Note: This composition has been moved to the FaithSaves website. The text from “9.) The true church … His government mark.” was originally in the text of this post.
Home » Uncategorized » Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA), part 5; SDA teaching on an Investigative Judgment and salvation by works; SDA rejection of eternal security and Biblical assurance of salvation; and SDA teaching that the Sabbath, not the Holy Spirit, is the seal of God
An SDA e-mailed me and employed Revelation 22:10-11, "let him be filthy still," to try to prove the Investigative Judgment. He also affirmed that the doctrine came from the Bible, not Ellen White. The following is a response I sent to him:
If the no-mediator doctrine is Biblical and not from EGW, could you please tell me at least one commentary on Revelation or sermon on Revelation that taught EGW's doctrine for the first 1700 years of church history? Thank you.
Please also tell me if you yourself will be saved if Christ is not your Mediator.
Christ's death and shed blood are integral to His priestly work. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. To say you are without Christ's Priestly work means you are without Christ's death and shed blood. Please explain to me how you will be saved without Christ's death and shed blood. The standard SDA theology appears to be that one must be as perfect as Christ to be saved without Him as Mediator, for only so is the alleged Great Controversy ended correctly and God, who somehow needs vindication, is then vindicated. If that isn't what you think, though, please give me your explanation, and tell me if the explanation I gave above and affirmed is the standard SDA theology is a false gospel and abominable heresy.
I trust you will explain why Revelation 22:10-11 is only talking about this alleged future time where there is no Mediator, rather than what is obvious from the context, that it is true from the time the book was given to the Apostle John until today:
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
All v. 11 is saying is that people shouldn't waste time on those who obviously don't want to listen to the gospel and go to people who want to listen; Jesus is coming back, so don't waste time. Also, the righteous should persevere. It is true from the time the words were spoken to the Apostle John in v. 10 c. A. D. 95. Please show me why we get to rip the time of v. 11 away from v. 10 and shift it into some future period not mentioned anywhere in the context. How in the world is this verse supposed to prove anyone can be saved without Christ as Mediator?
Also, could you please tell me where in Revelation it says people will be saved without Christ as Mediator, or where John 14:6 will no longer be applicable? I don't even see it allegorically in any of the texts you mentioned. Are you saying Revelation 15:8 means Christ has to leave the heavenly temple too? Where does He go? The passage doesn't even say anything about Christ leaving–it is about nobody getting to go in there after the angels mentioned in the previous verse leave. It isn't about anybody going out. Jeff, if it weren't for EGW, you would never in a million years create the no-mediator doctrine from the texts you cited.
Why not simply believe John 14:6 and reject the no-mediator doctrine and the prophetess who invented it?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN cometh unto the Father, but by me.
An SDA Ph. D. asked me the following questions:
You accuse Adventists of believing in a judgment where every act will be judged (Matt 12:36), but you yourself do not want to be "accountable" for the words you said . . . How do you reconcile the two? Accountable means that you will give account one day. Account to whom and when? In a judgment perhaps? Or somewhere else?
And how could your words stop us from embracing the new birth experience, if that has already been predestined before we were even born? I am confused (or is it really I who is confused or someone else?)
The answers:
1.) 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cor 3:11-15)
Believers get different levels of reward. Acts that are bad do not abide God's test, while acts acceptable to God by His grace receive reward. Note, however, in 1 Cor 3:11-15 that the believer himself will be saved, although he will suffer loss, if he does not follow God closely enough. He is not eternally damned. The children of God are not judged about whether they have done enough good works to earn salvation. They are not judged about whether they will merit heaven or hell. Their judgment is one of levels of reward. Their eternal judgment was swallowed up on the cross, and Christ through His one offering–completed on the cross, and so not ongoing into the 1800s–"perfected for ever" at the judicial bar of God those that are set apart to Himself (Heb 10:14). Only the lost will be judged about whether they are good enough to merit salvation, and they all will fall short and be damned, because none of them is perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect–which is the inflexible standard (Mt 5:48).
I trust that with your question answered now you will justify the Investigative Judgment, as it is radically different from the levels of reward the Father gives all of His adopted children (Jn 1:12).
2.) The Bible never speaks of predestination as a reason to not come to Christ, but it is a great argument for eternal security:
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom 8:28-30)
Since Scripture comforts believers of the certainty of their glorification based on predestination, but Scripture also calls all who see their need to come to Christ (Mt 11:28-30), that is the right way to think about predestination.
I would hope that someone who claims to be a Christian would be satisfied with Scripture, as faith involves believing God's Word and unbelief is wanting something else. If the SDA Ph. D. who asked the questions will inform me that my Scriptural answer is not enough for him, I can give him a rational, philosophical answer also. However, he should recognize that requiring this is not Christian, but is unbelief.
Dear kjv1611,
Question 2. It has not been answered. If God predestines someone to salvation or damnation, nothing he/she can do change God's sovereign decision. Let us not play mind games.
Question 1. 1 Cor 3:11-15 does not speak about different levels of rewards in heaven. It talks about works on earth that will be burnt. That fact that you believe in different heavenly rewards surprises me. So if a person is very good he will receive a better reward? And if he fumbles he will receive a lesser reward? Less eternal life? Where exactly in the Bible do you find this? Or in philosophy? This is a works based religion if ever there was one.
If you rant less and focus more on the text, this world will be a slightly better place.
Peace
Dear kjb1611,
1. Dan 7:9-10 depicts a heavenly judgment while history is still unfolding, hence, a pre-Advent judgment, a judgment before the 2nd advent of Jesus. It makes sense because when Jesus comes, His "reward" is with Him (Rev 22:12). How can He have a reward for the righteous if they have not been judged worthy to receive the reward.
2. You also believe in a judgment of some sort, because you said you are "accountable." But in the post above, you hesitated in answering the question of the when/where etc of the judgment. Perhaps your views are not crystallized yet, else you could have told us.
3. God keeps an account of everything (Matt 12:36). You admit as much when you say that you are accountable for words spoken wrongly.
4. Where you fail utterly to understand both the Adventist belief in the judgment and the biblical concept of judgment is that judgment is the triumph of grace. Our works cry aloud, "unworthy," because we fall short of the glory of God. But we have an Advocate, the Lord Jesus, who stands on our behalf and declares our sins forgiven by His blood. So yes, sins are reviewed, minutely so, and declared to have been forgiven. This is why the judgment is good news. It is the triumph of God's grace over our sinfulness.
5. In this judgment all the heavenly beings take part (Dan 7:9-10). God does not need a judgment to know who is fit for heaven. He knows everything. But heavenly beings are not all knowing. They do not know everything. The judgment declares us worthy of heaven through the blood of the Lamb before all the heavenly beings. So when we enter heaven at the 2nd coming, every heavenly being can welcome us without any shadow of a doubt about our presence there.
The picture you have painted of what Adventists believe is light years removed from reality. I don't know if this mishap is because you lack understanding of what Adventists believe; or whether it is intentional. I hope the former. Either way, it is a grievous moral offence to bring a false witness against someone. I would call on you to refrain from writing about things which you do not seem to grasp well.
Peace.
Dear SDA,
Please let me know what "the day" is in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 if it is not Judgment Day, and what exactly do you believe is happening in the passage.
There are many passages that show that God the Father gives different awards to his children based on their obedience. In addition to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, note:
Luke 19:15-19:
15* And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16* Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17* And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18* And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19* And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
Matthew 20:
21* And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22* But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23* And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
24* And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
25* But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26* But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27* And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28* Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
There are many other similar passages.
I'm sorry, but God the Father rewarding his children in different ways is not works salvation. The SDA doctrine of investigative judgment is works salvation.
2.) Drawing the conclusions that Scripture draws from predestination is going on a "rant" and playing "mind games," in your view, but perhaps it is not so in the view of the all-wise Author of the Scripture that draws the conclusions that I stated above. I will go with His view of the matter, and if that is ranting and mind games in your view, I will happily take your reproach and the honor of the all wise God who teaches exactly what I said on predestination.
