|
Forums118
Topics9,223
Posts196,070
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13548
06/03/05 09:59 PM
06/03/05 09:59 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
In both cases God would be removing Satan's life.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13549
06/03/05 11:06 PM
06/03/05 11:06 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
He is not forced to do anything.
“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love.” {ST, August 24, 1882}
quote:
T: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that.
What I had said was:
“Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?”
How is this sidetracking? Besides, you didn’t provide an answer.
quote:
Old Tom:Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
Tom, let’s just leave it at that. There are more important points to discuss.
quote:
So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross.
In the destruction of Jerusalem God manifested His wrath passively but in the death of Christ, for God to manifest His wrath passively, the only thing He had to do was to let Christ die from the effects of the crucifixion. Therefore, it is clear He manifested it actively.
quote:
T: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid.
It is the displeasure of God toward sin which causes people to feel afraid.
quote:
Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Please, read v. 17:
“If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Do the wicked “reign in life”?
quote:
This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all.
No. “Life” here is referring to eternal life. “So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 21).
quote:
In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way.
“Justification” here is the opposite of “condemnation”, therefore it refers to spiritual status.
quote:
Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White.
She said specifically that there were points in which she disagreed with him.
quote:
She said he understood the subject better than she did.
I’ve never read this. Does the quote use these exact words?
quote:
It takes God's active power to sustain life.
If you take this too far, you will have to say that God kills people. What occurs in relation to human beings is that something wrong happens to some organ of the body and the person dies. This definitely does not happen with angels.
quote:
the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to
Of course.
A happy sabbath to you and to all!
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13550
06/03/05 11:40 PM
06/03/05 11:40 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
R: (commenting on these questions) In both cases God would be removing Satan's life.
T: I think this is an odd way of looking at things. The first question asks, how would Satan die if God didn't remove his life. My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible. You're likely to be misunderstood if you communicate this way, but this is actually exactly what has happened in God's case, so I accept your language.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13551
06/04/05 12:15 AM
06/04/05 12:15 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Tom: He is not forced to do anything.
R:“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love.” {ST, August 24, 1882}
Tom: You are taking as literal something which should not be. Either that, or your use of the word "force" actually is in harmony with what I'm saying. God is not literally forced to do anything. That would be impossible. EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice. There is nothing in this quote which differs from the point I was making.
For God to allow those who have chosen to so harden their hearts against Him that His very presence is to them a consuming fire to experience the inevitable results of sin is God's wrath. For God to do anything which results in death -- which is what revealing His glory to those who have persistently rebelled against Him will result in -- is a strange act. He loves His children and takes no pleasure in their death.
Old Tom: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that.
What I had said was:
“Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?”
How is this sidetracking? Besides, you didn’t provide an answer.
T: I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked. I did provide an answer. The answer is that God gave the wicked over to the result of their choice. They persistently resisted God's Spirit, so God withdrew Himself from them. This led to their destruction. This is God's wrath.
Old, old Tom: Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
R: Tom, let’s just leave it at that. There are more important points to discuss.
T: The point I was making was that the Chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem" is indeed involving the destruction of the wicked, which is what we have been talking about. This statement "By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire." makes this point clear (GC 37).
Old Tom: So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross.
R: In the destruction of Jerusalem God manifested His wrath passively but in the death of Christ, for God to manifest His wrath passively, the only thing He had to do was to let Christ die from the effects of the crucifixion. Therefore, it is clear He manifested it actively.
T: This isn't clear at all. What caused Christ's death was the mental anguish He suffered, not the physical effects of the cruicifixion. The principles involved in Christ's death, and the destruction of the wicked, are the same, which is why EGW explains the destruction of the wicked in the chapter of the Desire of Ages which is explaining the principles involved in Christ's death. You can't understand the destruction of the wicked without understanding Christ's death.
Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way). However, God was actually closer to Him on the cross than He ever had been. There was a disconnect going on between what God was actually doing (drawing close to His Son in love) and Christ's experience ("My God, my God, why art Thous forsaking me?"). This same disconnect will be experienced by the wicked. This disconnect is the effect of sin on the mind.
Old Tom: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid.
R: It is the displeasure of God toward sin which causes people to feel afraid.
T: I don't think so, for two reasons. First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them. It's clear, in fact, that God wasn't angry at them, because when God called out to them, they came out and presented themselves to Him. So there must have been something winsome about His voice which won their confidence. Had they perceived Him to be displeased with them, they would have stayed hidden.
