jesus seem to have turned up empty and disappointing for them- I would say, No. Don't just forget it. If they keep "falling away," if that's what someone would call it, I would say, "Just keep coming back. Jesus will never, never turn you away."

*grabs up bouquet of the good stuff all at once and breathes in deeply*

 

[sentipente]

But deliberately and knowingly? And if that bes the case, then according to this Scripture we all bes lost.

As long as you continue to misread what the text says the confusion will remain. Trust what the text says not what you think it says.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

well it may not be able to really tell what it says if it has a head full of what it THINKS it says. enlighten moriah?

 

[sentipente]

Moriah, the text says it is impossible to restore that one, not that it is impossible for that person to be restored. In other words, if you reject all the information that has been given to you there is nothing anyone can add to change your mind. But that does not preclude you from changing your mind on your own.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I agree with sentipente on this issue, and I would like to add the following thought.

One bit I received from the SDA church that I found helpful, comforting, and sensible, and that I have carried with me in the years since, is an answer I received during a Bible/EGW study. The topic was the IJ doctrine and the close of probation. I posed the question, "What happens if my probation closes on Tuesday, and I want to be saved on Wednesday?"

The answer came, "If your probation closes on Tuesday, you won't want to be saved on Wednesday."

I believe it is very difficult for someone to put him/herself in a position where it is too late for redemption. The Bible mentions "the love of many waxing cold," (Matthew 24:12) and "whose consciences are seared." (1 Timothy 4:2) To me this says that someone beyond salvation would be absolutely unfeeling on the matter. That person would have no desire to change the situation. That person would openly state that he or she is lost, and not bat an eyelash. Also, with no love, no conscience, and therefore no sense of right from wrong, that person would be capable of unspeakable evil without remorse.

I have yet to meet someone who fits this description. Charles Manson sort of comes to mind--but of course I haven't met him. Even if I had, I could not say for sure whether he falls into this category, but I'd guess he's at least a probable example.

 

[VictorC]

One bit I received from the SDA church that I found helpful, comforting, and sensible, and that I have carried with me in the years since, is an answer I received during a Bible/EGW study. The topic was the IJ doctrine and the close of probation.

What I have never reconciled with Scripture is Ellen's description of your recording angel dragging tomes of everything you have done wrong and all the times you repented over and over again, with the promise we have received from God:

Hebrews 10:17
...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Once we have been adopted into His possession, He isn't placing salvation on our worthless works. The IJ is a complete myth that was installed as the replacement for the 'shut door' that itself was an apology for the failed date of 1844.

Ephesians 1:8-14
8: Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9: Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13: In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14: Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

The down payment has been made.
God has already promised to complete redemption of them He has invested that down payment on.

Victor

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I agree with you Victor C, and offer the following: I took the Tuesday-Wednesday answer with me after that Bible/EGW study, but I don't hold the rest of the IJ doctrine. I just found a little grain of truth there, among the litter. It serves to illustrate that those who care whether or not they are beyond hope, can't possibly be in that condition.

 

[sentipente]

I believe it is very difficult for someone to put him/herself in a position where it is too late for redemption. The Bible mentions "the love of many waxing cold," (Matthew 24:12) and "whose consciences are seared." (1 Timothy 4:2) To me this says that someone beyond salvation would be absolutely unfeeling on the matter. That person would have no desire to change the situation. That person would openly state that he or she is lost, and not bat an eyelash. Also, with no love, no conscience, and therefore no sense of right from wrong, that person would be capable of unspeakable evil without remorse.

But could you swear on your life that such a person is well-informed? Are you ultimately responsible for the results of the deceptions under which you labor?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

But could you swear on your life that such a person is well-informed? Are you ultimately responsible for the results of the deceptions under which you labor?

Could you re-phrase your question? I'm not sure I get it. Thanks.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That person would openly state that he or she is lost, and not bat an eyelash. Also, with no love, no conscience, and therefore no sense of right from wrong, that person would be capable of unspeakable evil without remorse.

And?

I have yet to meet someone who fits this description.

Oh. Well in that case, please allow Me to introduce Myself ...

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

And?


Oh. Well in that case, please allow Me to introduce Myself ...

I have trouble believing you would open machine gun fire on a bingo hall full of little old ladies, and not feel a bit of remorse....