If you believe in focusing on the text, and that I am ranting for not doing so, please deal with the passage of Scripture that I cited in my previous comment on this matter instead of saying nothing about it, citing no Scripture for your conclusion on predestination, and no Scripture in your comment on 1 Cor 3 at all.
Thank you.
By the way, please answer the questions in the first comment above. I reprint them below for your convenience.
f the no-mediator doctrine is Biblical and not from EGW, could you please tell me at least one commentary on Revelation or sermon on Revelation that taught EGW's doctrine for the first 1700 years of church history? Thank you.
Please also tell me if you yourself will be saved if Christ is not your Mediator.
Christ's death and shed blood are integral to His priestly work. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. To say you are without Christ's Priestly work means you are without Christ's death and shed blood. Please explain to me how you will be saved without Christ's death and shed blood. The standard SDA theology appears to be that one must be as perfect as Christ to be saved without Him as Mediator, for only so is the alleged Great Controversy ended correctly and God, who somehow needs vindication, is then vindicated. If that isn't what you think, though, please give me your explanation, and tell me if the explanation I gave above and affirmed is the standard SDA theology is a false gospel and abominable heresy.
Also, could you please tell me where in Revelation it says people will be saved without Christ as Mediator, or where John 14:6 will no longer be applicable?
Why not simply believe John 14:6 and reject the no-mediator doctrine and the prophetess who invented it?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Thanks again.
My dear friend,
1. If salvation is by a sovereign decision of God (predestination) as you believe, you cannot say that your words can bring us or stop us from salvation. It is a contradiction. Do not belabor it.
2. So according to you, salvation is by grace, but position in heaven is by works. The more you attack Adventists, the more cities you will govern?? Is that how it works? Nice gospel. Works gospel.
I, by contrast, and most Christians with me, believe that as with the workers in the vineyard who worked different hours but all received the same reward, all the saved will receive the same reward, eternal life (Matt 20:1-16). We are not looking to govern others.
3. No Mediator. I think this has been explained to you in a different context, but perhaps you do not want to listen. Here it is again. Christ now ministers for fallen humanity in the heavenly sanctuary so the way of salvation is open; humans have access to God. In Rev 15:8, just before the 7 last plagues fall, the heavenly sanctuary is filled with smoke and NO ONE CAN ENTER anymore. Thus, when the plagues fall, sinners no longer repent (Rev 16:11). Salvation is no longer available for them. The door of probation is closed and now the judgment awaits them. John 14:6 is in full agreement. No Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary means no salvation for sinners. Believers will still be under the grace of Christ during this time.
Incidentally, there was also a close of probation with Noah's ark (remember, Jesus said His coming would be like in the days of Noah). The door of the ark closed (i.e. no one could enter or exit anymore), but the actual Flood, the punishment on sinful humanity, did not come until 7 days later (Gen 7:4). The door of the ark closed for 7 days; the door of the heavenly sanctuary will be closed to sinners during the 7 last plagues. Do you see the parallel? So the no-Mediator/close of probation doctrine is fully Biblical.
4. In my previous post I explained what Adventists really believe about the pre-Advent judgment, and it is a totally grace-focused doctrine. Will you now have the integrity to change your original post and false accusations?
Peace
Dear SDA Friend,
Mt 20 does indeed show that all the saved get eternal life. It does not in any way deny the teaching of many other passages that there are different levels of reward. Here’s one more from the OT, with different levels of reward for the wise and for those who turn many people to righteousness, which only some saved people do:
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (Daniel 12:2)
Please consider Romans 11:6. If justification is by grace, then works are totally excluded. If works are part of justification, then it is not by grace at all:
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
I thought it was interesting that, as far as I could tell by a search of the 100,000 pages of EGW’s writings, she never cites this verse. I could be wrong on this or not have searched correctly, but I never found a citation of this passage in her 100,000 pages of writing.
Please let me know if the SDA churches that you have gone to, if they have gospel tracts/pamphlets to give to people, if any of the ones you have seen cite and expound this verse, the way Christian gospel tracts do. Thanks.
Your position is:
“The terms of salvation for every son and daughter of Adam are . . . plainly stated. . . . [T]he condition of gaining eternal life is obedience to the commandments of God.”[1] “Each one of you needs to . . . [be] working with your might to redeem the failures of your past life . . . to see if you will be found worthy of the gift of eternal life.”[2] In “the work of investigative judgment . . . [e]very man’s work passes in review before God[.] Opposite each name . . . is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. . . . [T]he lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. . . . Names are accepted, names are rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life. . . . All who have . . . characters . . . in harmony with the law of God . . . will be accounted worthy of eternal life. . . . At the time appointed for the judgment . . . in 1844—began the work of investigation[.] . . . Angels of God witnessed each sin and registered it in the unerring records. . . . Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe . . . they will bear their testimony to justify or condemn . . . permit nothing to interfere with th[e] duty to perfect holiness[.]
Please explain, if the Investigative Judgment is a doctrine based on grace, not works, why people’s names are rejected if their acts, words, secret motives, etc. are not good enough to get “weal” instead of “woe,” and how it is not by works when one must be “working with your might” to be “found worthy” of salvation. If, as you say, it is “totally grace focused,” please explain why it is grace to damn people who don’t do enough good works and whose names are rejected. Thanks.
If Daniel 7:9-10 proves the SDA doctrine of Investigative Judgment, surely someone would have taught the doctrine from that passage before the SDA movement started. Someone must have understood Daniel for the first 90%+ of church history. Please site one commentary on Daniel that clearly and unambiguously teaches the Investigative Judgment when commenting on Daniel 7:9-10 from the first 1700 years of church history. Since the Investigative Judgment has incredible implications for what is a true or a false gospel, surely someone understood the true gospel for the first 90+% of church history. Thanks.
2.) No Mediator:
I trust that you are perfectly well aware that Revelation 15:8 simply does not say that Christ ceases to be Mediator. You need EGW’s writings to get that. Please site one commentary on Revelation from the first 1700 years of church history that taught that Christ ceased to be Mediator based on Revelation 15:8. Thanks.
I still want to know if you yourself will be saved if Christ is not your Mediator.
Yes: ____
No: ____
Christ’s Mediation is how His people get all their benefits from Him. Please explain how prayers are accepted during this time when Christ is no longer Mediator between God and saved men. Also, part of His Mediation is His role as Priest. Christ's death and shed blood are integral to His priestly work. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. To say you are without Christ's Mediation is to be without His priestly work, which is to be saved (?) without Christ's death and shed blood. Please explain to me how you will be saved without Christ's death and shed blood.
Extremely influential SDA theologian “M. L. Andreasen [taught] a final-generation perfection that vindicates God in the great controversy between good and evil” (A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen, Paul M. Evans. Ph. D. Diss, Andrews University, 2010).
Please let me know whether you agree with his standard SDA theology that in the last generation one must be as perfect as Christ to be saved without Him as Mediator, for only so is the alleged Great Controversy ended correctly and God, who somehow needs vindication, is then vindicated. If that isn't what you think, though, please give me your explanation, and tell me if the Andreasen taught a false gospel and abominable heresy.
Andreasean and all who agree with him teach a false gospel:
Yes: ____
No: ____
Hebrews 9:24-26, 10:12-14:
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . .
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Please explain how Christ “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12), “perfected for ever,” “put away sin,” etc. in the very holiest place, the presence of God in heaven, when the book of Hebrews was written if sin was not finally put away, Christ didn’t enter the holiest place of all where God is, etc. before 1844. Or is there a place that is more holy than where God is, so God is in a less holy place?
Finally, I recall that you stated:
If you rant less and focus more on the text, this world will be a slightly better place.
Perhaps, in light of this criticism of me, you could actually exegete the passages I mentioned instead of ignoring them and saying:
The more you attack Adventists, the more cities you will govern?? Is that how it works? Nice gospel. Works gospel.
I will find exegesis of Scripture much more convincing than ignoring Scripture and personal attacks on me.
Thanks again.
