Perhaps. Perhaps your mistaken in not seeing something that many others have seen. Peter, to name one.



The proof is in her own comment. If you don't believe what she said about it, how could I possibly prove it?



MM, I've laid out a course of action which I think would be helpful for you if you followed it. I've explained why I don't think your suggestion would work. You have a bias. You need to take a course of action which would allow for the bias to be corrected. This is, of course, simply my opinion, but given it is my opinion, I have suggested a way of proceeding which would have a chance of doing that.

It's not a question of my not being able to do what you have requested, but of my not believing it would serve a useful purpose. I have outlined what I believe might help, if you followed the suggestion.



I didn't ask this. I asked the following:



You responded:



Since this was a rejection of your previous statement, I asked for confirmation on this:



You didn't respond to my question. Are you disagreeing with your previous statement that sinners must resist Jesus' love to be lost? I'm asking this because you said "yes" in answer to my question if you agreed that the statement I quoted taught that sinners must resist in order to be lost.



People enter the world as infants, without the ability to reason. Before the age of accountability, their being saved or lost depends upon a range of factors, including things beyond their control (such as the spiritual condition of their parents). So they are neither saved nor lost by default.

The SOP says:



This tells us no one can be lost unless they resist the drawing love of God.

Please point out the verses that you feel describe why Jesus had to die, and then explain how you think they do it.


You're right, I do not believe Ellen's comment applies to everything she wrote about it. It reflected her opinion at the time. I think she was being humble or modest. Taken as a whole her insights regarding RBF and the NC/OC are equally as clear as Elliot's explanations. Your unwillingness to place their insights side-by-side suggests you cannot prove your assertion that his insights are "more clearly" explained.


You are dodging the point. Either you don't want to spend the time or you know you can't prove your assertion. I have read and compared their insights on RBF and the NC/OC and I know he does not explain them "more clearly". I don't have a burden for people to believe otherwise.


I'm not sure how to answer your question. Let me simply state what I believe. Sinners are lost until they embrace Jesus and abide in Him. Sinners must also resist Jesus' love to remain lost. If do not resist His love they will embrace Jesus be saved.


Are you saying some infants are lost and some are saved? Also, does "all have sinned" apply to infants? If not, why not?

Please?

I already posted the verses. Peter writes:



so this may help.



She was certainly a humble lady, but no, that wasn't her motivation in saying this. She explained that Waggoner had been given special light on the subject. Each one of us has our place in the body of Christ. She was fulfilling her role while Waggoner fulfilled his.



Here's something Jesus said when given a similar request:



If you choose not to believe Ellen White's own words on the matter, there's certainly nothing I could do to persuade you. I think you should consider reevaluating where the unwillingness is lying here.



Again, MM, if you choose not to believe her words, there's nothing I could do to persuade you. The same principle applies as to what Christ said above. The best evidence on this question is what Ellen White said. If the best evidence is rejected, lesser evidence would be rejected as well, as Christ's parable points out.

Tom, 1 Peter 2 commands Christians to patiently endure persecution like Jesus did. We are commanded to imitate Jesus' righteous example. But it doesn't explain why Jesus had to die. Verse 24 implies believers are dead to sin and awake to righteousness, they are healed by His stripes, therefore, they have the mind of Jesus, they are expected to be like Him.


1 John 3 explains what Jesus accomplished while here. Listen:

3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Tom, I am truly amazed you are unwilling to post passages that prove Waggoner explained certain truths "more clearly" than did Ellen. I realize she, at least at one point, felt Waggoner could explain some things more clearly than she could, but where is the proof? Please post an example of something he explained more clearly than she did.

Please?

Regarding 1 Peter 2, and 1 Peter 3, Peter says Christ died to bring us to God.

Regarding your amazement regarding Waggoner's teaching rbf more clearly than EGW, this is something EGW herself said. If you don't believe her, why would you believe me? I think your amazement her is misplaced.

Regarding your question regarding Moses, I don't understand your point. If you will explain your point, I may be better able to address your question. Apparently, you're not even seeing how Peter explained the purpose for Christ's death, when he flat out said what it was. What Moses wrote would of necessity, being before the fact rather than after, would involve more to understand. Perhaps we could agree on what Peter said, and, assuming we can agree on this, move on from there.

Tom, since Ellen said Waggoner explained it more clearly you shouldn't have any trouble posting an example. Please do so.

Do you agree with what I wrote about 1 John 3 quoted and highlighted above? I didn't see where you quoted from 1 Peter 3. I saw where you quoted from 1 Peter 2:22-25 but this passage simply says Christians should endure persecution patiently because Jesus did.

Regarding Moses I am simply asking you to post a quote where he explains why Jesus had to die or a quote that says the animal sacrifices symbolize the death of Jesus. There is no point. Just a request for quotes.

Since she didn't do so, I see no reason why I should. She referred people over and over to the messages which God was sending through Jones and Waggoner, and I choose to do the same as she. She said there was great light in their messages, light which we would not have had without them (Jones and Waggoner), unless God sent someone else to bring that same light, and pointed people to that light.



You didn't really write anything, did you? You just quoted it, right? I don't see anything to agree/disagree with other than what John wrote.



Peter express a similar thought in chapter 3 to what he said in 1 Pet. 2:24, 25.



Christ died "that He might bring us to God."



I think I just quoted the last two verses, the main point being "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."



I don't understand this. A request like this should flow from the conversation in some way.