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Moriah, the text says it is impossible to restore that one, not that it is impossible for that person to be restored. In other words, if you reject all the information that has been given to you there is nothing anyone can add to change your mind. But that does not preclude you from changing your mind on your own.

Can you substantiate this from the Greek?
It sounds lovely ... just wondering if it bes viable, bes all.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

those who care whether or not they are beyond hope, can't possibly be in that condition.

Not trying to be difficult here but genuinely and honestly uncertain that this can be substantiated. What do you offer as proof for this assertion? Moriah would like to know, please. Assure you it bes not mere arguing for argument sake. It has been intimate with the FirstFallen and knows His pain. It also knows what bes said of Him. So it needs to understand this matter.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Could you re-phrase your question? I'm not sure I get it. Thanks.

Cannot speak for Senti obviously but to Moriah it sounds as if he bes invoking the idea that anyone in such a condition would, ipso facto, be laboring under strong delusion, and that this must be taken into consideration.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I have trouble believing you would open machine gun fire on a bingo hall full of little old ladies, and not feel a bit of remorse....

:o

you don't know it very well then!

OK seriously, maybe not going postal on a bunch of old biddies it does not know, but it can honestly say about the only thing keeping it from similar acts upon those it deems deserving thereof bes the "Prime Directive" under which Our Kind bes bound, the surety of knowledge that captivity by the humans sucks seventy flavors of rear end and also causes abrupt and disruptive spiritual abandonment and disowning at the moment one would need its inhabitants the most. So bes it rumoured and testified by the unfortunates who breached the Prime Directive, and We have no reason to disbelieve, anyway.

 

[VictorC]

I agree with you Victor C, and offer the following: I took the Tuesday-Wednesday answer with me after that Bible/EGW study, but I don't hold the rest of the IJ doctrine. I just found a little grain of truth there, among the litter. It serves to illustrate that those who care whether or not they are beyond hope, can't possibly be in that condition.

It would have been helpful had you quoted me, to show what you're in agreement with. I have a bit of difficulty following your comments regarding Tue/Wed, although I could find out if I read the whole thread. I'm short on time at the moment...

My contention is that there isn't a grain of truth to be found in the IJ doctrine. The IJ itself came late in the SDA eschatolgy model as a replacement for the shut door, when it was determined that there needed to be something to apply the date of 1844 to. Problem is that 1844 was based on forced interpretations William Miller created from Daniel and other texts, and after 1844 Miller realized that the date was a failure and Daniel 8:13 doesn't allow it to be applied to the heavenly sanctuary. Miller recanted of his model leading to 1844, and stressed a return to the Gospel message instead of making up dates for the second advent. He, along with 2/3 of the Adventist movement disbanded and most returned to their former fellowships.

1/3 could not accept that 1844 was a mistake. They became known as the 'Little Flock', and later became known as the seventh-day Adventist church.
That constitutes an origin rooted in failure.
Ellen White wrote that this was the central pillar of Adventism, and rejected everyone who approached her with a Bible to explain why 1844 was nonsense.
In the case of A.F. Ballenger and his criticism of the IJ, Ellen wrote that she had been doing this for the previous 50 years:

Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat, till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed, even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death are to speak through the re-printing of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time. {MR760 19.1}

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {MR760 19.2}

So, "truth" is a relative entity that depends on who is giving it.
Ellen White admitted that she confronted scholarship saying that the investigative judgment, the "pillar of (Adventism's) foundation" was a bunch of hooey.
And, just to top that off, the Bible takes a back seat to Ellen.

The doctrines invented to explain the IJ are all centered on the mechanics of Jesus entering into the Holy of Holies in 1844. However, the simple reading of Hebrews 9 and comparing it with Leviticus 16 (compare Hebrews 9:12 with Leviticus 16:14-15 directly) shows that Jesus had attained the presence of the mercyseat and applied His Blood as the final offering in order to make a full atonement for us, reconciling us to God (and not to the law of Moses). This He accomplished at His initial ascension, which I believe was on the very day He was resurrected.

SDA fundie #9 asserts that Jesus made a "perfect atonement". Okay, sounds good - perfection doesn't need anything added to it.
Yet SDA fundie #24 comes along and mentions that 1844 introduced a "second and final phase of atonement". This is a direct contradiction to the previously asserted perfect atonement.