Dear SDA Friend,
One more thing. You stated:
you cannot say that your words can bring us or stop us from salvation
In this you are exactly correct. I will be in heaven, not because my words were so great, but because of Christ's perfect and all-sufficient righteousness, freely and graciously imputed to me through the instrumentality of faith alone apart from works and apart from obedience to the law, Romans 3:28; 4:3-8; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:21:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
If you think that your words can bring you salvation, unless you repent and embrace a true gospel, you will surely be damned.
Thanks again.
A former SDA, now a born-again Christian, wrote this to me:
As an Adventist, my definition of "grace" would have been very different compared to my understanding of grace as an evangelical. An evangelical and I could have been having a conversation using the same word, but meaning two very different things, and neither of us would have probably realized that there was a language barrier.
Actually, the argument that the Investigative Judgment (IJ) is "grace" sort of makes sense if you start with a SDA understanding of so-called "grace". SDAs typically understand grace in a way that is somewhat similar to Catholicism. SDAs would see grace as the way in which God imparts His power to us to help us live more righteously and keep the Law. By depending on God's power we are able to keep the Law and display righteous lives before God. By doing so, we are able to pass the Investigative judgment which is a judgment of believers' works to see who is "safe to save". The "grace" that saves us is really God giving us the power to keep the Law sufficiently to stand in the judgment and have our lives and deeds judged as being truly righteous. The idea, is that God must be vindicated before a watching universe. We vindicate Him when we show that the Law really can be kept. Jesus was an example of this, not a substitute. So it's "grace" because God gives us the same power he gave Jesus, allows us to live more like him, and empowers us to live righteously enough to pass the IJ.
There is also an added element in the IJ doctrine whereby only sins that have been specifically confessed will be forgiven. So, believers must afflict themselves before God in an effort to remember and confess every wrong thought, every wasted moment, every opportunity not taken, every wrong word, etc. It is God's grace that He helps us recall and confess our sins and it is God's grace that He decides to forgive the ones that have been recalled and confessed.
Finally, sins are not blotted out, only marked as "Pardoned". In SDA theology, this is the actual application of the atonement, and it only happens during the IJ. So, the atonement wasn't complete at the cross, but is only applied as part of this judgment of works (Modern Adventists will try to sound more evangelical by acknowledging that the atonement could be said to be "complete" at the cross, it just wasn't applied at the cross – it's a distinction without a real difference). The fact that Jesus died so he could potentially one day apply the atonement (as part of the IJ) and pardon confessed sins is also "grace".
So you can see that SDA "Grace" really is wrapped up in the concept of the IJ. Of course, that definition of grace varies wildly from the [Christian] understandin[g] of grace, God's unmerited favor, justification, and imputed righteousness. I hope that helps with understanding the disconnect and the language barrier involved.
Hello kjb1611,
Yesterday in church, our Sabbath School discussion was about the human fall and the grace available in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin. Key text? John 3:14-15, however believes will have eternal life.
The children's story was about a little boy who wanted to make a cake for his father and in the process made an absolute mess in the kitchen. When the father returned, the boy burst into tears fearing a punishment. Instead, the father gave him a big hug, forgave him wholeheartedly. A picture of our heavenly Father.
The sermon was about the ark of the covenant. Justice (10 Commandments) was at the base, but the Mercy Seat above them. Grace triumphs over human failings.
Then we had a lovely and healthy lunch together, a small congregation of 70 individuals from 12+ different countries, many new to Christ, all united by Christ's love.
The above are a simple experience from a normal Sabbath in an Adventist church. Grace is preached in Adventist churches every Sabbath around the world and people are being changed.
Having received grace, we freely offer it too. We love people irrespective of background or religious affiliation. Which does not seem to be the case with you. Only fringe Adventists would waste so many hours to write the stuff you write against other Christians.
Could it be that in your endeavors to do works that will give you rule over many cities in the heavenly kingdom, you have forgotten Christ's grace? That Christ's grace is not a doctrine, but a daily existential reality?
Peace
Dear SDA Friend,
Thanks for the anecdote. Of course, a Mormon, Roman Catholic, Scientologist, etc. could all give a very similar anecdote. I trust that you have only given the anecdote as preparation for actually answering what I said, not as a substitute for it.
Please actually answer what was said above, or repent.
Thanks.
Also, I trust that you recognize that speculation about my motives is not at all a substitute for exegesis of Scripture. Why not take the time spent speculating about my motives, accusing me of ranting, playing mind games, lacking love, wasting time attacking Christians, etc. and use it instead to actually deal with the tons of Scripture you have ignored above?
Hello KJB,
An anecdote is a fake story. Are you suggesting I am lying about my experience this past Sabbath? If yes, it is not nice.
I don't know what scientologists do in their services or even if they have services. I know some about Mormon and Catholic services.
But I know very well what goes on in Adventist services having been going to church just about since the day I was born. So please don't speak about anecdotes, it really does not show respect for the other person. How many times have you been in an Adventist church? If you have not, how can you judge? You should try the experience, maybe you will like it and stay.
Best wishes
Berean,
I'm not going to publish anything more that you write in the comment section unless Thomas approves. I'm going to give him the final word. We aren't a blog attempting to promote SDA.
When I read what you write, if it were the Apostle Paul answering your comments, you would have a problem with him, and would argue with him, if you didn't know it was him. How do I know? I know what he wrote and you are arguing with the same doctrines and practices as he taught. Paul said that if someone preached another gospel than what he preached, that person should be accursed (Gal 1:6-9), but you would call him unloving for that. I'm quite sure you would say now that you wouldn't, but you in fact have done that in your comments. You obviously don't understand the love of Jesus. His love isn't in conflict with his purity, holiness, and righteousness. Love rejoices in the truth, but it also rejoices not in iniquity. Paul said to speak the truth in love. You are not more loving for accepting in your meetings people who do not believe like you do without pointing out the differences.
A sample that you don't know what you're talking about is your definition of "anecdote." You said an anecdote is a "fake story" or "lying." An anecdote can be true, but it is completely based on someone's personal experience, so it isn't authoritative. We would be taking your word for it. It doesn't mean that we don't believe you. What you are saying may have happened, but it isn't authoritative for faith and practice. I could tell you my own experience and that wouldn't be authoritative either. Thomas Ross didn't say you were lying about your experience. He said it was an anecdote, and then you implied he was calling you a liar. Like him, when I hear lots of different folks from different denominations tell their stories, they might be interesting, but I don't get doctrine from them. I met a man who wrecked his bicycle and when he didn't die, he counted that as his conversion experience. I don't believe he was converted, despite his story. That was an anecdote. I don't question that it happened, but I don't take doctrine or practice from his anecdote. This is a lot of effort to explain something to you, and it takes a lot of time. If Thomas Ross wants to continue talking to you like this, he can, but if he doesn't, then he has the final word, and we'll be done.
In conclusion, SDA doesn't teach a true gospel and it teaches the doctrines of men as those of God. I warn you to leave it, and I do so in the most loving way possible. I won't be surprised that you don't think it's loving. It's more loving, however, than if I pushed you out of the way of an oncoming train.
Hello Kent,
Many thanks for your message. Here is a definition of anecdote. Note definition 2 as well as the synonyms of definition 1.
anecdote
noun
1. a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"he told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, sketch
2. an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
"his wife's death has long been the subject of rumour and anecdote"
3. the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.
"the use of inversions of hierarchy, anecdote, and paradox by Magritte, Dali, and others"
Anecdote comes from the Greek word ανεκδοτο which in the vast majority of cases relates stories that are not true. I did not use my story to demonstrate Bible doctrine, but to respond to the comment of Thomas' former SDA friend (his anecdote according to your definition) who was saying that Adventists don't know what grace is, quite a patronizing approach, if you ask me.
Kent, Thomas invited me to contribute here I did not come on my own. I obliged, not because I like arguing, or because I have nothing else to do, but because it is fair that someone should answer the misinformation contained in some of the posts.
As to who teaches the true gospel, we will let the Lord decide.
