Adventists for Tomorrow

Our mission is to provide a free and open medium that will assist individuals in forming accurate, balanced, and thoughtful opinions regarding issues within and without the church.

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Due to a large increase in spam, I have frozen forum registration. If you are new to the site and want to register, e-mail me personally at vandolson@gmail.com. Thank you.

#1 07-21-12 7:20 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Law & Gospel

Question:  Nailed to the Cross"-Galations 3:28. 

Exactly what was "nailed to the cross"? And what authority is there for the average guy like me(1st Generation SDA)to make a final decision while the experts that I am researching online differ so sharply on this issue? And how does all of this relate to Galations 3:28?

Vincent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer:

First off, I think you meant to quote Colossians 2:14, not Galatians 3:

Col. 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Col. 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Col. 2:15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Col. 2:16  Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day —

Col. 2:17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

The death of Christ on the cross terminated the Old Covenant, with all of its many rules, regulations and laws.  Thus, it is Judaism, including both the ceremonial and moral laws, as well as the Priesthood and Temple services- that were metaphorically nailed to the cross.   

The NC church, which is a faith-based paradigm, replaced the OC, law based, religion of Judaism.   The Christian is not under the OC Law of Moses.  However, they have placed themselves under the law of Christ, which are his teachings, including what he teaches about salvation and the Sabbath and all else. 

1Cor. 9:19  For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.

1Cor. 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

1Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

The cross represented a theological sea change for Judaism and the world.  No longer was there going to be a separation between the Jews and the Gentiles.  Now the two groups were to be combined through their faith in Christ, into the NC church, which featured a new priesthood, new Sabbath, and new law for the new Israel of God.   

Col. 3:9  Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,

Col. 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him —

Col. 3:11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Paul also speaks to this point in Ephesians:

Eph. 2:11  Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands —

Eph. 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Eph. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Eph. 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

Eph. 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

The “dividing wall” is Judaism, which has been broken down so that both Jew and Gentile can unite as a “new Christian man.”

In order to understand the Gospel, one must first understand Judaism, as well as the dramatic changes associated with the NC teaching of Christ.  Few today have a clear or correct definition of the Gospel; much less understand the proper relationship of the Moral law to the Gospel.   

This is why all denominations also have a false view of the Sabbath, including the SDA’s, they too are very confused and wrong about the Gospel and thus also the Sabbath.  They do not understand the Two Covenants correctly, which is to say they do not understand the Gospel.   This explains why they have so many false, OC doctrines.

The book of Galatians is a good source to try and understand this 1st century debate about law versus Gospel.  It is a debate, started by Christ, which has never gone away.  Thus, all that wish to follow Christ must wade into this conflict and try to find Gospel truth.  Their eternal salvation depends on it.

This same Gospel debate empowered the Reformation, even as it destroyed the 19th century SDA’s and caused them to move to Takoma Park, Md.  Only when the law and the Gospel are correctly understood, can the genuine Gospel flourish. 

See also:

The Sabbath in Colossians & Hebrews
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=242

Second, I notice your comment about how the experts disagree.  This is very true.  But guess what?  This is the context for the Gospel.   The “experts” in Jesus day differed with each other, even as they disagreed with him.

Jesus’ 1st century Gospel message caused great debate and sharp division within Judaism.  He confounded and embarrassed the experts to such an extent that they killed him.

Thus, the common people had to make a choice about Gospel truth within a very confusing and dishonest religious environment.  Myth, false doctrine, and corruption, were rampant, and thus only a few would be able to understand and embrace the Gospel within such a divided and dishonest atmosphere.

So it is today.  The Gospel is promoted within a dishonest and corrupt atmosphere, even as it creates division, separating those who are honestly looking for truth from the legions who are just pretending.  Only a few will take the trouble to find the genuine Gospel and be saved.

Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;

John 7:43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.

John 9:16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them.

John 10:19  A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words.

Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them,

Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matt. 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Those that search for the Gospel should not complain that there are opposing positions, - that is normative and to be expected.  Rather, be thankful there are so many resources available today to find truth. 

Ask the hard questions and seek for honest, authoritative Gospel answers.  Which is what you have done by asking this question about the law in relation to the Cross.

Luke 11:9  “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Third, the book of Galatians is critical for all to understand.  Why?  Because it features the serious gospel debate that took place within the apostolic church. 

Few people know that the early church had TWO different views of the Gospel, much less that there was a great debate over this critical point.  To understand Galatians is to understand the debate between the law and the Gospel, which is why everyone needs to know what this book teaches.

This Pauline letter defines the difference between a false Gospel and the true, as well as between Catholic and Protestant theology.  It deals with law, and with its’ place in the church.  Thus it is imperative for all to understand correctly.

Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal. 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

What law is referred to in Gal 3: 24?

The SDA’s and Roman Catholics will tell you that it is only the ceremonial laws of the Jews, and not the Moral law.  For how could the Moral law ever be viewed as something that is no longer in charge of our lives?  But this is the wrong answer.  Paul is referring to both the ceremonial and Moral law.

Galatians played a key role in the Reformation.  All that claim to be Protestant must understand this NT book, as well as Luther’s famous Galatian Commentary. 

Those who do not understand this book correctly, will not be able to understand the Gospel or church history correctly.  They will remain like the SDA’s, very confused about the law and the Gospel, unable to understand the teachings of Jesus correctly or learn the proper lessons from church history.

Four;  Let all understand that the SDA denomination self-destructed because of the book of Galatians.  This is what the infamous 1888 debate was all about—a literal debate over the book of Galatians, which is also a debate about the OC law and the NC Gospel.

The SDA’s have never properly understood Galatians, nor do they understand the law and the Gospel correctly.  This is why they have so many false doctrines and why they keep having debates about the Gospel, followed by division and schism.

See:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -grace.htm

Galatians & 1888
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm

SDA Stance on Martin Luther
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … Luther.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ched-T.htm

The SDA’s will never be able to go forward unless they repent for both 1888 and Glacier View. 

There is no excuse for any Protestant person or organization to be so wrong about the law and the Gospel or the book of Galatians.  Had the church correctly embraced the book in 1888, the history of the SDA denomination would have been much different, meaning much better and worthwhile.

The SDA’s should be ashamed of themselves for being so wrong about the law for so long.  Their refusal to be honest and repent, embracing Gospel reform, is stunning to behold.  Their stubborn refusal is self-destructive and fatal.  They act very much like the 1st century Jews.

Today, anyone can get online and find the Gospel facts.  They can study the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and Luther and drill down until they understand this critical debate about the law and the Gospel.  I suggest you do so.

Seek and you shall find…

Conclusion:

The answer to what was nailed to the cross is the Jewish, OC law.  Both the moral and ceremonial laws become obsolete at the cross.  Thus Judaism, with its Priesthood, Temple and many laws, was only a temporary religion, meant to be replaced by the law of Christ and the church. 

While the OC children of Israel lived under law, not so with the NC children of Israel.   Salvation in the NC is not based on law keeping or Jewish culture, but in faith in Christ as our righteousness, our teacher, and our savior. 

NO Christian is under ANY OC law.  Those who think otherwise, like the SDA’s, have fallen from Grace.  Their tithe paying and OC Sabbath keeping are the equivalent of ritual circumcision, which was condemned by Paul in Galatians.

Gal. 5:2  Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

Gal. 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Gal. 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Today, the SDA’s have joined the rest of Laodicea in embracing a false and worthless Gospel.   All of Laodicea has fallen from Grace and stands condemned by Christ in the Pre Advent Judgment of the Laodicean Church.

The law and the Gospel is a large topic, and I hope this answer will help you with your research.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#2 07-23-12 12:55 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Question from an SDA about the OC Law to Sal.  He has done a good job with this, even though he is not fully correct about the Sabbath.

Dear Sal:

Where is Old Covenant Law Taken Away?

You like to use Heb. 8:13 to show the Old Covenant to be obsolete so the Sabbath doesn’t need to be kept. This verse is questionable and not clear. I think it refers to the Old Covenant priesthood only being obsolete not the Old Covenant Law and Sabbath. The Levitical priesthood was replaced with the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Can you offer other verses particularly in Paul showing the Old Covenant Law being taken away?

Thank you in advance,
Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Brother Ed:

First, I would strenuously disagree with you that Hebrews 8:13 is unclear and only refers to the Old Covenant Levitical priesthood. Second, even if it is only referring to the Old Covenant priesthood being obsolete the obsolence of the priesthood renders the Old Covenant Law obsolete. “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also” (Hebrews 7:12 NASB).

Now on to your request for examples from Paul’s writings showing the Old Covenant Law is obsolete or taken away. The very fact that Paul uses the term “old covenant” in reference to the covenant made at Sinai shows it to be obsolete.

“But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart” (2 Corinthians 3:14-15 NASB).

The Old Covenant that has passed away and Moses’ writings are equated in this text. Undoubtedly that includes the Ten Commandments.  “But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones…” (2 Corinthians 3:7 NASB). Yet those Ten Commandments are not included in the “new covenant”.

“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?” (2 Corinthians 3:5-8 NASB).

Paul uses the well-known incident of the fading glory of Moses face (see Exodus 34:29-35) to symbolize the fading away of the Old Covenant.

“But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory” (2 Corinthians 3:7-11 NASB).

Thus the Old Covenant of law fades away and the New Covenant of grace lasts forever. “For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.” 

Also in Galatians Paul teaches that the Old Covenant Law has ended. He tells us that the Old Covenant Law had a beginning. “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void” (3:17 ESV). And it had an end. “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary” (3:19 ESV).

We also read in Hebrews that the first covenant had to be replaced.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (8:7, 8, 13 ESV).

Paul informs the readers of Galatians that the Old Covenant was Israel’s guardian. “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (3:23-24 ESV). In the natural course of events when the guardian’s charge reached maturity the guardian was dismissed, so it is with the Old Covenant Law. “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (3:25 ESV). This fact is so important to a proper understanding of the gospel that Paul reiterates it in 4:1-7.

“I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (ESV).

It’s difficult to not see that for Paul the Old Covenant Law era has ended and the New Covenant era of grace has begun.

In Romans Paul states the exact opposite of what the Jews then and the legalists today believe, i.e. that the Law was given to curb sin.

“The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (5:20-21 NASB).

This implies that the Old Covenant Law has been done away with and replaced by a new covenant as in 2 Corinthians 3. In 6:14 we read the beautiful verse, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (NASB). This implies that the Old Covenant Law is obsolete for Christians because they are under New Covenant grace (cf. Galatians 5:18). Paul states that Christians are dead to and, therefore, released from the Law.

“Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:4-6 NASB).

Again this implies that the Old Covenant Law is obsolete and taken away.

In chapter 14 Paul tells Christians that the Old Covenant food laws are no longer binding (vs. 2-3, 14-15, 17, and 20). Paul refers to Christians who observe these laws as weak. “One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only” (v. 2 NASB). If Paul thought the Old Covenant Law was still in force he would certainly not refer to those who were in obedience to those laws as “weak”. Also in this chapter Paul links the observance of special days with the obsolete food laws thus considering the Sabbath as an Old Covenant law that has lost its validity or necessity.

“One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God” (vs. 5-6 NASB). 

Usually in Romans Paul only implies that the Old Covenant Law is obsolete and taken away. However, in chapter 10 Paul goes beyond implication and states flatly that the Old Covenant Law era has ended with and by Christ. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (v. 4 NASB). Christ brings the Old Covenant to its intended end. This verse could also be translated “For Christ is the goal of the law.” Either translation supports the Old Covenant Law being obsolete and taken away. Once the law reaches its goal it ceases to be operative in the lives of Christians. The goal of the Law was to lead to Christ.

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:23-26 NASB).

Paul is crystal clear that the entrance sign into the Old Covenant is obsolete for God’s New Covenant people.

“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:2-6 NIV; cf. Romans 4:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 6:15).

If the entrance sign into the Old Covenant is obsolete then so is the covenant since there is no longer a way into that covenant. The remembrance sign of the Old Covenant, the 7th day Sabbath, is also obsolete. Paul lumps the Old Covenant remembrance sign with other shadows of Christ.   “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV). Paul considers the Sabbath an option at best (cf. Romans 14:5) and a hindrance at worst (cf. Galatians 4:8-11). Therefore, in Paul’s estimation the Old Covenant Law is not binding on Christians.

In conclusion, the Old Covenant Law including the Ten Commandments is obsolete. I have offered much evidence for this conclusion apart from Hebrews 8:13 the classic text proving the Old Covenant is obsolete. So I pray that you can accept this clear teaching of Scripture. 

God Be With You,
Brother Sal

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -taken.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SDA's have a fatal problem understanding that the OC was temporary.  And that the NC is NOT based on Law, but on faith in Christ.  Until they stop trying to live under law, and repent for their false views of salvation and the Sabbath, they are doomed.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#3 07-28-12 10:01 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Faith and Works Discussion:  Is the Gospel a Process?

Bill, the TSDA said: "But of course you are wrong, Tom. The means of grace were always a part of the salvation process in the context of sanctification in reformation Theology."

Tom replied:  What kind of terminology are you using? What are you saying?

Your terminology gives you away, as well as your refusal to stick to the point. The words, - "means of grace" and "salvation process" - are part of Roman Catholic vocabulary. This is not how the Reformers spoke. The only "means of grace" was faith in the Gospel for the Reformers.

In your desperate attempt to defend Glacier View and Traditional Adventism, you are obviously willing to mischaracterize the Reformation debate, scramble their terminology, and revise Protestant doctrine. 

Are you sure that Traditional Adventism is worth all this trouble? Could it be that the outcome of Glacier View really did embrace Roman Catholic theology and that this is why the church is dying?

So let's put that on the table for all to see? The TSDA's are not being honest or clear about the Reformation. Just as they have dishonestly revised the history of Battle Creek and 1888 to suit their purposes, so too have they revised Reformation history.

There can be no doubt that the Reformers were unanimous that Sanctification is not part of the Gospel definition.  For them, none of our works are salvific.  While "grace" is most assuredly involved with our sanctification, the Gospel, by which we are saved, contains none of our works. This is the point.

In fact, that is what the term "By Faith ALONE" was all about! It meant that JBF was separate and superior to sanctification. It meant that JBF--ALONE- without sanctification, was salvific. This is why the term "alone" had such impact. Luther's new Gospel formula ripped the heart out of the Catholic Church’s view of the Gospel.

Luther essentially took their most sacred theology and broke it over his knee. He uncovered the Pauline Gospel that declared sinners to be righteous and saved only by the doctrine of JBF.  Only by JBF ALONE, that is, without sanctification.

The Roman Catholics disagreed with the Reformers and claimed that Sanctification was part of the "salvation process." This is an old and well-documented dispute and it is too late in the day to misrepresent this famous religious history. So let's not do it. The SDA's need to learn how to be honest with history. The TSDA's especially, are not to be trusted as they have embraced the Gospel of Rome.

There is no question that the Reformers refuted this Roman Catholic teaching that the Gospel was a PROCESS. Luther said "no" to this nonsense that was nothing more than a cover for heretical and legalistic teaching about JBF being only for the PAST, while sanctification was applied to the present. Thus both were a necessary part of the salvation "process."

So when the TSDA's try and defend their theology as being a "process," they have lost the debate and misunderstood the Protestant Gospel. They are self-condemned by their own words.

By declaring salvation to be a "process", they mean that the Gospel includes Sanctification.  This is wrong.  It is also Roman Catholic theology that all the Reformers condemn.

The history of the Reformation is so well documented that no one need be confused by the SDA double-talk. All can know the difference between the Roman Catholic Gospel and that of the Reformer's.

This test about process versus no process, works all the time. And it reveals that the SDA's, and especially the TSDA's, have embraced the wrong Gospel?

The SDA's sent the greatest Protestant theologian they ever had into exile? Why? So they could officially embrace Rome's Gospel and betray the Pioneers.  Thus they embrace a so-called “balanced Gospel,” which means the same as the “process” term. 

There is only one Gospel, and the SDA’s do not embrace this genuine Protestant doctrine.

The Gospel alone is salvific. It alone equates to salvation. There was not another "process" that must be successfully achieved in order to be saved. Hence the Reformers purposefully and correctly declared that the Gospel is not a "process" but rather a historical event by which we are saved through faith because of what has already taken place.  Instantly and fully.

Sanctification results from accepting the Gospel, but it is not part of the Gospel equation by which we are saved. At least not for Protestants. Never for Protestants!

Bill said: ""Faith alone" only applies to justification and the finished work of Christ imputed to all who truly believe. "

Tom said:  The Reformers refused to allow the term "faith" to be connected with sanctification. THAT IS THE POINT!!! It was their position that only faith in the doctrine of Justification could save. They were purposefully against the teachings of Rome, ripping sanctification out of the Gospel equation, and smashing Rome's "process" theology by the authority of the Word

It was Rome that wanted the term "faith" to INCLUDE the long process of sanctification as part of the Gospel.

The Reformer's held their ground against Rome. Luther understood that "they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier."

Only the Gospel of JBF is salvific. Only the doctrine of JBF was the "sole justifier." And because that doctrine contains none of our works, the Reformers claimed that we are saved by faith ALONE, as opposed to works, and ONLY by the doctrine of JBF, as opposed to adding sanctification to the salvific equation as Rome insisted.

There is a large record about Reformation history, so there is no need to speculate or try to dishonestly revise this historic debate in order to defend Glacier View theology. This is not helpful or honest. The Reformer's rejected this idea that salvation was a "process," and that sanctification was salvific. They also rejected Rome's position that JBF was only for the past.

This is all a matter of record. Let all SDA's know the truth of the Reformation. It is time to stop with the false history books and suppression of documents. It is time for SDA's to start telling the truth about church history. All of it. From the apostolic age to the Reformation and then on to 1888 and Glacier View.

It is time to seek for truth and stop wasting time with apologetics.

Bill said: "This was to defend and preserve the idea that Christ alone "merited" our salvation. A legal transaction. In opposition to Rome who claimed that the "means of grace" were also a meritorious cause."

Tom said:  Nonsense. The reformation started because Luther discovered the Gospel!

Luther was trying to work on his personal sanctification. It was a hard "process" that did not bring peace. He was honestly trying to show God that he was obedient to the law and to the teachings of the RCC. But it was not working.

Then he realized to his horror and delight, that the church was teaching grave error about the Gospel. He understood that salvation was not a "process." Nor was it dependant upon anything that we could ever do, but only about what Christ had already done for us.

Here was truth that would shake the world, even though many, especially the SDA's, are clueless about this monumental theological discovery.

In short, Luther realized that the righteousness that God demands of sinners has already been provided in the Gospel. Not through impartation, but only through imputation. Not as a "process", but only as a finished historical fact that is instantly granted to the petitioner.

For Luther, the Righteousness of God no longer had anything to do with a process of sanctification, but rather, it was a completed and accomplished fact of Calvary that guaranteed eternal life through faith.

Let all SDA's listen to the great Gospel Reformer, Martin Luther and learn the Protestant Gospel:

"Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all"

Thus the Reformers were clear that only the doctrine of JBF --ALONE--is what saves us. Not "in part" but "all." Thus the term "by faith ALONE."

For the Protestants, JBF was applied to the past, as well as to the present and the future. This legal transaction of faith was not to be confused with our sanctification, which can NEVER please God or contribute to our salvation. Thus the term "by faith ALONE."

So like I said Bill, it is time to tell the Reformation story correctly. It is time for all SDA's to realize what a horrible mistake Glacier View and Traditional Adventist theology has turned out to be. It is time for all SDA's to see that their leaders have betrayed this cause to Rome, even as they hid thousands of documents in the White Estate that prove Ellen White has no culpability in this fraud.

She will rise up and condemn what has happened. She will demand Gospel Reform and demand that this church run from Rome and bring back the Three Angels messages with haste!

Bill said: "Neither side denied the necessity of obedience. And the reformers showed that any and all biblical responses were the "instrumental" cause, not the meritorious cause."

Tom said: While neither side "denied the necessity of obedience" Rome claimed that obedience, or sanctification, was a part of the Gospel "process." They claimed that our response to God, our obedience, even our love, was a necessary prerequisite for salvation. And when they say "necessary", the RCC meant that our works must reach a certain level of obedience, or there will be no salvation.

The Reformers disagreed. They claimed that our obedience was not a part of the Gospel, nor was our salvation dependant upon how well our sanctification turned out. So there was a huge gulf between the two positions, that to this day has never been, nor should it ever be compromised.  This is one of the fundamentals from the Reformation.

This is one point that separates Protestant from Catholic.

The fact that the SDA's have ludicrously tried to embrace both concepts at once is beside the point. They have made fools of themselves with these silly 1888 and 1980 games about the Gospel. And now they have to face up to what they have done. They exiled the Protestant Gospel at Glacier View and exchanged it for the Roman Catholic brand. And all the time Ellen White was screaming the Gospel truth in the basement of the church, but they hid her words and deceived many generations by fraud.

There is no way to bridge this gap between Luther and Rome. There is no in -between or half-way Gospel as many think. There is only the Roman Catholic and Protestant version. Only one can be correct.

The SDA church has been fooled by Rome. They have rejected the Protestant Gospel and don't know it! (Or at least they won't admit it.) They are so stupid that they think their balanced version of the Gospel is Protestant? But the Apostles and the Reformers would, NEVER approve any doctrine that blends both Justification and Sanctification into a process that limits JBF to the past. NEVER.

And then, to add insult to injury, the SDA’s added a false judgment to their false Gospel to make sure that everyone was focused on sanctification? Just like the Roman Catholics with all their hocus pocus to help with their "process" of sanctification. Paul would be furious. No wonder heaven is hurling insults at the Remnant. No wonder that they are saying that the last church is "wretched" and "blind" and that they had better wake up and get dressed with the proper Gospel clothing.

Woe is Adventism if they do not run from this Roman Catholic Gospel and return to the Protestant Path.

Woe is the Advent Movement if they do not repent for 1888 and 1980.

Bill said: "Your main error that leads to confusion and false doctrine is your rejection of how the word "salvation" is used in the bible in a far more comprehensive way and application to the human response."

Tom said:  You are talking like a Catholic. They too played words games in an effort to silence Luther's Gospel. For example, they tried to convince him that JBF was not "alone", and that it was a mistake to remove sanctification from the Gospel equation.

In fact, the Papists went to 1 Cor 13 where Paul talks about the superiority of love over faith. With brilliance and logic they reasoned that faith has value only if it is done with love. Thus, they claimed that true saving faith is NEVER alone, it must at least have "love" to accompany it.

Thus the papists declared that Paul teaches that faith is not alone as Luther claimed. Love is a necessary component of the Gospel; proving that salvation embraces much more than JBF.

