It's God's problem, not mine.

It's yours because of believing in original sin. You have the same problem the HF people had. As long as the 144,000 have sinful flesh, because of your belief in original sin, they need the mediation of Christ. Yet they must stand before God without a Mediator. This is your problem.

Well, what about you? Is it your contention that during the time of trouble the saints will not need Christ's righteousness?

Christ's righteousness is received by faith. The 144,000 will continue to receive Christ's righteousness by faith. However, Christ's stops His mediatorial work, so there can be no sin in the 144,000. Now if one believes in original sin, that's a problem, because sin is involved in simply having a sinful nature.

This, of course, is what Ellen White taught from Scripture: the eventual cleansing of the church to be completed in the second apartment.

But then appeared modified views and a huge history-altering venture questioning the inspiration of Ellen White, Christ's sanctuary ministry, and His sinful flesh, et cetera.

I respect religious history so, naturally, Samples' simple "Assement of Seventh-day Adventism" in the CRI Journal (1988) held my intrigue:


Today we better understand what Brinsmead and Ford had in mind as we objectively assess their writings and the results of their ministry.

Might one fairly suggest Brinsmead and Ford (et al) contorted the core of Adventism?

William

William, sadly this confusion in our church is obscuring the gospel message. SDA History is important, and as you noted before, it is told subjectively. So we can easily be brought to one side or the other depending how skillfull the person is to convince the mind.

I read about Brinsmead since I didn't know much, he had an incredible impact and his journey in quite interesting to the fact that himself was swaying from belief to belief then at the end, abandoning many sound teachings. I wished he would of stayed with the Righteousness through faith alone belief.

Anyway, to me it shows the dangers of an intellectual persuit of studying scripture which can lead to more confusion. As we know and can see clearly, the confusion of this world and in our own Church will get greater as the end of time get's nearer. Our only hope is to move into the true life with "Christ in us" which is the mystery of God. Col 1:27 and refered in Rev 10:7

You mean they both had such an impact that what adventism believe today reflects their belief? If that's true, then what an irony since both where disfellowshipped. Would love to hear what you learn in regard to the nature of Christ and perfection.

You cannot separate imputed righteousness from imparted righteousness. How is it possible to say that we will need imparted righteousness but won't need imputed righteousness? Believing that is sheer legalism, because although the 144,000 may not commit acts of sin, their obedience is imperfect, as the obedience of every other human being, until our nature is changed at Christ's coming. Our obedience can only be considered perfect in heaven because of Christ's imputed righteousness. Therefore, we will need it at that time as much as we need it now. Another point to be considered is that all the temptations which are mentioned in relation to the time of trouble are external temptations. Selfish motives and desires won't have any place in the lives of the 144,000.
As to inward temptations being sin, I think I don't need to repost here the dozens of EGW quotes which speak of "outward temptation and inward sin/corruption."

Since we have sinful natures, as long as we have this nature, don't you think it's true that what we do is tainted? Wouldn't it therefore need Christ's work as Intercessor to purify it?

Hello Elle, yes, indeed, it is ironic that distortion and disfellowship were once synonymous in these extreme cases. Now all can quietly simmer under the accommodating warmness of a pluralistic orb. (Be generous now, William. Ha.)

For a moment at least (how I wish to find more time for discussion!), my intent was to shadow the microscopic details in order to light the historical landscape just above our divided lines.

In doing so, we should likely find that each of our beliefs are simply elongated tenacles connected to a tangible, verifiable past, where many valiant minds before us have surely flailed about dissecting doctrine in search of meaning and truth. Not unlike us, perhaps.

My mild contention is only that the answers we continue to seek today can already be found yesterday. I know, not a unique perspective.

Nevertheless, that's why I hold that if we consider what former-SDA Ratzlaff, for example, is saying when he denounces Adventism's sanctuary doctrine and insists that Ellen White has perpetrated the whole scam, we can actually touch the foundations of his arguments by reaching back alongside certain theological veins.

In other words, Is it possible that Ratzlaff (and his predecessors) argued the very points we grapple with today—and will tomorrow?

Here's only one of many disputed points from Ratzlaff we may consider when contemplating our personal beliefs under the nothing-new sun:


Can we sense the familiar spirit of Brinsmead and Ford guiding Ratzlaff's idyllic tugging?

William