| Author | Message | ||
     Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen) |
The world is ripe for Universalism. As you view the cross you can come to only one of two conclusions, as least as far as I can see. Either all are saved ultimately, or all are lost. Only as you consider bible Adventism can you see how God distinguishes between the saved and the lost. Even "faith" is an empty word unless it is defined in a biblical context. The reformers used the phrase "faith alone" to explain justification in the context of imputed righteousness and the finished work of Christ. Faith alone is always Christ alone. The believer plays no part in the righteousness that justifies us before God by substitution and representation. And they presented their position in opposition to Rome who claimed there was "merit" in the human response by way of sanctification. Thus the reformers were able to show there is no merit in the human response and Christ "alone" merited and earned our salvation. Thus, the human response in sanctification had instrumental value in uniteing us to Christ, but no meritorious value. This distinction was important to maintain the value of human works in the context of salvation without implying that God actually "owed" us anything because we fulfilled any obligation. Salvation is a free gift, but like many "gifts" there are conditions both to receive the gift and also to maintain it. There is no "unconditional" salvation. "Whosoever will may come." This is a condition. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." And there are many other explanations of the "conditions" in the bible. Jesus enables us to fulfill these conditions as we see and appropriate the gospel. "Ye must be born again" is another condition. Yet none of these conditions are forced on us. We can reject the conditions and never be saved. The Holy Spirit will never force anyone to believe. It is just as important to know what the Holy Spirit will not do, as it is for us to know what He will do. The investigative judgment is about the human factor in the context of sanctification and salvation. This judgment is not for the purpose of determining who has merited or earned heaven. It is for the purpose of determining who has accept the privledge and responsibility of being a Christian in the biblical context. The bible warns many times of those who claim the blessings of heaven while rejecting the responsibilities and obligations of the kingdom of God. While it is presumptious to claim we can merit salvation by our good works, it is just as presumptious to claim salvation while denying any obligation as members of the kingdom of God. The Lordship of Christ is a moral imperative and to claim we are saved while rejecting His Lordship is pure presumption. And to imply that somehow the Holy Spirit will "force" us to believe and obey is presumption as well. Unless the Christian community is continually reminded of their moral obligation to obey the law as the condition of eternal life, it will degenerate to a level lower than the heathen. "Obey and live" has always been God's covenant with His people. And the gospel has never negated this truth in the past, present, or future. Sorensen | ||
| Joe Allen (John8verse32) |
I was a seeker for truth, no matter the cost,..all I know is that I ended up here A few of us like to think we still ARE seekers of truth, and have not yet "ended up"..... (or down). Sometimes I wonder if the "unpardonable sin" is simply to stop asking the questions...and to stop seeking...to reject new understanding of God's books, both the written one, and the natural one... of course, when they disagree is where our interpretations may diverge.... next question: if they are both God's works...why DO they disagree? Genesis seems to claim only a few thousand years...Bristlecone Pines, limestone, and triangulated light to nearby supernovas cry out for at least l0,000 to l70,000 years....if not millions... or is the official position that we have already "ended up" and found final truth? | ||
| Maggie Bockmann (Maggie) |
Thanks, Elaine--it's nice to visit now and then, although my absence is not to be interpreted as sulking, contrary to Neanderthal opinion.  I wasn't meaning to challenge Cliff's doctrine, as I'm sure you know, just challenge the assumption that a person can ever arrive at a plateau where it is then safe to drive in stakes and pitch camp for life, while still being a self-described 'seeker.' I also wasn't meaning to challenge his belief that God led him into the Adventist church, either. Such things are too high for me. (I imagine God lead me into the Adventist church as well. It was no doubt the best place for me to be at the time.) I want to highlight that fact that Cliff felt God led him to a place he could never imagine he would ever be--SDA Christianity--by a process of revelatory drips and dribbles. I can totally relate to that, and it is Scriptural, as well: "here a little and there a little," etc. What I wanted to point out about that is the fact that he now seems to feel that he is in charge of the process: "thus far, and no farther." I don't understand that, and what I'd like to say to him is this: Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?If God has begun a good work in us, can He not be trusted to perform it, even if it involves leading us continually in paths we have not known? If God does not have all the options in our lives, including the option to confuse us with His ways, are we truly His? The irony of life is that it is lived forward but understood backward. Not all who wander are lost.Yersismaggie PS: Cliff, I don't mean to talk about you as if you weren't there, but since you haven't wished, or had time, or whatever, to address my questions, which I totally honor, I'm just talking with Elaine about them. | ||