But Luther understood the mind of Paul and refuted Rome's attack.  Not even for "love" would he agree to link sanctification with JBF, as Rome demanded. Rather, the Protestant version of JBF was ALONE, that is, separated from our sanctification and our "love" and all else. It was the opposite of a "process."

Luther's papal opponents rejected that we are justified by faith alone, - in part on the grounds of 1 Co. 13:2, "If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." They also used 1 Co. 13:13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

His opponents stated that "faith alone" (as in JBF) does not justify, but rather that "faith formed by love," justifies. In other words, they claimed that love, and sanctification, must be added to JBF if faith is to justify and save."

But Luther would have none of it. He showed that faith, as in JBF, was the number one priority, and that Paul is not trying to add our "love" or good works to the Gospel.

Luther was clear that:

"The sophists have transgressed in a masterly manner as regards this verse. They have made faith vastly inferior to love because of Paul's assertion that love is greater than faith and greater than hope. As usual, their mad reason blindly seizes upon the literal expression. They hack a piece out of it and the remainder they ignore. Thus they fail to understand Paul's meaning;" Luther's Sermon on Cor 13.

If Luther were alive today, he would curse the SDA Gospel. There would be no question for him that they are in league with Rome, like most others.

JBF is ALONE, separate and distinct from sanctification. This is the only valid and credible Protestant version of the Gospel. Period!

Bill said: "A more mature theology like Wesley comprehends this truth."

Tom said:  Those that are so confused about the Gospel that they can't discern between the Catholic and Protestant versions have no right to use the word "truth."

The TSDA's are the last people on earth that should be bragging about their Gospel insights. They are clueless about the Gospel and so immature that they don't even know the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Gospel.

Wesley was not smarter than Luther or Calvin. In fact, his Gospel was very close to RCC theology, if not over the line. It is doubtful that the Reformers would have approved. So no wonder the SDA's like him. After all, Wesley obsessed about sanctification and the "method" of being holy. Hence the word "Methodist." No wonder the "holiness movement" traces its roots back to Wesley and not to Luther or Calvin.

So this is why the SDA's like Wesley, because he is close to the Roman Catholic process Gospel. Wesley is not the great man that Luther and Calvin were. Not at all.

Bill said: "But even Wesley was not as definitive as EGW and bible Adventism. He presented salvation as, #l, God's work in Christ for us that is imputed at the moment of true bible faith. And #2, The Holy Spirit's work in us in the process of sanctification."

Tom said:  The TSDA's have misunderstood and misquoted Ellen White just as they have the Reformers and all others. To pretend that EGW was an expert on the Gospel, or that she always understood it correctly is absurd. She was a Methodist who fell into a Sabbatarian form of the Roman Catholic process Gospel along with Uriah Smith, and company.

Is this the time period that you think she was correct and definitive? When she was promoting character perfection and the IJ? I bet you love this pre-1888 Ellen White? All the TSDA's love this legalistic period before their world was turned upside down by the Protestant Gospel.

In the years before 1888 it is almost impossible to find EGW clearly and correctly articulating the Protestant Gospel. In fact, it would be much easier to find her supporting the false Roman Catholic version of the Gospel that Uriah Smith promoted from the Review. So she was not thinking like Luther or the Reformers whatsoever before 1888.

But after 1888, it was a very different matter. Why? Because Waggoner had been reading Luther's great commentary on Galatians and printing it in the Signs. And she too had been focused on the Reformation, in Europe, while she was also writing the Great Controversy, a book that covered the history of the Reformation.

So when Waggoner introduced Luther's historic Gospel into the SDA "process" theology, it caused a predictable firestorm. Why? Because the SDA Gospel was Roman Catholic, not Protestant as they had all believed. But the leaders didn't care. They had worked out the various steps of salvation, including obedience to the correct Sabbatarian Law, complete with the unique doctrine called the IJ, to examine everyone's sanctification.

The whole "process" made sense from their worldview until Waggoner came along and informed the leaders that they had the wrong Gospel, even a Roman Catholic one. He caused an uproar that has yet to subside to this very day.

But there could have easily been no uproar. The whole 1888 situation would have been undiscoverable if only Ellen White had joined with Smith and Butler to silence Waggoner. All she had to do was take the easy way out and side with the Review's process theology that all the leaders had embraced. And there would have been no 1888 debate or subsequent debates, much less a large record of all this for posterity.

Waggoner started the Gospel firestorm. But Ellen White fanned the flames. She agreed with Waggoner and became a champion for Luther's Gospel, even as she became the theological enemy of Uriah Smith and the Review.

Too bad that the 20th century church was denied this history? It was Ellen White's finest moment. Too bad the White Estate and the Review decided to play God and revise and falsify history to make her look like the mother of the legalistic TSDA's?

But she repudiated the TSDA's and the Reviews process theology. She stood up and did the right thing and paid the price with exile.

The Takoma Park leaders hid the 1888 story, and this sin meant that the church would just go over the same ground again before they could understand. That ground was Glacier View.

Too bad that SDA's have been led to accept Roman Catholic doctrines by their leaders, even as they lied and hid documents about Ellen White and 1888 that would have prevented this horrific blunder?

No discussion about the Gospel and the Adventist Apocalyptic can avoid the Reformation or 1888. These are critically important histories for this church to understand. And there is no excuse for SDA's to mischaracterize the record of the Reformers or to hide and misrepresent the history of 1888.

The SDA leaders are guilty of doing both. Which is why SDA's are so confused and disoriented about the Protestant Movement and the Gospel. This is why they don't know their own history or what Ellen White really thinks about Uriah Smiths Roman Catholic theology.

So all TSDA's need to stop thinking that Ellen White is on their side. She was at one time, but like a true searcher for truth, she discovered the Reformation and understood the Gospel, and moved on. And this changed everything for SDA's in the 19th century, and so it will again in the 21st.

As for Wesley, he faced a different problem in the church than did Luther. Wesley was focused on the lack of holiness within the Protestant Movement, while the Reformers had a much larger and more difficult battle on their hands. But nonetheless, the fact that sanctification is a "process" is not under dispute. Rather the issues is whether or not our works, or the "process" of sanctification, can ever be viewed as contributing to our salvation.

The Reformer's said "NO"! They were clear and firm on this point. They claimed that while sanctification was most assuredly a process, it does NOT determine our salvation. Why? Because only the doctrine of JBF ALONE is salvific. Only JBF was part of the Gospel that grants eternal life by faith alone in the obedience of Jesus, - our substitute.

For Luther and the Reformer's, sanctification was not a part of the Gospel, but only a result of the Gospel. Sinners are saved because of their faith in the Gospel--alone--without sanctification as a test.

Bill said: "Had he been more articulate, he would have included #3, The human response to the Holy Spirit's work in the heart of man. This, of course, was implied, but not definitively stated."

Tom said:  This changes nothing. Had Wesley been more articulate about Protestant theology, he would have had to back off from his obsession with sanctification. It is done great damage to the church and set the stage for the Protestant church to return to the Gospel of Rome.

Luther was very articulate about Gospel faith and works. Read Luther and learn, not Wesley.

"Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. "

"Truly is it plain, then, that faith alone affords such blessings of God, justification and salvation--immediately and not in process as must be the case with works--and constitutes us children and heirs who voluntarily discharge their duties, not presuming to become godly and worthy by a servile spirit."

"No merit is needed; faith secures all gratuitously--more than anyone can merit. The believer performs his works gratuitously, being already in possession of all the Cain-like saints vainly seek through works and never find--justification and divine inheritance, or grace…"

"Plainly, then, in the sight of God no one by works can accomplish anything toward his salvation. Salvation must be obtained and enjoyed before works are begun. Having salvation, works will follow spontaneously, to the honor of God and to the benefit of our neighbor. They will not be in any wise prompted by fear of punishment or expectation of reward. This is implied in the words: "If a son, then an heir through Christ."

"Now we have made it sufficiently plain that faith alone, faith before any works are done and without them, constitutes us children."

Luther Continues:

"If it makes us children, it makes us heirs; a child is an heir. When the inheritance is already possessed, can it be first secured through works? It is an inconsistent conclusion that the inheritance bequeathed through grace is already possessed, and at the same time is still to be sought and obtained first through works and merits, as if it were not present or not given."

"The inheritance is simply eternal salvation. We have frequently asserted that through baptism and faith the Christian instantaneously possesses all, but does not yet behold it visibly. He possesses it only in faith."

Hear the Gospel.

Bill said: "Adventism especially advocates #3 and shows in a very definitive way the moral imperative of the law in the salvation process of sanctification."

Tom replied:  While the Three Angels Messages are a Protestant based paradigm, the SDA's of the Third Message misunderstood the Gospel and slipped into Roman Catholic theology.

The Battle Creek SDA's made salvation into a huge "process" that focused on sanctification, law keeping, and character development, even as they invented a new and unknown judgment called the IJ to examine our works and see who was fit for heaven.  Their view of the Sabbath was law based on law, not Gospel.  Which is why is mirrors the Pharisees view, and not that of Jesus, the Lord of the Gospel Sabbath.

Traditional Adventism is false and wrong. If the SDA's do not repent for embracing Rome, they will be doomed to hell. If they do not repent for 1888 and Glacier View, others will be called to complete the Protestant Reformation for them. 

Bill the confused TSDA said: "So, Paul says, "By grace are ye (being) saved....." Paul never denies the salvation process in the context of sanctification. Man must respond, or he is not saved as an individual. And "faith" is simply the first cause and even that is not meritorious."

Tom said:  Sorry, but this is Roman Catholic theology. Luther would never agree. In fact, neither would Paul. The Gospel is not the beginning of salvation; rather it is the beginning, middle, and the end. The Gospel is totally and completely salvific without our santification. It contains none of our works. It is not a process, but an accomplished fact to be embraced by FAITH ALONE. Our works are not in the Gospel picture.

Thus Paul and his radical Gospel can say that we are in Christ now. And he is in heaven, safe, sound, and perfect. And so too are we. Theologians call this "realized" eschatology as compared with "consummated." I suggest that you study these two concepts.

Eph. 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

Eph. 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Eph. 2:6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Eph. 2:7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Eph. 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Bill said: "Now the enigma and paradox of truth is that the believer starts with salvation in "faith alone" and continues to move toward salvation as the end product. For the Roman Catholic, they would concur and call it analytical justification for they see human merit in the response."

Tom said:  WRONG! Anyone who embraces the Protestant Gospel has been saved instantly, totally, and eternally so long as they hold this doctrine of faith in Christ. There is no such thing as being "started" on the road to heaven. This is NOT Protestant doctrine whatsoever. It is heresy from a false Gospel.

Although it may not make empirical sense because we are still on this earth, and still sinners, the Reformers correctly taught that we are saved nonetheless, and considered 100% perfect in the sight of God. We are even sitting in heaven with Christ--all by faith. We are heirs of heaven and thus owners now.

Bill said: "As SDA's we see no such merit in the human response, but we do not deny the moral value and the instrumental cause in the human response. The value is "love". So EGW can say, "Only that which is done in love has any value with God." She is not claiming salvational merit in human works."

Tom said:  Uriah Smith taught that we must develop our own "righteousness." This is the same as "merit." So it is not true that the SDA's did not teach that our works had merit. They did teach this. But after 1888, there were many changes made by Ellen White to revise things and try to work out this serious divide that would destroy the Battle Creek Empire.

Bill said: "The fine distinction between truth and error may well be razor sharp, but when this difference is clearly perceived, it is seen to be light years apart."

Tom said: The fine distinction is all about linking sanctification with JBF. The Reformers categorically and eternally rejected this linkage and declared that only JBF was a part of the Gospel. They refuted that works, or our love or anything we do was a part of the Gospel.

Misunderstand this point and nothing Protestant will make sense. Many have done just this and thus they embrace a Roman Catholic Gospel without even knowing it. So the "beast" is smarter than many have thought. Even as the SDA's turn out to be the dumbest people in the world about all this!

Bill said: "Presumption is the ultimate sin and is committed by both the legalist and the antinomian. The legalist claims to merit heaven and the antinomian simply throws out the law and opts for some spirit ethic."

Tom said:  The worst of all sins is to embrace the Roman Catholic Gospel and think it Protestant. Such presumption is fatal if not confessed and forsaken. This is the worst sin, and SDA's are guilty of it.

Bill said: "Man is guided by law and this includes the born again Christian. This is the reformation position and the bible position."

Tom said:  Those that are saved are guided first and last by the Gospel and the “Law of Christ.” But regardless, only the Gospel is salvific, not our sanctification.

Hubb posted some Gospel material for our consideration. It was right on point and should be considered.

Is it Protestant or Roman Catholic? This is the question? Or is it too difficult to tell the difference these days? Perhaps one must become a theological genius in order to understand this "razor sharp" and confusing historical distinction?

Lets start with the title and see if we find any clues that would help us understand what kind of Gospel is being promoted by Hub:

"Christ: A Complete Saviour Part 4/5. Salvation in Three Phases."

Bingo! There it is. Do you see it? Do you know what you see? Would Luther approve? Would Calvin?

The term "salvation in Three Phases" is a dead giveaway that this is Roman Catholic "process" theology. This is what Luther fought against. One need read no further to know that Rome is nearby. Those that are smart will run.

Hub posted: "The three phases of salvation are important to meet the threefold problem of sin. That is, the penalty, the power, and the presence of sin."

Tom said:  While this sounds nice and harmless, it is nonsense. The Gospel has no such phases. We have it all as heirs when we have the Gospel. In Christ, our substitute, we have paid the penalty of sin and have defeated sin, and now we sit safely in heaven. We are saved without phases!

Hubb posted: "All men have been saved from the penalty of their sin. The penalty is death. Jesus tasted "death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9). That is how He "delivered us from so great a death." That is salvation in the past tense. Were it not for this phase of salvation, which is effective for everyone, not one of us would be alive."

Tom said:  See how they take the Roman Catholic position that JBF is only for the PAST? See how they say that JBF is only the beginning of a process? This is Roman Catholic theology.

Those that are Protestant should curse this trash. It is Roman Catholic and wrong. Run from this garbage.

Hubb posted: "Next, in the second phase of salvation, whose who believe the good news about salvation in the past, are being saved from the power of sin, that is temptation and slavery to sin, in the present tense."

Tom said:  Here is the typical Roman Catholic theology that places Sanctification into the salvific process. JBF is only for the past, not the present or the future as in Protestant theology. Here is Battle Creek theology.

But it all came from Rome.

Hubb posted: "Finally, those who endure (i.e., keep the faith, Revelation 14:12), shall be saved from the presence of sin, at the second coming of Christ. So God has saved us. He does save us. And we trust that some day He will save us."

Tom said:  Note that this TSDA has revised one of their heresies as he now claims that only at the Second Coming can one be perfect. That was a smooth move away from blatant perfectionism, but it changes nothing. Whoever wrote this false Gospel was not a Protestant. This is pure Roman Catholic doctrine all dressed up to look legitimate. It is theological fraud and wicked deceit.

The Reformers would curse this trash, and so should any true SDA Protestant today.

Hubb posted: "These are three phases of one salvation, a threefold solution to a threefold problem. Christ is a "complete Saviour" and the author and finisher of our faith (see Hebrews 12:2)!"

Tom said:  Oh yes, thank heaven for the church with their many "solutions" for us to follow. We sin and they provide the cure. We sin and they will guide us into truth and righteousness with multiple phases of salvation that must be administered, followed, and obeyed, and on and on to the Vatican.

Excuse me while I throw up.

This Gospel is poison. It has ruined the SDA church and turned it into a pathetic shadow of Rome. This is unbelievable.

How did the SDA's think that they are going to complete the Protestant Reformation with a Roman Catholic Gospel? How can they represent the Protestant Movement when they have so many fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, including their false Gospel?

It just doesn't make any sense? It is inexplicable? The SDA leaders have betrayed the Pioneers and the Reformers, not to mention the Apostles. They have acted, and continue to act, with reckless abandon and willful fraud.

This church needs Reform.

IT IS TIME FOR THIS CHURCH TO PROTEST ALL THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY INSIDE THE SDA CHURCH.

This is ridiculous for a Protestant based church to be so full of Roman Catholic doctrine. There is no reason for it to be this way any more than there is a good reason why the leaders voted to "Chart A New Course" AWAY from the Three Angels Messages.

The SDA leaders are up to their necks in corruption, fraud and false doctrine. This is unacceptable and unnecessary. There must be wholesale changes in this church, starting with the Review, the source of all this Roman Catholic doctrine about the law and the Gospel.

It is time for SDA's to repudiate Glacier View, repenting of Traditional Adventism, and separating from Rome.  It is time for Gospel Reform in the SDA church.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#4 08-03-12 2:01 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Bill, a Traditional SDA said: "Tom, you limit the word "salvation" to a non-biblical definition and application. Sanctification is just as much salvation as is justification. This is very clear in the bible. "

Tom, a New Covenant Adventist said:  Sorry, but it would appear that you have misunderstood the point of the Gospel debate between the Roman Catholic Church and Luther.

In fact, the Reformers were famous for their great "distinction" between sanctification, (aka obedience to the law), and the Gospel.  This Protestant distinction was outrageously and forever condemned by Rome.

This point was such a major issue that it became embedded within the Confessions of the Reformers, even as the Papal Council of Trent refuted it. I am stunned that any SDA today would try to deceitfully revise such well-known and well-documented church history?

Listen to the Reformers reference this distinction between the law and the Gospel in the Formula of Concord:

"We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction of the Law and of the Gospel, as a most excellently clear light, is to be retained with special diligence in the Church of God, in order that the Word of God, agreeably to the admonition of St. Paul, may be rightly divided. "

(The Formula of Concord, 1576.)

The Reformers were very careful to separate sanctification, which they also called LAW, from the Gospel. It was their position that only Justification by Faith was contained in the doctrine of the Gospel, while Sanctification was expressly and purposefully removed from the salvific equation.

The Roman Catholic Church held the opposite view and INCLUDED sanctification as a major part of the Gospel, even to the extent that it would make us just. Rome taught that without an acceptable level of sanctification, JBF would be of no avail, and the sinner would perish for lack of obedience and for the lack of a personal, "active" righteousness.

Unlike the Reformers, who taught that we are never "just" or righteous within ourselves, Rome taught that because of sanctification, we are eventually made "just" and "righteous" as a normative process of active spiritual growth.

For the RCC, the forgiveness of sin was something that was relegated to a persons PAST. Just like it was with the Battle Creek SDA's.

For Rome, there was no focus on imputed righteousness because the doctrine of sanctification played that role and literally, over time, and with due process, a person actually became "righteous," and then, only then, could one become saved.

Hence this last day perfectionism of the SDA's is actually a Roman Catholic concept, not one from Historic Adventism (the Millerites) or the Reformers. All this focus on sanctification, perfectionism, and imparted righteousness is standard Roman Catholic doctrine.

After the Reformation, this spiritual virus spread like wildfire through the Protestant church. This Roman Catholic doctrine eventually developed into the Methodist/ Pentecostal / holiness movements that are so plentiful today. But Miller specifically rejected this error because he was a Protestant that understood only JBF to be salvific.

So the Adventist Apocalyptic was correct about the Protestant Gospel, just as it was true about the Protestant Hermeneutic, and the eschatological point that the Second Coming was the Day of Judgment.

However, it was the SDA's, of the Third Angels Messages, in both Battle Creek and Takoma Park, that were guilty of abandoning Miller's Protestant Gospel by adopting the Roman Catholic version. Uriah Smith in particular is the one who developed this idea that Sanctification and law keeping, especially to the Sabbath, were necessary for salvation.

Smith is the one who led the church to embrace a Sabbatarian version of Roman Catholic soteriology that has brought untold grief and disaster to this denomination in both the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Gospel of Rome

Roman Catholic theology teaches that "not only are we considered just, but we are truly said to be just, but we are just, each one of us receiving within himself his own justice, according to the measure of the Holy sprit imparts to each one as he wished and according to the disposition and the cooperation of each one."

"And eternal life should therefore be set before those who persevere in good works to the end."

(See: The Church Teaches; Documents of the church in the English Translation, by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, St, Mary's Kansas, 1955, 1973. Condemnation of Errors of Martin Luther, 1520. The Council of Trent, 1545-63, pp 229-262.)

Notice that Rome does not teach legalism in the sense that one must keep the law unaided. No. Rather, just like the SDA's, they teach that only with the help of the Spirit can one attain to such heights of required obedience and righteousness for justification.

"This (divine) strength always proceeds and accompanies and follows the good works of the Justified and without it the good works cannot be at all pleasing to God or meritorious. Since this is true, it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God."

"And they may likewise be regarded as having truly merited the eternal life that they will certainly attain in due time…Thus, it is not personal effort that makes justice our own…for the justice that is said to be ours, (is ours) because it inheres in us, and is likewise God's justice because he has put it in us through the merit of Christ." (Ibid. P.241.)

In other words, according to Rome, the Holy Spirit gives people the power (impartation) to overcome sin and become obedient, righteous, law keepers that merit eternal life because of their good works. Such a Gospel blends both JBF and Sanctification into a PROCESS, which combines faith and works for salvation. Just like the Battle Creek Takoma Park SDA's. Just like Glacier View approved, Traditional Adventism.

This, of course, is why those Gospel Reformers, like Waggoner, Jones, and Ellen White unleashed such a storm in Battle Creek. They were repudiating Uriah Smiths Roman Catholic blend of JBF and Sanctification that had become the basis for salvation in Battle Creek. This trio was correctly acting like the Reformers by condemning Smith’s error about the law and the Gospel and demanding repentance and reform.

The same thing happened a century later when Dr. Ford stood up and reproved the SDA church for embracing Rome and this false Gospel that blended JBF with Sanctification. In fact, this problem had already been correctly highlighted and resolved in the Palmdale accord (1976) and few years before Glacier View (1980).

But the Roman Catholic minded Review repudiated this clear statement about the relationship between the law and the Gospel. And today, few even know anything about Palmdale or the fact that the SDA leaders have chosen to mimic Roman Catholic theology?

So this is how it goes within the J/C paradigm. False, Roman Catholic religion thrives until someone re-discovers the Gospel of Paul. This breakthrough starts a chain reaction by those church members who have been misled and deceived. They PROTEST against what is so false and against the authority of the Word.  (Thus the term Protestants.)

Then all hell breaks loose as those with supposed religious authority and power try to refute and control the Word, even as they try to censor and silence the discussion. Both the false and the true Gospels clash for support, loyalty, and worship.

This explains the Reformation, as well as 1888, and Glacier View. And it also explains what is about to happen within the SDA church once again.

The discovery of the 1888 Gospel will lead to a chain reaction by those members and ex's who have been misled and deceived about SDA theology and the Gospel by their leaders.

A Protest will naturally result and debate over the Gospel, and church authority, and Ellen White, etc., will change the paradigm and allow the Adventist Apocalyptic to free itself of this wicked Roman Catholic style hierarchy that has almost destroyed the Adventist Movement.