Now Adam and Eve had never experienced God's displeasure, so there was no reason for them to fear His anger. They didn't even know what anger was. It was their sin which caused them to be ashamed and afraid. Not God's displeasure.
Secondly, if it were God's displeasure which caused people to be afraid, then this suggests that sin would not make people afraid if God were not displeased. Of course, it's impossible for God not to be displeased with sin, since is causes pain, suffering and death for His children, but aside from God's displeasure, sin is in reality bad. It, of itself, causes all sorts of negative emotions. Fear is just one of those emotions.
Sin is evil, not because of God, but by its inherent nature. God's calling sin evil is not what made it, or makes it, evil. God's calls it evil because it is.
Old Tom:Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
R: Please, read v. 17:
“If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Do the wicked “reign in life”?
T: vs. 17 is a different thought. Vs. 18 is speaking of all, reaching the culmination of the thought started in 12. Vs. 17 is parenthetical. The summary of the thought is 18, which is a clear parallel, even clearer in the Greek than in English, which involved all. The whole point of Paul's thought vanishes if one does not understand that as many as were impacted by sin in Adam are impacted for the good in Christ. This is the point of the entire chapter. Where sin has abounded, grace has much more abounded. As far as sin has reached in scope, so has grace, and grace with much greater power. That's the thought of the chapter in a nutshell. "Much more" in two words.
Old Tom:This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all.
R: No. “Life” here is referring to eternal life.
T: This is impossible. The text is clearly dealing with all men. As many as were impacted by Adam were impacted by Christ. Not all have eternal life, but all have physical life. It must be physical life that's being referred to, which is how Waggoner, Jones and Prescott all understood this verse.
R: “So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 21).
Old Tom:In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way.
R: “Justification” here is the opposite of “condemnation”, therefore it refers to spiritual status.
T: The condemnation being referred to is due to the effect of Adam's sin. That's physical death, not spiritual, unless you believe in original sin.
Old Tom:Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White.
R: She said specifically that there were points in which she disagreed with him.
T: I can only think of one area that she disagreed with, and that was regarding whether it was possible for Christ to sin. Waggoner at first said it wasn't, because He had perfect faith. She corrected him, and he revised his teaching. That's the only incident I am aware of. Can you name anything specifically?
Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
Old Tom:She said he understood the subject better than she did.
R: I’ve never read this. Does the quote use these exact words?
T: It's from an interview of an SDA minister who was at the 1888 General Conference session. He was a relative of Butler, I think. If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview. I think the minister's name was Washburn.
Old Tom:It takes God's active power to sustain life.
R: If you take this too far, you will have to say that God kills people.
T; Ok. God kills people.
R: What occurs in relation to human beings is that something wrong happens to some organ of the body and the person dies. This definitely does not happen with angels.
T: I don't know what point you're wanting to make here. The point I was making is that any creature would die, whether sinless or sinful, angel or human, were it not for God's active, sustaining action to give them life.
Old Tom:the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to
R: Of course.
A happy sabbath to you and to all!
T: Thank you. And thank's again for the discussion. It's been very helpful for me, and I appreciate the time and effort you make to respond to the posts.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13552
06/05/05 02:57 PM
06/05/05 02:57 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
1- quote:
My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible.
Why odd, Tom? Let me provide an example. Look at what God did with Ananiah and Saphira _ He ceased to give them life and they immediately fell dead to the ground. This is removing life. They didn’t die because of any internal or external factor _ they died because God removed their lives.
2- quote:
EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice.
Haven’t circumstances ever forced you to make a choice you wouldn’t like to make? Would this fall exactly in the category of a “free will choice”? This is a choice God is forced to make, that is, He wouldn’t do it voluntarily. He does it because it is the only option He is left with. There is no other viable alternative. It’s a lesser evil, as I once said.
3- quote:
I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked.
What happens is that the example you provided (the destruction of Jerusalem) of that case (the destruction of the wicked) to prove your point, proves too much. You stated that your position is that it’s sin that destroys. But what is demonstrated here is that sin is the cause, and not the agent of destruction.
4- quote:
Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way).
It’s not that He felt that way. It was that way. Suppose you are a judge and you have to judge your own son for a crime. How can you do it, except by stopping being a father, and concentrating on being a judge? You can feel like a father, but you can’t manifest your feelings. You must act as a judge and condemn the criminal. As a Judge, God must condemn the sinner, and must show His disapproval of sin. But this has nothing to do with being vindictive.