Peace
Everyone,
I published anonymous Berean's comment, because he was answering my comment, and I thought it was worth seeing.
Berean,
Definition #1 doesn't say an anecdote is a lie. It's a story someone tells. No one assumes it's a lie.
Definition #2 says it is unreliable or hearsay. That isn't a lie either. It's just not admissible as evidence, because someone is depending on one eyewitness testimony, so it can't be relied on as an authority. The second definition really is its legal definition. It is hearsay, which isn't a lie. Look up hearsay: "1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. 2. the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law." Definition #3 isn't applicable at all to how Thomas used it.
Most people reading, I would hope, would have understood Thomas to have used "anecdote" as in "anecdotal evidence," which means, not that it is a lie, but that it can't be proven, so it isn't admissible as evidence.
Anecdotal evidence: "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts." It is also considered to be a logical fallacy.
You say that in a vast number of instances it isn't true. I really don't know what you're talking about when you say that. If someone wanted to say something was not true, he wouldn't say anecdotal. He would say it wasn't true and then why. Anecdotal says there is no proof one way or the other.
That's the last I'm going to explain something like that, because what I'm catching, and this is anecdotal too, is that you don't listen anyway or else you wouldn't be arguing about this.
Dear SDA friend,
Pastor Brandenburg is 100% right on what he said about the meaning of the word "anecdote," but why are we even talking about this? Let's review:
1.) Rev 22:10-11 has been shown to have nothing to do with the SDA doctrine of Investigative Judgment;
2.) Romans 8:28-39 has been shown to teach eternal security based on predestination. We have also affirmed that we agree with what the Bible teaches on predestination–namely, that it proves eternal security but it does not teach that God created people to send them to hell, because the Bible says the former and it does not say the latter. But this has not been enough for you, and you have attacked me on this without exegeting a single passage of Scripture on predestination and ignoring the one I cited.
3.) 1 Cor 3:11-15 has been shown to teach different levels of reward, and has not been dealt with, and that it teaches eternal security has been demonstrated; You have not answered this question:
Please let me know what "the day" is in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 if it is not Judgment Day, and what exactly do you believe is happening in the passage.
4.) Luke 19:15-19; Matthew 20:21-28; and Daniel 12:2 have been ignored, or answered with mockery rather than exegesis.
5.) The key passage Romans 11:6, that obliterates the SDA defintion of justifying "grace," has been ignored. I asked you the following:
Please consider Romans 11:6. If justification is by grace, then works are totally excluded. If works are part of justification, then it is not by grace at all:
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
I thought it was interesting that, as far as I could tell by a search of the 100,000 pages of EGW’s writings, she never cites this verse. I could be wrong on this or not have searched correctly, but I never found a citation of this passage in her 100,000 pages of writing.
Please let me know if the SDA churches that you have gone to, if they have gospel tracts/pamphlets to give to people, if any of the ones you have seen cite and expound this verse, the way Christian gospel tracts do. Thanks.
Did you answer? No.
6.) I asked you:
If Daniel 7:9-10 proves the SDA doctrine of Investigative Judgment, surely someone would have taught the doctrine from that passage before the SDA movement started. Someone must have understood Daniel for the first 90%+ of church history. Please site one commentary on Daniel that clearly and unambiguously teaches the Investigative Judgment when commenting on Daniel 7:9-10 from the first 1700 years of church history. Since the Investigative Judgment has incredible implications for what is a true or a false gospel, surely someone understood the true gospel for the first 90+% of church history. Thanks.
7.) I asked you:
I trust that you are perfectly well aware that Revelation 15:8 simply does not say that Christ ceases to be Mediator. You need EGW’s writings to get that. Please site one commentary on Revelation from the first 1700 years of church history that taught that Christ ceased to be Mediator based on Revelation 15:8. Thanks.
8.) I asked you:
Christ’s Mediation is how His people get all their benefits from Him. Please explain how prayers are accepted during this time when Christ is no longer Mediator between God and saved men. Also, part of His Mediation is His role as Priest. Christ's death and shed blood are integral to His priestly work. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. To say you are without Christ's Mediation is to be without His priestly work, which is to be saved (?) without Christ's death and shed blood. Please explain to me how you will be saved without Christ's death and shed blood.
Extremely influential SDA theologian “M. L. Andreasen [taught] a final-generation perfection that vindicates God in the great controversy between good and evil” (A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen, Paul M. Evans. Ph. D. Diss, Andrews University, 2010).
Please let me know whether you agree with his standard SDA theology that in the last generation one must be as perfect as Christ to be saved without Him as Mediator, for only so is the alleged Great Controversy ended correctly and God, who somehow needs vindication, is then vindicated. If that isn't what you think, though, please give me your explanation, and tell me if the Andreasen taught a false gospel and abominable heresy.
Andreasean and all who agree with him teach a false gospel:
Yes: ____
No: ____
damned
9.) I asked you:
Hebrews 9:24-26, 10:12-14:
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . .
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Please explain how Christ “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12), “perfected for ever,” “put away sin,” etc. in the very holiest place, the presence of God in heaven, when the book of Hebrews was written if sin was not finally put away, Christ didn’t enter the holiest place of all where God is, etc. before 1844. Or is there a place that is more holy than where God is, so God is in a less holy place?
10.) I pointed out, with no response:
One more thing. You stated:
you cannot say that your words can bring us or stop us from salvation
In this you are exactly correct. I will be in heaven, not because my words were so great, but because of Christ's perfect and all-sufficient righteousness, freely and graciously imputed to me through the instrumentality of faith alone apart from works and apart from obedience to the law, Romans 3:28; 4:3-8; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:21:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
If you think that your words can bring you salvation, unless you repent and embrace a true gospel, you will surely be damned.
11.) A born-again Christian wrote the following to me. You did not show that he was wrong in his definition of "grace" as an SDA, show that the SDA doctrine of justifying "grace" is taught in Scripture, or do anything other than tell me a story about what happened to you last Saturday as a response:
A former SDA, now a born-again Christian, wrote this to me:
As an Adventist, my definition of "grace" would have been very different compared to my understanding of grace as an evangelical. An evangelical and I could have been having a conversation using the same word, but meaning two very different things, and neither of us would have probably realized that there was a language barrier.
Actually, the argument that the Investigative Judgment (IJ) is "grace" sort of makes sense if you start with a SDA understanding of so-called "grace". SDAs typically understand grace in a way that is somewhat similar to Catholicism. SDAs would see grace as the way in which God imparts His power to us to help us live more righteously and keep the Law. By depending on God's power we are able to keep the Law and display righteous lives before God. By doing so, we are able to pass the Investigative judgment which is a judgment of believers' works to see who is "safe to save". The "grace" that saves us is really God giving us the power to keep the Law sufficiently to stand in the judgment and have our lives and deeds judged as being truly righteous. The idea, is that God must be vindicated before a watching universe. We vindicate Him when we show that the Law really can be kept. Jesus was an example of this, not a substitute. So it's "grace" because God gives us the same power he gave Jesus, allows us to live more like him, and empowers us to live righteously enough to pass the IJ.
There is also an added element in the IJ doctrine whereby only sins that have been specifically confessed will be forgiven. So, believers must afflict themselves before God in an effort to remember and confess every wrong thought, every wasted moment, every opportunity not taken, every wrong word, etc. It is God's grace that He helps us recall and confess our sins and it is God's grace that He decides to forgive the ones that have been recalled and confessed.
Finally, sins are not blotted out, only marked as "Pardoned". In SDA theology, this is the actual application of the atonement, and it only happens during the IJ. So, the atonement wasn't complete at the cross, but is only applied as part of this judgment of works (Modern Adventists will try to sound more evangelical by acknowledging that the atonement could be said to be "complete" at the cross, it just wasn't applied at the cross – it's a distinction without a real difference). The fact that Jesus died so he could potentially one day apply the atonement (as part of the IJ) and pardon confessed sins is also "grace".