Such emancipation from those who are allied with Rome will allow Adventists to return to the Protestant Path of the Pioneers and return to the original, Protestant, version of the Three Angels messages. The one that Miller delivered to the world about the Gospel and the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment. The one without the Roman Catholic based IJ.

SDA’s Refute Gospel

While the Council of Trent refuted Luther's Protestant position about the sufficiency of JBF ALONE. The SDA's proudly did the same thing in both 1888 and 1980. They acted like Roman Catholics.

Rome, like the SDA's, declared that the apostolic Gospel was a PROCESS. They thundered against Luther and cursed him for teaching that the Gospel was an all-sufficient and totally complete gift of grace that required none of our works.

They countered Luther by claiming that no one is saved only by JBF, because without spirit filled works, no one can be justified.

Of course this Roman Catholic theology is exactly what the SDA leaders also said to Waggoner, Jones, Ellen White, and to Dr. Ford in the next century.  This is what SDA’s mean when they talk about a “balanced Gospel.”  They mean both JBF and Santification are blended into one definition of the Gospel, just like the Gospel of Rome.

The Review has been preaching a RC GOSPEL for the vast majority of its long existence. The SDA's, like Rome, have linked JBF with Sanctification and Law keeping, AND DECLARED BOTH PART OF THE GOSPEL. Glacier View made this false Gospel official.

Listen to Rome and Takoma Park speak with one mind:

"But when the Apostle says that man is justified 'through faith' and 'freely', those words must be understood in the sense that the Catholic Church has always continuously held and declared. We may then be said to be 'justified' through faith, IN THE SENSE THAT 'FAITH IS THE BEGINNING OF SALVATION,' the foundation and source of all justification…" (Ibid. p235)

In other words, Rome (and the SDA's) insisted that our Sanctification, aka obedience to the law, was a vital and necessary part of the Gospel.

Luther (Waggoner, Jones, Ellen White, and Ford) categorically rejected that position and claimed that ONLY the doctrine of JBF can be salvific.

Only the righteousness of Christ, imputed to the believer by faith could meet the demands of the law.

But the Catholics said "No!" Just like Uriah Smith said in 1888 and Kenneth Wood in 1980.

Long before the SDA's came on the scene, Rome had already declared that Sanctification, and our own obedience to the moral law, are also required in order for sinners to claim justification and salvation. The SDA's like everyone else, got it from Rome.  Who got it from OC Judaism.

Thus, both Rome and the SDA's have the same Gospel. They both incorrectly think that sanctification is part of the Gospel formula by which we are saved.

Both Rome and the SDA's teach that Sanctification is a requirement that must be met IN ADDITION to JBF. Both the SDA's and Rome have the same Gospel.

This is an impossible position for any Protestant! And the Three Angels Messages are a Protestant Paradigm. It does not function well with a Roman Catholic Gospel deceptively placed as its foundation.  Which helps explain why it is imploding for all to see.

In fact, this false Gospel of Uriah Smiths also comes with his false judgment that was designed to "investigate" how well each one did with the doctrine of SANTIFICATION. That was the point of the IJ. It was a tool to buttress the false Roman Catholic Gospel of Uriah Smith. Thus a false Gospel brings a false judgment with it.

Consequently the entire foundation of the Three Angels messages, the 1st Angels message, is resting upon a counterfeit and illegitimate base that cannot hold up. In fact, it has not held up. Which is why the whole structure has collapsed in a senseless and confusing heap. (With the IJ at the bottom of the pile.)

This is what happens when the SDA's become friends with Rome and mimic her doctrines and embrace her Gospel. Their Protestant Paradigm collapses. And so it has.

Original Sin

Luther was not impressed with Rome's fury. In fact, he further buttressed his Gospel position by claiming that because of original sin, no person could keep the law sufficiently to please God anyway. So what was the point of trying to include Sanctification within the Gospel formula?

But Rome denied this fundamental point and declared that man, with the help of heaven, was able to keep the law, and in fact, must do so in order to reach eternal life.

So here is another point of conflict that separates the Roman Catholic Gospel from the correct Protestant version. Original sin and the nature of Christ. Those SDA's with a RC Gospel also have the RC position on these points as well. Naturally.

What is the correct definition of the Gospel? 

Everyone should know how to define the Gospel.  But few know.  Moreover, even less could explain the difference between the Roman Catholic definition versus the Protestant view. 

Those who expect Eternal Life cannot be so careless or casual.  Only those who seek for truth will find.  The lazy, careless, and dishonest will not find Gospel salvation. 

Listen to the Roman Catholic critics of Luther:

"Moreover, it should not be asserted that absoloution and justification are brought about by this 'faith alone'…since no one can know with the certitude of faith…that he has obtained God's grace."

Hence, "no one, even though he is justified, should consider himself except from keeping the commandments. And no one should say that it is impossible for the just to keep the commandments of God, for that is a rash statement censured with anathema by the Fathers. (ibid p. 236.)

The Papists refuted Luther just like the TSDA's did in both 1888 and Glacier View. Rome said that "justification is not only for the remission of sins, but also  for sanctification, and renovation of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts…"

“It is the doctrine "whereby a man BECOMES just, instead of unjust and a friend instead of an enemy, that he may be an heir in the hope of life everlasting." (Council of Trent. Ibid)

In other words, the Reformation battle over the Gospel was about whether or not Sanctification, or law keeping, was a part of the Justification Process and the definition of the Gospel.

Rome (and the TSDA's) say, "Yes". While Luther, (and Dr. Waggoner, Ellen White, Ford, et al) say "No way!"

ONLY ONE POSITION CAN BE CORRECT! ONLY ONE POSITION CAN BE PROTESTANT.

Luther claimed that Paul's Gospel made all who embraced it 100% righteous in God's eyes, past, present, and future. He denied this PROCESS theology of Rome and declared that sinners can be perfect within an instant, because of their faith. And stay perfect in God's sight so long as they embraced faith in the Gospel and Christ's passive righteousness.

So the Reformers encouraged all to freely accept the Gospel that justified fully, completely, and instantly. They urged all to claim an immediate and certain salvation that did not exist within Roman Catholic theology.  The Protestant Gospel was stunning and revolutionary.  It went on to change the world.

No wonder people ran away from Rome in disgust?

No wonder that sinners, en mass, flocked to hear Luther's "Good News" about an instant and certain salvation that did not require years of guilt and endless toil?  Not even the fear of torture and death could hold the people back from embracing such a merciful and refreshing Gospel.

The Papists opposed this soteriological breakthrough, that for them, was nothing more than cheap grace that threatened their religious monopoly. They were hardly looking for truth in this matter.

So they replied, without study or proper reflection, that no one could be so presumptuous as to get into heaven without first proving their loyalty to God by obedience to the law. Their Gospel required much more than a simple faith to obtain full "justification," rather it also included sanctification, works, even love, as a part of the justification PROCESS.

In short, for the Roman Catholics, the Gospel was a long and uncertain process that included sanctification, and law keeping, as a prerequisite for salvation. Such an Old Covenant Gospel was no real gospel at all. Rather it was a counterfeit Gospel that produced only guilt, cynicism, and corruption. There was no assurance of salvation whatsoever, and God was seen as a merciless tyrant.

No wonder this awful Gospel of Rome has resulted in the development of a depraved and immoral priesthood that is so unbiblical and so corrupt as to defy the norms of the worst heathens. This is the result of centuries of rejecting the Gospel, the authority of the Apostles, and the Protestant hermeneutic. Depravity on a global scale.

The holiest men of the Roman Catholic Church, the priesthood, are the most depraved, sinful and debauched group of men on the face of the earth. Behold the empirical results of the counterfeit Gospel?

So Bill, you and all the TSDA's are going to have to decide whose side you are on?

If you are a Protestant, as you claim, then you must abandon this Roman Catholic doctrine that considers our law keeping a prerequisite for justification and salvation. Not one Reformer would agree with Uriah Smith or the SDA's on this critical point. They would all support Dr. Ford and declare that Traditional Adventist theology is Roman Catholic, not Protestant.

SDA’s Misunderstand the Gospel

The TSDA's have misunderstood the Reformation. They have failed to comprehend the historical debate between these two mutually exclusive Gospel views about the law and the Gospel. They have embraced fundamental RC theology, even as they claimed to be Protestants. But guess what? They were never Protestants, and neither was Uriah Smith on this point.

The Catholic Church said that our sanctification, and good works are part of the Gospel formula. And that our obedience (with the help of heaven) was required as a condition of justification.

The Protestants fiercely disagreed.

They claimed that sanctification, and law keeping, were excluded from the doctrine of the Gospel on the basis of faith. While they never, never, never, removed the law as a standard of behavior, or claimed that sanctification was not a good and necessary doctrine, they nonetheless removed any of our good works as a method to please God and pass the judgment. They declared that sanctification, and obedience to the law, were NOT being properly or honestly taught in relation to JBF.

I suggest that all SDA's examine their personal theology and see if it is Protestant or Roman Catholic? Many will find themselves embracing Roman Catholic Gospel.

All Traditional minded SDA's follow Uriah Smith and therefore, they have condemned themselves to think like a Roman Catholic. However, after 1888, Ellen White turned her back to Smith and jumped on the Reformation bandwagon of Waggoner and Jones.  She embraced this Protestant view of the Gospel until her death.  It was the same one that Miller had embraced as well.

Uriah Smith, on the other hand, died a flaming legalist. He died thinking that sanctification was a necessary part of what saves us in the IJ. He was a Sabbatarian Roman Catholic that has done enormous damage to the Advent Cause.

Of course the Takoma Park leaders hid this 1888 Gospel debate. In fact, this history was so deliberately confused that when Glacier View rolled around, few understood the Gospel, or the Three Angels messages, much less 1888 or the Reformation Gospel debate. And thus fraud, deceit, and suppression of the facts allowed the leaders to hide the real issues as well as the real differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology that started the debate in the first place.

But Reformation history repeats itself. Dr. Ford played the role of Luther at his Glacier View trial.  The SDA hierarchy played the role of the Roman Catholic Church and condemned this true, SDA Protestant.  Today, the SDA leaders still think like the hierarchical minded Roman Catholics.   They still want to control everything and everybody, forcing all to obey them.

IMO, I say it is time to expose the SDA leaders as Roman Catholic sympathizers and enemies of the Protestant Reformers and the Adventist Pioneers, including and especially Ellen White.

Why pretend that Paulsen, Johnsson and Goldstein are Protestant when they are not? Why pretend that they are honest men, when they are not? Why pretend they care about the search for truth, or for the members, when they care only for themselves?

I say it is time for another Gospel Reformation to shake the Roman Catholic minded SDA church.

I say it is time to expose the outrageous fraud and the systemic Roman catholic doctrine that has almost destroyed this SDA’s.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#5 08-04-12 10:11 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom said:  So Bill, you, and all the SDA's are very confused about the Reformation and the Gospel. If you claim to be a Protestant, then you are very wrong to think that sanctification is the same as justification when it comes to salvation, or that it is in any way salvific.

This is not a Protestant position whatsoever. All the SDA's need to become clear on the Gospel and decide which one they support. There are only two: The Roman Catholic version and the Protestant. There is no credible hybrid version.

But in order to embrace the Protestant version, it is necessary to first understand and reject Rome's definition of the Gospel.  Such a confession will free the SDA's from their legalistic delusions about the law and allow them to focus on the mission of the SDA church, which is to complete the Protestant Reformation, not repudiate it.

More than that, it will free these law-focused souls from their cultic, Roman Catholic worldview and allow them to see God in a new and better light. The Gospel of Paul and Luther will ease their pain and remove their guilt as they come to realize that God is far more merciful and forgiving then they ever dared hope.

In fact, when Luther realized what Paul was saying about Justification and the law, it freed him from this idea that salvation was a life long PROCESS whereby the sinner's fate depends upon his ability to keep the law (with the power of the Holy Spirit).

Listen to Luther:

"Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction (obedience)."

"I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, 'As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!'"

"Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted."

Luther, like the SDA's, was all caught up in Sanctification and law keeping. He was well aware of the "Decalogue" and was trying his best to live up to its demands. That is what the RCC taught. But it did not satisfy Luther's soul.

He was not comfortable with either the quantity or the quality of his "active righteousness." And then he discovered that the Gospel is not about "our righteousness" (apologies to Uriah Smith), but the righteousness of Christ.

He realized that Paul spoke about the righteousness of another, and THIS righteousness is imputed to us for a complete and eternal salvation. There was no process for salvation. He realized that Rome was lying about the Gospel for self-serving and evil reasons.

Luther refuted Rome's idea that our active righteousness could in any way become part of what justifies. Rather, it was only the "passive righteousness" of God, in Christ, - that saved us, because we have no active part in it.

Thus the Protestant Gospel, as a theological definition, is forever distinct and separate from our sanctification, subordinated to Christ's obedience to the Decalogue, which alone saves us via imputation and NOT impartation.

Listen to Luther again:

"At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, 'In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'"

"There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."

"Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There, a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. "

So Bill, it is very, very WRONG to say that:

"Sanctification is just as much salvation as is justification." This is baseline Roman Catholic theology. The Reformers would never agree with you on this critical point. They gave their lives to fight this false Roman Catholic Gospel.

Who today understands the Reformation? Not many. Not the SDA's! They, like so many other so-called Protestants, have embraced Roman Catholic theology with both hands. No wonder the Word says that ALL would "follow after the beast." The SDA's are not excluded from that prophecy.

Rev. 13:3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast;

No wonder that the true Pre-Advent Judgment, which is the Laodicean Message, requires ALL to repent of this popular, - but false, Roman Catholic Gospel? All have forsaken the Gospel, so all must repent.

Sinners are ONLY saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Only his perfect life of sanctification, CREDITED to our account by faith, is salvific. Thus Paul can say he is our Justification and our Sanctification. Consequently all humanity is denied any bragging rights.

1Cor. 1:30-31 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

It is time for SDA's to confess their adulterous affair with Rome, and return to the Protestant Path. It is time for the SDA's to declare themselves either Catholic or Protestant. There is no halfway position. At this point, they are flaming Roman Catholics, who are intent on destroying their own Protestant based SDA Movement.

So far they are doing an excellent job! If it were not for Dr. Ford, they might have fully succeeded.

Thank heaven that Dr. Ford had the courage to draw a line in the sand, and PROTEST the false Roman Catholic Gospel that has so infatuated the SDA leaders.

Thank heaven that the truth about 1888 was preserved and discovered so that this PROTESTANT people would know what to do and why.

It is time for all SDA's who understand the Gospel to Protest all this false doctrine and fraud that comes from the Review, the White Estate, and the General Conference.

Bill said: "Man must respond or he is not saved. And the full concept of the response is more than "faith alone". James makes this very clear as well as Paul and other bible writers."

Tom said:  Spoken like a good Roman Catholic. While it is true that "man must respond", that does not mean his good works are salvific, or that Sanctification is a part of the Gospel.

Man's correct response to God is repentance and faith in the Gospel, not faith in the works of the law as a PROCESS for justification.

Only faith in the PROTESTANT Gospel is salvific. There is no salvation associated with any of our good works or law keeping. How hard is this for a Protestant to understand?

Unless and until the SDA's can comprehend Jesus, Paul, and Luther, and understand the difference between the law and the Gospel, there will be no hope for this Catholic minded group.

Listen to Luther on this point.

"This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines." (Martin Luther, Sermon On Galatians, 1532).

In other words, Luther is saying that unless one can distinguish and separate JBF from Sanctification and law keeping, the Gospel will become useless confusion.

Listen to Spurgeon make this same point:

"There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers." (C.H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, 1855).

The SDA's are in the "mixed" category. Thus they "understand not the truth and are false teachers."

Bill said: "Luther sometimes made faith and works one and the same thing. Thus he was not always as clear as he should have been or could have been in explaining the Christian faith."

Tom said:  Ha! What a joke. Martin Luther not clear on the Gospel? Hardly. How about all the SDA's not being "clear" on the Gospel? How about Ellen White not being as clear as she could be?

Luther is a Gospel giant and anyone who would dare accuse him of not correctly or clearly articulating the Gospel needs medical attention.

How strange that you would defend Uriah Smith's false Gospel, that is so obviously Roman Catholic, and yet slam Luther? The SDA's are a desperate bunch. They think, like the Roman Catholics, that the Gospel is a tool to help them obey the law and pass the judgment. They have made Christ into another Moses, and turned the Gospel into another set of rules to be obeyed.

Here is some more Luther for you to ponder.

"The other word of God is not Law or commandment, nor does it require anything of us; but after the first Word, that of the Law, has done this work and distressful misery and poverty have been produced in the heart, God comes and offers his lovely, living Word, and promises, pledges, and obligates himself to give grace and help, that we may get out of this misery and that all sins not only be forgiven but also blotted out and that love and delight to fulfill the law may be given besides. "

"See, this divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of his is properly called Gospel. And I say again and yet again that you should never understand Gospel to mean anything but the divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of sin. For this is why hitherto St. Paul's epistles were not understood and cannot be understood by our adversaries even now; they do not know what Law and Gospel really are. "

"For they consider Christ a Legislator and the Gospel nothing but the teaching of new laws. This is nothing else but locking up the gospel and obscuring everything. For "Gospel" is Greek and means "good news," because in it is proclaimed the saving doctrine of life, of the divine promise, and grace and the forgiveness of sins are offered. Therefore works do not belong to the gospel; for it is not laws but faith alone, because it is nothing whatever but the promise and offer of divine grace. "

"He, then, who believes the Gospel receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been satisfied."

In other words, Dr. Ford presented the correct Protestant Gospel at Glacier View. While his opponents embraced Rome.

Bill said: "Melancthon was a far better analytical theologian than Luther. And those who followed were even more definitive in explaining faith and works."

Tom replied:  Ha! Is this another joke? Do you actually think that Melancthon placed sanctification within the theological definition of the Gospel? That is nonsense and you know it. Rather, it was the Roman Catholics who embraced this doctrine and made it official at the Council of Trent.

I suggest that the SDA's make a choice between the Protestant and Catholic Gospels. You can only embrace one, as they are mutually exclusive. There is no middle ground. There is no "balanced" Gospel as the SDA's think. The real Gospel is radical and powerful. It is one sided and makes no sense to the natural man. But it is what it is.

This attempt by the SDA's leaders to create a hybrid Sabbatarian sect that claims to be Protestant, but follows a Roman Catholic Gospel and a Roman Catholic organization structure, and hermeneutic, is absurd and patiently false. It is a theological joke, as well as rank apostasy.

Those SDA's that think like Catholics and are organized like Catholics are Catholics. Seventh day Catholics. So be proud and let the world know that SDA's are not Protestant, but essentially Catholic. Who knew?

So either embrace Roman Catholic doctrine proudly and with passion, or run from it in horror. But stop with the lukewarm nonsense that has one foot in and one foot out. Get hot or cold, but stop with these silly games about such import things.

The PROTESTANT Gospel is the foundation of the Adventist Apocalyptic, not the IJ as Goldstein claims. Unless this doctrine, the Gospel, is correctly and properly understood, this PROTESTANT BASED Adventist Movement will die. It is dying now for want of the true Gospel and the true Judgment that is connected to it.

Unless and until 1888 and Glacier View are repudiated, and Dr. Ford, the great Protestant scholar and orator, who studied under FF Bruce, another great Protestant scholar, is welcomed back into the SDA church with an apology, this Sabbatarian Roman Catholic minded cult is doomed as the Laodicean Message claims.

Bill said: "All good scholars recognize that Luther's theology tended toward antinomianism. He did not always explain precisely what he meant. And Luther was in kindergarten compared to Wesley and EGW. So were Jones and Waggoner who apostatized and left the faith because they refused to "listen and learn"."

Tom said:  This is trash talk from the confused. Luther and Calvin stand head and shoulders over Wesley and Ellen White. In fact, Ellen White is not in the same league with Luther or Calvin. She is a child by comparison. She was not a scholar, nor a theologian in any sense of the term. Nor did she shake the world and change the course of world history.

So she doesn't even qualify to get in the race. She is a minor league player who had some talent, but she is not going to the theological hall of fame.

Bill, the SDA's said: "Now it is true that the human language is woefully inadequate in explaining the full implications of faith and works and all the ramifications of God's government. But the bible is given to us in an adequate way that if we are listening to the Holy Spirit with a willing heart and mind, we can comprehend what is needful for us to know."

Tom said:  This is nonsense. The Word is NOT inadequate, and neither is the language that is associated with it. After 2000 years of study, debate, and research, there should be absolutely no question about the definition of the NT, or Protestant Gospel.

There is a mountain of information about this war between faith and works and there is absolutely no reason why any SDA should be confused about such baseline, historic, and fundamental Protestant theology.

Bill said: "We can even say that in the final judgment we are justified by works alone. And then say...."But works are never alone."

Tom said:  This is utter nonsense and blasphemy. You have condemned yourself with your own words. You have endorsed Roman Catholic theology and proven to all that you are not a Protestant.

No Protestant can talk this way. You have exposed yourself as a traitor to the Advent Cause and a Roman Catholic who is masquerading as a Protestant. The SDA’s have ruined this church with this legalistic garbage that would infuriate the Apostles and Reformers, and Pioneers. They would curse all those who fight the Gospel and denounce the SDA’s in the harshest terms.

The SDA’s do not understand the Protestant Gospel if they think, "we are justified by our works." They are all Roman Catholic's in Protestant drag.

It is time for all SDA's to send these fools back to Rome. They have no right to be associated with this Protestant paradigm. They have caused enough damage and chaos. All false Roman Catholic doctrine should be removed from the SDA church

Bill said: "This enigma is comprehendible to a mature Christian who sees and acknowledges the sovereignty of God and the sovereignty of man working in a perfect unity."

Tom said:  So it is the "mature Christian" who can understand that "our works will justify us in the Judgment?" Wow! This is unbelievable to hear from one who claims to be Protestant.

The SDA’s must be serious about following the Catholics. They must think that the SDA church became "mature" at Glacier View? Because this is the place where they officially endorsed a Roman Catholic Gospel to go along with their Roman Catholic organizational system and their Roman Catholic hermeneutic.

So Glacier View was the place when the SDA church became "mature and repudiated the Protestant Gospel? How interesting?

However, for those SDA's who do not want to follow Rome, and for those who still claim to be Protestant, there must be a better way. The Roman Catholic Gospel of the SDA’s has ruined this once Protestant church. We can all see this today. So what is there to do?

It is time for another Protestant Reformation. It is time for this church to return to the original Protestant version of the Three Angels Messages. The one with Luther's Gospel that is combined with Millers doctrine about Second Coming as the Day of Judgment.