| Clifford Goldstein (Cliffg) |
Sorry, Maggie, I just don't spend that much time on here; in fact, in about fifteen minutes I have to catch a plane to Spain; plus as editor of the Quarerly I take enough heat as it is, so why come on here and voluntarily take more? Sometimes I think I have to be a masochist to get on this forum. That fact that I believe the SDA has been given more light than any other church doesn't mean there isn't more light to get. My quest for truth hasn't stopped; I've just narrowed the parameters in which I think it's fruitful to keep looking for truth, if that makes sense? And to you too, I appreciate a discussion where I am not harangued. Trust me, I take enough haranguing in my job, but at least I am paid for that. No one pays me to have to listen to Tom Norris and others berate me, my motives, my faith, my beliefs . . . . My ego can take only so much Adios!!! cliff | ||
| Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen) |
If God has begun a good work in us, can He not be trusted to perform it, even if it involves leading us continually in paths we have not known? Not if those "paths" deny scripture or lead away from the bible, Maggie. Some will no doubt come full circle and see the full scope of scriptural salvation. Those who feel it is their "duty" to attack the SDA church like Tom Norris, and deny the fundamental doctrines are less likely to "repent" because of pride of opinion. What we state and defend or oppose works on our minds and tends to "seal" us in an immoveable position. Objectivity becomes more and more difficult and it soon becomes well neigh impossible to "repent". As EGW has well said..... -BC- 1BC -TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 1 -CN- NUM4 -CT- Numbers -PR- 03 -PG- 1114 -TEXT- <SB (1 Sam. 15:23). Lessons From the Rebellion. <EB--I question whether genuine rebellion is ever curable. Study in <SI Patriarchs and Prophets <EI the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. This rebellion was extended, including more than two men.[* REFERENCE IS HERE MADE TO TWO MEN LEADING A REBELLION IN A CERTAIN FIELD.--EDITOR.] It was led by two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation, men of renown. Call rebellion by its right name, and apostasy by its right name, and then consider that the experience of the ancient people of God with all its objectionable features was faithfully chronicled to pass into history. The Scripture declares, "These things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." And if men and women who have the knowledge of the truth are so far separated from their great Leader, that they will take the great leader of apostasy, and name him Christ our Righteousness, it is because they have not sunk the shaft deep into the mines of truth. They are not able to distinguish the precious ore from the base material. . . . At what point we may reach such a condition is not discernable. But the warning is clear and few seem to consider the implications, let alone the possibility. Small wonder Jesus said, "Straight is the gate........and few there be which go in thereat." People are either in the process of being sealed, or they are in the process of committing the unpardonable sin. We need to know which is which, and as Peter said, "Make your calling and election sure." If you never challenge or doubt the course you have taken, you may need to reconsider and examine more carefully where you are going in spiritual matters. If we are not willing to "listen and learn" we may well be on the path to destruction. We may well need to be more definitive in what we say and in what we mean. The Reformation was a well defined system of truth. And the same can be said for bible Adventism. People's own lack of understanding that reality will not suffice to justify any course of doctrine that suits the human understanding. Many envision Dr. Ford as a great bible scholar and theologian. Not so, when examined in light of the Reformation and the principles articulated by hundreds of years of careful research and a definitive doctrine of faith and works. The controversy over God's government has been going on over 6000 years. And Lucifer's arguments have not changed. He has continually denied any responsibility or accountability to God in maintaining eternal life. His position has not changed and neither has God's. "Obey and live" has been the rule of God's government in the past, the present and in the future. This principle is being attacked continually in the Christian community and sad to say, especially in the SDA church. Justification by faith alone in the historical Protestant context, has never released anyone from the moral imperative to keep the commandments of God or be lost at last. Legalism has been re-defined to include any concerted effort to obey God and do His will. Morris Venden is one of the chief offenders. No distinction is made between a believer or an unbeliever in this context. Historically, only those who thought they could merit heaven by good works and put forth an effort to obey God from this perspective were defined as legalists. Now, anyone who strives to obey the law of God in view of the judgment to come is considered a legalist. And the "whole world wondered after the beast." "He that hath an ear, let him hear." Sorensen | ||
| Maggie Bockmann (Maggie) |