So you can see that SDA "Grace" really is wrapped up in the concept of the IJ. Of course, that definition of grace varies wildly from the [Christian] understandin[g] of grace, God's unmerited favor, justification, and imputed righteousness. I hope that helps with understanding the disconnect and the language barrier involved.
12.) These questions have been ignored:
i.) Also, could you please tell me where in Revelation it says people will be saved without Christ as Mediator, or where John 14:6 will no longer be applicable?
ii.) If the no-mediator doctrine is Biblical and not from EGW, could you please tell me at least one commentary on Revelation or sermon on Revelation that taught EGW's doctrine for the first 1700 years of church history? Thank you.
iii.) Please also tell me if you yourself will be saved if Christ is not your Mediator.
iv.) Christ's death and shed blood are integral to His priestly work. A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. To say you are without Christ's Priestly work means you are without Christ's death and shed blood. Please explain to me how you will be saved without Christ's death and shed blood. The standard SDA theology appears to be that one must be as perfect as Christ to be saved without Him as Mediator, for only so is the alleged Great Controversy ended correctly and God, who somehow needs vindication, is then vindicated. If that isn't what you think, though, please give me your explanation, and tell me if the explanation I gave above and affirmed is the standard SDA theology is a false gospel and abominable heresy.
v.) Your position is:
“The terms of salvation for every son and daughter of Adam are . . . plainly stated. . . . [T]he condition of gaining eternal life is obedience to the commandments of God.”[1] “Each one of you needs to . . . [be] working with your might to redeem the failures of your past life . . . to see if you will be found worthy of the gift of eternal life.”[2] In “the work of investigative judgment . . . [e]very man’s work passes in review before God[.] Opposite each name . . . is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. . . . [T]he lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. . . . Names are accepted, names are rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life. . . . All who have . . . characters . . . in harmony with the law of God . . . will be accounted worthy of eternal life. . . . At the time appointed for the judgment . . . in 1844—began the work of investigation[.] . . . Angels of God witnessed each sin and registered it in the unerring records. . . . Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe . . . they will bear their testimony to justify or condemn . . . permit nothing to interfere with th[e] duty to perfect holiness[.]
Please explain, if the Investigative Judgment is a doctrine based on grace, not works, why people’s names are rejected if their acts, words, secret motives, etc. are not good enough to get “weal” instead of “woe,” and how it is not by works when one must be “working with your might” to be “found worthy” of salvation. If, as you say, it is “totally grace focused,” please explain why it is grace to damn people who don’t do enough good works and whose names are rejected. Thanks.
Instead of answering all these questions, you have attacked me personally, told me I am ranting, playing mind games, accused me of lying, told stories, and done just about everything other than dealt with the Scripture I have exegeted. You have spent a long time trying to redefine the word "anecdote," stuff that is not even worth answering but which looks like an inability to even clearly understand an English dictionary. Unless you answer the Scripture above, readers will think–correctly–that you have no answers but you are not willing to repent of your corrupt SDA false gospel. Why are you continually attacking me and ignoring God's Word?
Perhaps you should consider what you have said about me:
If you rant less and focus more on the text, this world will be a slightly better place.
By the way, for readers–"Berean" is a Ph. D. SDA theologian. What he is saying is some of their best stuff. Their best stuff, then, is horrible and is obliterated by Scripture.
Also, SDA Friend, I am fine with your posting comments, especially if you are going to be willing to actually deal with Scripture. Simply attacking me personally and making wild statements are not necessarily as appreciated.
Pastor Brandenburg and KJB1611,
I am a Seventh-day Adventist believer in Jesus Christ, my personal Savior and Lord. I believe I have been reconciled to God by His death and saved by His life (Romans 5.10). I seek to live a life of obedient faith, worthy of His calling and election, and to manifest the love of Christ in my life.
“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
My desire is to tell others, who have not this hope, about this great salvation. Mankind is lost without Christ. I look forward to and long for His appearing and seek to do all I can to hasten that glorious day.
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
I have been in dialogue for months now with KJB1611, discussing various topics, not on this board. We are both passionate about our beliefs and neither has persuaded the other to change positions in any way, at least not as far as I know. But this much is apparent. When disagreements occur between parties who are persuaded their positions are correct, this passion may become misplaced and words are spoken in haste, not tempered by the Spirit of Christ. The only “victor” in this case is the adversary, Satan himself. For it is he who wishes to divide the body of Christ and create discord, thereby distracting them from the greater purpose of spreading the love of God and the gospel of Christ to a sin-grieved world.
Does this mean I feel doctrine or defining the gospel is unimportant? No, it doesn’t. But we may have different views. I, for example, am persuaded that as the result of consistent and ongoing prayerful study of the Bible that the doctrine of the SDA Church is more consistent with the teachings of God’s Word than any other. This is why I am a member of this Christian community.
But I must say this. The so-called “Seventh-day Adventist” that is portrayed on your website is one whom I do not know. The caricature represented there of what a Seventh-Day Adventist believes and how he lives his Christian life certainly does not represent me. I could make refuting or challenging the statements on your website about SDAs a full-time job quite easily given the volume of what you have written. I’m sure Berean could do the same. Now it may be interpreted that because I haven’t answered all of KJB1611’s challenges that I am perplexed as to how to do so. That would not be accurate.
However, I do feel that based on the experience of the last several months, it would be pointless.
But what distresses me more than anything is that when one of us, and I include Berean, challenges your assertions about SDAs, and does so repeatedly and passionately, you have resorted to concluding such things as “we don’t know the love of Christ” or, in my case, in dialogue with KJB1611, I will be consigned to the torments of eternal hellfire, along with my family, my wife and two young boys, unless I repent of the heresy you perceive is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I find this sad. I have held no such threats over you, and if you have felt I have, in anything I have said, I beg your forgiveness. I shudder to question your motives for only God searches and knows the heart of man.
I pray for you and your loved ones and trust we will have fellowship together in the Paradise of God.
Jeff wrote:
"The so-called 'Seventh-day Adventist' that is portrayed on your website is one whom I do not know. The caricature represented there of what a Seventh-Day Adventist believes and how he lives his Christian life certainly does not represent me."
————————
What we may have here is a disconnect between (1) official doctrine, and (2) what is actually taught. The two are not always the same. For example, I believe Oneness Pentecostalism to be a damnable heresy. I've researched and written on the matter. However, there are many Oneness Pentecostals who haven't the foggiest idea what modalism is or what the Trinity is. Their faith is simple. I have one such man in my church, who was raised in Oneness Pentecostalism. I spoke to him at length about the issue prior to his joining the church. He was completely mystified at what I was telling him about their official beliefs. In this instance, there was a clear disconnect between (1) official doctrine, and (2) what was actually taught. Are people with simple faith, who are members of cults, saved? Perhaps that's a discussion for another time!
Could we be talking about the same thing here, with SDA? Has KJB1611 deliberately mis-represented official SDA teaching, or are we seeing a disconnect between official doctrine that simply doesn't translaate to the pews, so to speak? You see the same thing in Baptist churches, for instance. Many people, in maany churches, simply assume semi-Pelagianism. Their doctrinal statement may be Calvinistic, or at least Arminian, but the people actually aren't. Take the Trinity, for instance. Whatever the doctrinal statement says, can the church member actually try to explain it without lapsing into modalism or tri-theism?
Just some food for thought. Both Berean and Jeff have claimed that what KJB1611 is writing doesn't reflect reality. Perhaps there is a disconnect between doctrine and actual practice? Either that, or you have to assume KJB1611 is a horrible researcher or a deliberate liar. I find that hard to believe.
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for the comment and for the kind words.