Here are the soteriological and eschatological foundations of the Adventist Movement. Here are the twin Pillars of the 1st Angels message. Note that the IJ, and the Roman Catholic Gospel that accompanies it, is absent from the genuine paradigm.

Only through a "grass roots" Gospel Reformation can this denomination be saved so that it can complete its Protestant mission. Only by dismantling the corrupt and stupid SDA hierarchy can this Movement come alive and prosper.

We are only saved by faith because of the death and righteousness of Christ, our substitute. He is our Justification and Sanctification. We are only saved by his obedience to the law and by his relationship to God and by his love and by his good works. Our sanctification is not salvific, nor is our love or our good works. And thus the IJ is exposed as Gospel fraud in addition to Adventist fraud.

Bill said: "Your attack on EGW and the tithing system is evidence of your superficial comprehension of faith and works and the parallel and contrast between old and new covenant."

Tom said:  I do not attack Ellen White. I attack the General Conference, the Review, and the White Estate for hiding more than 10,000 pages of rare documents in the basement of the Takoma Park headquarters.

I am attacking this church for lying to everyone and hiding the truth about Ellen White and 1888 for all these years.

I attack the leaders and embarrass then for their many false doctrines and their fraudulent church history and for their hatred towards the Gospel.

As for tithing? Anyone who thinks that this Old Covenant priestly doctrine has the sanction of the Apostles or the Reformers is in for a shock. Anyone who thinks that the development of a tithe based hierarchical system would ever be embraced by the Apostles or the Reformers fails to understand the NT or Protestant theology.

If the SDA church is going to embrace the Protestant Gospel, as well as the Protestant Hermeneutic of the Bible alone, then a new organizational system must be put in place. The present Roman Catholic system is totally against the Gospel and therefore it will naturally become corrupt and evil. Even growing so arrogant and powerful as to make war on the Gospel and trample it underfoot.

That is what happens when so much money and authority is placed in the hands of an unbiblical and false religious system. The leaders go corrupt quickly.

The SDA church is out of control, just like the Medieval Catholic church that the Reformers attacked. Just like the 1st century hierarchical Jews that attacked the Gospel and tried to destroy the church.

Not only did the Reformers attack the false Gospel of the Roman Catholic Church, they also attacked the Old Covenant organizational structure itself and correctly declared it to be of the devil.

If the SDA church is to survive as a Protestant entity in the 21st century, then it must be re-organized into a different configuration. One that gives the local congregation control and let's them manage their own resources, even owning their own community-based church.

The local church is not established in order to serve the leaders at their luxurious headquarters or to support multiple layers of hierarchal control. Rather, the leaders are to be servants, not masters, of the local church. They are to facilitate the preaching of the Protestant Gospel, not the false one from the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, the SDA leaders serve only themselves. The whole hierarchical system is set up for the benefit of the leaders. The present structure is of no benefit to the members who have to pay the bills and endure the gross mismanagement of these foolish religious pretenders. Nor does the preaching of a false and stupid Gospel that has already been claimed by the Roman Catholics benefit the world

In short, the entire tithe based structure is against the Gospel and against the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. (Which is why the Protestant Gospel has been exiled from the SDA church.)

So here is the real reason why both Rome and the SDA's hate the Gospel. The true Gospel takes away their unbiblical power and religious authority. It demands that church leaders become caring servants of the flock, rather than voracious wolves that want to control, manipulate, and prosper from the sheep.

The Protestant Gospel dooms the SDA hierarchy and shows that it is evil and Roman Catholic at heart. This is why the SDA leaders hate the Gospel and refuse to acknowledge their errors. They have become like the Roman Catholic Church. They claim power and authority that only God and the Apostles can claim. They have placed themselves above the Word and against Christ, as well as against the apostles, Reformers and the Adventist Pioneers. They are drunk with power and false doctrine, just like the beast that they follow.

This is why there must be Adventist Reform.

Bill said: "It will always lead to heresy when a person will claim the New Testament must interpret the old and never visa-versa. This is a false philosophy that can only lead to false conclusions. The two testaments compliment and interpret each other just as law and gospel work together in parallel and contrast."

Tom said:  Once again, you are WRONG. Only the Apostles have authority to interpret any doctrine. This is called the Protestant hermeneutic. No one else has any such authority. Not Luther, Wesley, or Ellen White. Thus, only the NT can interpret the OT. This is standard Protestant theology. Which is why the Roman Catholic minded SDA leaders hate it.

I suggest that all SDA's study the Reformation like never before. In fact, this is how Robert Brinsmead discovered that the SDA Gospel of perfection, that he championed, was Roman Catholic. And it was this surprising discovery that led him to reject the IJ and embrace the correct Protestant Gospel from Dr. Ford.

Today, the SDA church has strayed far from the Protestant Path. It is clear that they have rejected the Protestant Hermeneutic and rebelled against the doctrinal authority of Christ and the Apostles. They are guilty of embracing a false Roman Catholic Gospel as well as setting up a Roman Catholic style hierarchical system to enforce their false and deceitful doctrines.

No wonder the SDA's have failed spectacularly to complete the Reformation and prepare the church for the final events?

No wonder they are speechless in the face of such horrible and irrefutable charges of religious fraud and historical deception? They are silent because they are guilty as charged!

Let there be no doubt that the SDA denomination today is "wretched, and miserable and poor and blind and naked." Their only hope is to repent for what they have done and to repudiate 1888, Glacier View, and the Roman Catholic theology that it sanctioned.

Let all SDA's pay attention to the Laodicean Message and PROTEST all this Roman Catholic theology and gross incompetence that is destroying the Adventist Movement.

Tom Norris, who thinks its time for a Protestant Reformation within the SDA church

Offline

#6 08-15-12 10:14 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Here is more discussion about the Gospel:  See how the IJ relates to the Gospel.  See how Clifford Goldstein, an outspoken SDA apologist, try and discuss the Gospel with Tom Norris.   See how the IJ is against the Gospel.

Cliff Goldstein, an apologist for Traditional Adventism posted:  First time I have been in here in a while.

I don't know, but maybe I am missing something here, Tom, but for years now I have been writing and preaching very openly on justification by faith alone, pretty much as you seem to be expressing it here. No one stops me; it's never edited out, or taken away. I try to put it in the quarterly when and where appropriate; no one on my committee stops it.

Sure, that the church has struggled with legalism and still does in places . . . well, that was a problem in the apostolic church as well. But this idea that, today, the church is somehow hostile to the gospel. I don't know, but I'm in my 20th year there and not one time has anyone in leadership tried to stop me from preaching a reformation-type justification by faith alone.

Most, I think, appreciate hearing it

Bill, a Traditional minded SDA who supports the IJ said: "Tom, it is you and Dr. Ford who do not understand Protestantism in the context of law and gospel. You guys would abandon the law and deny its biblical function as the only evidence of true bible faith and deny the IJ."

Tom replied:  Both Ford and Norris are Sabbatarian. So how can you say that we have "abandoned the law"? Sorry but that is a rash and nonsensical charge that makes no sense. Maybe that might apply against some others, like the anti-Sabbatarian crowd like Ratzlaff and Frederick's, but it is complete nonsense to say this about Dr. Ford or Tom Norris.

As for the IJ, you are wrong to assume that it is associated with "true bible faith." To make such a claim, it is necessary to find the apostles teaching such a doctrine. But there is no such doctrine as the IJ in the entire NT. This is an empirical fact that cannot be refuted.

Thus there can be no credible faith in something that does not exist in the NT? Those that are PROTESTANT must base all doctrine on the clear and written teachings of the Apostles. How hard is this for SDA's to comprehend?

This is how they promoted the unpopular doctrines about the Second Coming and the Sabbath. Have they forgotten the Protestant hermeneutic? But what else can the TSDA's say at this point? All they know is falsehood and confusion. They are Roman Catholic more than Protestant.

Bill said: The issue with Rome was concerning the issue of merit in sanctification. But you and Dr. Ford and other antinomian apostate Protestants want to deny the bible function of the law."

Tom said:  The "biblical function of the law" IS NOT TO SAVE. You do not know what you are talking about. Law does not save. How can you not know this Protestant fact?

The issue for the Reformers was the definition of the Gospel versus the Law. This was their major point, as well as refuting the hierarchical authority of the church over the Word.

The Reformers understood what the SDA's do not; namely that any attempt to place sanctification within the Gospel definition was heresy and the rankest of false doctrine.

The Reformers understood that only the Word has doctrinal authority, and by that they meant that only the NT Apostles have the right to define doctrine.

The Reformers understood that only the Gospel is of any use at behavior modification and creating genuine good works.

The SDA's are seemingly clueless to these points and many others.

Bill said: "When it comes to sanctification, salvation is certainly a process. And as I said, you have limited the word salvation to a non-biblical application."

Tom replied:  Yes, our sanctification is a PROCESS. I agree. And it is never complete here on this earth, which is also true. But we are not trying to define sanctification; we are trying to understand JBF and how we are saved. We are trying to define the Gospel.

THE GOSPLE IS NOT A PROCESS. The Gospel does NOT CONTAIN OUR WORKS or our sanctification. The Gospel contains our JBF, but NOT our sanctification. This is the fine theological point that must be understood by all.

The Reformers were not against the Law or sanctification whatsoever. Rather, they were against placing Sanctification directly into the Gospel formula and tying the outcome of personal salvation to how well one obeyed the law. Thus they would have been horrified at Uriah Smiths IJ along with his declared loyalty to Roman Catholic baseline soteriology.

I suggest that TSDA's read the books of Romans and Galatians as well as Luther and Calvin's commentaries on these great Pauline works that define the Protestant Movement.

These two books were very effectively used to stop this false Roman Catholic Gospel and change the world. It was called the Protestant Reformation. Too bad that SDA's have so little idea about what this Movement was all about? Too bad that SDA's do not understand the Gospel of Paul.

Bill said: "True historic Protestantism has always defended the law by way of the third use of the law in their definition of law and gospel."

Tom said:  The issue is the Gospel! True Protestantism has always maintained that only JBF is salvific. The Reformers were unanimous in declaring that Sanctification is excluded from the Gospel, which alone is salvific.

All Traditional minded SDA's need to accept this fact.

Bill said: "The moral imperative of the law has not been negated by the gospel as you and Dr. Ford would teach. And your attack on EGW and the IJ simply shows your non-Protestant doctrine."

Tom said:  Neither Dr. Ford nor Tom Norris are trying to remove the law or the Sabbath. This is an absurd charge without foundation. While the law is not a method to reach heaven, it is still the standard for all conduct. Which is why Dr. Ford and Tom Norris are Sabbatarian.

As for any "attack" on EGW, there was been none from Dr. Ford or me? But we both rip the IJ to shreds in our sleep because it is such a ludicrous and legalistic doctrine that wars against the Gospel and the authority of the Apostles.

And besides, Ellen White never said all the things about the IJ that are commonly attributed to her. She never said 90% of what people think she said about the IJ. So she is not at all as invested in this dubious doctrine as the leaders. It was Uriah Smith that based his entire theological life on the IJ. Ellen White made no such blunder. None of the Pioneers did.

So Bill, if you refute my assessment of the Reformation, I suggest that you go to Luther and Calvin directly and make your case for all to see. Stop saying that they think this way and that way. Bring us Luther saying that the law is salvific. Bring us the words of the Reformers saying what the SDA's say about the law and the Gospel.

But you don't bring their words because they do not think like the SDA's. Nor do they support TSDA theology.

Bill said: "You and Dr. Ford are both novices concerning the issues of the reformation or neither of you would have attacked bible Adventism and the IJ. No true believer thinks they can merit heaven and no viable SDA thinks the IJ is for this purpose."

Tom said:  Ha! What a joke? While I may be a novice, Dr. Ford is anything but. He has spent his life studying theology and it is nonsense for you to pretend otherwise.

And guess what? Many SDA's think that their works have merit. In fact, this is what Uriah Smith taught in Battle Creek. Just because they avoided the term "merit" and did not include either "saints" or "sacraments" does not change this point or make error truth.

The fact of the matter is that the Battle Creek SDA's became hardcore legalists who taught that if a person wanted to be saved they must obtain both JBF for PAST sins, as well as form a righteous character.

While Smith did not mind Waggoner referring to JBF and the righteousness of Christ to deal with our PAST SINS, he repudiated his point that this "much vaunted" righteousness covered more than that. In other words, Smith maintained, under pressure from Waggoner, that the doctrine of sanctification was also part of the Gospel formula. He never gave in on this critical point. And neither has Takoma Park or Silver Spring.   THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

So here is the context of the great 1888 debate. It was essentially a miniature replay of the Reformation, a battle over JBF and its relationship to Sanctification and good works. Except the ending was different. The young reformers, and the Pioneer who aided their rebellion, (Ellen White) were thrown to the wolves and the story covered up and dishonestly revised by the modern church leaders.

Let there be no mistake about what happened in either Battle Creek or Takoma Park. Smith and all the others taught that our sanctification must be judged and approved by heaven in order for anyone to be saved. This was what the IJ was all about. It was a logical attempt to blend this false Gospel from Rome with the Adventist Apocalyptic. If you were not good enough, you could not get into heaven, JBF was not enough. You must also have good works and pass the IJ.

This is why Smith referred to our sanctification as "Our Righteousness." And Ellen White the Protestant, who had just returned from a tour of the Reformation in Europe, went ballistic. She knew this kind of talk and theology was heresy of the worst kind. And that is why she went to war against Uriah Smiths Roman Catholic Gospel.

But she lost that war. So too did the other side as Adventism collapsed in Battle Creek and was transplanted to Takoma Park in crisis mode.

But once in Takoma Park, the leaders followed the familiar theology of Uriah Smith, not the "new light" about the Protestant Gospel that Waggoner and Ellen White promoted in 1888. And this error turned the church into a bunch of law obsessed fanatics like those who lived in pre 1888 Battle Creek.   The Takoma Park SDA's repeated the mistakes of Battle Creek.  Even the part where they repudiated Ellen White. 

As the legalism grew in Takoma Park, it led to a backlash from the evangelical minded as a minority fought back with QOD (Questions On Doctrine). Dr. Ford spoke out about the true Gospel and showed that the IJ was incompatible with the Gospel and not historically or theologically valid.  The cycle of debate and hierarchal mis-behavior, followed by schism and then the removal of the Three Angels messages is what happened 100 years ago in Battle Creek.

The mistake about the definition of the Gospel and the meaning of the Three Angels Messages was repeated by the SDA's in Takoma Park. Thus, all 20th century SDA's were raised to think that JBF and Christ's righteousness are not sufficient for salvation.

JBF, like in the Roman Catholic version, is the "beginning" of the salvation "process" that has COMBINED Sanctification as a major part of the salvific equation. And all SDA's were taught by the Review to believe that their sanctification, or their works or their character had to be judged in the IJ to see if they were good enough and acceptable so that they could be saved. This is what was taught in both Battle Creek and Takoma Park.

This is Roman Catholic Theology! This IS Roman Catholic theology. No doubt about it. This is how it is defined on this point.

The fact of the matter is that the Battle Creek SDA's had hardcore Roman Catholic Theology. So too did the Takoma Park SDA's. Too bad that both 1888 and 1980 were victories for Rome and crushing defeats for the Protestants.

Bill said: "But all true believers know the law is a salvational issue and whether we obey it or not will determine our eternal destiny."

Tom replied:  There you go again claiming that the law saves us! No doubt it is true that all Catholics, and many so called Protestants as well, think their salvation depends on their obedience to the law, but no serious and educated Protestant should ever think this way.

So nothing has changed for the SDA's. They do not understand the Reformation. Rather, they still think that their obedience to the law, with the help of the Spirit of course, is a part of the Gospel. For them, Sanctification is salvific and has merit. Welcome to Rome. Enjoy your stay.

Bob the Protestant said: "The value of good works in the salvation process is (that) it shows fruit. It shows that the person has been truly converted by grace and faith alone apart from works."

Tom said:  Correct. The human race was created for good works. The fall made this problematic. The Gospel restores man to God and thus allows good works to once again result from that salvific union.

Bob said: "If you say we are judged FOR salvation by our works rather than judged by works to show salvation by grace through faith alone was REAL, then THAT IS MERIT AND THAT IS LEGALISM."

Tom said:  Of course it is. Luther would laugh at the SDA's just before he cursed them to hell for their double-talk about the law and the Gospel. I don't know why the SDA's even try to pretend that they understand and follow the Reformers version of the Gospel. They are not even close.

Yet they think they are so smart and have all the answers and all the truth? No wonder Heaven called them "blind" and "wretched." Because their theology stinks to heaven on high. It actually smells pretty bad down here on earth as well.

Hubb: "When my wife and I were in London for the winter of 1952-3 we would occasionally visit an Anglican church on Sunday. I picked up their prayer book one day and found the Apostles Creed. They naturally emphasized faith and grace, but also strongly supported keeping the LAW for Christians. Actually I was surprised."

Tom said:  No doubt you were surprised because the SDA's have not correctly taught Reformation history in their schools. I know this for a fact because I went to SDA schools, even to study theology.

It was not until the RBF debates of the 1970's that the truth about the Reformation became evident to all. This is why many left the church after 1980. They realized that the SDA's were in direct conflict with the Reformation Gospel. Thus, the vast majority of those who were studying for the SDA ministry walked away from this Roman Catholic confusion that engulfed the SDA church.

So no wonder you were surprised?

In fact, the spin on 1888 was this. Smith and some others wanted to be righteous on their own without God's help. That was called legalism.

But then Waggoner and Jones came along and showed everyone that the way to be righteous is to let Jesus impart to you his righteousness.  Thus you will become righteousness, - not because of your power, but because of the power of the Holy Sprit.

But that was all lies and misdirection. That was not at all what was going on in Battle Creek any more than in Rome during the Reformation.

Rather the 1888 debate was nothing more than on old-fashioned Gospel food fight about the definition of grace. It was the cyclical battle between Protestant and Catholic theology. Which not only did the Catholic side win, but they went on to trash Adventism by ruining the Health Movement, and removing the Three Angels Messages. What else is next, switching over to Sunday?

Any church that follows the Gospel of Rome; and the organizational structure of Rome, and a hermeneutic like Rome--must be a friend of Rome, and not of the Apostles or Reformers.

So yes indeed, all SDA's will be shocked when they understand that they have been misled about the fundamental things about the Gospel and Church history. It is shocking at how bad the SDA leaders have been. No wonder everything Adventist is crumbling?

Hubb said: "When a Christian is born again, he is a new creature. Is being a new creature a matter of faith or works? Maybe it is both. But there is an observable change in the life of the new Christian."

Tom said:  The Reformers would agree that good works FOLLOW justification. But they would NOT agree that these works justify. This is the difference. And it is the difference between hot and cold, up and down, or truth and fiction, life and death. It is a huge theological difference that must be clearly understood.

How hard can this distinction be for SDA's to grasp?

Have they been so brainwashed by their Roman Catholic Gospel that the true version from the Reformation seems strange? No doubt!

This is what happened in 1888. The constant focus on Sanctification had "worn out their souls" trying to manufacture their own righteousness. They were weary and tired of trying to reach this high standard of Sabbatarian obedience. And then, just in time, came the Gospel of Paul and Luther. And everything changed. There was Reformation within the SDA church for a short time. And all the problems that comes with such a sea change.

Luther's Gospel, promoted by Waggoner and Jones, stunned the Battle Creek church. The leaders condemned it and tried to stamp it out. It caused Canright, one of their best men, to repudiate the cause and turned the founder's popular wife, Ellen White, into an enemy of the leaders, even as schism and theological confusion were unleashed within the church.

More than that, this unresolved Gospel debate resulted in a backlash against the fundamentals, as few SDA's wanted anything to do with legalistic Adventism.

So the Three Angels messages were attacked and abandoned on every side even as Uriah Smith was humiliated and terminated for his part in the fiasco; Even as the Review went up in smoke and the Battle Creek SDA empire essentially collapsed from within because of 1888.

Why did all this trouble happen? Because the SDA's had misunderstood the Gospel. They thought that Sanctification was salvific. They thought that the Sabbath must be obeyed for salvation. They forgot that they were Protestant. So they exchanged the Gospel of Miller and embraced the Gospel of Rome. Big mistake!

For heaven's sake, I hope the SDA's can get it right this time? They are going under for the third time.

Don't you think it is time for SDA's to stop playing games with the Gospel? Don't you think it is time for us to understand the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Gospels?

Unless this critical distinction is understood, the SDA's are useless to both heaven and earth. They cannot fulfill their self-proclaimed message to complete the Protestant Reformation. They are good for nothing.

Hubb said: "Peter admonishes us to climb the latter of spirituality, believe the promises of God, and to partake of the divine nature. This divine nature includes virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, etc. Sounds like there are observable works involved."

Tom said:  The NT is full of such sanctification passages. No Protestant is saying otherwise. Sanctification, and good works are true and necessary.

Offline

#7 08-16-12 2:21 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Hubb asked: #1. If a person lacks these works; if a person lacks the fruits of the Spirit; etc. What does that say about his faith?"

Tom said:  While the lack of "fruit" or "good works" may indeed indicate that a person lacks faith in the Gospel, it does not follow that "much fruit" or many "good works" are therefore salvific. This is a false formula.

When it comes to works, a person is only saved by faith in the works of Christ as their substitute. Those that make it to heaven are not conscious of their works, nor are they boasting of them. In fact, at the Judgment Day, the saints were surprised to hear that they had done any good works?

Matt. 25:31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

Matt. 25:32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;

Matt. 25:33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

Matt. 25:34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Matt. 25:35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

Matt. 25:36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

Matt. 25:37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

Matt. 25:38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

Matt. 25:39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

However, those who were rejected from heaven, were very conscience of their works. They paraded them out as reasons why they should be saved.

Matt. 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Only those who embrace the Protestant version of the gospel can do good works. But they are not salvific works. By contrast, those who misunderstand the Gospel, and do good works because they think it contributes to their salvation, are banished from heaven because they know not the Gospel. His or her many good and great religious works are considered worthless to heaven while the simplest kindness, like giving a drink of water to someone, receives the applause of heaven.

Mark 9:41 “For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

In other words, those who embrace the Gospel of Paul and Luther have built their salvation on a theological "rock" that cannot be moved. And this foundation does not contain our sanctification, nor does it include any of our works. That is why it is so strong and secure.

Those that think otherwise have a Roman Catholic Gospel and are not Protestant.

Matt. 7:24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Matt. 7:25 “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.

Matt. 7:26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

Matt. 7:27 “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

Matt. 7:28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;

The Apostolic, Protestant Gospel is amazing. The Roman Catholic Gospel, while far, far more popular, and even logical, is a horrible and evil counterfeit. It is time for the SDA's, and then everyone else, to understand the difference.

Hub asked: "#2. Bypassing those who are converted on their death-bed -- can a person be saved if there are no such fruits/works?"