Adios, Cliff!!! Spain, how exciting--I hope you have a super time! I could take an awful lot of haranguing for a trip to Spain! Shucks, like you, I take a lot of haranguing around here for free. Do you think maybe the G.C. would hire me too? Regarding narrowing the parameters in which it's fruitful to keep looking for truth, yeah, I hear you. That makes sense. I agree, the narrowest parameters are the safest--nothing else will do: O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles.Let me hasten to add, I completely groove with Pizza Epiphany! God's truth turns up in the darndest places! My ego can take only so much also. Fortunately for us, we are not our egos, wouldn't you agree? And infinitely more fortunate for all of us, Christ was not His ego, either, though He "despised the shame," just as we do. We have not yet "resisted unto blood," as He did. That said, the only legitimate reason for you to come here ever, it seems to me, is if you get up in the morning, give that day to God, and then sense your heart drawing you here. If that is the case, all the haranguing in the world is immaterial, and you can safely say, "Ego, schmego. This is where God is drawing me, now, I wonder why that might be....?" Bon voyage! If you can't call, write! Maggie | ||
| Joe Allen (John8verse32) |
hey Maggs...isn't Spain where Donkey Hote went to tilt at windmills? I forget the story...how did he "end up"? | ||
| irene longfellow (Irene) |
I've got Cliff's number. People who defend him ( I have two or three times) don't rate an answer. He comes on here for the lumps. The only posts he answers are those who harangue him. | ||
| irene longfellow (Irene) |
Hey, Maggs........'bout time you returned to the family. Feel honored, people who get harangued have something worth saying. You are definately one of those people. | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
Irene wrote: I've got Cliff's number. People who defend him ( I have two or three times) don't rate an answer. He comes on here for the lumps. The only posts he answers are those who harangue him. I don't know that I harangued him but when I expressed my thoughts about his poorly reasoned conclusion he just ignored it. When I asked a question about Tom's subjective opinion verses Cliff's opinion I still got no answer. In general I have not seen Cliff actually engage in any substantive discussion on this forum. Rather he comes here claims he is a victim of us cruel folks and leaves. So since I think many of us realize that is his mode of operation, I think it is entirely fitting that if possible we can put some humor into the conversation. | ||
| Glen Davidson (Glen) |
Sorry about the late reply, but my internet habits (and access) are rather erratic at present. For myself, I don't think I'd privilege either "perspective" or "experience" over the other one in an overall sense. They interplay, do they not? Perspective colors experience, experience shifts perspective, and the dominance of one over the other is itself much due to matters of experience and of perspective. For some, the perspective is the framework through which experience is pre-judged (think David Conklin), while for others, perspective changes greatly through experience. FWIW, I didn't intend to make a statement about anything except what is brought to the experience, and particularly about the context (aspect, angle of view, clearness of vision and optical perspective, etc.) of the perception itself. For me it is an operating assumption that perspective depends on experience, as well as vice-versa. Glen | ||
| Denise Gilmore (Denise) |
Glen, Your words: "They interplay, do they not?" Absolutely! After my question to you, that insight had already played itself out in my mind. However, I was curious as to your concept with this so I opted to let it stand without a furthering communique. Glad you found the post. Thank you. Denise Gilmore | ||
| Tom Norris (Tnorris) |
U.Unruh of the TSDA's complained sarcastically on Saturday, June 28, 2003 by saying: "Goldstein's crime is believing that Daniel 7-9 is speaking about Jesus ministry and His work in the sanctuary?" I do not think it is a crime to be a bad historian or a lousy theologian, although it may be embarrassing. Rather, his crime, as well as that of many others at the GC, is one of promoting theological fraud and historical deceit. His second crime would be his feeble attempts to cover it up and pretend that the hierarchy has done nothing wrong. Although Mr. Goldstein spends considerable energy working hard to convince the critics that there is no reason for theological inquiry, much less Denominational Reform, I don't think many are buying this obvious and self-serving falsehood. Ron Corson is very correct when he says: "In general I have not seen Cliff actually engage in any substantive discussion on this forum. Rather he comes here claims he is a victim of us cruel folks and leaves." This is Goldstein's pattern here and back on the now dead Atoday Forum. He is unable to deal with this topic. In fact no one in the entire GC has the nerve to discuss Glacier View in front of the Adventist Community. So to be fair, Goldstein is no different than all the other wolves at the hierarchy. It's just that he makes so much noise running away that it might fool people into thinking that he was actually engaged in the serious discussion of the issues. But he has NEVER done this, and I doubt he will ever be able to be so free and Protestant as to openly and honestly discuss Adventist theology with Dr. Ford or Tom Norris. Those under the control of the hierarchy have no such religious freedom. And