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104.7}
“The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages (MS 93, 1899). {7BC 924.2}
"God is calling upon all to behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Christ lifts the guilt of sin from the sinner, standing Himself under the condemnation of the Lawgiver." {ST, April 7, 1898}
5- quote:
First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them.
They knew their disobedience was a crime in God's eyes, and of course they knew God wouldn’t be pleased with it, although, because of His love, they still hoped to escape its punishment.
“Their crime is now before them in its true light. Their transgression of God's express command assumes a clearer character. Adam censured Eve's folly in leaving his side, and being deceived by the serpent; but they both flattered themselves that God, who had given them everything to make them happy, might yet excuse their disobedience, because of his great love to them, and that their punishment would not be so dreadful after all.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 6}
6- Romans 5:12-20 is a unit.
Look at the parallels traced:
v. 18:
Sin - condemnation
Grace - justification
v. 19:
disobedience of one - many sinners
obedience of one - many righteous
v. 21:
Sin reigned unto death
Grace might reign unto eternal life
The whole text revolves around this: as sin brought death to all, grace brought eternal life to all. But how is this so? Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Who are these all who shall be made alive? Of course all who are in Christ.
7- quote:
I can only think of one area that she disagreed with
I’ve not read much of Waggoner, but I’ve found several divergences between what he says and what Ellen White says. This was evident in the thread about the covenants.
8- quote:
Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
Is EGW parroting in DA 660 what Waggoner says where? In “The Glad Tidings?”
9- quote:
If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview.
It would be very interesting, although if he really knew the subject better than she, she would have had no reason to disagree with him.
10- quote:
Ok. God kills people.
Tom, in the examples where I see that God does kill people (the flood, Sodom, etc.) you disagree, and then you turn around and say God kills every person who lives on earth? What I’m saying is that in general God does not cause directly the death of people by ceasing to impart life; death is a natural result of the aging process or of the action of some external factor (as a knife, a bullet, a virus, etc.).
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13553
06/05/05 07:36 PM
06/05/05 07:36 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible. R: Why odd, Tom? Let me provide an example. Look at what God did with Ananiah and Saphira _ He ceased to give them life and they immediately fell dead to the ground. This is removing life. They didn’t die because of any internal or external factor _ they died because God removed their lives. T: If what you mean by God's removing life is that He ceases to give life, then that's fine by me. It's using an active voice when one would ordinarily use a passive voice, but this is exactly what I and others have been arguing that inspiration often does, so if you want to join in then you're in good company. By using language this way you set yourself to be misunderstood just as inspiration is. R: 2- Old Tom:EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice. R: Haven’t circumstances ever forced you to make a choice you wouldn’t like to make? Would this fall exactly in the category of a “free will choice”? This is a choice God is forced to make, that is, He wouldn’t do it voluntarily. He does it because it is the only option He is left with. There is no other viable alternative. It’s a lesser evil, as I once said. T: Certainly God would prefer that the wicked live. He says He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and "How can I give you up?" But they have formed characters so out of harmony with Him that His presence is to them a consuming fire. The light of His glory, which gives life to the righteous, destroys them. I agree with you that God would prefer that this not be the case. R:3- Old Tom:I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked. R: What happens is that the example you provided (the destruction of Jerusalem) of that case (the destruction of the wicked) to prove your point, proves too much. You stated that your position is that it’s sin that destroys. But what is demonstrated here is that sin is the cause, and not the agent of destruction. T: What I have been saying is that the destruction of the wicked is due to actions which they themselves take, not due to God's doing anything other than respecting their choice. She wrote: quote:
Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire.(GC 37)
She points out:
1) They destroy themselves.
2) Because they have debased themselves with evil, the manifestation of God's glory is to them a consuming fire.
This is the same thing she writes in DA 764:
quote:
By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)
The same principles brought out in "The Destruction of Jerusalem" are brought out in "It Is Finished". The Destruction of Jerusalem makes clear the relationship between God's wrath and sin.
quote:
God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 36)
When I speak of sin resulting in death, I don't mean anything other than what the quotes I've cited here are saying.
R:4-
Old Tom: Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way).
R: It’s not that He felt that way. It was that way.
T: Well, this is an important thing to understand. Was God really abandoning Christ? Ps. 18 describes the scene where God leaves heaven to be close to His Son:
quote:
7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, F47 and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. 10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. 11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.(Ps. 18:7-11)
The Desire of Ages comments:
quote:
In that thick darkness God's presence was hidden. He makes darkness His pavilion, and conceals His glory from human eyes. God and
His holy angels were beside the cross. The Father was with His Son. (DA 754)
So God was not abandoning Christ, but doing the reverse. He was coming close to His Son.
It's a mistake to attempt to divide up the Godhead as if One member were against another. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. As EGW puts it, God was crucified with Christ. Acts talks about the church being the purchase of God's blood.
It's not the case that God the Son was for us and protecting us from God the Father, but God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are working on our side against the common enemies of sin, death and Satan.
R: Suppose you are a judge and you have to judge your own son for a crime. How can you do it, except by stopping being a father, and concentrating on being a judge? You can feel like a father, but you can’t manifest your feelings. You must act as a judge and condemn the criminal. As a Judge, God must condemn the sinner, and must show His disapproval of sin. But this has nothing to do with being vindictive.
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104.7}
T: This quote brings out how we should understand God's role, both in the atonement and the judgment. God assumes the character of a judge by permitting His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. The word "delivered" is the same as used in Romans 1 which speaks of God's wrath against the wicked as His delivering them up.
R: “The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages (MS 93, 1899). {7BC 924.2}
T: God suffers with His Son as He delivers Him up for our offenses.
R: "God is calling upon all to behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Christ lifts the guilt of sin from the sinner, standing Himself under the condemnation of the Lawgiver." {ST, April 7, 1898}
T: Same idea. Christ was delivered up for our offenses. He bore our sins in His body that He might bring us to God. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
R: 5-
Old Tom:First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them.
R: They knew their disobedience was a crime in God's eyes, and of course they knew God wouldn’t be pleased with it, although, because of His love, they still hoped to escape its punishment.
“Their crime is now before them in its true light. Their transgression of God's express command assumes a clearer character. Adam censured Eve's folly in leaving his side, and being deceived by the serpent; but they both flattered themselves that God, who had given them everything to make them happy, might yet excuse their disobedience, because of his great love to them, and that their punishment would not be so dreadful after all.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 6}
T: I was bringing out the impact sin has on the mind. When God asked Adam why he did, he said because he was naked and afraid. Sin brings with it self-condemnation -- a self-loathing -- and viewing God in a false light. This is also seen in Christ on the Christ where He speaks of Himself as a worm and not a man and cries out asking why God was abandoing Him when in actuality God was drawing close to Him. Many more examples of this principle could be shown. Sin does terrible things to the mind, from which we must be healed.
R: 6- Romans 5:12-20 is a unit.
T: Romans 5:12-18 is a single sentence. The thought starts in vs. 12, and then verses 13-17 are parenthetical, and then Paul completes his thought in vs. 18. Of course Paul has a thought in mind throughout the chapter and the letter, so anywhere we split things up is a bit arbitrary.
The theme in Romans 5 is "much more." Paul speaks both of the work which God has done for all, and the benefit it has for all, as well as for the work which is effective in those who believe. For example, it was while we were without strength, His enemies, unrighteous, that Christ died for us and God manifest His love. This is a work Christ did for all. It's effective in those who believe. It's effective from a physical standpoint for all, whether they believe or not.
R: Look at the parallels traced:
v. 18:
Sin - condemnation
Grace - justification
v. 19:
disobedience of one - many sinners
obedience of one - many righteous
v. 21:
Sin reigned unto death
Grace might reign unto eternal life
The whole text revolves around this: as sin brought death to all, grace brought eternal life to all. But how is this so? Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Who are these all who shall be made alive? Of course all who are in Christ.
T: There's more to what Paul is dealing with than simply eternal life. Paul is discussing how grace is more than sin. Its scope is a great, but it is more effective in its power. I've already quoted from Waggoner, Jones and EGW on this point. Here's what Wallenkampf wrote:
quote:
There are two modes of justification: temporary universal (or forensic) justification, and justification by faith. Temporary universal justification affords human existence on earth. In confers neighter salvation nor the gift of eternal life. Justification by faith, on the other hand, grants not only temporal life with salvation from sin but also confers eternal life..
Because of Christ's death on the cross, God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous. By virture of the cross, all enjoy life through temporary universal (temporal and forensic) justification. All are undeservedly put into a life-giving relationship with God. All sins are covered temporarily by the blood of Jesus....
In this life there is no distinct difference between God's treatment of saints and sinners. Both are under the cover of God's grace; both benefit from Jesus' shed blood for all. (from What "Every Christian Should Know About Being Justified")
The way Ellen White puts it is easily understood: "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life."
R: 7-
Old Tom:I can only think of one area that she disagreed with
R: I’ve not read much of Waggoner, but I’ve found several divergences between what he says and what Ellen White says. This was evident in the thread about the covenants.
T: This is a very strange comment. Here's what Ellen White wrote:
quote:
I told them yesterday that the position of the covenants I believed as presented in my volume 1 [ Patriarchs and Prophets ]. If that was Dr. Waggoner's position then he had the truth. (3MR 421)
quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (1888 Materials 623)
It's evident from these two quotes that Ellen White herself saw what she wrote as being in harmony with Waggoner. She also wrote the following:
quote:
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. (1888 Materials 604)
Since you hold to a position which differs from Waggoner's, and assert that her position disagreed with Waggoner's, you are disagreeing with her on two points, since she asserts that Waggoner's position is the same as hers, and that it's a waste of effort to hold a different position from Waggoner's. So this is hardly proof of "several divergences." It's not even proof of one.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm only aware of one area of disagreement, which is the one I pointed out. She preached alongside Waggoner during 1890 I think it was, and made no comments regarding any teachings of his being in error. Instead she repeatedly remarked how God was giving us great light regarding righteousness by faith and how we she take hold of the light God was giving us through Jones and Waggoner (later she would say the same things regarding Prescott). Many of the things we have been discussing are made plain by this light which God has been pleased to give us.
R: 8-
Old Tom:Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
R: Is EGW parroting in DA 660 what Waggoner says where? In “The Glad Tidings?”
T: Yes. quote:
So it is that not only every blade of grass, every leaf of the forest, and every piece of bread that we eat has the stamp of the cross of Christ on it, but, above all, we have the same.
R: 9-
Old Tom:If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview.
R: It would be very interesting, although if he really knew the subject better than she, she would have had no reason to disagree with him.
T: Yes, which is why she didn't, but instead heartily endorsed it. She said she would be as a little child to soak up all its life-giving rays, which is exactly what she did. She also told us we should lay hold of the light which God gave to us through them.
R: 10-
Old Tom:Ok. God kills people.
R: Tom, in the examples where I see that God does kill people (the flood, Sodom, etc.) you disagree, and then you turn around and say God kills every person who lives on earth? What I’m saying is that in general God does not cause directly the death of people by ceasing to impart life; death is a natural result of the aging process or of the action of some external factor (as a knife, a bullet, a virus, etc.).
T: The subject of this thread is the destruction of the wicked. As far as I am aware, I haven't made any comments regarding Sodom and Gemorrah or the flood. I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you. Everyone agrees that in general death is the natural result of the aging process or some eternal factor. I don't know why you would wish to make this point or what bearing it has on the destruction of the wicked.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13554
06/07/05 03:00 AM
06/07/05 03:00 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
1- You seem to have the erroneous conception that I and everyone else who holds the classical view of atonement think that God is cruel and Christ is merciful. I’ve never held this view and have never seen such a view defended in any book I read. My conception is that before the world was created, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit covenanted to save man if he sinned. God would manifest the just wrath of the Godhead against sin; Christ would take the place of the transgressor; and the Holy Spirit would impress the hearts of men, so that they could understand and accept the work that was done in their behalf at the cross. Each member of the Godhead had a role and a function to play in the work of saving humanity. 2- About temporary forensic justification. As I have said before, my concept, based on what Ellen white says, is that man should have died the moment he sinned. Christ proposed to take man’s place, therefore God’s wrath against sin was restrained, and man was granted a second probation. That’s the name I give to it: second probation. As to what Wallenkampf says, “God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous”, I’ve not yet seen evidence for this either in the Bible or in the SOP. I consider the justification spoken of in Romans 5 as justification by faith. The word “all” in this chapter is not absolute, and seems to be used interchangeably with the word “many”. Verse 12 uses “all”, v. 15 uses “many”, v. 18 uses “all”, v. 19 uses “many”. Besides, as I said, the meaning of the word is made perfectly clear in 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The first “all” refers to all who are in Adam (a physical relationship), while the second “all” refers to all who are in Christ (a spiritual relationship). An interesting article about universal legal justification can be found here: http://www.lmn.org/magazine/169/Ballenger.html 3- The divergences I found between Waggoner and Ellen White in the subject of the covenants are stated in my last post here: http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000241;p=5 4- The point on which Ellen White agreed with Waggoner in his presentation of the subject of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis conference was “the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law” (1888 164.3). But that there were points of divergence is also clear, for she said still before the close of the conference: “ Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman.” {1888 164.1} What she said some three months later: “I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it. We want the truth as it is in Jesus.”{1888 565.2} So the point is that Waggoner must be judged by Ellen White, and not the other way around. 5 - About Ellen White parroting Waggoner, I don’t consider this to be the case, since “The Glad Tidings” was published two years after “The Desire of Ages”, if I’m not mistaken. 6- quote:
I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you.
I understand you disagree (correct me if I’m wrong) that God can send water, fire, or any other external agent to kill people.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13555
06/06/05 04:23 PM
06/06/05 04:23 PM
|
|
|
Or angels -- and not just the devil's angels either: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."
{GC 614.2} This idea that God does not actively destroy on occasion is the result of a limited, flawed idea of His character, that's out of harmony with the testimony of Inspiration. It's hard for me to understand why people arrive at such conclusions, when the Bible and SOP are so crystal clear on the subject in so many places.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13556
06/07/05 06:32 AM
06/07/05 06:32 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: 1- You seem to have the erroneous conception that I and everyone else who holds the classical view of atonement think that God is cruel and Christ is merciful. T: The "classical" view of the atonement would be what I've been presenting. The view you are presenting didn't come around until 1000 years after Christ's death. It came about due to midieval rationalism, as a revolt against the ideas of mercy, love and passion, which were considered "weak" because of their feminine qualities. The detached view of the atonement, based on legalities, came into vogue. But before the second Millenium, the idea of the atonement was that Christ overcame the powers of sin, death and Satan by His life, death and resurrection. It was a story of good triumphing over evil. It was very similar to the Great Controversy concept which EGW made so clear, with the missing piece that God's character was the major issue that was being fought over. R: I’ve never held this view and have never seen such a view defended in any book I read. My conception is that before the world was created, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit covenanted to save man if he sinned. God would manifest the just wrath of the Godhead against sin; Christ would take the place of the transgressor; and the Holy Spirit would impress the hearts of men, so that they could understand and accept the work that was done in their behalf at the cross. Each member of the Godhead had a role and a function to play in the work of saving humanity. T: I understand that all the Godhead works together on the side of man against the common enemies of sin, death and Satan. The wrath of God is His "delivering up", whether it be His Son for our offenses (Rom. 4:25; Rom. 8 somewhere) or the wicked (Rom. 1) R: 2- About temporary forensic justification. As I have said before, my concept, based on what Ellen white says, is that man should have died the moment he sinned. Christ proposed to take man’s place, therefore God’s wrath against sin was restrained, and man was granted a second probation. That’s the name I give to it: second probation. As to what Wallenkampf says, “God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous”, I’ve not yet seen evidence for this either in the Bible or in the SOP. T: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible. That there not be any doubt that this subject was explicitly being considered by her, take a look at Precott's sermons at Avondale in 1895 and EGW's endorsements of them. Prescott spoke precisely about this them. The simple thought that to the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life sums it up simply. If you want to call this "second probation," that's fine. The point is that the second probation is made possible by God's graciously treating men not as they deserve to be treated, but according to the riches of His mercy. All men, even those who reject Christ, are benefited by His sacrifice. All were restored to favor with God. All live physically because of Christ's sacrifice. R: I consider the justification spoken of in Romans 5 as justification by faith. The word “all” in this chapter is not absolute, and seems to be used interchangeably with the word “many”. T: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness ( or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all. Here's how the NIV puts is: "18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." This is very accurate. Young's, a literal translation of the Greek has, "So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;" R: Verse 12 uses “all”, v. 15 uses “many”, v. 18 uses “all”, v. 19 uses “many”. Besides, as I said, the meaning of the word is made perfectly clear in 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The first “all” refers to all who are in Adam (a physical relationship), while the second “all” refers to all who are in Christ (a spiritual relationship). T: All in 1 Cor. 15:22 is everybody. That is, all who will be resurrected. Not just the righteous. "In consequence of Adam's sin, death passed upon the whole human race. All alike go down into the grave. And through the provisions of the plan of salvation, all are to be brought forth from their graves. "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust;" "for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Acts 24:15; I Corinthians 15:22. (GC 544) R: An interesting article about universal legal justification can be found here: http://www.lmn.org/magazine/169/Ballenger.htmlT: I read through the article. It had many misleading, to put it charitably, ideas. Waggoner's articles in Romans was published in 1895 I think, so the idea of legal justification was presented by him at least by then. Jones also presented the idea, which I quoted earlier, in the 1895 General Conference builletin, which was also in 1895. Prescott also presented the idea (whom I did not quote from, but can if desired) in 1895. So the idea had nothing to do with Ballenger or events which transpired a number of years later. In 1895 EGW's endorsements of Waggoner, Jones and Prescott were unprecedented. She called Prescott's sermon in Avandale "truth unmingled with error" if I recall correctly. She presented the same ideas as Waggoner, and used almost the same language. R: 3- The divergences I found between Waggoner and Ellen White in the subject of the covenants are stated in my last post here: http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000241;p=5T: You wrote: quote:
This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that she had to be in agreement with Waggoner in every detail of what he presented about the subject.
This is what everyone who doesn't want to agree with what Waggoner taught says. It's just a cop-out. She might as well not have endorsed his view of the covenants at all if this type of reasoning is used. It comes to less than nothing. "I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."
You took issue with Waggoner's definition of covenant. It should be obvious that Waggoner were wrong on this point, his teaching on the Covenants couldn't possibly be correct. His whole argument follows from this definition. In the Glad Tidings he wrote:
quote:
That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything.
This is Waggoner's teaching in a nutshell. It is, as Ellen G. White wrote, as "clear as sunlight." You may choose to disagree with it, if you wish, but it is disingenuous to adduce this teaching as proof the Ellen G. White didn't agree with all of Waggoner's ideas on righteousness by faith when she specifically said that it was "truth" and that if his position was the same as hers, then it was "truth." Surely if she thought his ideas were different, she could have come up with a better word than "truth" to describe it.
By the way, she uses the same language for covenant, i.e. "promise", in her writings as well. For example, she refers to the Ten Commandments as Ten Promises. She says all of God's commandments are promises, which eloquently summarizes Waggoner's view.
R: 4- The point on which Ellen White agreed with Waggoner in his presentation of the subject of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis conference was “the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law” (1888 164.3). But that there were points of divergence is also clear, for she said still before the close of the conference:
“Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman.” {1888 164.1}
T: As I pointed out, she disagreed on Waggoner's idea that Christ could not sin because He had perfect faith. This idea is present in a January 1889 Signs of the Times article, which was one of several which ran presenting the lectures Waggoner presenting at the 1888 GC. Ellen White corrected Waggoner, and he retracted the idea from the book "Christ Our Righteousness" (later republished under the name "Christ and His Righteousness" to avoid confusion with A. G. Daniel's book with the same name). This is the only item I am aware of that she ever corrected of Waggoner's in the ten years or so that she endorsed his message.
R: What she said some three months later:
“I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it. We want the truth as it is in Jesus.”{1888 565.2}
T: The same thing is true about her. She explicitly denied she was infallible. She wrote that many would look for excuses not to accept the light that God was bringing through them. She wrote that one should not cavil and look for excuses not to accept the light they were bringing, but to ask the question, "Is it light from God?" "I say it is!" she wrote.
She didn't just endorse their message once or twice, but over 1,000 times. She called it "the beginning of the latter rain." "Light that was to enlighten the earth with glory." "The message of God to the Laodecean church." "Light which we otherwise would not have had unless God had sent someone else to bring it." She used language to their message which she did not even apply to her own writings.
The idea is not that the writings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones (also W. W. Prescott in 1895, 1896) were superior to hears, but they were "a most precious message" which God "in His great mercy" sent to us. Given that God graciously sent us light, we should take it in, as willingly as Ellen G. White herself did. The influence of Jones and Waggoner's message on Ellen White's writings, including the Desire of Ages, Christ's Object Lessons, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, to name a few, are obvious to anyone acuqainted with Jones and Waggoner's message.
R: So the point is that Waggoner must be judged by Ellen White, and not the other way around.
T: How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them. God gave her a gift, and gave them a gift. He gave light to all of them. We should take hold of all the light God has for us. Not make excuses to reject it.
R: 5 - About Ellen White parroting Waggoner, I don’t consider this to be the case, since “The Glad Tidings” was published two years after “The Desire of Ages”, if I’m not mistaken.
T: The Glad Tidings was not the first Waggoner wrote on the subject.
R: 6-
Old Tom:I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you.
I understand you disagree (correct me if I’m wrong) that God can send water, fire, or any other external agent to kill people.
T: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13557
06/08/05 03:18 AM
06/08/05 03:18 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, The Word of God is not a book of systematic theology; doctrines are not clearly systematized there, and it took centuries for Christians to have a clearer view of the truths presented there. It took centuries for people to have a clearer view on the Trinity, on the atonement, on justification, and so on, and this clearer view was generally obtained in an effort to counteract erroneous views that arose from time to time. As to the atonement, the view which prevailed in the early church (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine) was that it was the devil who made the cross necessary (God had to pay a ransom to Satan). It seems it was Athanasius and Ambrose who first referred to Christ as having borne that which the sinner deserves to bear, but this view was fully developed only with Anselm and, in its turn, Anselm’s view was adopted and improved by the reformers. I found a good and brief summary of all the views of the atonement here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/ths506a.htmlAs I did this quick search to reply to your post, I verified that Ellen White’s view borrows the phraseology and ideas of all the theories - the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, the governmental theory and the penal-substitution theory. Even though she does not borrow much from the ransom theory, which is erroneous, she does say that Christ had to redeem the dominion that Adam had lost to Satan. It is clear that her position is a mix of all these. quote:
T: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible.
Tom, as I said, “restored the whole race of men to favor with God” refers to salvation and therefore is provisional. This passage makes the subject clearer:
“Those who claim to be descendants of Abraham have attempted to number Israel, as though the gift of eternal life belonged to a select few. They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor, and all are called upon to contribute to God's glory and to the advancement of his kingdom. Individuals and nations will be held responsible for the grace of God given them through Jesus Christ. Christ came eating with publicans and sinners, giving them lessons day by day in his association with them. Leaving the ninety and nine in the fold, he went out into the wilderness after the one lost lamb. He said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ And his lesson to Simon was, To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much. {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 1}
“Human selfishness would make a monopoly of the salvation purchased at so great a cost. But Christ died to offer the gift of eternal life to all, and he sends his messengers that they may present the truth, the gift of God's grace, to all. God cannot display the knowledge of his will and the wonders of his grace unless he has his witnesses among men. It is his plan that those who are partakers of this great salvation through Jesus Christ should be his missionaries, bodies of light throughout the world, living epistles, known and read of all men. Their faith and works should testify that they have not received the grace of God in vain.” {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 2}
quote:
T: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness (or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all.
By the offence of one judgment came upon all man to condemnation, because by transmitting his sinful nature to his posterity, Adam opened the way for all to sin and thus to partake of the same condemnation; on the other hand, through Christ the free gift of God’s grace came upon all men and all can be justified and have life. That not all choose to accept this gift does not invalidate the fact that the gift came upon all.
As the article I referred to you yesterday points out, this was the view of Waggoner himself until 1896, when he made this comment on Romans chapter 5 in an article that appeared in the Signs of the Times:
“The text says that ‘by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.’ Some one may ask, ‘Why are not all made righteous by the obedience of One?’ The reason is that they do not wish to be. If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.” E. J. Waggoner, “The Free Gift,” Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. (In this same article Waggoner also clearly states that we are not under condemnation for Adam's sin, but rather, because “All have sinned, and, therefore, all are in condemnation.”)
quote:
"I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."
No. This idea of Waggoner is not in harmony with what Ellen White says, so that must not be the part she was endorsing. I never said I didn’t agree with him without showing clearly where he disagrees with Ellen White. My posts put what he says and what Ellen White says side by side.
quote:
How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them.
This is simply absurd. Ellen White’s writings were already judged and approved by the Word of God. What she says was given under inspiration, while what Waggoner or any other writer says was not. Therefore, if what they say contradicts what she says, it is simply wrong.
quote:
T: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?
I say God is not arbitrary in removing the lives of people directly or indirectly, by any means He deems appropriate. In order to save those who can still be saved, he must sometimes remove the incorrigible sinners.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