Tom said:  Jesus is the judge, not us. So only he will decide who was a genuine Christian and who was a fraud. But regardless, our faith for salvation rests 100% in the obedience of Christ. Not in our works. So, yes indeed, it is theoretically very possible "that a person can be saved if there is no fruit and works."

In fact, listen to Paul speak to this point.

1Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Cor. 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

1Cor. 3:13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.

1Cor. 3:14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

1Cor. 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

In other words, a person life may have been useless as straw, but nonetheless, he is still saved. Why? Because this man of such little moral and spiritual substance had enough sense and Spirit to hang on to the Gospel. And thus he is saved in spite of his pathetic performance.

But guess what? Heaven is not very picky about our works so long as they were done with faith in the Protestant Gospel? Once a person has embraced the Gospel, Heaven will acknowledge the smallest of things and call it great. Jesus will applaud what seems to be normal and trite behavior.

Matt. 25:34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Matt. 25:35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

Matt. 25:36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

The difference is the motive. The difference is the Gospel.

Hubb said: "You have mentioned Roman Catholic belief several times. The SDA concept of the Gospel is worlds away from the RC belief. "

Tom replied:  I wish this were true. Anyone who thinks that both JBF and Sanctification are part of the Gospel, are Roman Catholic. Period.

This is one of the great litmus tests of theology. Once you strip all else away, the core issues are there for all to see. And it is this specific point that makes one a Roman Catholic or a Protestant for purposes of this discussion. It is a very simple test.

Hubb said: "Are SDAs in the same drawer with the Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and the Christian Scientists? In the eyes of many people this is true. And it probably will always be true. It is "the reproach of Christ" (see Hebrews 11:26)."

Tom replied:  The SDA are in the "same drawer" as the 1st century JEWS who would not accept the Gospel! They are in the same drawer as the 16th century Roman Catholics who also thought that obedience to the law was salvific.

FWIW, they are not in the same category as the totally fraudulent Mormon scam or the other two heretical sects that you mentioned. But so what? All that reject the Protestant Gospel are bound for hell regardless of their category.

Hubb said: "We have to realize that most people know very little about the Bible, and probably very little even of what their church teaches. If a person were knowledgeable, he would immediately recognize the world of difference between SDAs and these other groups."

Tom said:  Today, in the 21st century, we have more knowledge about theology than ever before. There is no excuse for anyone not to know the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Gospels.

This is unbelievable! This is unacceptable.

The only reason why SDA's today are so stupid about all this is because they have been dishonestly hiding their own history and fraudulently revising it to suit the confused Roman Catholic Gospel of the Review. And because of this massive fraud about the Gospel debate of 1888, few SDA's even know what the Gospel is? Or that Ellen White was a Gospel Reformer?

So the SDA's are dumb as dirt about their own church history as well as that of the Protestant Movement because their leaders have taught them so many half-truths and lies for so long.

In fact, I walked out of CUC my senior year because I discovered that the church was deliberately teaching false doctrine about the Reformation Gospel. I refused to be a part of this deceit and walked out the door. If I had wanted to be an actor who just parroted a script, I would have gone to Hollywood, and not studied SDA theology in Takoma Park.

The work of a theologian is not to spout the party line regardless of truth, but to proclaim the Word honestly. No SDA's can do that today. There is too much fraud and false doctrine.

There is no excuse for such religious deception. But then the SDA leaders don't think like Protestant Reformers. They have come to think that the Roman Catholic Gospel is a good thing. So they repudiated the Protestant Gospel, along with the rest of the Three Angels messages. No wonder everything SDA is in confusion?

Hubb said: "Most people probably are "cultural Christians".

Tom said:  No doubt this is true. Heaven refers to them as "lukewarm."

Hubb said: "You would find more people referring to the "golden rule" than to faith in Christ. I proved this once in a Sunday School class in a large Presbyterian church."

Tom said:  Correct again. Almost everyone who claims to be a Christian thinks the Golden Rule is a part of the Gospel. But it is not even close. Anything that involves our good works, such as "do unto others..." is obviously part of our sanctification. It is not part of the Gospel, nor is it the Gospel.

So when people talk this way, and think that they are defining the Gospel, they are way off. Such a Gospel is Roman Catholic, not Protestant.

Hubb said: "Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge is also present in the SDA church. When I teach a SS class, I am sometimes amazed to find that people know so little about the basics of Christianity, or why they are SDAs."

Tom said:  Correct again. But how in the world, with so many schools of higher learning, can this people be so dumb? The leaders had vaults full of EGW information and counsel? How could all that information be so useless? We live in the information age, how can people get so stupid when they are surrounded with so much knowledge and information?

Answer: Because the SDA's allowed their leaders to hide documents and write false history, and to frame and exile those who challenged tradition, chasing away those that can think and question.

This is how the SDA's became so stupid and useless. Their leaders have abused and betrayed them and chased away anyone who wanted to tell the truth and promote Gospel Reform. They have lied so many times that they no longer know what is truth and what is not.

So the blind are leading the blind and both fall into the ditch.

Clifford Goldstein said: "First time I have been in here in a while."

Tom said:  The last time we met, it was on the "Goldstein and 1888" thread, located in "Adventist
Doctrines/Practices"--under "Doctrinal discussions."

Goldstein & 1888;
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1093202844

See also: 1844 Made Simple- by TSDA
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166507859

1844 Made Simple- by Tom Norris http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1013659183


In fact you posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 at 12:04 pm. You asked me the same question you are asking now?

There you said: "Yeah, Tom, I would be curious as to what you thought about that chapter posted in the Review; is that the gospel, or it still just part of this massive cover-up that I am supposed to be part of…?"

I answered your post on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 7:19 pm. Did you read it? If so why are you asking me the same question again?

In fact, we have already discussed your new book and determined that you have made a fool out of yourself for trying to concoct this story about the IJ being a "folk doctrine."

How could you forget all this? Remember, you told your wife that she misunderstood the IJ when she was growing up. And that it was really not such a bad doctrine, just one that was misunderstood by the members, but not by the leaders? Remember this nonsense?

Or were you hoping we would all forget?

Goldstein said: "I don't know, but maybe I am missing something here, Tom, but for years now I have been writing and preaching very openly on justification by faith alone, pretty much as you seem to be expressing it here. No one stops me; it's never edited out, or taken away. I try to put it in the quarterly when and where appropriate; no one on my committee stops it."

Tom replied:  Ha! Is this a joke? Your are missing quite a bit if you think that you are a true Protestant?

While you may be promoting the great doctrine of JBF, it is not "alone" as you claim. You have attached the doctrine of the IJ to the equation. You, and the SDA's, have added a false, process Gospel that is focused on our Sanctification and includes good works for salvation.

THIS is why you are not censored and silenced!

You speak the same double-talk that the leaders have honed into an art form. They get better at it over the years, I must admit. But it is still the same old Battle Creek / Roman Catholic Gospel that brought us 1888 and 1980. So spare me the song and dance please.

The SDA's are fine with JBF alone, so long as it is never alone. They are fine with the Protestant Gospel so long as they can add sanctification to the equation as well as a fraudulent judgment about our works.  This is what they call a “balanced” Gospel.

So double-talk all you want, but no one who understands the Reformation is going to be fooled by the present SDA nonsense about the Gospel, or hermeneutics, or the IJ or Food Laws, or this outrageous, Old Covenant, tithe based hierarchical system that mirrors OC Judaism and Rome. There is so much false doctrine within the SDA church that it is a joke that they think otherwise.

So, yes, Mr. Goldstein, you are missing a lot.

Don't worry; your denominational employment is safe so long as you continue to hold to BOTH JBF and the IJ.

It is fine to talk like Luther or Ford so long as you embrace Sanctification like a Roman Catholic. But if you honestly talk like Dr. Ford or Tom Norris, telling the truth about the Gospel, --then you will be escorted to the door.   Just like Dr. Ford.

Thus, Paul and Luther would condemn Goldstein and all the SDA's for this nonsense that is "pretty much" Protestant, except for a few huge heresies here and there.

There is no way to be somewhat Catholic and somewhat Protestant. There is no such hybrid Gospel, -only one. And it dates to the 1st century, not to 1844. The SDA's do not have the right one. And if you have to ask, you most probably are way off.

But you did ask, and I answered you on that other thread. So here is the answer:

The apostolic Gospel has a number of components such as the Life, Death, Resurrection, and the Return of the Christ. When any of these salvific components are changed, revised, or omitted, then the entire doctrine of the "Gospel" is compromised and rejected.

Thus, if someone denied Jesus death on the cross for our sins, like the Gnostics, they would be in denial of the Gospel. If someone denied his resurrection, or denied that he would return to judge the world at the Second Coming, (as both the Jews and Romans did), then any one of these positions would be denials of the historic Gospel that was fully developed and "fully preached" in the 1st century.

In other words to change the definition of the Gospel in the slightest, is to reject the historic Gospel of the Apostles.

2Tim. 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,

Rom. 2:16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

1Cor. 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

Therefore, when the SDA's insert the eschatology of the IJ into the Gospel definition, they are in fact revising, changing, and rejecting the authentic Gospel of Paul that he preached to the early church. They are adopting and promoting ANOTHER GOSPEL.

And to make matters worse; their other Gospel comes from Rome.

So if you want to be a true Protestant, you will have to reject this nonsense about the IJ, as well as this Roman Catholic theology from Uriah Smith and the Review about our sanctification being a part of the Gospel. Are you ready to do this? If so, you have my support.

But to do this, you must repudiate Glacier View and Traditional Adventism; and apologize to Dr. Ford. Are you ready to become a New Covenant SDA and join Adventist Reform?

Goldstein said: "Sure, that the church has struggled with legalism and still does in places . . . well, that was a problem in the apostolic church as well. But this idea that, today, the church is somehow hostile to the gospel. I don't know, but I'm in my 20th year there and not one time has anyone in leadership tried to stop me from preaching a reformation-type justification by faith alone. Most, I think, appreciate hearing it."

Tom said:  The reason no one cares about your version of JBF is because it is an oxymoron and a fraud. It is not the same Gospel as Paul. Nor is it the same one that Luther used to bring down the Roman Catholic Church. Nor is it what Dr. Waggoner introduced in 1888 or what Dr. Ford promoted at Glacier View.

So who are you kidding about this claim that Goldstein is preaching the true Protestant Gospel?

While your version may sound better than what Uriah Smith said, it is essentially the same because it contains the IJ. And this doctrine is all about sanctification, and obedience to the law for salvation. Just like the Roman Catholic Gospel.

Here is a little IJ based Gospel from Uriah Smith to remind everyone what he, the Review, and most all SDA's in Battle Creek taught about sanctification and the IJ. It was essentially Roman Catholic "process" theology. There was nothing Reformation about it!

Let's quote from Uriah Smith one more time so that everyone can see that the "charge of legalism" is 100% accurate and true. And that Luther and the Reformers would have NEVER supported it.

Smith said:

"The whole object of Christ's work for us is to bring us back to the law, that its righteousness may be fulfilled in us by our obedience, and that when we at last stand beside the law, which is the test of the judgment, we may appear as absolutely in harmony with it, as if we had never belonged to a sinful race who had trampled it in the dust."

Smith then goes on in this Review Editorial to directly attack Waggoner, Jones and Ellen White by claiming that the Righteousness of Christ is NOT SUFFICIENT for salvation.

"There is a righteousness we must have, in order to see the kingdom of heaven, which is called 'our righteousness'; and this righteousness comes from being in harmony with the law of God."

So the Battle Creek gospel formula went like this:

Forgiveness via the doctrine of Justification by faith for PAST sins only.

The present was a time of Sanctification, when people were expected to obey sufficiently so as to develop a righteous character BEFORE their name was called in the IJ above, and BEFORE the time of trouble and the seven last plagues ravaged the earth.

If someone sinned, they could be forgiven, but they still had to stop committing any and all sin, and form a righteous character before probation closed.

Thus the SDA's misunderstood the Protestant Gospel and embraced Rome, as surely as if they had decided that Sunday was the Sabbath.

Although I could find you some pre 1888 EGW quotes that parrot the legalism of Smith, his quotes are more than sufficient to prove that the top theologians fell into deep legalism. It was systemic in their law-based theology.

Just go back and read what he wrote? He is claiming that we must have are OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS in addition to the Righteousness of Christ.

Do you think Paul or Luther would approve of that theology? And this is no isolated statement. The Battle Creek Review was full of this talk about sanctification and obedience for salvation. It was law, law, and everywhere law.

The SDA's taught that we needed to have our own good works to be saved. Christ's Righteousness was not sufficient. And therefore, we too, like Christ, must obey the law as a pre-condition for salvation and eternal life.

Moreover, no one could ever claim perfection, or that we were saved, for that in and of itself would be the sin of presumption.

Listen to the pre 1888 Ellen White agree with Smith:

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement." (5T 214)

That is not the Gospel. It is not even close. But after 1888, Ellen White would write very differently about the law and the Gospel. In fact, she would repudiate Smiths law based Gospel and endorse the Reformation version of Waggoner and Jones.

So here is the end of the matter Mr. Goldstein.

The IJ was never a part of the apostolic Gospel; therefore it can never be so today.

What more is there to say? The apostles pointed only, only, and only, to the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment, not to Uriah Smiths IJ in 1844.

If the Apostles never spoke about the IJ, (and they did NOT), how important can it be? How true can it be?

In fact, Paul "fully preached" the Gospel WITHOUT the IJ. So too did all the other Apostles. So who today has the authority to add this IJ doctrine to the Gospel?

Answer: No one. Not the Pope in Rome or the one in Silver Spring. The Gospel was 100% complete in the 1st century and there can be no additions or revisions down stream. This point dooms both Rome and Battle Creek.

Rom. 15:19 I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Rom. 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ,

Phil. 1:16 knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel;

Paul's Gospel NEVER contained the IJ. Paul, the great defender and promoter of the Gospel never "defended" that eschatological and law based component called the IJ.

Why? Because there was no such doctrine ever associated with the 1st century Gospel that forms the basis for all Protestant theology. So that dubious and legalistic doctrine can NEVER be added to the Gospel. NOT EVER. And neither can our works. Never.

Gal. 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Gal. 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

THE IJ IS CONTRARY TO THE GOSPEL OF PAUL. HIS GOSPEL DID NOT CONTAIN IT. THEREFORE, THOSE THAT PREACH AN IJ BASED GOSPEL ARE TO BE CURSED.

Does this answer your question Mr. Goldstein? Do you see why Paul and Luther would condemn you?

Any Gospel that contains the IJ, or anything to do with our works, is automatically condemned as fraud.

This is what the Word teaches. Let Goldstein and all the others ignore the Gospel words of Paul at their own eternal risk.

Offline

#8 08-17-12 10:20 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

The IJ is NOT part of the Gospel

Eph. 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph. 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Tom said:  There is only one Gospel, "one hope", and "one faith." At no time was the IJ ever associated with the holy Gospel of the Apostles or the Reformers.

Only the doctrine of the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment was associated with the true Gospel of record. Any other so-called "Gospel" that claims to include a celestial investigation of the saints to review their characters, or to make any other inquiry upon their sanctification, is only pretending to be legitimate. Run from that false Gospel and that false Christ.

So Mr. Goldstein, proceed to misinform and mislead the SDA Community at your own risk. Continue to promote a false Gospel at your own risk, because the facts will emerge and you will be ruined. I guarantee it. The SDA's do not like Rome. And when thy find out that the General Conference and the Review are acting like junior members of the Vatican, they may find their Protestant voices and get upset? I would urge caution on your part.

Luke 8:17 “For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

In conclusion, there is only one Gospel. It is an ancient Semitic doctrine that was fully developed by the Apostles and widely preached and documented in the 1st century. Thus, there is no possibility that any change or revision can be made to this foundational doctrine of the Christian Faith.

After all these years, it is far too late too add a secret celestial judgment of the saints to the Gospel that was unknown to the Apostolic church, or to the Reformers. Such an unauthorized revision is sin.

And it is also too late to let Rome define the Gospel for the Protestant world or for SDA's.

2Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

The SDA' have done wickedly in both 1888 and 1980. They have rejected the Gospel. This is why the Laodicean Message is so tough on the Remnant. This passage represents the true pre- Advent Judgment of the last church.

And guess what, the verdict is GUILTY, GUILTY, and GUILTY. Therefore it is time for SDA's to acknowledge this verdict and REPENT for tampering with the Word and with the Gospel.

Will Mr. Goldstein lead the way back to the Protestant Path and set an example for all SDA's to follow?

Will Bill Johnsson of the Review, and President Paulsen come clean and tell the full truth about Adventist history and theology?

Will they REPENT for supporting the false Glacier View Gospel of Uriah Smith and exiling the innocent Dr. Ford?

Will they REPENT for defending a false version of the Three Angels Messages and for misleading everyone about Ellen White?

Will the leaders embrace Gospel Reform within the SDA church and bring back the original version of the Adventist Apocalyptic?

Will they work to make the Adventist Movement a viable and credible Protestant force for good?

Or will they continue to pursue a false and self-destructive policy that rests upon historical fraud and Old Covenant / Roman Catholic doctrines?

Will they try and continue with this despicable cover-up?

It is time for the SDA church, both leaders and people, to pay attention to the Laodicean Message, which is the true Pre-Advent Judgment for this church. It is time for this people to repent for both 1888 and Glacier View, so that this church can move forward within the Adventist Apocalyptic.

Tom Norris, who wants to know if Mr. Goldstein is ready to become a true Protestant and join Adventist Reform?

Cliff G said: One last point. I have been constantly attacked by Larry Kirkpatrick and his ilk for preaching what they think is new theology, that justification is a legal declaration only; and now here Tom attacks me for teaching Roman Catholic theology.

Attacked by Tom Norris and Larry Kirkpatrick. '

Sounds like I'm in the right place theologically, however much more I need to learn.

Ron Corson said: Why is that Clifford? Is it because you never answer any of the questions put to you. Are you in the right place because when you are pressed you refuse to state your convictions unless they are in the controlled environment of a book or article you write?

I would appreciate an answer. http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus … #POST32764

Now seeing you have just written a whole book as an apologist for the traditional SDA view of the IJ, would you agree with Bill S. that the IJ is a judgment of works?

Jodi said: Ron, of course the IJ is a judgment of works. What else would it be?

And since the IJ is not BIBLICAL, the SDA's are free to make it whatever kind of judgment they want it to be...it's THEIR DOCTRINE, after all.

Do you think the IJ is a judgment for something else?

Clifford Goldstein said: "I have been constantly attacked by Larry Kirkpatrick and his ilk for preaching what they think is new theology, that justification is a legal declaration only; and now here Tom attacks me for teaching Roman Catholic theology."

Tom said:  I have seen Kirkpatrick's web site and it is nothing more than the typical legalistic confusion. It is full of double-talk and IJ based nonsense. These Catholic minded souls do not understand Protestant Theology, much less the Adventist Apocalyptic.

So if the TSDA's are against you, then you may be heading in the right direction. And JBF is the right direction. But the ultimate goal, for purposes of this discussion, is to define the Gospel so that no one need be confused about this foundational doctrine of the Adventist Apocalyptic.

The TSDA's don't like where you may be going with this emphasis on JBF. They are obsessed with Sanctification and view JBF as only a gateway doctrine that leads to the greater doctrine of Sanctification, and thus, on to Rome.

In fact, the moment someone promotes JBF, the TSDA's are frightened? Why? Because they think like Roman Catholics and Old Covenant Jews, not like Protestants.

They are afraid of this dangerous doctrine that separated the Roman Catholics from the Protestants and freed the world of Popery. They are terrified of the Gospel. They know where this type of anti-hierarchical theology can lead and they do not approve of it.

So they slam anyone that they think is soft on the law. Including anyone who embraces the Protestant definition of the Gospel. But don't worry about what they say, worry about what Paul, Luther, and Calvin think of your theology. If you can get them to agree with your Gospel, then you are on the right track.

If not, well…

Goldstein said: "Attacked by Tom Norris and Larry Kirkpatrick. ' Sounds like I'm in the right place theologically, however much more I need to learn."

Tom replied:  Don't worry about Tom Norris approving your theology. That hardly matters. What matters is if Jesus and the Apostles, Reformers, and Adventist Pioneers support your theology. THAT is the issue!

I am just here to inform you that NONE of these groups would support this IJ based Gospel that SDA's think is so wonderful and true! Not one of them. So this is your problem, as well as a problem for all the confused TSDA's, including Mr. Kirkpatrick.

Ron said: "Why is that Clifford? Is it because you never answer any of the questions put to you? Are you in the right place because when you are pressed you refuse to state your convictions unless they are in the controlled environment of a book or article you write?"

Tom said:  There is no one who can defend Glacier View theology. Least of all Clifford Goldstein. This should be obvious to all by now. Clifford represents the post Glacier View generation, and that means he doesn't know what he is saying, he is just parroting the hierarchical line, trusting that others have told him the truth about Adventist history and theology.

But they have not been honest with Goldstein or anyone else about the history of Gospel debate in Battle Creek or Takoma Park. Thus the issues have been purposefully hidden, unresolved all these years by design. Thus all 20th century SDA's have been misled and manipulated by their leaders. And now, no one at the Review or the White Estate or the General Conference knows what to say?

They have been caught, including Goldstein, with so much historical fraud and false doctrine that they are embarrassed, surprised, and even speechless.

No one can defend Traditional Adventism or Glacier View.  No one can successfully defend the Roman Catholic Gospel of Uriah Smith that turned Ellen White into a true Protestant Reformer.

Ron asked Goldstein: "Now seeing you have just written a whole book as an apologist for the traditional SDA view of the IJ, would you agree with Bill S. that the IJ is a judgment of works?"

Tom repled to Ron:  It doesn't matter what he says about this. His personal opinion is irrelevant. This is a question that can only be answered by the facts of history. And the facts of history are plain and irrefutable.

Uriah Smith is the IJ expert who "wrote the book "on this doctrine. Literally. And there is no doubt that it was a judgment of our character to see if we were fit for heaven. There is no question that is was a judgment of our personal sanctification, to make sure that only the obedient would be saved. It was a judgment of works.

The fact that the Review, after Glacier View, is now trying to soften this horrific doctrine and revise it to sound more evangelical is beside the point. False doctrine's are not to be adjusted and revised, but removed completely. What was initially false will always be false, no matter how the Public Relations department at the General Conference spins things to sound better.

It is far too late to change the record and re-write history. The facts are what they are, and there is no use denying what has happened. The SDA's are up to their necks in false and stupid doctrine, even fraud, and it is time to stop pretending and sort it all out.

