Is The General Conference Afraid Of Blacksda? Options

[SoulEspresso]

I'm a bit confused here. I don't believe that the teaching is grace + works = salvation. Isn't it that we are saved by grace but that God requires obedience? And what is wrong with that???

Nothing! The correct equation is grace + faith = salvation & works (obedience). We're saved by what God does for us--grace--not by what God does in us. Put another way, justification and sanctification are both God's work, but it's justification that gets us right with God. Justification gets us into heaven; sanctification gets heaven into us.

My beef (har har) is with those who say that to maintain rightness with God, particularly at the "close of probation," you have to be obedient in every particular. But you can't be obedient unless you're already right with God ... and if you're already right with God at the moment probation closes, what do you have to worry about?

It's created a lot of spiritual stress for a lot of people. But spiritual stress is not something that goes with the gospel.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 24 2007, 07:14 AM

[watchbird]

Now, for the record, what Soul believes--any theology that includes the equation, "God's grace + man's works = salvation" is by definition antichrist--whether that comes out of a Catholic's mouth, or an Adventist's. That is part of official Catholic dogma, though many Catholics believe more like Protestants in this regard (Brennan Manning for one); what's interesting is that many Adventists--particularly those who wave the banner of "Adventist history"--believe that at the end time, we're saved by our works. Put another way--the gospel is the gospel now, but right before Jesus comes, the antichrist happens to be right.

I'm throwing a bomb here but I'll wait for a response ...

I'm a bit confused here. I don't believe that the teaching is grace + works = salvation. Isn't it that we are saved by grace but that God requires obedience? And what is wrong with that???

I brought Soul's comment back for closer scrutiny. He is correct... Ellen very plainly tells us that a doctrine of saved by what one does is at the basis of every pagan doctrine... and the amalgamation of grace with works puts it over into the "anti-christ" category rather than being merely pagan.

The point is not whether God requires obedience or not. The point is that our obedience is something that we do because we are saved by grace... not something that we do to EARN our salvation.

Salvation is a completely free gift of God. Once we accept it we are saved. Period. Though not the end of the "story". That is, in fact, only the beginning of the story... the new birth... remember? And it is within that saved condition that we learn what God's requirements are in detail... and begin growing in our Christian life. So yes... we obey... but not in order to obtain salvation.

[watchbird]

Nothing! The correct equation is grace + faith = salvation & works (obedience). We're saved by what God does for us--grace--not by what God does in us. Put another way, justification and sanctification are both God's work, but it's justification that gets us right with God. Justification gets us into heaven; sanctification gets heaven into us.

My beef (har har) is with those who say that to maintain rightness with God, particularly at the "close of probation," you have to be obedient in every particular. But you can't be obedient unless you're already right with God ... and if you're already right with God at the moment probation closes, what do you have to worry about?

It's created a lot of spiritual stress for a lot of people. But spiritual stress is not something that goes with the gospel.

I knew it... even while typing I knew Soul would be back to clarify what he said... and do it better than I could... Oh well.... I've done it.... so I'll leave it....

............. (actually in this context that means I'm ready for breakfast) ........ .....

[awesumtenor]

Nothing! The correct equation is grace + faith = salvation & works (obedience).

*Math Geek Hat ON*

Actually, since we are saved by grace *through* faith... rather than by grace *plus* faith... then it's more of an integral calculus equation than an arithmetic one... to wit...

if we let u = f(x) (or faith), v = g(x) (or grace) and the derivative of faith: du = f ′(x) dx and the derivative of grace: dv = g′(x) dx, then it is IMO closer to this:



as x approaches infinity... or eternal life, in this case...

*Math Geek Hat OFF*

In His service,
Mr. J

[SoulEspresso]

Let me further clarify ... ...

(In this paragraph I'm speaking specifically of Adventists who call themselves "historically-minded"--I don't want to lump them all in to the official Historic category because the ones I know are quite loyal to the church.) A lot of people who believe sanctification is a part of justification--antichrist theology--will hasten to add that it's "Christ in you" that is making the difference, to clarify that they don't teach "human works" or "human righteousness." It's all Christ, and they'd tell you that. Even at the end of the world, it's the character of Christ manifested in the life of His people that they're looking for.

BUT ... that wasn't the question. Any student of the Bible knows that a righteous life is the work of the Holy Spirit in a person. The question is, Is the work of the Holy Spirit in the person's life what gets us into heaven? The answer is an emphatic no.

The Bible doctrine that kicked off the Reformation is justification (being right with God) by grace through faith alone. Christ's work in a person's life, through the Holy Spirit, begins once a person accepts Jesus and is at that moment immediately right with God.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 24 2007, 08:28 AM

[mikell]

I'm a bit confused here. I don't believe that the teaching is grace + works = salvation. Isn't it that we are saved by grace but that God requires obedience? And what is wrong with that???

I think the word "Saved" needs to be biblically defined here. Nowhere in the Bible is the word "saved" synonyms with the "free gift of eternal life." When Joseph was considering how to privately discharge Marry, as we know the angel, Gabriel told him what took place and then he said this to him, in Matthew 1:21:

[/size]"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

The word, "saved" in Greek, is sozo. It means to "rescue" but also to "heal." When James wrote in James 5:15,

"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Here we see the word, "save" to mean to "heal," in the NIV it says, "'heal' the sick." When a Christian says, "I am saved" he or she is a liar and the truth is not in him or her. No one so far is totally saved or healed from all of their sins, not one I know of. Ellen G. White wrote:

"If we are disobedient, our characters are out of harmony with God's moral rule of government, and it is stating a falsehood to say, "I am saved." No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth." {1SM 315.1}

I know Seventh day Adventist left the Church over this statement of EGW, but she was 100% right! No one is "saved" or "healed" from their sins, if they are ongoing transgressing God's Law! No one!

We Christians can say, "I have God's free-gift of eternal life," for John wrote in 1 John 5:13:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

But, the same John wrote, 1 John 1:8

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Again, if any of us say, "I am saved" is a liar and the truth is not within that person, for if he or she is using the true biblical definition to the word, "saved" to mean "healed" from their sins, as what Gabriel announced. The words, "saved" and "salvation" in the light of the true gospel here is, healed and healing, from our sins. Therefore, it is as we are going through our salvation or healing from our sins, we maintain our free-gifts of eternal lives forever. When Paul wrote, "Saved by grace," we are healed from our sins by the grace of God, which then we will be healed to start automatically obeying the Ten Commandments written upon our hearts. For that is the true outcome of being "saved" or "healed."

When we go to a hospital with a deadly disease, we do not go in to receive life, for we already have it! Don't we go in to become healed to preserve life? Would not that be true also with the hospital of God? Would not God wants to heal or save us from our sins so we can live on forever fulfilling our free-gifts of eteranl lives we already have? Would not that be the true gospel, the true goodnews?

Again, the word "saved" needs to be brought back to biblical definition, and to stay away how Babylon defines the word. When they define the word "saved" to mean to receive "God's gift of eternal life," they are outright attacking God's Ten Commandments, period! Do we Adventists want to be like them?

PS. I know this here is, of about what this thread began with.

[size="3"]

This post has been edited by mikell: Aug 24 2007, 09:43 AM

[PeacefulBe]

I am interested to hear what hateful words they used can you let me know? So I can see what they are going to be reckoning over.
I love the forums because anyone can be challenged---- Please provide some information.

mystery-man,

I'm not ignoring your request, just working really hard to find all of the info.

PB

[CJO]

Let me further clarify ... ...

(In this paragraph I'm speaking specifically of Adventists who call themselves "historically-minded"--I don't want to lump them all in to the official Historic category because the ones I know are quite loyal to the church.) A lot of people who believe sanctification is a part of justification--antichrist theology--will hasten to add that it's "Christ in you" that is making the difference, to clarify that they don't teach "human works" or "human righteousness." It's all Christ, and they'd tell you that. Even at the end of the world, it's the character of Christ manifested in the life of His people that they're looking for.

BUT ... that wasn't the question. Any student of the Bible knows that a righteous life is the work of the Holy Spirit in a person. The question is, Is the work of the Holy Spirit in the person's life what gets us into heaven? The answer is an emphatic no.

The Bible doctrine that kicked off the Reformation is justification (being right with God) by grace through faith alone. Christ's work in a person's life, through the Holy Spirit, begins once a person accepts Jesus and is at that moment immediately right with God.

I enjoy coming into BSDA. I appreciate each of your concern for the truth and rightness to be done in the 3ABN situation..

I just wanted to add my 2cents worth on this subject. (OFF Topic) I just posted this most unique quote on my web page. I think that it might clarify this subject. At least it did for me.

Ellen G. White Estate
Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing (1896), page 54, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: The Spirituality of the Law
While the law is holy, the Jews could not attain righteousness by their own efforts to keep the law. The disciples of Christ must obtain righteousness of a different character from that of the Pharisees, if they would enter the kingdom of heaven. God offered them, in His Son, the perfect righteousness of the law. If they would open their hearts fully to receive Christ, then the very life of God, His love, would dwell in them, transforming them into His own likeness; and thus through God's free gift they would possess the righteousness which the law requires. But the Pharisees rejected Christ; "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Jesus proceeded to show His hearers what it means to keep the commandments of God--that it is a reproduction in themselves of the character of Christ. For in Him, God was daily made manifest before them. (page 55)



The qualifier is- "If they would open their hearts fully". This also is a gift from God, but we need to accept this gift. The promise of this gift is: "A reproductioin in themselves of the Character of Chirst.

Blessings to each of you,
CJO http://www.asonginmyheart.com

[Aletheia]

Was this the Historic pastor and group presenting themselves as Seventh-day Adventist's that, took out billboards in the St. Louis area using hateful words to warn the readers about the Pope's visit? If so, they blighted the name of the Seventh-day Adventist church for many in that state, including my daughter-in-law and her family who had been interested in our denomination before that day. I believe there will be a reckoning over this one day.

I am interested to hear what hateful words they used can you let me know? So I can see what they are going to be reckoning over.
I love the forums because anyone can be challenged---- Please provide some information.

mystery-man,

I'm not ignoring your request, just working really hard to find all of the info.

PB

All the info? It was a billboard. As far as I know there are only 2.

Here you go.

[Aletheia]

PB:
Was this the Historic pastor and group presenting themselves as Seventh-day Adventist's that, took out billboards in the St. Louis area using hateful words to warn the readers about the Pope's visit?

Yeah, as above but I myself didn't consider the billboard as hateful.(the red white and blue one- is the one you were referring to btw)

And yes, it WAS during this Pope's visit (John Paul II- pictured below) that Perez's church put up the billboard:




But I myself have always been much more concerned about the Catholic "Thank God it's Sunday!" campaign and bill boards.

TGiS!®-- Thank God it's Sunday!TM -- is a grassroots effort begun in St. Paul, Minnesota, to bring Sunday back to the Lord. Its beginning is traced back to August 1998 when Bishop Paul Dudley, in a Sunday homily, eloquently spoke of Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter, Dies Domini, (Day of the Lord.) At the conclusion of his remarks, Bishop Dudley challenged all listening to take to heart the Holy Father's call to return Sunday to the Lord.

From the TGIS website...

I am reminded of a quote from the Great controversy:

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!

The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments. ....

The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.

The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. It is a part of her policy to assume the character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the chameleon she conceals the invariable venom of the serpent. "Faith ought not to be kept with heretics, nor persons suspected of heresy" (Lenfant, volume 1, page 516), she declares. Shall this power, whose record for a thousand years is written in the blood of the saints, be now acknowledged as a part of the church of Christ?

It is not without reason that the claim has been put forth in Protestant countries that Catholicism differs less widely from Protestantism than in former times. There has been a change; but the change is not in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of the Protestantism that now exists, because Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the days of the Reformers.

As the Protestants churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe good of all evil, and as the inevitable result they will finally believe evil of all good. Instead of standing in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, they are now, as it were, apologizing to Rome for their uncharitable opinion of her, begging pardon for their bigotry....

Read the entire chapter called "Liberty of conscience threated" here:
http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc35.html

[ex3ABNemployee]

All the info? It was a billboard. As far as I know there are only 2.

Here you go.

: sigh :

I think THIS is what you are actually looking for. It's from the Catholic League's 1999 Report on Anti-Catholicism:

"May
Mooresville, IN – Rev. Tony York of Victory Baptist Church launched a billboard campaign against Pope John Paul II and evangelist Billy Graham.
"The Pope enslaves. But Jesus saves," proclaimed one such billboard. "Beware of false prophets in Indy Around June 3-6" said another one, in reference to Rev. Graham’s upcoming crusade.
His complaint with Rev. Graham was also rooted in Rev. York’s anti-Catholicism. "Billy Graham teaches that the pope is a great man," Rev. York told the Indianapolis Star. "But the pope is anti-Bible in a lot of areas."