Regrettably, based on your defense of the very doctrines clearly taught by your prophetess in our personal discussions, and based on your words in those discussions, I must conclude that you believe a different gospel than that of the Lord Jesus Christ. You have defended the idea that people will be saved without Christ as Mediator; defended the SDA doctrine of "grace" which is the opposite of Biblical justifying grace as taught in Romans 11:6; defended the Investigative Judgment, etc. You have repeatedly told me that I am misrepresenting SDA doctrine, but you have failed to show it in even one instance. You have not shown me that the plain, clear teaching of your prophetess is not what it appears. You have taken, on occasion, views contrary to what SDA seminarians and your own system believe and sometimes affirmed very dubious ideas (e. g., that in Col 2:16 the standard Greek lexicon BDAG was back-translating from the English of the KJV). When there was no answer, then you simply ignored points that I brought up. That is not what a Christian does, Jeff. That is what an unsaved person does. I did not write Galatians 1:8-9, Jeff, so I am not consigning you to hell–the Divine Author of that passage said:
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And, because I am a Christian and the Lord Jesus has given me a love for His gospel when He adopted me into His family, I agree with His assessment. That also is showing love for you, by the way. Refusing to repent when I have pointed out errors to you, and refusing to answer questions, is actually, Jeff, not love for God nor for man. It also isn't loving your family to allow them to believe these things. You need to recognize this. I very much want to see you in heaven, but I won't unless you repent of the false SDA gospel.
Thank you, though, for not calling me the kind of names (at least on this blog) that your Ph. D. SDA friend "Berean" has done. I pray that you will repent and believe in the true Jesus, the sinless Jesus who never had a sin nature, the true Jesus who never was "made" equal to the Father from a point of inferiority, the true Jesus who could not have been eternally destroyed by the Father for sinning, the true Jesus who is Mediator for all His people, as nobody can come to the Father except through Him, the true Jesus who perfects forever all who belong to Him (Heb 10:14), rather than rejecting them if they aren't good enough to pass the Investigative Judgment, etc. May you come to a true, supernatural conversion to Christ that is radically different than what you explained when you sent me your "testimony." That is my wish for you out of love, Jeff.
Tyler,
I would love to believe that Jeff didn't really believe SDA doctrine, but he does. People in many cults and false religions like to claim "misrepresentation" when called out on their doctrine. I have had Catholics, Mormons, etc. make the same argument when there was no misrepresentation at all. They can all say that the love "Jesus," that they need His help to live for God, etc. I wish that the SDA denomination did not preach and teach what I wrote above. Is there unanimity among SDAs? No, certainly not. In fact, the denomination is filled with confusion and error, even combining tritheistic "Trinitarians" who follow EGW's later teaching that the Father and Son are "separate' Persons and people who follow EGW's and the entire denomination's earlier anti-Trinitarianism.and who thus reject the Trinity. There are people who defend the infallibility of EGW (Jeff has always defended her errors) and people who deny that she was infallible and therefore deny the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture (so-called "Berean" falls in this category, I believe, although he has been vague on it.) If I am misrepresenting SDAism, it should be easy to show it. I am actually extremely concerned about being careful not to misrepresent their system, and if I am doing it, I would very much want them to show it. Have they? No. Can they? I doubt it, for they haven't done it so far and have spilled tons of ink doing other things.
I am afraid that Jeff's problem is one of the will more than the intellect. Our discussion started when he e-mailed me on my study on Luke 23:43 here:
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/01/luke-2343-where-does-comma-go-was-thief.html
he never showed me a single instance in the NT where it is not "verily I say unto thee" with the comma after that, but instead he made some strange arguments to try to draw the conclusion that it is really "verily I say unto thee today" so that SDA annihilationsism can be maintained, and he wasn't willing to change on it.
Let's say he didn't really believe SDA doctrine. Why is he supporting them with his money, then? His money even goes to support the SDA hospitals where they murder little babies by abortion because of the SDA doctrine that you aren't human until you breathe the first time, see, e. g.:
http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2014/ /abortioninadvent.html
Jeff knows about this, because I have told him personally, but did he say it would lead him to change anything? No. Very sad.
Tyler, if you would like helpful resources on reaching Adventists for the true Christ and true gospel, I commend to you the free magazine Proclamation! which you can check out here:
http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/
while they are neo-evangelical, they have a great deal of useful information. Let us love SDAs and preach the true gospel and the true Jesus to them.
Thanks for the comment.
Dear Tyler,
One more thing–I just got in the mail a few days ago a sermon from prominent SDA minister Stephen Bohr, leader of a major Adventist evangelistic organization, which he stated leading Adventists wanted him to spread far and wide. It quotes Ellen White and Scripture as equally inspired writings, teaches the sickening heresy that the Father might have destroyed the SDA "Jesus" if that SDA "Jesus" had sinned, etc. Unfortunately, the teachings of Ellen White are alive and well in the SDA denomination.
Finally, I appreciate your sympathetic ear in finding it hard to believe that I am either a horrible researcher or a deliberate liar. For those readers who are SDA and so are not so symphathetic, let me suggest that this is not a matter of opinion. I have given extensive, well documented, and examinable evidence for my quotes from the "inspired" prophetess EGW in my pamphlet for SDAs here:
http://faithsaves.net/bible-truths-for-seventh-day-adventist-friends/
and in the parts of that study posted here on the What is Truth blog.
One does not need either sympathy or antipathy to figure out if I am a good or bad researcher, honest or a liar. All one needs to do is look up the quotations I made. One can compare this objective evidence with the SDA Ph. D. "Berean" and the SDA Jeff's lack of evidence, bare assertions, and ancedotes claiming that I am misrepresenting matters, and judge whether the objective evidence from the "inspired" SDA prophetess, or assertions without evidence combined with attacks on my character (by "Berean," not by Jeff, at least on this blog) provide a better standard for evaluating truth claims.
Thanks again.
Dear Tyler,
One more huge difference–your former Oneness Pentecostal is in your church, believing in the Trinity and the true gospel. Jeff and the SDA Ph.D. "Berean" still reject the true gospel and are in the SDA denomination, trying to get the world to become SDA, and defending the heresies of Adventism and its "inspired" prophetess.
The SDA calling himself "Berean" above did not answer the questions I asked, but he personally e-mailed me and stated that the fact that the elect persevere means that nobody can have assurance of salvation until he has lived his entire life, and therefore eternal security is a doctrine of perpetual insecurity. My answer is:
1.) It is very ironic that someone will attack eternal security as not giving one enough assurance of salvation when the following is allegedly "inspired" SDA teaching:
“[t]hose who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, shouldnever be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading.”[5] “The willful commission of a known sin[6] . . . separates the soul from God.”[7] “We are never to rest . . . saying, ‘I am saved.’ . . . No sanctified tongue will be found uttering these words till Christ shall come, and we enter in through the gates into the city of God. . . . As long as man is full of weakness . . . he should never dare to say, ‘I am saved.’”[8]
One is supposed to reject eternal security and Biblical assurance for the SDA prophetess above? The above is security and assurance?
2.) Secondly, because Christ prays for His people, all who have ever come to truly believe on Him (John 17:8), both that they will certainly be with them in glory (John 17:24) and that they will all be sanctified (John 17:17), and He promises that His sheep will never, ever perish (John 10:28) and also promises that His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), I can have the blessed assurance that since I have believed on Jesus Christ, and I know I am saved right now (1 John 5:13), I also know that I will persevere and will not become a Muslim, Buddhist, perpetual adulterer, etc. Jesus Christ works in me to will and do of His good pleasure, and the good work He began in me He will continue until His return:
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Phil 1:6)
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
(Phil 2:13)
I am predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-39), so my sanctification and glorification are certain. Hallelujah!
Thus, the strange SDA argument that eternal security is not really secure because the saints must (and will) persevere is totally invalid.