Hubb, a TSDA, said: "Tom, there may be some truth in what you say, but you lose me when you grossly overstate your point. Adventist leadership and laity are not totally ignorant of the Gospel, as you state. The concept that we are saved by grace, and by grace alone -- and that works are a fruit of that grace; this concept is accepted by all knowledgeable Adventists today."

Tom replied:  The Roman Catholics claim to be saved by grace as well as the SDA's! So too did the Reformers? So what does that prove? Only that there are TWO very different definitions for the word "grace." One is Protestant and the other Roman Catholic. Which one is correct? This is the question.

As a Protestant, I say that the Reformer's version is correct and that the Roman Catholics are "totally ignorant" of the true Gospel of Grace. Those that are RC would disagree.

But the problem is that the SDA's, who claim to be Protestant, have adopted the Roman Catholic definition of the Gospel. Thus, they are placed in the same category as the Catholics. Thus, the SDA's are "totally ignorant" of the apostolic and Reformation Gospel.

If the SDA church were not "totally ignorant" of the Gospel, they would never have thrown Dr. Ford and his Gospel out the door?

If the SDA's understood the Gospel, they would never have had an 1888 conflict either? Which conflict destroyed the Battle Creek Empire and forced the church to retreat to Takoma Park?

If they understood the Gospel there would not be such a polarization over this foundational doctrine within the SDA church. Nor would there be a need for deathbed confessions by their theologians (Cottrell) or non-stop censorship, or decades of suppressed documents in the White Estate, etc.

So you need to change your point of view, mine is not changing. The SDA church embraces a RC view of the Gospel, regardless what they pretend.  This is why they are self destructing.  They have rejected the Gospel, just like the Jews.

The SDA church has always had major problems with the Gospel. And it still does today. That is why the Laodicean Message is so harsh and uncompromising. Heaven has declared that the Remnant's record on the Gospel is so "wretched" that they have no justification, or sanctification, or salvation.

That is why they are pictured as running around completely and totally "naked" as they play church. (Due to the lack of the health message, this is not a pretty sight, if you know what I mean?)

I don't think heaven was being sarcastic? This type of language is blunt for a purpose. It is not "overstating the point" and neither is anyone that agrees with this Word.

The SDA church is in bad shape according to heaven. They are a lukewarm, wretched, blind, and naked. They look ridiculous as they prance around and pretend that they are fully sighted, and wonderfully clothed with the grace of God.

But it is a delusion of Rome. They have misunderstood the Gospel, and this tragic blunder will be fatal if not fully and completely addressed and corrected.

Rev. 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Note that the term wretched is a word that was used by Jesus for those who rejected the Gospel. It represented those, like the Jews and their later echo, the SDA's, who had repudiated Gospel truth and had squandered great opportunities.

Matt. 21:41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.”

Matt. 21:42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,
‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?

Matt. 21:43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

The SDA's are playing with fire. They are repeating the mistakes of the Jews, and the Battle Creek SDA's. The Laodicean Message is not hyperbole. Both the Word and the empirical evidence agree that SDA's are very confused about the Gospel, even though they think they are the smartest people on earth.

So I do not accept your point. It is no exaggeration to say that most SDA's do not understand the doctrine of "Grace" at all. They do not understand the Gospel of Paul or Luther because their leaders have never been fully honest about the Gospel or the Reformation.

In fact, all this talk about "fruit" is designed to divert attention away from a false Roman Catholic Gospel that no Reformer would ever approve.

The SDA's invented the IJ as a place where all "fruit" is to be tested to see if it is good enough for heaven. But such an examination is not part of the Protestant Gospel.  "Fruit" saves no Protestant.  Nor is our behavior part of the Gospel, which alone saves.

Offline

#9 08-17-12 11:50 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom said: In fact, all this talk about "fruit" is designed to divert attention away from a false Roman Catholic Gospel that no Reformer would ever approve.

Tom contradicts Jesus killing of a fruit tree bearing no fruit. Tom if you are teaching no behavior change just God's grace, you are truly lost. Your reformed Sabbath is more empty then you once taught. It is fruit afterall.  You sure are mixed up.

Last edited by bob_2 (08-17-12 11:51 am)

Offline

#10 08-17-12 12:35 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Hubb said to Tom Norris: "It is a gross overstatement to put us in the "same drawer" as the Catholics. We do not have an infallible Pope, we do not have a tradition that supersedes the Bible, and we do not have the belief in merits that the Catholics do."

Tom replied: Ha! I see that you did not protest the SDA association with the 1st century Jews? Good for you. Because it is easy to show many similarities between Jews and SDA's.  Ellen White made this point--before 1888. Of course she made it even more so after 1888.

Moreover, the SDA’s DO have a tradition of using other sources for doctrine besides the Bible.  Many have used Ellen White as an additional inspired source.  No Protestant can take such a position and neither did Ellen White.

As for the Roman Catholics: well, no SDA likes to be compared to them. Even the rebellious Jews are preferred over Rome. So I feel your pain. But guess what, if the analogy fits, it fits. And it does fit.

Why? Because the SDA's have adopted the same fundamental soteriology as Rome. This is not an opinion, but an empirical fact. The SDA's have linked JBF with Sanctification for salvation. This is the Roman Catholic version of the Gospel. Anyone who is familiar with Reformation theology would know this to be the case.

Besides, Uriah Smith has made this perfectly clear. And the 20th century Review followed his lead in this matter. So too did Glacier View and the 27 Fundamentals. This is all a matter of record and well beyond dispute. The SDA's have the exact same Gospel as Rome! This is a fact of record.

Those that understand this horrific blunder tried to stop this association with Rome. That is why Waggoner and Jones, and Ellen White, started a civil war in Battle Creek. And in the 20th century, that is why QOD appeared. And that is why Dr. Ford stood up and articulated the Apostolic Gospel and repudiated the IJ.

So you can pretend that the world is flat and that the SDA's correctly understand and preach the Gospel if you want? But it makes more sense to be honest and to objectively look at the evidence. And the evidence shows that the SDA's hate the Protestant Gospel. Even as they pretend to follow the Reformers and promote a false judgment of works that was unknown to the Apostles.

And guess what? The SDA's also have the same hermeneutic as Rome? Well it's not exactly the same, but it is closer to Rome than it is to the reformers.

In fact, the SDA's do not have the same hermeneutic as the Reformers. They say they do, and they should. But they do not. They have placed Ellen White as an additional authority for doctrine, even as they double-talk and try to deny this obvious fact. So here is another great similarity to Rome! A false hermeneutic that the Reformers would never approve.

And of course they mimic Rome's hierarchical structure as well. This is also beyond refutation and simply a stipulated fact.

So what more do you need to see?

The SDA's have embraced Rome's basic concept about the Gospel, church organization, and hermeneutics. There is no use in denying such empirical facts.

Denial is not the proper response to the Laodicean message. How about some confession and repentance? It is time for the SDA's to separate from Rome, and protest her false Gospel. Not follow it.

Hubb said: "Is EGW the Adventist Pope? Absolutely not. She never did have an authoritive administrative position."

Tom replied:  The SDA church has embraced many false Roman Catholic doctrines. This is a fact. And it makes no difference that they have managed to embrace these false doctrines within a deceptive and dishonest Protestant context.

One does not need to follow every detail of Rome in order to adopt their basic theology. Only a few fundamental points are needed to turn any Protestant church into a Roman Catholic pawn.

In fact, it is a big mistake to underestimate the RCC. The SDA's have been badly fooled by Rome, as have many others. So badly that to this day, few SDA's even know that they have been following Rome for such a long time. Now that is a good deception!

As for Ellen White, the false doctrine associated with her is not being the pope, (that would be the GC President); rather it is this idea that she is an authoritative source to explain doctrine. Not only did she refute this, but any such hermeneutic would essentially reflect Roman Catholic, not Protestant doctrine.

Neither the Apostles nor the Reformers would approve of the SDA tithe based hierarchical structure. Such an arrangement is Old Covenant and Roman Catholic. Thus there is absolutely no apostolic support for the SDA doctrine of NT Tithe or a hierarchy. And I dare anyone to refute this point.

So don't shoot the messenger. SDA doctrine is full of Old covenant and Roman Catholic doctrine. Especially about the Gospel, church authority, and doctrinal control.

Hubb said: "Has EGW developed a tradition that supercedes the Bible? Absolutely not. Her writings serve only to point to the Bible."

Tom said:  Ha! You are not serious are you? The Takoma Park SDA's turned Ellen White into a second Canon. Where have you been? While I realize that she repudiated any such notion when she was alive, the leaders have never been clear or honest about Ellen White.

So until the SDA church acknowledges the doctrinal authority of the Apostles as supreme, they are not following the Reformation whatsoever.

The SDA church needs to become a leader in the field of hermeneutics. So far they have made fools of themselves in this area.

Hubb said: "When Adventists talk about overcoming sin by the grace of God; And that this process will reach a stage of completion before probation closes -- are we talking about merit from the sacraments? Merit from the saints or the Virgin Mary? Or merit earned by penance and confession to a priest? Absolutely not. And you know it as well as I do."

Tom replied:  The moment one talks about the Gospel as a "process"; the game is up. That is the first clue, and the only one needed to know that this is not the genuine Gospel of Paul or Luther.

The second clue is the focus on sanctification. Again, this says it all for anyone who understands Reformation theology. This very term "overcoming" is code for Sanctification. It is perfectionist, and almost always used against the Protestant Gospel. This is another clue that Rome is nearby.

The third unmistakable clue is about the goal of the Gospel. Is there a focus on the Second Coming, Eternal Life, and the New Earth? Or is the focus on reaching personal perfection and obtaining an acceptable level of obedience to pass the Judgment?

Any version of the gospel that claims to "overcome sin" or to "reach a stage of completion," relative to behavior, before the Second coming; is Roman Catholic. This is what it is. There can be no doubt.

So here are three clues, any of which will unmask Roman Catholic Fraud and expose their false and wicked Gospel. The Protestant Gospel is NOT a process that is focused on our sanctification. That is the Roman Catholic version, and the same one that SDA's teach.

Forget about all the other useless and stupid trappings that accompanies Rome's historic brand of religious deception. None of those things are necessary for a church to embrace the fundamentals of the Vatican.

(In fact, Rome is correct to only use real wine in the Eucahrist, while the SDA’s have made fools of themselves to think drinking wine is sinful and against the Gospel, as if they were Muslims.  On this point Rome is historically and theologically correct.)

So I did not mean to imply that SDA's are praying to Mary or to Ellen White, or that they are openly "talking about merit" or the "sacraments"? They are not and most all would be horrified that anyone would call them Catholic. But Catholic they are.

And guess what? Just as Rome went on to build more false doctrines on top of their heretical fundamentals, do too did the SDA's!

Instead of the seven sacraments and penance and such to help us with our sanctification, they have invented the IJ, and NT Tithe, and some other Old Covenant doctrines to blend with some legitimate NT doctrines, creating a hybrid religion that has earned the full condemnation of heaven.

Instead of merit, they have different code words that mean the same thing, even as they teach about the goal of perfection, and the delusion about living perfectly, without sin, and without a mediator at the end of time.

So my point still stands.

Besides, if one wants to hide the fact that they are embracing Rome, then you don't come out and start wearing robes and holding mass on Sunday? That would horrify this anti-Catholic Sabbatarian church.

So Rome has found another way. They have used the Review all these years to indoctrinate SDA's into the fundamentals of Rome’s Gospel without the members knowing it. They have tricked the SDA's into embracing fundamental Roman Catholic theology on three major points:

1. The law and the Gospel.
2. Church Organization.
3. Hermeneutics

Behold what the SDA leaders have done?

Look at how much they have copied Roman Catholic theology? See how far away the SDA's are from the Protestant fundamentals and the original “pillars” of the Three Angels Messages?

No wonder the Laodicean Message has determined that all denominations are guilty of rejecting the Gospel. According to heaven, every denomination, including the SDA's are guilty of misunderstanding the Law in relationship to the Gospel. Everyone has been blind about the Gospel. Thus, no church today would receive the approval of Jesus, the Apostles or the Reformers. Especially not the SDA's.

No wonder the SDA's were not excluded from this pre-Advent judgment of the church. No wonder that they will have to confess their hatred towards the Gospel and their affair with Rome before they can go forward.

So I am not using hyperbole or overstating the case. The SDA's have embraced Old Covenant and Roman Catholic doctrines with both hands. They have pushed the Gospel far away, even as they pretended to be Protestant. Then they persecuted and exiled those who tried to stand up for the Protestant Gospel, like Waggoner, Ellen White, and Dr. Ford. And so it stands today.

Hubb said: "It would be helpful if you would weed out these inconsistencies from your writing. There are a few agates on the beach, but there are also an awful lot of rocks, seaweed, and dead fish!"

Tom replied:  What would be "helpful" is for the SDA church to "weed out the Roman Catholic inconsistencies" in their theology! THIS is what must be done. Not silence the critics who are correctly exposing their fraud and their false doctrine that has overwhelmed this church like a flood.

The SDA's have many true and great doctrines, like the Jews did, but also like the Jews; they have become worthless to both heaven and earth. Why? Because they have mixed true doctrines with false. And the result is a "wretched" mess that stinks like rotten fish on the beach in summer. The SDA's have rebelled against heaven, just like the Jews in the 1st century.

Hubb said: " Actually, I kinda like Larry Kirkpatrick!"

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/

Tom said:  Of course you do. He is a TSDA who has embraced the fundamental Roman Catholic theology of Uriah Smith and the Review. He promotes the IJ and tithe, and the false hermeneutic about Ellen White. No doubt he thinks wine in the Bible was Grape Juice and that the Jewish food laws are still in full force today. It is full of the typical SDA heresy and false doctrine that no apostle or Reformer would ever support.

Jodi said: "Ron, of course the IJ is a judgment of works. What else would it be?"

Tom replied:  It can be nothing else but a judgment of works that is connected to a Gospel of works. It is an examination of our sanctification for justification and salvation. Thus no Apostle or Reformer would ever endorse this false, Roman Catholic Gospel.

Jodi said: "And since the IJ is not BIBLICAL, the SDA's are free to make it whatever kind of judgment they want it to be...it's THEIR DOCTRINE, after all."

Tom said:  Although I agree that the IJ is not biblical, I disagree that the SDA's are "free to make it whatever" they want. Because they are Protestant, they are not free to do any such thing. A Protestant, by definition, must be loyal to the fundamentals of the Reformers. If not, they are NOT Protestant. It’s a pretty simple concept.

If the SDA's continue to cling to this IJ nonsense, along with their many other Old Covenant and Roman Catholic doctrines, then they must be excluded from the Protestant Community. They are pretenders that must be given the name "cult" or "Catholic."

The SDA's will have to make a choice between being Protestant or Catholic; there is nothing in between as they think. They are going to have to side with Luther or Rome. Pick one, not both.

So while the SDA's, and the Mormons and the JW's, etc., are "free" to invent doctrines, they can only do this if they repudiate the Protestant Faith. THEN they are free to teach whatever nonsense and stupidity they want. But if they want to remain within the Protestant Paradigm, then they must repent for all their false doctrines and conform to baseline Protestant theology about the Gospel, hermeneutics, and church organization.

At this point, the SDA's are NOT Protestant. But few know this as yet. In time all will come to know that their leaders have betrayed the Adventist Movement to Rome. Then the people can PROTEST and do something about this fraud. And so the cycle will continue until the end of time.

Offline

#11 08-17-12 10:10 pm

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom, when I think of an army I usually thinking of a group until I make the rounds and get back to you and remember that lone soldier in front of my church, the single 144,000 manned army, and I remember you. Those are the only single person armies I've ever seen, yours, and his.

Offline

#12 08-17-12 10:47 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

John G. Mauro said: "The Bible is clear that there will be a judgment. Daniel, David, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John all said it. The numerous verses substantiating this assertion have been posted many times. If we are going to believe the Bible, this should no longer be an issue to debate."

Tom said:  There should be no debate that the Second Coming is the great Day of Judgment. This is the only Judgment that the church was commanded to preach to the world. And guess what? The IJ was not mentioned. It is not included in the Great Commission or in the NT. Why? Because it is not true. It has no apostolic support. It is a false judgment that was never taught by the Apostles.

So there is great debate about the credibility and the existence of the IJ. But there should be no debate that the J/C paradigm teaches a public Judgment at the end of the world, at the Second Coming.

John said: "Will we be judged by our works? Of course, because the Bible is clear on this subject, also. Why this obvious fact is denied by many on this site cannot be explained by ambiguity of scriptural references, for "works" is always stated as the criterion."

Tom said:  There is also great debate about the definition of the Gospel. In fact, there is no greater conundrum than the Gospel. It is the most difficult and misunderstood doctrine of the church. Even the apostles, both before and after the resurrection, had great difficulties with this point. So it cannot be an easy or simple thing to grasp.

In fact, the Gospel caused great debate and conflict in the apostolic church as well as in the medieval church. Closer to our time, it also destroyed the Battle Creek Empire and almost wiped out the SDA church at the turn of the 20th century. And it will be the death of this church, and all others, if they do not get it correct. So the Gospel has always been problematic and so it will ever be.

Nonetheless, there is no excuse for any Protestant today, much less an SDA, to misunderstand the Gospel. As Protestants, this war as already been fought and thus there is a ready-made record for our edification. In addition, within the Adventist Community it was also fought in 1888 and again in 1980. Thus there is record upon record, upon record about Gospel debate.

If SDA's are serious about understanding the Protestant Gospel versus the Roman Catholic version, I suggest that they study the Reformation and see how Luther and Calvin dealt with the law and the Gospel; imputation versus impartation, grace, and rewards, as well as how to pass the Judgment.

Unless the history of the Reformation, and the subsequent debates about the Gospel are better understood by SDA's, they will never be able to break free from the influence of Rome and their corrupt, Catholic minded leaders.

The Gospel and the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment are the foundational doctrines of the Three Angels Messages. (Not the IJ, as Glacier View claimed.) That is why they are the 1st and 2nd pillars within the 1st Angels message.

Unless SDA's can grasp the Protestant Gospel and the Judgment of the Second Coming and return to the original version of the Three Angels messages, and return to the Protestant Hermeneutic, the SDA church will die. And others will have to revive the Adventist Apocalyptic and complete the work of the Reformation.

Is this what SDA's want? Do they want to be marginalized because they failed to understand their own apocalyptic? Do they really want to discard the Three Angels messages and abandon their eschatological mission to unite the church under the Gospel?

It is time for this church to wake up and deal with the issues. It is time for SDA's to understand and embrace the Protestant Gospel, the Protestant hermeneutic, and the Protestant position about church organization, as well as the original pillars of the Three Angels Messages.

In other words, it is time for Adventist Reform.

Bill said: "There is "faith, repentance" and an ongoing response for anyone to appropriate the gift of salvation. "

Tom said:  While the Gospel demands an "ongoing response" from us, this does not mean that the Gospel CONTAINS the doctrine of our sanctification. Or that we are saved because of our sanctification.

In fact, this is the subtle distinction that separated the Protestants from the Roman Catholics. All the Reformers would reject your position as Roman Catholic.

Bill the TSDA said: "You over-state the biblical norm when you contend that salvation is unconditional. Such a view leads to universalism. But the bible teaches that man must respond or he is not saved. And this response is a moral imperative, not just a natural law 'happening.'"

Tom said:  While there are indeed pre-conditions to accepting the Gospel, and post-conditions for staying saved, these pre and post-conditions are not salvific.

And while the law is still the great standard of conduct for all, and thus a moral imperative, that does not mean that the Gospel is based upon our law keeping. It is not. It is based only upon the perfect Sabbatarian obedience of Christ. And it is this imputed obedience that saves us in the Judgment. Not anything that we have done.

Our sanctification will be worthless in the judgment if we don't have the Protestant Gospel. It is that simple. Anyone who is bold enough to stand up at the Day of Judgment and start detailing how well they obeyed the law and did all sorts of good things for Jesus will be very disappointed.

Matt. 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Heaven was not impressed with their "moral imperative." Heaven dismissed, out of hand, their list of good works. Why? Because they were worthless. Why? Because they did not embrace the Gospel, which contains all the works and law keeping anyone needs to pass the Judgment. These poor souls failed to comprehend this critical, Protestant fact.

Bill said: "So Joshua could say, "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve," and he goes on to conclude, "as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord." Joshua accepts the moral imperative and knows it is a "salvational" issue."

Tom said:  No one in the OT or the NT was saved because they choose to obey the law. It may appear this way to the Catholic minded, but that is not what is talking place.

The "moral imperative" is not the same as the Gospel, and no one will be saved because they choose to obey the law. If that were the case, things would have turned out much better for the law minded Jews?

The Reformers were quick to point out that no one could obey the law very well anyway, so how can something so deficient become salvific? It is impossible. (See Galatians.)

The only way SDA's are going to understand the Gospel is to honestly study the history of the Reformation. This is where these battles between law and Gospel were fought out. This is the pedigree for the Adventist Movement. We are Protestants, not Catholics. But somehow, this critical fact has been forgotten and SDA's are now far more Roman Catholic than Protestant.

In addition, the SDA's must tell the truth about their own little Reformation that took place in 1888.

When this hidden and suppressed material about the Gospel is understood by SDA's they will become horrified to know that they have been following Rome all these years. Which is why it was covered up and hidden in the first place!

So I say it is time to stop playing games with theology and church history. It is time for all SDA's to run from the Gospel of Rome, even as it is time for them to complete the work of the Reformers by articulating the Semitic, Sabbatarian Gospel that alone is salvific and true.

This new and more complete Protestant Gospel, that will be set within a catastrophic eschatological context, will shock the religious world, even as it unmasks the fraud of Rome and exposes the Protestant church as complicit with her many false doctrines.

But how can this happen if the SDA's are also following Rome?

How can this happen if the SDA's are in love with the Roman Catholic Gospel?

How can this happen if this church is following the organizational and hermeneutical model of Rome?

Only if the SDA church gets straight on the Gospel and the supreme authority of the Apostles can anything good happen for SDA's.

Only when the SDA's confess that they are Protestant and not Catholic, and prove this by repudiating 1888 and Glacier View, can the Adventist Apocalyptic be revived and this church come back to life.

It is time for the SDA's to return to the Protestant Path. It is time for the resurrection of the great Adventist Movement.

Tom Norris for Protestant Reform within the SDA church

Posted on JR’s ATomorrow.com Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 9:48 pm:

Faith & Works Again
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1142885483

Offline

#13 08-18-12 8:55 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom, you are you with yourself when speaking of the IJ. Although any judgement requires an inspection, covered by Jesus blood or not, the rest might be one of right or wrong and just to the other creatures of the universe. I was taught that for a thousand years Christ's and the Saints will judge the wicked, then the wicked are resurrected at the end of the thousand years to go up against the New Jerusalem. Revelation 20. The first part talks of the thousand years and a judgement. Then it talks of Satan's judgement or deceivement  of Satan. The end of chapter 20 speaks of a great white throne which you ignore. It appears to be after the 1000 years. But you insist on the IJ , not mentioned as such, though to have a judgement without inspection seems absurd on its face. I am not speak of the 1844 judgement that you seem to refer to. But the judgement scenario does not seem to be as simple as you make it and Rev 20 shows.

