Please quit doing this!! The "I realize" sentence is totally unwarranted. I've never said anything remotely like this. To borrow from you (i.e. please, please please): Please, please, please quote things I've actually said. It's unpleasant to see these unqualified gross misrepresentations of what I've said.

Back to the point at hand. From the SOP:





Both Scripture and the SOP prophesy regarding end time events. There are certain details which would be different (e.g., the world now is very different than it was in the 19th century), but certain principles which remain true regardless of when Christ comes, and these principles have been prophesied and explained for us.



Not necessarily why? Certainly it's not necessary to answer the question you've asked to explain whether or not I've explained your idea correctly.



You've got kind of hodge-podge of quotes there, a little from one place, a litte from another. You're asking where in the Bible were certain ideas explained. Are you saying that if it doesn't explain all of the ideas expressed by Ellen White, then it does not explain the subject as clearly as she did?

I'm curious if you would extend your view regarding her explanations to other subjects as well. For example, justification by faith. Would you say as well that neither Paul nor Jesus Christ, nor any other Scripture writer clearly explained justification by faith?



There's no reason for me to do so. It would be like me asking you to show me what death is not the inevitable result of sin based on the following passage:



I find your idea regarding the tree of life to be very simplistic. Life comes from God, not from a tree. There's meaning behind what was happening, and it seems to me that you're missing the meaning and instead latching onto only the physical elements involved. It's like when Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples responded, "It is because we brought no bread."

(More later; also, I'll get to the post I skipped)

Sure it's clearly spelled out. John 3, where Jesus explained the Gospel is probably the clearest place. Ellen White wrote:





Sure, we can see this from Scripture. For example, the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. However, without Christ crucified, there is no Gospel.



The "this" which is recorded by Moses is the Gospel. My point was not that Moses said the Gospel was preached to Abraham, but that Moses recorded the Gospel which was preached to Abraham.



You're not understanding what Moses wrote. The Gospel is there, MM. You're reminding me of 2 Cor. 3



Looking back at Nicodemus, we see the same thing. Nicodemus did not understand the Gospel, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in Moses. Christ used Moses to explain the meaning of His death to Nicodemus. If you read EGW's explanation, you'll see that Nicodemus "got it" on the basis of what Moses wrote!



You misunderstood the point. Moses recorded the gospel which Paul said was preached to Abraham. The point is not that Moses said the Gospel was preached to Abraham, but that the Gospel was preached to Abraham.

(more later)

Tom, I did not think that I was grossly misrepresenting your view. I’m sorry it offended you. Actually, I’m glad to learn you not only disagree with it, but you hotly hate it. However, please explain how your view differs from the view I shared above, namely, “Through faith the unfallen beings have been secure in the truth about God’s character and kingdom from the moment Jesus announced the plan of salvation.”

When you argue that the angels were not secure until the cross it makes me wonder if you believe they were not secure before the cross. In what sense were they not secure, and how did it affect them? Also, in what way did things change for them after the cross?


I hear you saying that since the prophesies describe the 144,000 succeeding it is proof that no matter which way it actually ends up playing out, in the end the 144,000 will succeed. If this is what you’re saying, it makes me wonder why you believe the prophecies that described Jesus succeeding must be interpreted to mean God did not know for certain if Jesus would fail or succeed. How do those prophecies differ from the ones concerning the 144,000?


What happened to the quotes I posted? Did they get lost in cyberspace? Can you summarize what she said about the law and why Jesus had to die? Do you believe the same insights are as clearly articulated in the Bible? If not, why do you think God shared them with the Remnant Church? To what purpose? If so, why, then, do you think God shared them through the gift and calling of Ellen? To what purpose?


Bummer, oh well, I knew you were going to blow me off, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to ask, to beg, at least it doesn’t hurt too much. It’s very disappointing to be dismissed and disregarded. It feels like persecution. But in your non-answer I am beginning to believe you really do not believe sinners would live forever if God allowed them unlimited access to the tree of life. How you can come to this conclusion in light of what the Bible and SOP said about it is not clear to me. Can you at least explain to me why it doesn’t mean what it says, why it means the opposite of what it says?


Okay, thank you.

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Again, this doesn’t explain why. It says what, but it doesn’t say why. For example, it doesn’t say why or how Jesus’ death saves believers from perishing.


Take this insight back further and we discover that if Jesus hadn’t agreed to die in their place, the human race would have ended with the immediate execution of A&E. Listen:

Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God. {1BC 1104.5}

Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. {1BC 1082.6}


Oh, I agree all right that the SOP makes it crystal clear. No doubt about it. That’s been my point from the beginning. I just don’t understand why you think what Moses wrote (i.e. “In thee shall all nations be blessed”) clearly explains why Jesus had to die. Ask a child or an unbeliever to read these words and I can guarantee you they will not conclude it clearly explains why Jesus had to die. If you were to try and convince them from the Pentateuch that that is exactly what Moses meant I can also guarantee you they will think “thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad”.

Tom, are you going to address the posts above and the one you skipped?

Obeying everything that Jesus commanded = sanctification, or perfection of character. That should be clear.



Why do you think all the Jesus Christ commanded is encompassed by the 28 fundamental beliefs? Do you think these beliefs are inspired? Could there be an error in what we believe?

Well, you certainly should have! You must have quite a low opinion of me to think I would think something like the following:





If you're really sorry, please abide by my request, and quote things I've actually written, as I've repeatedly requested.



The SOP said that the cross made them secure. I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. Here's the quote:



There are other quotes to that make the same point, that the cross made the universe eternally secure.



This is a good question. Just based on Scripture, I suppose one could deduce that the Scriptures regarding Christ succeeding were conditional. It makes sense, on the basis that Christ came as a human being with free will. What actually brought this to my attention, however, were the SOP statements, that all heaven was imperiled, that Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, etc.

Regarding the 144,000, there are no such statements. Of course, there's still free will involved, so the formulation of the 144,000 can be delayed (which is, indeed, what actually happened in the 1888 era; by all rights we shouldn't be here), but some day the 144,000 will be formulated. So the timing is unknown, but not the fact. Similarly for Christ's Second Coming.



I think they're probably where you left them.



The law is a transcript of God's character. The GC is all about God. The adversary had presented God in a way He is not, as harsh, cruel, looking to whack anyone who crossed Him in the least way. One of the supposed tools of the harsh taskmaster was the law. This was supposedly a club that severe taskmaster would use to beat His subjects into submission. This club was made to be seen as a heavy yoke that no one could keep.

Along came Jesus Christ to dispel these lies. His yoke (i.e. obedience to the law) was easy and His burden light. He dispelled these and many other lies that enemy had presented. The culmination of His revelation was His death, which unmasked the enemy, as well as being the brightest light in the illumination of agape. The work of revelation is called the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission.

I think the principles are clearly articulated in Scripture, although certain details were given by the SOP which are not clearly spelled out, but the general principles are there (such as the cross bringing us to God, Christ's coming to reveal the Father, Satan being unmasked)



It's not an non-answer. God set things up so that by eating of the tree man would live forever. This, like breathing, was a way designed by God to make clear to man that life comes from Him. Man was not allowed to continue eating of the tree as a way of communicating that God did not wish for man, having fallen, live forever in that condition. But the lesson was not that life comes from a tree; it was that life comes from God.

By looking! Christ was lifted up, just like the snake, that one would be healed (or saved; same word) by looking. There was no need to say this to a Jew, who knew the story. This is why the EGW explanation of the interview says that Nicodemus face lit up when Jesus said this, because then He understood what Jesus was saying, because he knew the story.

Ellen White spelled this out for us, so that we, in our culture, would be on equal footing with Nicodemus. But Jesus' explanation was no less clear from him then Ellen White's was for us.

Just think about it. Does it really make sense that Jesus Christ would explain His death to Nicodemus in an unclear fashion?



Moses was clear for those in his culture. Just because his was a different culture does not make it fair for us to brand him as unclear.

But let's set Moses aside for a bit, as we have the more important task of seeing if Jesus Christ was clear. Or Paul. Or John. If you don't see these fellows as clear, I'm sure you won't see Moses as being clear.

Yes, I believe the 28 fundamental beliefs are inspired, which is also why I believe they encompass everything Jesus commanded. Do you know of truths that are omitted?

Were unfallen FMAs secure before the cross? If not, please explain.


Is there anything in the Bible to indicate God didn't know Jesus would succeed on the cross? If not, are you relying on the SOP? Please explain.


You have not yet verified this view of why God barred access to the tree of life. You simply expect me to take it at your word. I have posted several passages which clearly explain why God barred access to the tree of life and none of them include your view.


Are you suggesting Nicodemus clearly understood why Jesus had to die after his interview with Jesus? If so, where is the proof?


You must have been really good at dodge ball, Tom. There is no recorded evidence that Moses clearly explained why Jesus had to die or that animal sacrifices symbolized Jesus' death. Yes, there was no doubt oral tradition, but no written record of it. Otherwise, I would be riddled with bruises from the ball beating it into me. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want, but it is crystal clear to me you cannot prove your point from the Bible.