then before he leaves in a huff, he most always affirms that he is sincere and that Dr. Ford, Cottrell, and Tom Norris, are completely wrong; and that the 27 (post Glacier View) fundamentals are 100% accurate; meaning that no Reform is necessary or needed. THEN he runs away, often pretending to be the poor pious victim who has been abused. What was Goldstein's latest excuse for not addressing the issues? Ah, yes, he wasn't paid enough to think that hard. So he won't discuss Adventist doctrine or church history with Tom Norris (or Dr. Ford) because it is not in his Denominational job description. Apparently the effort required teaching false doctrine to the entire church through the SS lessons and Review articles has left him without sufficient strength or time to defend his Glacier View version of eschatology (that has seen little serious challenge over the years). He knows he is 100% correct. So what is there to discuss? Don't let anyone get fooled by all this: Goldstein and all the others at the GC are pros at the game of politics and Public Relations. They are experts at avoiding the hard questions and masters of diversion. Look at Goldstein run away once again rather than face a few simple questions about 1844 and Glacier View. This very act of running, running, and running is a sure sign of guilt. Just like this unbiblical game of stonewalling that the leaders love to play. But it is all a game of hierarchical diversion and double-talk. Goldstein, and all the others, run and hide because they are guilty and theologically naked, fearful of the Laodicean Message that stalks them. Gen. 3:10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." James 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. So is it a crime to defraud millions of trusting people by selling them a false version of the Three Angels Messages and a boatload of dishonest history and theology for money? And then hiding when confronted about this travesty? I think heaven would be the first to agree that it is a sin/ crime to deliberately promote a false Gospel and a false version of the Three Angels Messages. In fact, Heaven has already ruled on this in the Laodicean Message. That is one reason why heaven thinks SDA's are wretched; doomed if they do not repent and reform. In fact, a number of other leaders, like Froom and Arthur White are guilty of spoliation, (which is the act of hiding and destroying evidence), so that a handful of men in the 20th century could foist a massive theological fraud upon the Adventist people. These men, and others, like the Review Editors, who were, (and still are) in the highest positions of the church, deliberately and knowingly manipulated the historical record of 1844 and 1888 so that they could promote a false and very deceptive version of Adventist history to generations of unsuspecting church members. Moreover, part of this crime also includes the slander and defamation of Ellen White, and the dishonest manipulation of her testimony, including the suppression of key documents in the White Estate. The SDA leaders put false and impossible words into her mouth as she was forced--against her will-- to posthumously support Glacier View and recant the Three Angels Messages. But it was all an elaborate, deliberate, and professional scam. She NEVER believed or taught any such doctrines about the Three Angels Messages or the IJ as Goldstein and the others claim. In fact, not one SDA Pioneer ever taught Glacier View eschatology. NOT ONE! But Goldstein, without any credible data to sustain his false position stands firm (as he runs away unable to defend his falsehood). So, even though Goldstein joined the SDA church because he sincerely thought that the SDA's had all the truth, the leaders were already guilty at Glacier View of slandering every Adventist Pioneer that ever lived before he came on board. The SDA leaders (unknowingly or otherwise) deceived the Adventist Community--INCLUDING GOLDSTEIN-- about 1844, 1888, and Ellen White. And now Mr. Goldstein, the once zealous apologist, is looking like a tongue-tied fool as he tries in vein to defend Glacier View and comprehend this stunning revelation that means the end of hierarchal Adventism. But now that they have been caught red handed, they want to deny their sin, change the subject, and pretend that nothing wrong happened at Glacier View. They have no intention of stopping this outrageous Glacier View fraud that has been exposed with credible and undeniable proof from the vaults in GC's basement more than two decades ago. Goldstein is just one of many who has joined in this unholy conspiracy that has corrupted this church and confused the Adventist people, virtually halting this Movement in its tracks. But like I said, he really didn't know any better. He joined the church after Glacier View and only knows what he was told by those who were confused and dishonest about Adventist eschatology and the Gospel. So he still has a way out, but not if he continues to defend the guilty. How long can he pretend to be blind? Mr. Goldstein has been sufficiently advised of this situation. He has been placed on notice that there is a completely different version of Adventist history that must be reckoned with. Including a different Ellen White, and a very different version of 1844, 1888, and even the Three Angels Messages! So he has no further excuse to continue avoiding this public challenge from Tom Norris about Adventist theology and history. He needs to deal with this new evidence that threatens to overthrow the Adventist apple cart and show the hierarchy the back door. Continued |