Offline

#14 09-01-12 10:20 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Don Sands asked: Can you document your assertion (that the Takoma Park leaders were fearful that a repeat of the 1888 Galatian debate would destroy the relocated church)?

Tom said:  Of course. It is an easy point that has been documented many times. In fact, Froom's confession in Movement of destiny about Daniel's hiding the 1888 Story proves the point. How can you not know this?

Don asked: Again, I have never been taught to be wary of Galatians. Can you document what you say?

Tom replied:  What kind of Adventist are you not to know these things? This point can also be well documented.  The controversy over the “added law” in Galatians started the 1888 debate and destroyed the SDA Empire in Battle Creek. 

Gal. 3:19  Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Gal. 3:20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.

Gal. 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The early SDA's learned quickly how to counter those that claimed the moral law was done away with at the cross. They did this by inventing the Two Law theory and by claiming that the 10 Commandments was NOT the law being discussed in Galatians. (The early Church Fathers were the first to separate the moral law from the ceremonial, not the SDA’s).

Gal. 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

In order to protect their view of the Sabbath, the SDA's claimed that the Moral law was not to be identified with the Old Covenant, "schoolmaster" (tutor) law in Galatians. Rather, they taught that the 10 C's were part of the New Covenant.  They claimed that the “ceremonial” law was “added.”  THIS was the “tutor” in v 24, not the moral law.

Butler, Canright, and Smith considered themselves experts on the book of Galatians, and they instructed the entire denomination on how to deal with this tricky book that was used by the critics to blunt the Seventh-day Sabbath.

However, the youthful E. J. Waggoner upset these so called experts by embracing Luther's Galatian theology, -which taught that the moral law was indeed the law under discussion in Galatians.  So Luther was brought into the debate, correctly arguing against the SDA view of law and Gospel.

The leaders refused to admit their error and repent. Consequently, these two opposing views of the law and the Gospel destroyed the Battle Creek Empire, even as they are doing the same today to modern Adventism.

So from the early days of Sabbath Reform, the book of Galatians became a focal point for both the critics and the SDA's. It became even more so after 1888. Once in Takoma Park, it was only natural for this book to be carefully avoided, along with the entire topic of 1888. And so it was.

I remember my theology professor at CUC, telling the class about his many debates with those that used Galatians to attack the Sabbath. He warned us to be ready, even as he (incorrectly) explained how to escape the charge that the law was our temporary schoolmaster, removed at the cross.

Don said: To point out shortcomings (of the clergy) is not to condemn.

Tom said:  The LM "condemns" all those that do not understand the Word or the Gospel correctly. Thus they are all condemned for their many shortcomings, sins, and errors. They are wretched and blind when it comes to the Word.

Don said: This Laodicean truth applies to you and me, as well.

Tom said:  Those that understand the Protestant Gospel and embrace it by faith are not condemned. They have a reserved seat in the Kingdom of God.

However, those that embrace a false Gospel, like you do, will be doomed. Sorry. And no amount of SDA double-talk is going to change this theological fact.

It is only by public repentance of false doctrine, that any Laodicean can be saved. Thus the SDA church must confess and repent if they want to fulfill their mission of preparing the church for the Second Coming. They must "zealously repent" and Reform or else.

There is no salvation for any person or denomination that confuses the Old Covenant with the New, like you do.

There is no salvation for those that practice and promote one false doctrine after another, like you and the SDA church does.

There is no salvation for those that persecute the Gospel and support Glacier View and Traditional Adventism, - like you do.

So there is a big difference between the Laodiceans. One group has the wrong Gospel, and pretends they don't, while the other (in Rev 18) realizes their great error and REPENTS.

Only those Laodiceans that admit their errors and correctly change their theology are going to be saved. All others are doomed by their own stubborn refusal to be honest with the Word.

Do you understand? Or have your ears turned into stone?

Let all Adventists beware Traditional Adventism as well as hierarchical, post Glacier View “pluralism,” corruption, and endless double-talk.  Propaganda is not truth.  The present teachings and direction of the SDA’s is neither correct nor sustainable. 

Luke 11:34 “The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.

Luke 11:35 “Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.

Let all beware!

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#15 09-01-12 2:50 pm

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom, where did Don ask these questions???

Offline

#16 09-01-12 6:08 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

ARE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AFRAID OF GALATIANS?
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1205990203

March, 2008
Adventist of Tomorrow

Offline

#17 09-02-12 2:41 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom, you confuse people by not explaining you jumped to .com of www. Atomorrow  It helps to point out there is a .com and a .net. A lot of participation went into .com when J.R. was still alive. This would set the stage for the discussion. I have my own feelings about Brito and whether he is clicking on all cylinders.

Offline

#18 09-02-12 1:14 pm

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Brito said on www.atomorrow.com the following:

The last edition of Dale Ratzlaff's Proclamation! Magazine (Jan./Feb. 2008) brings a collection of more stories of disgruntled and/or disoriented Seventh-day Adventists who give their “testimonies” of how they “discovered freedom” (which means normally freedom from having to keep a Sabbath day and to care for the dietary laws, never referring in that sense to any of the other NINE commandments of the same law the Sabbath principle is part of).

Brito, read Col 2:16,17 and don't hide behind the artificial construct of the ceremonial, civic and moral segmenting of the 10 Commandments and the artificial reading of the the Bible with a 10 in front of every "commandment/s" in the Bible.

The Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ's Flesh bringing us True Rest with sin forgiveness through the cross. Anything else is another Gospel.

Also, to limit your New Covenant relationship with Jesus to 9 Commandments lets you off the hook, don't you think. You can "fornicate but not adulterate". The NT is full of numerous laws that apply in place of the 10 Commandments. Otherwise you hang on to slavery and leave your wife out of the Sabbath rest. Sort of sexist.

Last edited by bob_2 (09-02-12 1:16 pm)

Offline

#19 09-03-12 11:01 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Bob thanks for asking for the source.  There are a lot of very good discussions that need to be preserved from the old ATomorrow.com.  I am going to post some of them here on the Adventist of Tomorrow.net site so they are not lost.

JR’s site was very difficult to navigate, but it did have a much better “tree view” of the discussion, which facilitated participation. 

However, this site works as a resource for Adventist Reform.  This is why it gets so many hits, even without much discussion or debate.   Many people come here from the All Experts site, looking for more information, while many others come here because of online searches for key words.

As for your comments:  This separation of the moral law and the ceremonial took place with the early church fathers, and the apostles before them.  It was not something the SDA’s invented.  This was a necessary point for the church to understand for obvious reasons.  Which is why the church viewed the moral law differently as compared to the ceremonial laws that no longer made sense after the cross.  And this is still the case today. 

Second, Jesus does not teach a “resting” Sabbath; much less that he is our 7th day rest.  The NC Sabbath is an active day; the law of the 4th commandment does NOT govern it as the SDA's claim.  Moreover, Jesus did not fulfill the Sabbath; he REFORMED it for all to see in the Gospels. 

Thus, Jesus does not support the SDA doctrine of the Sabbath (or any others today).

Third, while Christians are not saved by their behavior or obedience, they are to follow Christ’s teachings, which are called the “law of Christ.”  Thus there is an “obedience of faith,” which is not to be confused with SDA law keeping or sanctification.  The SDA’s teach a view of the law and the Sabbath that is not supported by the NT.  They don’t understand the Gospel teachings of Christ or Paul.  The SDA's are very confused and wrong about the Sabbath, and most everything else.

Gal. 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

2Cor. 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

Rom. 15:18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed,

Rom. 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Those who want to follow Christ today must honestly do so, by faith, not by law.  Anyone that thinks it sinful to work on the 7th day, (or Sunday) are NOT paying attention to Christ, the great Gospel teacher. 

Jesus view of the Sabbath is very different from what the SDA’s and others teach.  Who is correct?  The NT or the SDA’s?  If you have to ask, there is something wrong.  The SDA's are blind to the Gospel, even as Christ is a stranger to them.

To follow Christ is to understand what he teaches about the law and the Gospel, as well as the NC Sabbath.

I trust this helps,

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#20 12-01-12 6:01 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Brent asked about the SDA view on forgiveness of sins:

Question:  I know there are some differences in views b/w SDA's and other Christian denominations... But the forgiveness of sins and how accomplished seems to be pretty basic...

With your deep knowledge of Seventh Day Adventism please help me understand

Do SDA's believe that when we confess our sins, are our sins literally laid upon Jesus before they are transferred to the heavenly sanctuary?

Does this mean that Jesus is yet taking upon Himself fresh sins when we confess them to Him still today???

----------------------------------------------------------
Answer by Tom Norris:

Advent Movement Started Protestant, Ended Up Legalistic

The Adventists started out fully Protestant.  Miller, a Baptist, rejected the popular Holiness Movement of his day, embracing the Gospel of Luther where sinners are declared righteous by faith, instantly and forever, so long as they maintained belief in Christ. 

In spite of the growing holiness movement, Miller did not allow the doctrine of sanctification to trump Justification by Faith, which is the hallmark of Roman Catholic error.  He correctly understood that there was no such doctrine as perfection until after the 2nd Coming, which is to say that there were not ever going to be any “sinless” people in the church as many were teaching.

However, as the SDA’s went on to uphold the Moral Law and promote the 7th day Sabbath in place of Sunday, they became very legalistic, even perfectionist.  Consequently, they embraced a false Gospel where Justification by Faith was applied only to past sins, even as obedience to the law, and living without sin, became required. 

Such theology is essentially Roman Catholic, not Protestant.

The SDA’s taught that Sanctification, which is obedience to the Moral law, was necessary for salvation.   Justification by Faith was not enough; one also had to reach an acceptable level of obedience and good works or they could not be saved at the 2nd Coming.  Thus, victory over sin was the point of life.  Big sins and little sins, with the Sunday keeping being a very great sin.

The more the SDA’s promoted the Law and the Sabbath, the more legalistic they became.  Soon Character perfection, including strict Sabbath observance, was required.  This is the background for the infamous 1888 Gospel debates, which have never been fully understood or resolved by the Adventist Community.

The Gospel and AT Jones
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ched-T.htm

Sanctuary Doctrine Confuses SDA’s

The SDA’s have made a great mistake to become so obsessive about the details of the Old Covenant sanctuary service.  Their views of Daniel 8: 14 have never been fully correct, and they are making fools of themselves for trying to defend so much false doctrine.

The SDA view that personal “sins” are being sent to the heavenly sanctuary to be “cleansed” and disposed of, is wrong.  And so too their teaching about the Investigative Judgment, which is designed to examine one’s sanctification to see if they are “safe to save.”

Such false views about the sanctuary only re-enforce their incorrect views about sin and salvation, making the Gospel difficult to understand.  Sins are not sent to heaven, much less into special holy places.  Nor is there any Celestial Judgment taking place to examine our level of sanctification and law keeping.  All such false doctrine must be repudiated.

Do the sins of believers ever enter the heavenly sanctuary?

There is not a single Bible verse anywhere in the Old or New Testament that says that confessed sins are transferred into the holy sanctuary or defile the sanctuary in any way.

In the Old Testament, the sins of the penitent believer were laid upon the sacrificial animal and the innocent animal was killed. This sacrificial act cancelled out the sins of the sinner, and those sins ceased to exist.

This is proven by the fact that the sin offering then became "most holy" (Num. 18:9). It did not carry sin, for the sin was eradicated by its death. The Bible teaches that the blood sanctifies or makes holy (Heb. 9:13). Jesus said his blood gives "life" (John 6:53). His blood is never described anywhere in the Bible as a transportation mechanism to move sins from sinners into the heavenly sanctuary.

Conclusion

There is not a single word in the New Testament indicating that Christ would move from the Holy to the Most Holy Place in 1844 or at any other point in human history. On the contrary, all the Biblical evidence points to Christ fulfilling the symbology of the Day of Atonement when He died on the cross and then ascended into heaven:

1.    Christ came as a High Priest to His temple (Heb. 9:11).
2.    He entered by His own blood (Heb. 9:12).
3.    He purified the heavenly copies with His blood (Heb. 9:23).
4.    He appeared in the Most Holy Place before the presence of God (Heb. 9:24).
5.    His blood cleansed His people from their sin (Heb. 9:14).
6.    The atonement is a finished work and Christ "sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12)

By His sacrificial death and ascension into the heavenly sanctuary Christ fulfilled every one of the aspects of the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16!

His work of atonement is complete and finished "for ever", and to symbolize the completeness of His task, Hebrews says that Christ "sat down on the right hand of God." It is finished!

http://www.nonsda.org/study5.shtml


Ellen White & Legalism

As the SDA’s focused on promoting the 7th day Sabbath, they lost sight of the Gospel.  Before 1888, no SDA, including Ellen White, correctly understood the Gospel.  Their confused views about the sanctuary and the law prevented them from comprehending the Gospel of Luther, which was their original pedigree.

In fact, it was only after E J Waggoner started reading Luther’s Commentary on Galatians in 1885 that he understood the SDA’s to be wrong about the Gospel and the Law, as well as the sanctuary.  Thus Waggoner started the infamous 1888 debate, which was all about the difference between the Old and New Covenants. 

Here is where Ellen White matured and embraced the Protestant Gospel.  By viewing her changed positions, we can not only see this remarkable transition, but also better understand how to define the Gospel today.

For anyone familiar with the old SDA books or magazines, it is easy to find legions of legalistic passages from the Ellen White, as well as from Smith, Canright, and Butler, etc. They were all flaming legalists.

However, after 1888, Ellen White turned her back on legalism and changed her position on the law in Galatians, even as she repudiated the normative SDA understanding of the Two Covenants and character perfection.   

After 1888, Ellen White embraced the Protestant Gospel with both hands, but the Denomination has never followed her example, much less told the truth about her changed views.

While Ellen White clearly promotes Character Perfection prior to 1888, after that time she changed, claiming that Christ's character replaces our character in the Judgment. Thus she did a total about face on this critical Gospel point.  But the White Estate hid this part of the 1888 debate from the public and the scholars.  To this very day they refuse to tell the truth, preferring to defend their legalistic myths and historic falsehoods.

Before 1888, both Ellen White and Uriah Smith agreed that salvation was a conditional process.   No one could ever think, much less declare, that they were saved.  Thus the SDA’s taught that Obedience to the law and character perfection, combined with a high level of Sanctification, were all necessary for salvation.

Here is some classic, pre-1888 SDA theology:

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement." (5T 214)

And again in COL, page 428, in the chapter called "In The Holy of Holies" Ellen White writes:

"This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigative judgment, the closing work in the sanctuary above."

Uriah Smith agrees: "Forgiveness is conditional, the condition being that we comply with certain requirements upon which it is suspended, till the end of our probation. If we fail, we stand at last, unforgiven, and no atonement can be made for us."

(Uriah Smith, The Sanctuary, 1877, page 280)

During the 1888 debates, E. J. Waggoner, who had been reading Luther, challenged this Roman Catholic view of the Gospel, and so too did AT Jones and Ellen White.

Listen to Smith summarize the SDA Gospel, that Ellen White was now repudiating: 

"The whole object of Christ's work for us is to bring us back to the law, that its righteousness may be fulfilled in us by our obedience, and that when we at last stand beside the law, which is the test of the judgment, we may appear as absolutely in harmony with it, as if we had never belonged to a sinful race who had trampled it in the dust."

Review & Herald, Uriah Smith. 1889.

Smith then goes on in this Review Editorial to directly attack Waggoner, Jones and Ellen White by claiming that the Righteousness of Christ is NOT SUFFICIENT for salvation.   

"There is a righteousness we must have, in order to see the kingdom of heaven, which is called 'our righteousness'; and this righteousness comes from being in harmony with the law of God."

So the Battle Creek gospel formula went like this: Forgiveness (via the doctrine of Justification by faith) was only for PAST sins. The present was a time of Sanctification, when people were expected to obey sufficiently so as to develop a righteous character BEFORE their name was called in the IJ above, and BEFORE the time of trouble and the seven last plagues ravaged the earth.

http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … #POST29228

This linking of character perfection with salvation became the standard, pre-1888 Gospel of the SDA's.  But after 1888, Ellen White backed away and repudiated this error, and so too should we all.
 
Ellen White’s change can be readily seen in her post-1888 book Steps To Christ, (1892) Chapter 7; A Test Of Discipleship:

"We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet.

He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous.

Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned."

This view of salvation is the OPPOSITE of what she, and all the SDA’s had previously taught.  It was the opposite of what Uriah Smith, and the Denomination would always teach. 

No wonder Steps to Christ was not published by the Review.  This book was printed by non-SDA’s because it contained the Protestant Gospel instead of SDA legalism.  The Review could not be trusted to print or distribute this work.

The White Estate should be ashamed of itself for covering up the 1888 Gospel debate.  To this very day they refuse to confess this great cover-up and tell the truth about Ellen White’s changed Gospel views.  This is not only dishonest and very wrong; it has also ruined the Denomination for all to see.

Listen again and understand that Ellen White CHANGED her views on the law and the Gospel after 1888.  It is no use for the SDA’s to continue this charade of denial and suppression.

The pre- 1888 Ellen White says:

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement." (5T 214)

The post 1888 Ellen White says:

"Christ's character stands in place of your character"
STEPS TO CHRIST. 1892.

Here is another example, from the compilation COL. This quote comes from page 311 and was written in 1893;

"Only the covering which Christ Himself has provided can make us meet to appear in God's presence. This covering, the robe of His own righteousness, Christ will put upon every repenting, believing soul. "I counsel thee," He says, "to buy of Me . . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." Rev. 3:18."

"This robe, woven in the loom of heaven, has in it not one thread of human devising. Christ in His humanity wrought out a perfect character, and this character He offers to impart to us. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags." Isa. 64:6."

Listen again to the post 1888 Ellen White writing to a woman who was struggling with doubts about salvation. See Ellen White take the correct Protestant position:

"The message from God to me for you is 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out' (John 6:37).

If you have nothing else to plead before God but this one promise from your Lord and Saviour, you have the assurance that you will never, never be turned away.

It may seem to you that you are hanging upon a single promise, but appropriate that one promise, and it will open to you the whole treasure house of the riches of the grace of Christ.

Cling to that promise and you are safe. 'Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.'

Present this assurance to Jesus, and you are as safe as though inside the city of God" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 175).

After 1888, Ellen White taught that we can know we are saved, a heretical view for SDA’s at that time, and even for today:

"Each one of you may know for yourself that you have a living Saviour, that He is your helper and your God. You need not stand where you say, 'I do not know whether I am saved.' Do you believe in Christ as your personal Saviour? If you do, then rejoice."

(General Conference Bulletin, April 10, 1901).

There can be no question that Ellen White changed her view of the Gospel after 1888. The facts are overwhelming.  Here is more dramatic evidence between Ellen White’s view of the Gospel in 1860 versus her post 1888 view.

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for He only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there.”

“One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you.”

“Although He is in heaven, and you cannot see Him, yet He loves you when you do right, and writes it down in His book; and when you do wrong, He puts a black mark against you.”

“Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes He will call for that good boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and put in your hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth beautiful music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong; but will be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful flowers. Try, try, dear boy, to be good. Your affectionate Mother.”

—Ellen White, An Appeal, pp. 62-63. 1860

After 1888, Ellen White would say the OPPOSITE about God's love and the law:

"Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong...." “His [Jesus] heart is drawn out, not only to the best behaved children, but to those who have by inheritance objectionable traits of character.

Many parents do not understand how much they are responsible for these traits in their children. . . . But Jesus looks upon these children with pity. He traces from cause to effect.”

(The Desire of Ages, p. 517, " Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892).

20th Century SDA’s

Had the White Estate not covered up the history of the 1888 debate, all would have been able to easily explain this remarkable contradiction as well as many of the other theological contradictions that are so obvious within the EGW database.

But to explain things correctly, a confession about fraud and spoliation would have to be made. So rather than do the right thing and confess that there was a massive cover-up in the White Estate, those that knew better continued to promote a false and misleading history about Ellen White and Battle Creek.

In fact, the White Estate still promotes deceitful apologetics in a futile attempt to keep up this worn out scam that Daniel's, Arthur White, Froom, and some others put in motion so many years ago. Rather than explain such anomalies from Ellen White, they can only say: "Just as we must consider some difficult Biblical texts within the total Biblical context, we must do the same with Ellen White."

In other words, such contradictions cannot be explained. The White Estate pretends to be mystified about these contradictory views. (See: "Messenger of the Lord, The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White, Herbert E. Douglass, 1998.)

But there is no longer any mystery. There are two phases of Ellen White. And the pre- 1888 version is not at all like the post 1888 person that was shunned and exiled from Battle Creek.

Not only that, the mature writings of Ellen White were hidden and suppressed by the 20th century White Estate, even as the leaders falsified her eschatology as well as her Gospel position. 

Thus it was Smiths legalistic, pro-IJ views of eschatology that became the norm for the Takoma Park SDA’s.  Not Ellen White’s post 1888 Gospel views.

Listen to Andreason, a legalists, speak about the last generation within the context of crass perfectionism. He was not inventing something new, but rather, he represented the false theology of Uriah Smith, and the other Battle Creek legalists that Ellen White had fought against in 1888. Thanks to the White Estate, many think that Ellen White embraced Smith’s view when she had actually repudiated it after 1888.

"The final demonstration of what the Gospel can do in and for humanity is still in the future. Christ showed the way. He took a human body, and in that body demonstrated the power of God. Men are to follow his example and prove that what God did in Christ, he can do in every human being who submits to him. The world is awaiting this demonstration..."

"They will demonstrate that it is possible to live without sin—the very demonstration for which the world has been looking..."

The Sanctuary Service, By M. L. Andreason, pp. 299, 302. Review and Herald publishing, 1937, 1947, paperback version 1969.

This last generation legalism engulfed 20th century Adventism like a flood. It swept everybody along to the great sin of Glacier View, where such false views became official doctrine. But Ellen White did not approve as the White Estate claimed.  She did not support Glacier View or what the Review and the White Estate were teaching in her name.  Nor does she today.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ions-2.htm

The 20th century SDA’s repeated the same legalistic mistakes as their Battle Creek fathers.  They too embraced the false views of Uriah Smith, which influenced the church to act very legalistic and strict. 

During the 1970’s, a debate about the definition of Righteousness by Faith broke out, culminating in the Glacier View trial of Dr. Ford in 1980.  The issues were about the definition of the Gospel and the mechanics of salvation, as well as the fact that the IJ was wrong.  It was really a replay of 1888, with the same sad outcome. 