It is very sad that anyone would think that the above is a good argument, especially someone with a Ph. D. However, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)
Secondly, the same SDA Ph. D. insisted that I believe that God created people and predestined them to hell, despite the fact that I repeatedly have told him that I am not a Calvinist and referred him to http://faithsaves.net/soteriology/ where I have a number of articles against Calvinism. Any reader who wants to know what the Bible teaches about Calvinism should see "A Brief Statement on what the Bible Teaches on the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)" on that webpage. Either my SDA friend who has had the time to tell me that I am lying, playing mind games, ranting, etc. and has had the time to comment repeatedly on the word "anecdote," but has never cited a single passage where the word "predestinate" is found in Scripture and has ignored the text on the subject I have repeatedly asked him to comment on is ignoring what I said there or he doesn't care enough to find out. I don't believe that God created people for the purpose of predestinating them to hell, because the Bible says God made hell for the devil and his angels, not for people (Mt 25:41), so perhaps it would be good to actually exegete the passages I have asked about above, including those on predestination, instead of ignoring Scripture and repeatedly telling me I believe something I have repeatedly rejected. The Bible never speaks of predestination to hell, and neither do I. It says Christ died for all men (1 Peter 2:1) and says that He is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), so I believe it. The Bible also uses predestination as an argument for eternal security (Rom 8:28-39) so I believe that also. My SDA friend can call that "ranting" and "mind games" if he wishes, but perhaps he should consider whether doing so pleases the Divine Author of those passages of Scripture I am employing and defending.
The SDA Ph. D. theologian e-mailed me personally what I think he supposes is a reply to these questions. I had asked:
If the no-mediator doctrine is Biblical and not from EGW, could you please tell me at least one commentary on Revelation or sermon on Revelation that taught EGW's doctrine for the first 1700 years of church history? Thank you.
I trust that you are perfectly well aware that Revelation 15:8 simply does not say that Christ ceases to be Mediator. You need EGW’s writings to get that. Please site one commentary on Revelation from the first 1700 years of church history that taught that Christ ceased to be Mediator based on Revelation 15:8. Thanks.
If Daniel 7:9-10 proves the SDA doctrine of Investigative Judgment, surely someone would have taught the doctrine from that passage before the SDA movement started. Someone must have understood Daniel for the first 90%+ of church history. Please site one commentary on Daniel that clearly and unambiguously teaches the Investigative Judgment when commenting on Daniel 7:9-10 from the first 1700 years of church history. Since the Investigative Judgment has incredible implications for what is a true or a false gospel, surely someone understood the true gospel for the first 90+% of church history. Thanks.
His reply was that it didn't matter if any commentator taught it. Supposedly he is only going by the Word of God in this, not by Ellen White, although nobody in the world saw the "truth" in the Bible until Ellen White came alone with her "inspired" writings. (I would rather quote his words directly than paraphrase, but he told me he did not want me to do that, and I will respect his wishes in this.)
His reply reminds me of a time I spoke to a Muslim apologist and asked him if the Quran ever commanded men to love their wives (it does command men to beat them, cf. http://faithsaves.net/testimonyofthequrantothebible/) The Muslim apologist's answer? "Why would you marry her if you didn't love her?" In other words, "No, the Quran never tells men to love their wives!"
The Investigative Judgment and SDA doctrine of being saved without Christ as Mediator have key, core gospel implications. If they are true, the gospel preached by Baptists, Christian fundamentalists, and born-again evangelicals is false and those who believe in the traditional Christian gospel fall under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9. If these SDA doctrines are false, then SDAs believe a false cultic gospel and will be damned. So, did anyone believe in the SDA gospel with its Investigative Judgment and salvation apart from Christ as Mediator before the era Ellen White was alive? What is the answer of an SDA theologian with a Ph. D? In essence, "No, nobody did!" "No, there isn't a single commentator anywhere who has ever written who understood the Word of God before the SDA denomination came along!" That's what his answer means. Nobody understood the gospel until Ellen White came along! It wasn't clearly in the Bible, wasn't received by the successors of the Apostles, wasn't believed in by the believing remnant of the Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc., wasn't believed in by any of the Protestant Reformers or the Reformation denominations, etc.–nobody believed it for the vast majority of church history! Christ failed to keep His promise that the church would be teaching a true gospel from the 1st century until today (Mt 28:18-20; Eph 3:21; Mt 16:18; etc.) were the SDA doctrine true. Nobody who wrote on the book of Revelation or Daniel understood the "Biblical" "truth" that one can be saved without Christ as Mediator. What more proof is needed to show the SDA "gospel" is false and cultic?
Indeed, what more is needed to show that SDAs need to repent, believe in Christ, and identify with His church, the one that was started by the Lord Jesus in the first century and preserved until today, not the one founded by a woman "prophetess" and her coworkers in the 1800s?
Tyler,
One thing I left out of my response. I have spent months in dialogue with KJB, providing answers in the form of lengthy explanations with scriptural support, and in return asking him questions. So when he says, "the SDA Jeff's lack of evidence, bare assertions, and anecdotes," please understand that of course is his take and his characterization of what has really transpired over a long period of time. I wish you all the best.
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Dear Jeff,
I can't see your heart, and certainly we should all recognize our biases. I don't believe you gave Scriptural support at all, and I sought to answer every question you asked.
Perhaps if you actually have Scripture on your side you can answer the questions in the first comment above. Why not do it? Don't you have Scripture on your side?
The type of "Scriptural support" you have provided, Jeff, is of the quality of Muslims who claim that Mohammed is the Comforter of John 14-16, or when Mormons claim the OT predicts the Book of Mormon, or when Roman Catholics claim the Bible teaches transubstantiation. You have been able to stick a verse on your various doctrines, but not supported them in context. For example, to defend the Investigative Judgment and the no-Mediator SDA doctrine you cited, without explanation, a chapter in Leviticus that didn't teach the doctrine. You said nothing about John 14:6 or the many other texts that show nobody can be saved without Christ as Mediator. Ignoring some passages and citing other verses that don't teach your position is not Scriptural support. Your explanation for why nobody understood the supposedly clear Scriptural basis for the doctrine was that people just don't study the Old Testament. Supposedly the huge numbers of Christian Jews for the last 2000 years, OT scholars, Baptist churches where the Bible is preached verse-by-verse in context, and everyone else missed it until Ellen White came along–but the doctrine is not from her–no–it is from the Scripture that nobody understood until she came along. This explanation is just not credible. It is, in fact, sinfully not credible. If you really have Scripture on your side, why not answer the questions asked above? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am just not willing to see the overwhelming evidence for SDAism because I am wicked and am all the things your Ph. D. SDA friend has called me. What about all the other people reading this blog? Shouldn't they learn the truth about being saved without Christ as Mediator? Shouldn't they find out why "NO MAN" cometh to the Father, except by Christ, doesn't really mean that?
Your non-credible "Scriptural support" is somewhat mitigated–although still a terrible evil–by the fact that you probably have never been exposed to careful, verse-by-verse, in-context preaching through books of the Bible, the kind of preaching at the link here:
http://faithsaves.net/website-links/
If even your Ph. D. theologians like so-called "Berean" argue with anti-contextual "proof-texting" in the manner he has done above, the normal church members are probably used to nothing else.
While, Jeff, that means that "Berean" and your teachers who are like him will have the greater damnation, it does not excuse you. Jeff, I warn you that unless you repent and believe in the true Jesus and the true gospel, you will without doubt face the eternal wrath of God. I'm telling you that out of true Christian love and care for your soul.
This should have preceded my 4:45pm comment above.
Tyler,
Thanks. Please pardon my delay in responding, but circumstances have intervened, until now.
Firstly, I have no way, and I’m not sure who would save God Himself, of assessing KJB1611’s motives. Like you, I find it hard to believe KJB is a deliberate liar. In addition, I know nothing about his research methods so I can’t assess how thorough they are.
Also, I’m not sure who you are implying in your phrase “members of cults.” The word gets thrown around a lot when attempting to diminish a person or group. The assumption is that we know what each other is talking about.
To your main point however. I think I have a pretty good idea what the official doctrine of the SDA Church is and that is pretty consistent with what is taught in their Sabbath School materials at all levels from children to adults. I’ve taught or led out in SS discussions for years. So, with all respect, I don’t think I’m a victim of disconnect in that I don’t understand the church’s doctrine. But also consider this. Even a church’s doctrine may not be fixed because that would assume we have a perfect knowledge of God’s truth as revealed in the Bible. This is especially true regarding prophetic interpretation. But I also believe that future light will not contradict what I would consider to be foundational truths already well established.
