The Three-Legged Stool of Apostasy

[reddogs]

Hi Doc, I think you will find that the Passover was the preparation day before a High Sabbath.
(Capitals used for emphasis only.)

John 19: 31. "The Jews therefore, because IT WAS THE PREPARATION, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross ON THE SABBATH DAY, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

Most mistakenly think ‘it was the weekly commandment Sabbath.’

Seven days were celebrated with eating unleavened bread.
Exodus 23: 15. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread SEVEN DAYS, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty See Exodus 12: 1 -

The Passover was THE PREPARATION DAY before the High Sabbath of ‘Unleavened Bread which is the feast to the Lord.’
Exodus 13: 6. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and IN THE SEVENTH DAY shall be A FEAST TO THE LORD.
This celebration was governed by the new moon and could start and finish on any day of the week.
Exodus 12: 18. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
It was a memorial.
Exodus 12: 14. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Matthew 26: 17. Now the first of the unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Luke 22: 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.
Luke 22: 8. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat.

Jesus, was killed on the PREPARATION DAY called the ‘PASSOVER.’ Joseph, pleaded for the Lord’s body AFTER the Passover early upon the next day which was an HIGH SABBATH at ‘EVEN’ TIME whereupon he buried Jesus. Early in the day is at sundown by biblical standards.

Matthew 27: 57. WHEN THE EVEN WAS COME, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:

Matthew 27: 58. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Matthew 27: 59. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60. And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

If ‘Jesus, was crucified on Friday’ as some mistakenly claim, then He would have been buried on Friday evening which would have been the start of the weekly commandment Sabbath and if He ROSE UP EARLY on the first day of the week, which would be Saturday evening our time,
then that incorrect start of sequencing denies the ONLY sign of His Messiahship by the fact that He said He would be buried for a specific time of 3 days and 3 nights in Matt 16: 4. One night and one day does not fulfill the requirements of His prophetic testimony.

Jonah 1: 17. Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three DAYS(3117) and three NIGHTS.(3915)
Matthew 12: 40. “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three DAYS(2250) and three nights(3571) in the heart of the earth.”
To fulfill His own prophetic words Jesus, would have had to have been buried on Wednesday evening, remained in the tomb Thursday and Friday evenings and rose Saturday evening, which makes THREE NIGHTS. He would have remained in the ground THURSDAY, FRIDAY, and on the SABBATH day making three days.
That then is the prophecy fulfilled of ‘three days and three nights.’
There used to be the idea of ‘A CONCLUSIVE THEORY’ meaning a part of a day was counted as one day but even that idea does not solve the biblical problem for those claiming a Friday crucifixion as far as basic mathematics is concerned but there again we are dealing with the traditions of men that ignore scripture.
Your brother and servant in Jesus.
PC

Good post PC......

 

[Byfaithalone1]

A similiarity that I've noticed with many of my 'freethinkers' and others in the online forums on Adventism and the SDA church has been that they are following one of what I call the 'Three-Legged Stool' of pushing the evangelical view, rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, attacking the Adventist beliefs/church/administration.

Is it your belief that, those who take one or more of these 3 steps are guilty of apostacy? How do you define apostacy?

The problem with the evangelical view is obvious with its belief in 'self' being the main ingredient in salvation, declaring themselves 'saved' or 'born again' while effectively shunting aside God as judge or Christ as saviour, and saying they 'follow the spirit' even though many things they are advocating as from 'the spirit' is not in harmony with God or His word.

A careful consideration of the above claim provides some interesting insights.

Those who espouse a belief in salvation by grace and not works are living a life of faith in action. Theirs is a faith that is not based on the evidence of things that can be seen, but the evidence of things unseen. They recognize that sin remains in their lives, and this recognition is a consistent reminder of their need for a Savior.

In contrast, those who espouse a belief in salvaiton by grace PLUS works are living a life of self reliance. Theirs is a life dependent upon things that can be seen (i.e. supposed character changes, alleged sin removal). They believe their salvation is contingent upon a process of becoming sinless and they spend more time reviewing their fruits and the fruits of others and less time focusing on their need for a Savior.

The rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy is best seen in what happened to a close friend who was a intellectual and who I considered a strong believer and mentor. He was very involved in the Adventist church, a fierce defender and believer of its truths, using his intellectual skills and logic to answer questioning minds and defend against any attack on the truth. But a seed of doubt was put into his mind about Ellen White and little by little he began to drift away until he rejected the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, saying they werent really 'prophecy' and then became unsure or seemingly confused on other truths that before had been plain to him. He has drifted looking for a church or movement to join but in his mind he still sees that they do not have the fullness of truth that he has left behind.

You have provided anecdotal evidence. We could all share experiences. I believe that many (if not most) SDAs have experienced a "seed of doubt" regarding the writings of Ellen G. White. And with good reason. She has directly contradicted Scripture in writing things such as the following:

• Jesus does not change the character at His coming
• The coming of Christ does not change our characters
• Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified
• Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them
• It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement
• No man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins
• The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin

The believer who diligently searches the Scriptures cannot help but notice the disconnect between Mrs. White's writings and the writings in the canon. I believe that "the seed of doubt" that you have described is a seed planted by the Holy Spirit. Sadly, too many SDAs ignore this seed.

The attack against Adventist beliefs/church or administration is more subtle as it can begin with small issues such as a questioning of tithe or not accepting a proper rebuke from church brethren on smoking or drinking.

This demonstrates a common misconception within SDAism. I believe that many (if not most) traditional SDAs have concluded that the reason why SDAs step away from "traditional" beliefs is because they secretly want to engage in sin. Sadly, such traditional SDAs have forgotten their own sins and have begun to connect denominationalism with salvation.

Something the individual wants to get out of following or or to justify continuing in the wrong behavior or vice. This then slowly grows and then begins to manifests itself into outright hostility to the church with bellicose statements attacking it or unjust criticism of anything Adventist.

An interesting generalization, indeed. Do you have any support other than anecdotal evidence. Since we are discussing anecdotal evidence, I would point out that the vast majority of former SDAs that I know left the SDA denomination solely because of differences regarding doctrines. One man's attack is another man's appeal.

It leads the individual to become a opponent and angry denouncer of Adventist believers, beliefs, and the Adventist chuch.

Where is this anger that you describe?

They just continue attacking or slowly drift off from the truth into looking for people, a movement or some church that will accept their outlook against the Adventist church.

Very few Christians outside of SDAism know anything about SDAism. I, for one, did not go looking for a church that wanted to attack the SDA church. I wanted to find a church that believed and taught from Scripture alone.

The Adventist church has been given the most complete and fullness of Gods truth in harmony with His word and understanding of prophecy beyond any other church, movement or view, and anyone who turns from Adventism is choosing a lesser or false truth.

This is quite an arrogant statement, especially in light of the following:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.
The poison of vipers is on their lips
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.
There is no fear of God before their eyes."
​

The path to unbelief is wide and well traveled, littered with good intentions and seemingly logical arguments and rational views on why to continue on it, but it still leads to eternal death rather than eternal life. Be careful of any of the Three-Legged Stool of Apostasy, pray that the Lord will send His Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth and unveil the path for you to follow.

Let me close with a simple reminder. The remnant is chosen by grace, not works.

BFA

 

[Lebesgue]

Is it your belief that, those who take one or more of these 3 steps are guilty of apostacy? How do you define apostacy?



A careful consideration of the above claim provides some interesting insights.

Those who espouse a belief in salvation by grace and not works are living a life of faith in action. Theirs is a faith that is not based on the evidence of things that can be seen, but the evidence of things unseen. They recognize that sin remains in their lives, and this recognition is a consistent reminder of their need for a Savior.

In contrast, those who espouse a belief in salvaiton by grace PLUS works are living a life of self reliance. Theirs is a life dependent upon things that can be seen (i.e. supposed character changes, alleged sin removal). They believe their salvation is contingent upon a process of becoming sinless and they spend more time reviewing their fruits and the fruits of others and less time focusing on their need for a Savior.



You have provided anecdotal evidence. We could all share experiences. I believe that many (if not most) SDAs have experienced a "seed of doubt" regarding the writings of Ellen G. White. And with good reason. She has directly contradicted Scripture in writing things such as the following:

• Jesus does not change the character at His coming
• The coming of Christ does not change our characters
• Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified
• Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them
• It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement
• No man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins
• The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin

The believer who diligently searches the Scriptures cannot help but notice the disconnect between Mrs. White's writings and the writings in the canon. I believe that "the seed of doubt" that you have described is a seed planted by the Holy Spirit. Sadly, too many SDAs ignore this seed.



This demonstrates a common misconception within SDAism. I believe that many (if not most) traditional SDAs have concluded that the reason why SDAs step away from "traditional" beliefs is because they secretly want to engage in sin. Sadly, such traditional SDAs have forgotten their own sins and have begun to connect denominationalism with salvation.



An interesting generalization, indeed. Do you have any support other than anecdotal evidence. Since we are discussing anecdotal evidence, I would point out that the vast majority of former SDAs that I know left the SDA denomination solely because of differences regarding doctrines. One man's attack is another man's appeal.



Where is this anger that you describe?



Very few Christians outside of SDAism know anything about SDAism. I, for one, did not go looking for a church that wanted to attack the SDA church. I wanted to find a church that believed and taught from Scripture alone.




This is quite an arrogant statement, especially in light of the following:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;​

there is no one who understands, ​

no one who seeks God. ​

All have turned away, ​

they have together become worthless;​

there is no one who does good,​

not even one.​

Their throats are open graves;​

their tongues practice deceit.​

The poison of vipers is on their lips​

Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.​

Their feet are swift to shed blood;​

ruin and misery mark their ways,​

and the way of peace they do not know.​

There is no fear of God before their eyes."​

Let me close with a simple reminder. The remnant is chosen by grace, not works.

BFA

AMEN!!!

 

[reddogs]

But if you fight against the voice of Christ and His testimony, you are ignoring the truth in those words........

 

[Sophia7]

But if you fight against the voice of Christ and His testimony, you are ignoring the truth in those words........

You have yet to prove that the writings of Ellen White are "His testimony." The burden of proof is on you.

 

[reddogs]

You have yet to prove that the writings of Ellen White are "His testimony." The burden of proof is on you.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and thus the Holy Spirit comes in to do its work, I dont know if anything would prove to those that dont want to see.

 

[Sophia7]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and thus the Holy Spirit comes in to do its work, I dont know if anything would prove to those that dont want to see.

So once again, you're saying that we can't test EGW, that we're just supposed to believe in her if we're really Christians.

 

[reddogs]

So once again, you're saying that we can't test EGW, that we're just supposed to believe in her if we're really Christians.

We've gone over all the tests of a prophet, but if you dont even want to truly look how will it help.......

 

[Byfaithalone1]

But if you fight against the voice of Christ and His testimony, you are ignoring the truth in those words........

Can you cite specifically the ways in which I have fought against the voice of Christ and His testimony?

BFA

P.S. I have been trying to post here for 2 days without much success. If I am not immediately responsive, it's not for lack of trying . . .

 

[Jimlarmore]

I can't even get on this site because my fire wall times out the CF server because it takes too long to load up. To answer your question about rejecting the testimony of Christ that is easy. Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". If He knew it was impossible to keep from sinning He wouldn't have told her that. You say it's impossible to keep from sinning so you reject the testimony of Christ.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

The scriptures tell us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. All mankind is cursed by sin but that does not mean we cannot be sinless with Christ's help.

I reckon sin to be like alcoholism or cigarette addiction. Each time you drink it's an intentional act and so it is with lighting up. The addiction for both is strong and becomes a natural thing to do just like sinning. However, I am here to tell you that thru the grace of Christ I have not drank or smoked in over 14 years. Not of my own power but by the power and grace of Christ. It's the same with intentional sin. Those who make excuses for sin are those who want to hold onto it because it's a natural thing to do. Those who profess that they are saved even though they are intentionally sinning without confession and repentence are like the alcoholic who says he recovering and yet he goes out and drinks a six pack on weekends because it's just so natural.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

We've gone over all the tests of a prophet, but if you dont even want to truly look how will it help.......

Last time we arranged to truly look was in the discussion on the IJ starting with EGW's statements. We arranged the special location and rules but you never wound up participating. Your participants said it would take more research than they thought and they didn't have time.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I can't even get on this site because my fire wall times out the CF server because it takes too long to load up. To answer your question about rejecting the testimony of Christ that is easy. Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". If He knew it was impossible to keep from sinning He wouldn't have told her that. You say it's impossible to keep from sinning so you reject the testimony of Christ.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Really so now you are telling us what Christ would and would not have done? Can you think of no other reasons why He would have said go and sin no more? Maybe an admonition to change her ways now that she has been given a chance.

Of course the story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the oldest manuscripts and is likely a gloss put in by later scribes. But the idea behind the story is completely in character with the other material about Christ unless people take the statement in such a way as Jim does and assume that the woman was told to never sin again. Because on top of not being able to never sin again she would have had the weight of knowing that by sinning she was doubly sinning by going against what Jesus told her to do.

Then we have the way these end time perfectionists use the language.

All mankind is cursed by sin but that does not mean we cannot be sinless with Christ's help.

Right no one disagrees with that and they expect Christ's help to be fully realized at His return. The Sinless perfectionist thinks it is now...well not now because they still know they sin but they think real soon they will stop well before the second coming.

Those who profess that they are saved even though they are intentionally sinning without confession and repentence are like...

Again they use the language as if Christians are never sorry for their sins. It is a straw man where the assumption is that Christians never confess or repent of anything.

It is the height of cognitive dissonance, they know they still sin, they have to confess and repent yet it is the other Christians who don't know these things. Then of course if the other Christians knew those things they would agree that they can be sinless right now with Christ's help even though they themselves have found that they can't be sinless right now.

By the way there is a whole Alcoholic Anonymous segment that has removed all religious ideas from their methods and they still are able to stop their drinking. People are able to change habits but that is far from the total sinful nature inherent in humans with it multitudes of manifestations.

 

[Jimlarmore]

When you argue against sinlessness you are agueing against the Bible, please read Matt 5:48. Living a Christian life means a change. Certainly not worrying about sin , no confession or repentence is not a change from normal status quo.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

By the way there is a whole Alcoholic Anonymous segment that has removed all religious ideas from their methods and they still are able to stop their drinking. People are able to change habits but that is far from the total sinful nature inherent in humans with it multitudes of manifestations.

No there is not. They still obtain sobriety by a higher power beyond themselves. AA is a spiritual program all the way thru. You are again ill informed.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No there is not. They still obtain sobriety by a higher power beyond themselves. AA is a spiritual program all the way thru. You are again ill informed.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Yea right Jim.

Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), a smaller, less formal network than AA, was created in 1985 to provide a purely secular, or non-religious, alternative to AA. SOS uses many of the same tools as AA, such as strict abstinence and regular meetings, but instead emphasizes the individual's ability to control his or her addiction. SOS encourages members to try different methods to find one that works for them.
Another secular abstinence program, Rational Recovery (RR), begun in 1986, is based on the Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT), which encourages the addict to use a problem-solving approach with addiction and simply make a pledge to stay abstinent. RR members liken it to "getting fed up and simply quitting." RR also contends that participation in recovery groups is not necessary once one has learned AVRT, and they view perpetual attendance of such groups, particularly AA, as addiction in and of itself.
Self Management and Recovery Training (SMART), founded in 1994, is based on the principles of Rational Emotive Therapy, a methodology that teaches that addictions are learned behaviors caused by faulty, self-defeating ways of thinking. SMART contends that you can change your thinking, and therefore change your destructive behaviors.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9905/19/addiction.programs/index.html

 

[Jimlarmore]

Nothing you just quoted says that AA uses a Non-Religious/Spiritual approach to their program. The other programs you listed are not AA although they may use their steps. The chapter to the agnostic in the "Big Book" specifically says that AA is a spiritual program which relies on a higher power other than their own to obtain sobriety. Some agnostics who start AA can make the group their higher power but most that I know that stay with it eventually say the higher power is God. Unless you are an alcoholic you are misinformed on this.

God bless
Jim Larmore