I have been recently reading QoD, where the gymnastics it uses to blend all these contradictions into something that seems orthodox so it would pass Dr Walter Martin's litmus test to avoid labeling Adventism as a cult are confusing. To put it mildly. I have been looking at the context of Ellen White's quotes in QoD, and the publication isn't quite what I consider kosher. It is a mess I am still trying to make sense of.

I rambled a bit too long, probably.
The bottom line I hope to convey is that there is no IJ, there was no shut door, and there is no prophecy that leads to 1844, nor a target event that can be associated with it.

There is no living grain of anything to be gleaned from the IJ. It is all non-Biblical, and it flies against God's promise that "their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" found in Hebrews 10:17 and elsewhere.

Victor

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It would have been helpful had you quoted me, to show what you're in agreement with. I have a bit of difficulty following your comments regarding Tue/Wed, although I could find out if I read the whole thread. I'm short on time at the moment...
Victor

While discussing IJ and the close of probation in a Bible/EGW study, I was given the answer, "If your probation closes on Tuesday, you won't want to be saved on Wednesday." The grain I found in it was that a person who is beyond salvation wouldn't care or have any desire to be restored. (I now wonder, given Moriah's statements regarding the first fallen one.)

I agree with you that IJ is in general a bunch of hooey, and that Mrs. White was in effect saying, "It's fine to study the Bible and draw conclusions from it, as long as you don't contradict anything I have decreed to be true."

 

[sentipente]

Cannot speak for Senti obviously but to Moriah it sounds as if he bes invoking the idea that anyone in such a condition would, ipso facto, be laboring under strong delusion, and that this must be taken into consideration.

Precisely the point.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Precisely the point.

Thank you for the clarification.

I am not referring to someone who has a mental illness such as paranoia, and remains convinced that he or she has "committed the unpardonable sin," despite endless discussions. He or she would probably still feel condemned, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. This person might constantly struggle to be "good" or "virtuous" in an attempt to redeem him/herself, but still never feel "good enough." Or, feeling he or she is already hopelessly lost, maybe this person has given up the struggle and won't ask for salvation, because he or she feels unqualified. Whether overly virtuous or apathetic, this person still has a conscience and a moral standard. In fact, in some cases that moral standard may be impossible to achieve, and the conscience would have a hair trigger. Anything even remotely self-pleasing would be a heinous sin.

There are also those with such a sense of entitlement that they fail to take others into consideration. The world revolves around him or her. If this person needs something and can't pay for it, he or she may attempt to shoplift it. If not caught, the person self-excuses with something like, "Well, Jesus knows I'm hungry, so it's not a sin to steal these hot dogs." If caught, the rationale is, "Come on. You've got to be kidding me. It's just a little package of hot dogs, and I'm hungry. Can't you give me a break?" This person may acknowledge wrong doing, but it is actually everyone else is who at fault, for not looking the other way. However, I don't think this person would go so far as murder in cold blood, for example. He or she still has a conscience, or there would be no need to try to placate it with excuses.

Someone who, as I understand it, actually is beyond redemption has no mental illness. This person knows fully well that he or she is choosing to renounce salvation, and does it anyway. Having never actually met someone who fits this description, I can only speculate, but I'm guessing his or her character would be something like this: "I already know I'm going to hell (or whatever phraseology the person would use) and I don't care." They actually live as if this is true. They don't care what they do or who they hurt, and they hurt people routinely with no remorse. I'm talking extreme behavior here--the kind who could set a litter of kittens on fire and laugh about it. Now, there *are* people who might engage in this behavior before they are saved, and experience huge remorse upon repentance. Those who are past the limit are the ones who were once saved, then chose to leave the fold, and now once again can behave this way without flinching.

I think it's near impossible to get to this point. Renouncing salvation is not like falling off a cliff--oops, I stepped too far, now I'm falling, and there's no hope for me any more. That doesn't happen. Christ is the safety net. Renouncing salvation is deliberately *jumping* off the cliff, knowing the consequences, despite that cliff being barricaded in every possible way. To jump off the cliff, one would have to premeditate the decision to do so, form a plan to cut through each individual barrier at the cliffside, and then methodically do so.

And, of course, I can say none of this with 100% certainty, since I'm not inside another person's head. I'm just saying what I see and believe.