But you do raise a good point regarding disconnect.
Negligence, disinterest, and ingratitude, all my enemies, all threaten me with a disconnect of the worst kind. And it’s much more important than a church’s dogma. It is a disconnect from God that is to be feared. Jesus taught about this in His parables and illustrations.
Our Savior said, I am the vine and you are the branches.
If a branch is disconnected from the vine, it quickly withers and dies. If it remains attached, it is nourished and that branch will bear fruit. This is a simple illustration from nature our Lord used to teach a greater spiritual truth. He also said in the form of an imperative, “Abide in me.” There is urgency in this command. Unless we abide (stay connected, the root word means ‘remain’ as you know) in Christ, we will not bear fruit.
The same lesson is taught in the parable of the sower. The seed falling on stony ground and among thorns sprouts but produce plants which eventually are choked by cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bear no fruit to perfection.
Perhaps this is the greatest and most important of any Christian doctrine. It certainly is one which is emphasized in my local church. Sure, it’s important to understand what scripture teaches about the nature of God and man, His creation, the reality of Satan and the entrance of sin, the Incarnation and the provision for the redemption of man through the atonement in Jesus Christ, His coming again to restore paradise, and the power of the Holy Spirit. But of what value is this knowledge without a personal, daily, vibrant relationship with God through prayer, Bible study, and our personal witness by acts of selfless service? He wants to change you and me and is more than sufficient to do so. He wants us to bear the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control.
And the greatest of these is love, for God is love.
Apart from me you can do nothing.
I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
Adam, where are you? (Sin disconnects)
Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts. (Grace reconciles)
To whoever reads this, don’t disconnect. Abide in Christ every day. Stay connected.
For only in Christ is victory.
I think Jeff's comment illustrates well what, as far as I can tell, he thinks is "Scriptural support." He didn't answer any of the questions I asked, but wrote a relatively kind and rambling comment about this and that and used some verses. I will let readers judge if this is exegesis and a valid response or not. It is nicer than the SDA Ph. D., but it is totally insufficient as a justification for the no-Mediator, Investigative Judgment, etc. doctrines that Jeff holds in common with the SDA religion.
Let me point out also that he misses the point of the abiding verses. The non-abiding branch in John 15 is Judas, who was never saved but had only an outward connection to Christ. 1 John 2:27 promises all truly born-again people "ye shall abide in him," a promise. so all the truly regenerate will persevere like Peter, John, and the other Apostles did instead of apostatizing like Judas.
See here:
http://faithsaves.net/abide/
for a comprehensive study of the "abide" idea in the Bible.
By the way, the link:
http://faithsaves.net/bible-truths-for-seventh-day-adventist-friends/
referenced above is now at:
http://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-adventist/
instead
Also. the link:
http://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-adventism-and-saturday-sabbath-keeping/
is now:
http://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-sabbath/
Thanks.
An SDA wrote to me and claimed that he would deal with my “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends” work:
https://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-adventist/
I directed him here to respond.
The Investigative Judgment and the related heresies discussed in this portion were bypassed in silence. Could you explain how they are not wild corruptions of Scripture? Thank you.
A different SDA attempted to answer the questions the Ph. D. SDA theologian refused to answer over and over again. I commend this SDA for at least trying–it is better than throwing out insults and refusing to answer. Hopefully it shows one is willing to change as well if Scripture doesn’t actually teach the SDA position.
In answer to this question:
If the no-mediator doctrine is Biblical and not from EGW, could you please tell me at least one commentary on Revelation or sermon on Revelation that taught EGW’s doctrine for the first 1700 years of church history? Thank you.
An SDA said that the book of Revelation cannot be understood until “the time of the end,” so, therefore, it doesn’t matter that nobody before Ellen White ever came up with the Investigative Judgment. There are huge problems with this contention.
1.) The “last days” or even “last hour” (1 John 2:18, eschate hora) covers the entire period from the coming of Christ until His return. It was the “last time/hour” in the first century, because Christ could return at any moment (He didn’t have to wait until 1844 based on false year-day equivalence). His coming is immanent. So it is the time of the end right now–so we should understand the book of Revelation. It has been the time of the end since the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
2.) The book of Revelation specifically is said to NOT be sealed up. It COULD be understood by the members of the seven churches who got it, and by all other true Christians from that time until today. It means exactly what it says, literally interpreted. See Revelation 22:10 below. The idea that it was incomprehensible until EGW is just not what the text says (just as the historicist SDA interpretation is nothing but allegorizing–ironically enough the interpretive method of Catholicism–taking literal prophecy and making it incomprehensible.) The SDA view says it is sealed up, but the text specifically says it is NOT sealed up.
The SDA said Revelation 22:10-11 speaks of an “end of the time to be saved,” allegedly proving an Investigative Judgment that would start several thousand years after the book of Revelation was inspired. Problem–Revelation 22:11 was true when John wrote the book of Revelation! The verse is simply an exhortation for saints to persevere and a declaration that people who refuse to listen don’t need to be pestered–Christ is coming, so keep preaching the gospel, Christ could return at any moment, so go to people who are willing to listen instead of those who want to keep being unjust and filthy and who refuse to listen. If Revelation 22:11 meant nobody could be saved anymore, then nobody could be saved after around A. D. 95 when John wrote Revelation. It would also make Revelation 22:11 contradict Revelation 22:17, a gospel invitation. Note in the quote below that the verse is in the epilogue to Revelation, 22:6-21, addressed to the seven churches specifically again, as Rev 2-3 was. Note the church (“the bride”) preaching the gospel of free grace, 22:17. Notice 22:21, the same sort of benediction that characterizes the inspired NT epistles to churches over and over again. Making 22:11 into a verse about something that will take place at some point when an alleged Investigative Judgment starts is to rip the verse out of context to attempt to support EGW’s allegedly inspired doctrine. It is eisegesis, not exegesis. Sadly, very, very frequently SDAs don’t take verses in context, but rip them out of their context to use as misinterpreted proof-texts, or to interpret them in the light of Ellen White instead of in the light of the verses right before and after them.
Simply read the epilogue in context, and it is clear why nobody dreamed of anything like the SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine from it. The doctrine is from EGW, not Scripture, plain and simple.
Rev. 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Rev. 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev. 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
Rev. 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev. 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev. 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev. 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev. 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev. 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Pardon the error of “immanent” for “imminent” above.
An SDA emailed me that Galatians 5:4, “ye are fallen from grace,” refutes eternal security. However, the text does not state that they already had saving grace and then lost it. Rather, they fell away from the truth that they had heard about salvation by grace to attempts to be justified by keeping God’s law. Saying that they were already justified people who lost saving grace is reading into the text what it does not say.
It is not necessary to have texts such as these, but note the texts below:
Acts 27:17 Which when they had taken up, they used helps, undergirding the ship; and, fearing lest they should FALL into the quicksands, strake sail, and so were driven.
Acts 27:26 Howbeit we must be CAST upon a certain island.
Acts 27:29 Then fearing lest we should have FALLEN upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day.
are not used for a position one already was in and from which one fell. It is the same Greek word found in Galatians 5:4. They were not yet in the quicksands, or on the island, or on the rocks, but could still “fall” by never getting there.
Let me also point out that if Revelation 22:11 is speaking about a time when nobody will be saved anymore, because the Investigative Judgment is going on:
Rev. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Not only must one ignore 22:17, just six verses later:
Rev. 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
But one must also ignore the OT passages to which Revelation 22:11 is alluding:
Dan. 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Ezek. 3:27 But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.
Unless nobody could be saved starting from the days of Ezekiel and Daniel, and the Investigative Judgment has been going on for the last 2,500 years, it is a ridiculous and despicable twisting of Scripture to make Revelation 22:11 predict some future time when nobody is going to be saved and an Investigative Judgment is going on, contradicting Revelation 22:17. The SDA abuse of Revelation 22:11 is just another example of the denomination’s out of context proof-texting, getting their doctrine from Ellen White but pretending to get it from the Bible.