November 28 - December 22
From November 28 to December 22, ten major American newspapers carried anti-Catholic ads. All of the ads were sponsored by the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-Day Adventists (a splinter group from the Seventh-Day Adventists). The ads identified the Catholic Church as the "WHORE" and the "BEAST," and charged the Holy Father with breaking down the barriers between church and state.
The "Earth’s Final Warning" full-page ads were run on November 28 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; on December 1 in the Miami Herald ; on December 1 in El Nuevo Herald (Miami); on December 2 in the Dallas Morning News; on December 5 in some copies of the Greenville News (South Carolina); on December 10 in the Indianapolis Star; on December 13 in Diario Las Americas (Miami); on December 14 in the Los Angeles Times; on December 20 in the Tallahassee Democrat; and on December 22 in The Herald (Everett, Washington).
After being contacted by the Catholic League all the newspaper with the exception of St. Louis Post-Dispatch made quick and sincere apologies to the Catholic League, pledging never again to run these ads. In fact, when the publisher of the Greenville News spotted the ad in print, he ordered the printing press stopped and thus not all copies of the South Carolina daily published the ad."

[Aletheia]

: sigh :


November 28 - December 22
From November 28 to December 22, ten major American newspapers carried anti-Catholic ads. All of the ads were sponsored by the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-Day Adventists (a splinter group from the Seventh-Day Adventists). The ads identified the Catholic Church as the "WHORE" and the "BEAST," and charged the Holy Father with breaking down the barriers between church and state.
The "Earth’s Final Warning" full-page ads were run on November 28 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; on December 1 in the Miami Herald ; on December 1 in El Nuevo Herald (Miami); on December 2 in the Dallas Morning News; on December 5 in some copies of the Greenville News (South Carolina); on December 10 in the Indianapolis Star; on December 13 in Diario Las Americas (Miami); on December 14 in the Los Angeles Times; on December 20 in the Tallahassee Democrat; and on December 22 in The Herald (Everett, Washington).
After being contacted by the Catholic League all the newspaper with the exception of St. Louis Post-Dispatch made quick and sincere apologies to the Catholic League, pledging never again to run these ads. In fact, when the publisher of the Greenville News spotted the ad in print, he ordered the printing press stopped and thus not all copies of the South Carolina daily published the ad."

Duane, PB, said "billboard". And yes the billboard I posted was from the Eternal Seventh-day Adventist Church, and at that time Rafael Perez was a fully accredited and ordained SDA conference minister.

The newspaper ads were also placed by his Church, they were all one and the same, and your source is wrong, he is still placing them in newspaper's worldwide to this day.

It was because of the billboard above, and his ad that he was sued by the GC.

For those who want to read the ad that caused so much trouble with the GC, here you go:

Here is the full page ad, first ran Aug 10, 1999 in USA Today:
http://www.eternalgospelherald.com/Earth&#...l%20Warning.htm

Anyway I'm quite sure the regular SDA's and conservative or traditionals or historics, or whatever you want to call them will have no problem recognizing Adventist truth, the liberal and new theology SDA's who seem to be the majority of the 3ABN accusers here, are going to freak out and call it hate.

That's not new.

They don't like the words whore, antichrist ,beast etc... They think it's hatefull.

Problem is those are Jesus' words...






This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 24 2007, 02:21 PM

[YogusBearus]

All the info? It was a billboard. As far as I know there are only 2.

Here you go.

Ouch! That brings back terrible memories of what these folks did in Central Florida. As I recall, they called themselves Historic Seventh-day Adventists at the time. In today’s vernacular, I would call them Historic Seventh-day Adventist Jihadists!

-bear

[awesumtenor]

Ouch! That brings back terrible memories of what these folks did in Central Florida. As I recall, they called themselves Historic Seventh-day Adventists at the time. In today’s vernacular, I would call them Historic Seventh-day Adventist Jihadists!

-bear

Taliban... definitely Taliban.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

the liberal and new theology SDA's who seem to be the majority of the 3ABN accusers here,

Cindy, I'd like you to state who you are referring to, and how you will document they are liberal, and also define what you mean by liberal.

This post has been edited by Johann: Aug 24 2007, 02:52 PM