Just as the 1888 debates resulted in a great schism and error, so too Glacier View in 1980.   History is repeating itself for all to see, but the SDA’s are still too dull to understand and repent.

Conclusion:

I hope this helps you better understand the real issues about the doctrine of forgiveness of sin within the SDA community.  Unless the doctrine of the IJ is repudiated, along with this “process” Gospel that subordinates JBF to the past and to Sanctification, the SDA’s will never be able to comprehend the genuine Gospel.

Those who are Protestant minded understand that we are not under the Moral Law, but the under law of Christ, which is to say his teachings about salvation.

Moreover, to be in Christ, by faith, is to have all our past, present and future sins forgiven and removed.  There is no maybe about it.  They are gone.  They are not transferred anywhere, much less to heaven.  We are declared righteous and sinless, even though we are not.

Rom. 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Rom. 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Rom. 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Salvation is not a process that is “conditional” on our obedience to Law.  Christ is our Righteousness and our Sanctification, even as Eternal life is our inheritance.  Christ’s perfect life is credited to our account, by faith, and God views us as sinless, our names written in the Lambs book of Life.

1Cor. 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

1Cor. 1:31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

Phil. 4:3 Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Rev. 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Listen to Luther and understand that Justification saves fully:

"Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. "

http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1122

To embrace Christ as savior, is to have all personal sins forgiven; past, present, and future, -instantly and forever.  The result is Eternal Life.  Thus faith in Christ destroys sin.  It does not preserve or transfer sins into heaven as the SDA’s absurdly teach.  Away with such childish, and legalistic error!

Mic. 7:19 He will again have compassion on us;
    He will tread our iniquities under foot.
    Yes, You will cast all their sins
    Into the depths of the sea.

Heb. 8:12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
    AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 26:18 I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’

Eph. 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Col. 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.


I hope this answers your question.

Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#21 12-07-12 8:18 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

QUESTION: Excellent reply,

Tom, You have given me a lot to think about and a perspective on SDA history I haven't heard before.

Thank you for taking the time to reply...

You rightly addressed the underlying issues involved in the questions I asked.

And you plainly marked out your positions and backed them up with scripture evidence...

Just one question, When was "The Great Controversy" written and which Ellen G White does it's views represent?

Thank you again

Brent from Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer:  The Great Controversy went through a number of enlargements and updates, the last one taking place in 1887, which was published in the spring of 1888.  So the basic eschatology of the SDA’s had been developed BEFORE the leaders fully understood the Gospel.  I fact, the 3rd Angels Message was developed by 1847, --before the IJ, which was invented in 1857. 

Had the early SDA’s fully understood the Gospel, they would not have developed the IJ, nor would they have fallen into Old Covenant Sabbath keeping and tithing and Jewish food laws.  Why did they makes such mistakes?

The SDA’s were not focused on the Protestant Gospel.  Rather, they were focused on eschatology and the law.   This fact explains why there was such a big fight in 1888 when Luther’s Gospel was injected into SDA theology.  Most all the SDA leaders assumed their version of the Gospel and eschatology was faultless, beyond the need for revision or correction.  It was solid truth they thought.

However, Ellen White was NOT one of those who thought SDA theology was without error.  She was very open to the examination and study of doctrine to see if it was correct.  She should be praised for rejecting the status quo and promoting study and debate about doctrine.

However, the leaders did not appreciate Waggoner’s new theology that threatened to overturn a number of their doctrinal views, --even what they were teaching about the Sabbath.  Uriah Smith and George Butler were stunned and angry with Waggoner because they did not understand the Gospel correctly.  But yet they thought they did.  So they concluded Waggoner must be wrong, when really, they were in error.  (The same thing happened to Dr. Ford at Glacier View.)

Rather than pay close attention to the Word and make changes to their law based eschatology, the leaders opted to defend their traditions and fight the Protestant Gospel, which Waggoner was promoting from Luther’s Galatian Commentary.

The SDA’s & the Gospel

The SDA’s represented the 3rd Angels Message, which featured the Sabbath and the Tribulation.  Their contribution to Adventist theology was not focused on the Gospel, which is the first pillar in the 1st Angels Message, but on eschatology and the law. 

The SDA’s became experts about the Law, not the Gospel, and they soon embraced a Roman Catholic viewpoint without realizing it.  This was confronted and debated at 1888, but the pro Gospel side lost the debate and the thus the SDA’s have never been fully Protestant or correct about the Gospel. 

Regardless of their many errors, the SDA’s also taught that a better understanding of the Gospel would take place in the last days, and so it has, thanks to Dr Ford.  This end time focus on the Gospel was always a part of SDA eschatology and it should not be overlooked or marginalized.  Adventism started out with a Protestant Gospel and that is how it will end up.

In fact, the Pioneers taught that the Advent Movement would one day move forward to what they called the 4th Angels Message, associated with Rev 18.  This would be a time when the Protestant Gospel would be clearly understood and powerfully proclaimed, - just before the Great Tribulation.

What a pity that the 1888 Gospel debates failed to move the Denomination forward.  In fact, the results were catastrophic for the church as the Battle Creek Empire self-destructed, sending the leaders in full retreat to Takoma Park, where they would try once again to better understand, and prepare for, the 2nd Coming.  But they failed once again to understand the Gospel and thus the 4th Angels Message still eludes them.  The modern SDA’s still do not understand nor embraced the Gospel or Prophecy correctly.

Adventist Reform

Today, there is no excuse for not understanding how to reform the Advent Movement.  It is clear where they went wrong and why they went wrong, - in both the 19th and 20th centuries. 

http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=982

It is clear how to make the necessary reforms in the 21st century that will transform Old Covenant Adventism into a New Covenant movement that features Gospel based, credible eschatology.  Such Gospel Reform is part of prophecy, soon to become history.

The present teachings of Adventism are not true or sustainable.  The SDA's must repent and embrace the correct doctrine of the Gospel and Sabbath, as well as the Pre-Advent Judgment and church organization, etc., rejecting such errors as the IJ, tithing, and Sunday laws.

The time has come for the Advent Movement to go forward to the 4th Angels Message.  The final events are closer than ever.

Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#22 02-25-13 11:42 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

QUESTION for Tom Norris:

Moses asked:  Galatians 3 says "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." This doesn't mean we shouldn't stop following the law right?

Tom Norris said:

Understanding the Gospel in the 21st century

The difficulty of understanding the Gospel should not be under-estimated. Jesus taught that only a few would be saved, with only 25% of those that hear the Gospel able to comprehend it. 

These are not very good odds, especially when you consider that we today are dealing with ancient concepts and teachings that date back thousands of years.  To make things even more difficult, there are numerous conflicting interpretations about the Gospel Story.

If the Jews could not understand the Gospel in the 1st century, with Jesus as its chief spokesman, how can we hope to comprehend things correctly today?  Only through the Word and by the Word can anyone hope to understand Christ.  Those who are not honest with the Gospels will never understand.

Consequently, we must be very careful not to allow our minds to be controlled by religious tradition, error, and prejudices that do not follow the Word.  Those who seek Eternal Life must be prepared to follow the genuine Christ of the NT, and not the legion of counterfeits’ that have overtaken the last church, (meaning all denominations).

The Two Covenants

The most difficult concept for people to grasp is the change from the Old Covenant to the New.  This is very difficult material to understand, so much so that the apostolic church fell into great debate about this very matter.  (This is why the book of Galatians was written.)  If the leading apostles could misunderstand the Two Covenants, how much more so, those who live in the 21st century?

All must pay careful attention if they want to grasp this critical transition from Law to Gospel.   As Luther correctly said, if this theological distinction is misunderstood, the Gospel cannot be comprehended. 

Law & Gospel
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtop … 551#p11551

Most, including the SDA’s, have a very wrong and confused view of the Two Covenants, and this is reflected by their many doctrinal errors, --like the Sabbath doctrine, which no church today has correct.

So you were correct to reference Galatians, as this book features the great debate that broke out in the apostolic church about the transition from the OC to the NC.  It was also a featured book for the Reformation, even as it was the same book that caused the 1888 debates and destroyed the Battle Creek SDA’s.  To understand the Gospel, one must understand this apostolic debate, which is the context of the book of Galatians.

Paul’s term “faith has come,” means, “Faith in Christ’s Gospel has arrived.”  Now that Jesus came to earth, we are under his Gospel teaching, --not under the harsh, Old Covenant tutor, the law. 

Law Not Removed

But that does not mean there is no Moral Law, or that the law is against God.  Rather the Christian is now under Christ’s view of behavior and teaching about salvation.  Law is subordinated to Faith in Christ and his teachings.

Gal. 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal. 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Law of Christ

Paul states he is not under the law of Moses, but yet he is not lawless because he believes in God’s Moral law.  He explains that he is now under the law or teaching of Christ.  Whatever Christ teaches about salvation, law, and behavior, including the Sabbath, is what his sheep must embrace.  Christ’s word is superior to law.

Listen to Paul elevate the “Law of Christ” over the Law of Moses:

1Cor. 9:19  For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.

1Cor. 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

1Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Gal. 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

Christians are to fullfull the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.


Jesus Teaches all 10 Commandments

Whenever the Sabbath is debated, the anti-Sabbatarian crowd claims that Jesus has restated only 9 of the 10 commandments, thus 90% of the Moral Law is contained in Christ’s teaching;  thus, only 9 out of 10 are still binding on all, except the 4th.   

But this position is wrong.  Jesus repeatedly teaches a doctrine of the NC Sabbath in all four Gospels.  Consequently, to be under the law of Christ is to also be under his Sabbath doctrine, which is very different from Moses.  What Jesus teaches about each of the 10 commandments is what we are obligated to believe, follow, and promote.

NCT Exposed As Error
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=953

Jesus Did Not Remove Moral Law

Jesus did not come to earth to remove the Moral law or give a pass to sinful behavior.  In fact, he made it clear that even wrong thoughts can be sinful, as they also break the law. 

Matt. 5:17  “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Matt. 5:27  “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;

Matt. 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Most people know what Jesus teaches about murder, theft, and adultery, but surprisingly few have any idea what he teaches about the Sabbath.  Except that it too is full of rules, regulations, and guilt. 

As with Jesus teaching about adultery, many also think that to if one looks at others working or playing on the Sabbath, they too are guilty of breaking the 4th commandment, even if they refrain from work.   This seems to make some sense.  But is it true?

Jesus had a lot to say about the 4th commandment.  So what does he teach teach about the 7th day?  Whatever it is, that is what the church must follow.  Why?  Because we are under the “law of Christ,” not the Law of Moses.   Christ is superior to the law; what he teaches is what his sheep must follow, regardless if it seems to conflict with either law or tradition.

What the SDA’s teach about the Sabbath is not what Christ teaches.  This is the problem.  In fact, no church or denomination has this point correct.  None are following the “law of Christ” or the words of Christ on this or other points.

John 12:47 “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 12:48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Question:  What are Jesus most important points? 

Answer:  Many think Jesus’ command to love one another is the greatest and most important of his teachings.

John 15:17 “This I command you, that you love one another.

However, such a teaching from Christ relates to our Sanctification, not our Justification, much less our reward for following the Gospel.  So there must be something even more important than our love and behavior.  But what could be superior to love? 

Eternal Life by Faith

The first and most important teaching of Christ is the FREE gift of Eternal Life, by faith in the Gospel.  This is the greatest doctrine of the Gospel, commanded by God the Father to be made known to man through Christ.  Fail to understand this point correctly, and the Gospel falls apart, leaving a truncated, false doctrine in its place.

1John 2:25 This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

John 5:24  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

This remarkable offer of Eternal Life is based on faith, not law keeping.  Eternal life is a gift, not a reward for good behavior or love.  It is part of the “Law of Christ” by which we are saved.

Rom. 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

1John 5:13  These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Jude 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Jesus Speaks For God About Eternal Life

Many do not realize that Jesus came to earth speaking on behalf of God.  Jesus was not acting independently or even speaking for himself.  Rather, he came carrying a message from God to the human race. 

God was offering all the gift of Eternal Life.  Here is the #1 teaching of Christ.  Here is the first “law of Christ.”  Eternal Life.  The point of the Gospel, even our salvation from the grave.

John 12:46 “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.

John 12:47 “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 12:48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

John 12:49 “For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

John 12:50 “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”

The Gospel Sabbath of Christ

As for the reformed, New Covenant Sabbath, Jesus speaks the same way.  He tells the Jews that his Gospel Sabbath came from the mind of God, and that he was doing God’s will by teachings this new doctrine.

John 5:15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.

John 5:16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 5:19  Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

John 5:20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

Those who reject the NC Sabbath of Christ, also reject the Gospel of Christ, as well as God the Father.

Moses asked:  Also "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ" Galatians 3:24 so that means the law was given to us to show us that we are sinners and need God everyday. (My opinion) I'm I right to think this?

Tom said:  The Law is for bad people, not the saints.  When the Jews were given the law they had just been released from slavery.  They were a wild and rough bunch that needed the stern hand of discipline and punishment.  The law shows guilt, points out sin, and its consequences.  This is what it still does today.  But it cannot save, and neither can we fully obey it.  So this is why we need the Gospel.

1Tim. 1:8  But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,

1Tim. 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers

1Tim. 1:10  and  immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

1Tim. 1:11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Today, the SDA church must repudiate legalism and stop trying to elevate the Moral Law above the Gospel.  They must only “confess” Jesus as Lord and Savior, not the law. 

Those who confess Law, like the SDA’s, are Judaizers, not true Christians.  They have denied the Gospel and repudiated the genuine Christ, even as they have misunderstood the Sabbath of Christ and the mind of God.

Matt. 10:32  “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

Matt. 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

To confess Christ is to follow his Gospel Sabbath.  Those who cannot do this for fear of guilt, or any other reason, are not following the genuine Christ.

Moses asked:  Also, (sorry for all these questions) about the New Sabbath you are talking about, What I got out of it is that we are able to help people and do things like work,

Tom Norris said:  Jesus Gospel Sabbath allows all to work, or play, on the 7th day.  Regardless what kind of work.  Regardless if you get paid or not.  Jesus teaches that for his followers, it is not sin to violate the 4th commandment.  Which is why one could be a Roman slave or a soldier, and work on the 7th day, and still be a good Christian. 

Those who think other wise, do not know the genuine Christ or his Gospel.

Moses asked:  Did Jesus talk about the Sabbath because the Jews misunderstood it?

Tom said:  Jesus was instructed by God to teach the NC Sabbath to his church.  In fact, Jesus was “commanded” by God to explain the Gospel Sabbath to the Jews, and so he did.  The Gospels are full of Jesus debating with the Jews about the Sabbath. 

However, the Jews misunderstood everything, especially the NC Sabbath, which they flat our rejected as an impossible, law breaking, doctrine.  They loved the Law, thinking they could control and obey it to please God.  They were delusional.

Moses asked:  I would also like some texts on the New Sabbath you mention.

Tom replied:  The Gospels are full of Jesus NC Sabbath teaching.  There are many long passages, like John 5, where Jesus defends and promotes his NC Sabbath.  All should study what Jesus teaches about the Gospel Sabbath in each of the four Gospels.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … abbath.htm

Moses said:  Sorry again for all these question and Thanks for taking your time, I really appreciate it. Thanks

Tom quoted: Luke 11:9  “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#23 02-28-13 12:10 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

Eternal Life, the point of the Gospel

Today, it is strange how few Christians speak about Eternal Life.  This topic has been so marginalized as to be almost nonexistent.  The doctrine of Eternal Life is more like a vague, ambiguous concept that is rarely mentioned or believed, and when it is, it is done so in a flippant or legalistic context.

This could not be more wrong.  Eternal Life is the point of the Gospel and the reason why it is worth the trouble to follow Christ.  Without this promise and hope, life has no point, goal, or purpose and the Gospel Story is reduced to worthless, silly, myth.

Paul understood this point:

1Cor. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

1Cor. 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

1Cor. 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1Cor. 15:19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

The Christian Faith, as well as life in general, is pointless, “worthless,” and “pitiful” if there is no reward of Eternal Life. More than that, Jesus becomes a liar and a fraud and life has no meaning or purpose whatsoever.  If true, all should act like unthinking animals and party until our inevitable death.

1Cor. 15:32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.

While many think religion consists of spiritual powers and accomplishments for God, Jesus corrected this error early in his ministry.  He teaches that such “joy” is misplaced.  Christians are to “rejoice” about the fact that they have been granted Eternal Life and that their names are written in the Book of Life.

Luke 10:17  The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

Luke 10:19 “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.

Luke 10:20 “Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”

Eternal Life, by faith, is the greatest point of the Gospel from a human perspective.  But few understand this remarkable doctrine.  Many embrace religion because of what it primarily does for them in the here and now.  This is very wrong.

John 6:26  Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

John 6:27 “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

John 6:28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Note that Jesus teaches Eternal Life is a gift.  It is not given as a reward for law keeping, but for believing in his Gospel words.  To “not obey” Christ is to not believe in his teachings, including what he teaches about Eternal Life being a free gift.  Which is the most important of all doctrines because it represents our salvation

John 3:16  “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 6:54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Acts 13:48  When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

It is time for the Advent Community to repent for their many false doctrines and only embrace the genuine Gospel.  They must return to a biblical focus about Eternal Life by Faith and not law keeping.  They must return to an emphasis on the 2nd Coming, which is when Eternal Life will become a reality for those of true faith. 

Heb. 11:8  By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Heb. 11:9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise;

Heb. 11:10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Heb. 11:13  All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

Heb. 11:14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own.

Heb. 11:15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return.

Heb. 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

Eternal Life is the point of the Gospel.  It is the most important of all doctrines.  Let those who have faith in Christ rejoice that their names are written in the book of life.

1Th. 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,


Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#24 03-13-15 11:29 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: Law & Gospel

The Ten Commandments and the Old Covenant:

Tom Norris said:  The SDA's will never understand the Gospel correctly until they stop pretending that the Moral law was NOT a part of the Old Covenant.  Of course the 10 Commandments are Old Covenant, and so too Moses and all Judaism. 

This myth about the Moral law has been deeply embedded into SDA theology, by Uriah Smith, in order to protect the Sabbath doctrine.  It is the root cause for their doctrinal blindness, false Gospel, and repeating schisms.  It is holding them back and making them stupid.

This conflict over the Moral Law in the Two Covenants is exactly what the 1888 debates were all about, but the White Estate hid the real story and made up diversions.  Then the Takoma Park apologists indoctrinated everyone to beleive that Ellen White supported Uriah Smiths views about the Moral Law not being part of the OC, when this was only true until the 1888 debates.  Then she changed her view, which caused a firestorm.

Listen below to a sincere SDA defending the typical Uriah Smith / Pre-1888 Ellen White view about the 10 Commandments.   

Sal, an SDA critic over at All Experts, is pushing back against Uriah Smith and legalism.  He has correctly defended the same Protestant view as Luther and the post 1888 Ellen White, and Dr. Ford, etc..  The 10 Commandments are part of the OC.  They are a major part of Jewish Law, being given to Moses by God.  Thus, the SDA's are wrong, wrong, wrong about this critical point.  They don't understand the Gospel or the Law correctly.  No wonder they are blindly self-destructing, unable to comprehend NC truth.  They cling to fatal myths and errors about the Law, eclipsing the Gospel.

The SDA's must repudiate Uriah Smith's false views about the Law and the Gospel.  They must repent for confusing the OC with the NC, and for promoting such a false view of the Sabbath all these years. 

They must also repent for hiding Ellen White's changed position about this point, and for suppressing her theological battle with Uriah Smith, which was played out over the Law in Galatians.  Had the 20th century leaders just told the truth about 1888, millions of people would not be thinking like Uriah Smith, much less thinking that Ellen White is in agreement with his views.  After 1888 she was NOT in agreement whatsoever, (even though the White Estate said otherwise). 

Smith went to his grave blind to the Gospel, even a theological enemy of Ellen White.  He never repented of his warped and legalistic view that claimed the 10 Commandments were not part of the OC law.  Consaquenlty, they never reconciled.   The Denomination has been very dishonest, and very wrong, about the Law and the Gospel and it is time for everyone to grow up and understand the difference between the two.  It is also time to tell the truth about the great 1888 debate, which was a debate about the 10 Commandments and Two Covenants.

Tom Norris for New Covenant Adventism / Adventist Reform

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike, an Old Covennat SDA said:

Sal:

You claim the Ten Commandments are taken away with the Old Covenant. You say this b/c you believe the Ten Commandments were the Old Covenant.

But the Ten are not the Old Covenant.

Heb 8:13 says  "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

The first covenant is taken away by the New Covenant, but not the Ten.

The Ten are God's moral law which cannot be taken away therefore the Ten cannot possibly be the covenant that was taken away.

Thank you,

Mike

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … venant.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Brother Mike:

It amazes me that so clear a biblical statement as the Ten Commandments are the Old Covenant can be so difficult for SDAs to accept.

"Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form—only a voice.  So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (Deuteronomy 4:12-13 NASB).

I believe that this serves to show how blinding a closed mind can be. There is no doubt to the unbiased open mind that the Ten Commandments are the  Old Covenant.  "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Paul noted this same blindness among the unbelieving Jews.

"But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.  But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart" (2 Corinthians 3:14-15 NKJV).

While no passage can be any clearer then Deuteronomy 4:12-13 that the Ten Commandments are the Old Covenant, Deuteronomy chapter 9 reiterates that the Ten Commandments, the tablets of stone, are the Old Covenant.

"When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD had made with you, I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water. The LORD gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God. On them were all the commandments the LORD proclaimed to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. At the end of the forty days and forty nights, the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant... So I turned and went down from the mountain while it was ablaze with fire. And the two tablets of the covenant were in my hands" (Deuteronomy 9:9-11, 15 NIV).

You need to stop believing that which is demonstrably unbiblical. In deed your belief that the Ten Commandments are not the Old Covenant is the exact opposite of what the Bible actually teaches. So swallow your pride and accept what the Bible clearly teaches, i.e., that the Ten Commandments were the Old Covenant. " So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone."

You mention Hebrews 8:13 which is a clear passage that the first or Old Covenant is ready to vanish away or become obsolete. You don't think that this covenant includes the Ten Commandments. What does the Bible teach? Paul continues his thought into chapter 9 where he lists some of the things belonging to the obsolete Old Covenant: "the tablets of the covenant" (v. 4). So once again the Bible states that the Ten Commandments belong to the Old Covenant. The same covenant that you admit has been taken away. 

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Brother Sal, for All Experts.Com

Offline

#25 03-18-15 10:48 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: Law & Gospel

Tom, why not share these 1,050 New Testament Commands   SAL and others you talk to at ExpertsOnly . https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/1050- … t-commands
hmm

Last edited by bob_2 (03-18-15 10:54 am)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB