Monday, May 26, 2008

The Origin Of The SIN Fundies Mind-Prison

There are in fact four very significant stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge. - Roger Bacon

See the "handbook-quoters" at work. (Emphasis mine.) Enjoy! [Original post]

agaricus said...

Thank you for your reply to my comment. I cannot say that I agree with your views, although I respect them as being ones which you hold and believe in.

I happen to believe differently.

Your post is pretty long, and I think I've answered some of the issues you raised re the law-grace dichotomy, in my reply to Vincent's comment back on Isaiah's page; so I'm not going to go back over the same ground again.

You raised the 'prediction' purportedly made by William Miller and Ellen White that Christ would return in 1844. In that you are partially correct: it was William Miller who made that prediction, but Ellen White did not herself play any part in making that prediction. I don't know how much you know of the history of the Adventist church. In a nutshell, the date of 1844 was arrived at by Miller following his study of the 2300 prophetic day period in the visions of Daniel. I'm sure that you'll be able to find plenty of detailed information compiled by practicing Adventists re the 2300 day prophecy, online - so I won't go into that here.

William Miller understood the reference in that prophecy to the 'cleansing' of the 'sanctuary' to refer to the final cleansing of Earth from sin, and concluded that this must necessarily refer to the second coming of the Lord. How he arrived at this conclusion I am not sure, because the Bible does make it very plain that "no man knoweth the hour". I rather suspect sometimes that having spent months studying the prophecy of Daniel, and having actually made a pretty good job of it, he made one vital oversight.

At any rate, once the Great Disappointment of Oct 1844 had passed, many Millerites became discouraged and some even left Christianity altogether. Of those that remained, some decided that Miller might have been 'off' in his calculations and went about setting new and improved dates for the second coming. Still others went back to the Bible, re-studied the prophecies which Miller had gone over, and came to the realization that Miller - though correct with regards to timing - was in error regarding the 'sanctuary' which was to be cleansed.

The portion of Scripture in which the relevant vision in Daniel appears is full of images drawn directly from the sanctuary services such as an observant Jew of the time would have been familiar with. It is based on this parallel, and the statement of Paul's in Hebrews that there is also a sanctuary in Heaven, added to the fact that Moses was shown a "pattern" and told to make the earthly tabernacle after the patter n of the things which he had seen, that what came to be known as the Adventist doctrine of the HS was discovered.

You have also said that I seem to hold to an 'evangelicalized' Adventism, which is vastly different from 'traditional' Adventist teaching. I beg to differ. A lot of Adventist beliefs and teaching is heavily misrepresented, not least because there are many detractors of the church who, unfortunately, have made it almost a point of honour to publish extracts of Adventist doctrinal writings completely removed from their context. What I have written is what I have been taught from my earliest days, and what I have myself learnt from the writings of Ellen White, from the Bible, and through my own study. Of course, you and I may not agree on this - but that is ok.

As to your charge that I espouse inclusivism: I've read over what I wrote to you and think I see how the misunderstanding occurred. By 'as long as you are living up to all the light that you have', what I am referring to - if you look at the context - is the case of a professing Christian person, Catholic or Protestant. Such a person already has the Gospel, yes - but he or she may differ in terms of their level of spiritual insight. If you have been blessed with greater spiritual insight but adopt an attitude of nonchalance as regards the light that you already have, that is not good.

Compare this to a person who, though having the Gospel, nonetheless has less spiritual insight - his responsibility for living up to the light that he has is correspondingly lessened.

I agree with you that a person who does not have the gospel is not a Christian, regardless of how virtuous the life.

Hopefully this has cleared up that misunderstanding.

As to your comment that the RCC is not responsible for the change from Saturday to Sunday, may I please point you in the direction of the Vatican. Rome has claimed proudly for centuries that it was on her own authority, power and God-instituted infallibility that the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath was transferred to the first day. Rome holds this act up as the ultimate expression of her temporal and spiritual dominion. You can Google for it and find it online.

As an aside, I'm really quite amused that you think I'm a guy... :)

24/5/08 22:42
agaricus said...
...most people think I sound like a GIRL.

24/5/08 23:20
PuritanReformed said...

I will look to the law/grace comment on Isaiah's blog later, but right now I will interact with your comment here.

Before that, I would like to thank you for your graciousness in answering. Not too many people I know can stand their ground without resorting to ad-hominem etc. Those that do I can respect even though I disagree with them.

With regards to Miller and White, I guess who exactly did make the prediction was pretty irrelevant in this case. The thing is that both of them were the 'founders' of Seventh-Day Adventism so to speak. What I know about Seventh-Day Adventism is only limited to books and the information that I glean from Adventist websites, as I have no prior interaction with SDAs. Yes, the history of the Miller's prophecy is well-known; in fact, it is one of the most well-known fact about Adventism, besides keeping the Sabbath on Saturday, that is.

With regards to misrepresentation of SDA, I'm sure there are misrepresentations around. From what I read, I can see that certain stuff you all believe are not as heretical they are made out to be. Yet, I think I have made it clear in my review of Walter Martin's book The Kingdom of the Cults that my main bone of contention is with SDA's view of salvation, not any of your other teachings. I will immediately look at your answer to Vincent after posting this to see what you have to say about the matter.

With regards to the charge of Inclusivism, I guess it is truly is a misunderstanding. Yet the reason why I interpret it that way is not only because you mention the phrase 'live up to the light you have', which sounds rather like Vatican II in its phraseology, but because you think that Roman Catholicism has the Gospel. The historic Protestant view is that RCism has rejected the Gospel back to the time of the 16th century Reformation, and as such she is a false church, and the Pope the Antichrist. Therefore, we would never say an RC has the Gospel, though we can admit that individuals RCs may be Christians despite the apostasy of Rome.

Lastly, with regards to the Sabbath, yes I do know Rome claims a lot of things. She claims apostolic continuity from Peter and Paul even. Yet, it matters not what she claims, because these are just empty boasts void of truth, both doctrinal and historical. Just because Rome claims anything does not mean that she has indeed possess it. Rome claims to give us the Bible even, so are you going to concede that to her? I most certainly hope not! Therefore, just because Rome claims to be responsible for the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday does not make it so. The whole issue rather should be decided without any reference to that manifestation of Mystery Babylon.

>As an aside, I'm really quite amused that you think I'm a guy

:$ ..... And please do tell, how am I supposed to know that you are a girl?

24/5/08 23:29
PuritanReformed said...
>...most people think I sound like a GIRL.

I hate to burst your buble, but no, I don't see it.

24/5/08 23:30
PuritanReformed said...
Maybe you can post using a nick which sounds more like that of a girl... =P

24/5/08 23:31
PuritanReformed said...

I have amended my post accordingly, so that you are now stated as being a girl.

Anyway, I have seen your response to Vincent, and yes we do agee with certain things that you have said. The traditional Presbyterian and Reformed teaching as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) together with its attendents the Shorter and Larger Catechism do teach about the distinction of the law into three categories: moral, civil and ceremonial. The moral law which consists of things like the ten commandments are still binding on Christians today. That said, we do not see the keepig even of the moral law as being part of our justification and salvation at all.

From what I have seen, you still do not grasp the issue. The issue is not whether believers are to obey God and follow His law, but whether any law-keeping is meritorious for our salvation. That's why at least for me I would like to redirect you to the book of Galatians. Please read to find out what exactly was the teaching the apostle Paul was so angry with that he pronounced anathema against the teachers who were teaching such a doctrine. I can tell you that is it neither salvation by works nor by keeping the Law even. That is why my friend Vincent asked you whether you believe in forensic justification (imputed righteousness) or imparted righteousness, and it most definitely is not a trick question. I hope you do think through this issue, because I hope you do not want to be lumped together with the Judaizers which Paul condemned, don't you?

With regards to the example of Samson, please read Heb. 11:32-34. Samson here is included in the arena of faith. But even in your admission he did not qualify by his works, so why was he then included in the arena of faith?

24/5/08 23:57
vincit omnia veritas said...
Dear Agaricus,

PS: As I am busy now, I do not have the time to give you an extensive reply.

It seems that Daniel has answered you on my behalf.

My question is found here

I feel you haven't answered this:

"Do you believe in forensic justification (imputed righteousness) or imparted righteousness?"

See for a brief distinction between imputed, imparted and infused righteousness. It seems to me that SDA-ism as described by "Agaricus" believes that only one who is judged (ironically, by men or fellow SDAs?) to exhibit "imparted righteousness" is justified, which seriously confounds forensic justification with the process of sanctification. Also cf.

David H. Linden gave us a good summary of the doctrine of Justification here:

Any deviation from this gospel faces the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9.

1. Justification is an act of God, not a work in progress. However, God’s act of justification always results in His work of sanctification.
2. In justification, God declares the sinner righteous; in this forensic doctrine, God does not make the sinner righteous, but gives him first a standing with Himself. The basis of this declaration is Christ’s obedience, not the progress the Christian is making in holiness.
3. God pardons the sinner in a decree so absolute it has the finality of the final judgment. This decree of God is certain and irrevocable.
4. The basis of our pardon is the atoning blood of Christ alone.
5. The means to justification is faith. "Faith alone" means there is no consideration of our works whatsoever in God’s declaration of righteousness. It does not mean that faith can be devoid of good works, because real faith always results in obedience to God.
6. The principle of grace excludes all participation and cooperation by the believer in the bestowal of a gift. All sense of merit or contribution by sinners toward the decree of "righteous" is excluded. Such contribution would destroy the nature of a gift.
7. Since our pardon is based only on Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, all penance and atoning activity by sinners is contrary to this basis. Scripture says, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Galatians 2:21
8. The faith by which we are saved is by nature one that embraces Christ for cleansing, not a false faith that seeks to have the benefit of a pardon, so that indulgence in sin may be perpetuated. (Here on #8, the Roman Church would agree.)

Let's compare this with what SDA literature teaches.

According to John Rice, "Mrs. White, the 'prophetess' of Seventh-Day Adventists, is quoted in their book, Answers to Objections, by Francis D. Nichol (published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C.), page 402, as saying: 'Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation ... Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life."

Again, "On page 409 (of Answers to Objections) Mr. Nichol says, speaking officially for Seventh-Day Adventists: 'Thus we escape on the one hand, the false doctrine of Universalism; and on the other, the equally false doctrine of claiming full and final salvation for a man before he has endured 'unto the end.' "

Francis D. Nichol, in his book, Answers to Objections, states on page 243, "Here is our position: Only those will be saved who, having been redeemed by the grace of Christ, walk in obedience to all the light that God sheds on their way."

Ellen G. White said in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald of 10-26-1897 this statement, "...The terms of salvation for every son and daughter of Adam are here outlined. It is plainly stated that the condition of gaining eternal life is obedience to the commandments of God".

People are never told at Seminars that if they become SDA's and are baptized, a recording angel is watching their every move to determine their salvation eventually. Ellen G. White issues this warning in The Faith I Live By, page 210, "Every man's work passes in review before God...Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered, with terrible exactness, every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel."

Christians will say, "sure we slip sometimes into unintentional sin, but we have a mediator in Christ Jesus". No, you don't in Seventh-day Adventism. Be prepared for this SDA doctrine by Ellen G. White: "...Those who are living on the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil....". (The Great Controversy p. 425).

From a SDA tract deceptively titled Saved By Grace: "Christ says to every man in this world what He said to the rich young ruler: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ Matthew 19:17. In other words, THE STANDARD FOR ADMISSION INTO HEAVEN IS A CHARACTER BUILT ACCORDING TO THE TEN SPECIFICATIONS, OR COMMANDMENTS, OF GOD’S LAW. ... He can lift you up to the place where the requirements of the law are met in you. ... THE MASTER BUILDER WILL STAND RIGHT WITH YOU AND IN YOU, AND SEE TO IT PERSONALLY THAT YOUR LIFE COMES UP TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOD’S LAW" (Charles T. Everson, Saved By Grace, pp. 45-46).

From SDA correspondence courses. "It is not the work of the gospel to weaken the claims of God’s holy law, but to bring men up to where they can keep its precepts" (Prophetic Guidance Correspondence Course, Lesson 10, p. 36).

"Before Christ comes a second time to take us to His Father’s house in heaven above, we must allow Him to conquer sin in our lives. ... Because in this life we have chosen to accept these lovely graces of Christ as our own, the sudden transformation at Jesus’ appearing will seal our characters. ... ONLY THOSE WHO LIVE THE JESUS-LIFE CAN BE FREED FROM SIN. ... Jesus counseled the rich man who was seeking eternal life, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ ... It is Jesus who delivers us from sin but not in sin. WE MUST ACCEPT HIM AND THROUGH HIS POWER IN US BE SEPARATED FROM THE IMPURE, THE UNHOLY, THE DEFILING—ALL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENTS" (New Life Guides, #10).

From a SDA catechism. " ... We were slaves to sin. Jesus came down and suffered with us, and for us, and delivered us. As we behold Him in His word, and in prayer and meditation, and serve Him in the person of others, WE MAY BE CHANGED MORE AND MORE INTO THE GLORY OF HIS LIKENESS; THEN, IF FAITHFUL, WE SHALL SOMEDAY SEE HIM FACE TO FACE" (Bible Footlights, 1960, p. 17).

From a SDA doctrinal study. "To whom will God impart immortality? ‘To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality’ (Rom. 2:7). What shall be their reward? ‘Eternal life’ (Rom. 2:7). Upon what conditions may men obtain this blessing? ‘Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life’ (1 Tim. 6:12). ... Will a man’s final destiny be in accordance with the life he has lived? ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’ (Gal. 6:7)" (C.B. Haynes, When A Man Dies, pp. 46-47).

From one of Ellen White’s major works. While discussing the doctrine of Investigative Judgment, Mrs. White presents the following teaching about salvation: "The righteous dead will not be raised until after the judgment at which they are counted worthy of ‘the resurrection of life.’ ... As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. ... every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names 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, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance. ... all who would have their names retained in the book of life should now, in the few remaining days of their probation, afflict their souls before God by sorrow for sin and true repentance ... the work of preparation is an individual work. We are not saved in groups. The purity and devotion of one will not offset the want of these qualities in another" (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 425, 431).


From the aforementioned quotations - and if the SAD still teaches such doctrines today - it is clear as day that they confound forensic justification with a believer's sanctification at best. At worst, it is a false gospel of works-based salvation.

Sanctification may not be complete on this side of eternity; sinless perfection is not a present reality. But a believer can have an assurance of salvation (1 Jn 5:13) and a sense of security in Christ because salvation is a present possession. As David Cloud has summarized for us:

Justification is a present possession (Ro. 5:9).

Peace with God is a present possession (Ro. 5:1).

Reconciliation is a present possession (Ro. 5:10).

Atonement is a present possession (Ro. 5:11)

Eternal life is a present possession (1 Jn. 5:11- 13).

Being a child of God is a present possession (Ep. 1:6).

Being accepted in Christ is a present possession (Ep. 1:6).

Forgiveness of sin is a present possession (Ep. 1:7).

Being made alive in Christ is a present possession (Ep. 2:1).

Being made fit for heaven is a present possession (Col. 1:12).

Being delivered from the power of darkness is a present possession (Col. 1:13).

Being translated into Jesus’ kingdom is a present possession (Col. 1:13).

Mercy is a present possession (1 Pe. 2:10).

Healing of sin is a present possession (1 Pe. 2:24).

So Agaricus, why don't you answer my question and stop giving us red herrings and ignoratio elenchi.

Do you believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ as the ONLY basis for our salvation (i.e. forensic justification)?

25/5/08 15:43
vincit omnia veritas said...
An interesting article by an Adventist.

I am not surprised when the writer, Larry Kirkpatrick, admits that theirs is a DIFFERENT gospel:

Quote "Obedience does not follow faith, it comes in the same wave as faith. But... This means an altogether different gospel. There is no sliding in this gospel. Consider how this gospel plugs into the great controversy in a way that no other gospel does:

Through obedience to the commandments of God, our characters are built up in such a way that we may be safely entrusted with the gift of eternal life. Justice, truth, love, pity, forgiveness must be found in the heart of the Christian, for in His sermon on the mount Jesus said, 'Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'28

Our business today is not to downplay the law of God, to hold to an ill-conceived idea that never makes our position any stronger.29 The ark of God's covenant is open in heaven.30 The way into the holiest of all is standing open.31 We are heaven's currently designated agency for upholding that law. For anyone to say that obedience is not a condition in salvation is quite sad; for Seventh-day Adventists to say it is almost infinitely worse; for our publications to say it is criminal." End quote.

So Agaricus, which side do you take? Does obedience FOLLOW salvation, or does obedience accompany salvation?

Which side of the great (SDA) controversy so you take?

Either way, at least one of those two gospels is anathematized by Paul (Gal. 1-8-9); both cannot be true.

Yours truly,

25/5/08 20:48
PuritanReformed said...


25/5/08 22:12
Sicarii said...
Sorry if this is OT, Daniel, but I'm also surprised that you're a lady, Agaricus.

Gender is not immediately discernible online if a person only uses their nick. ;)

Just been to your blog too, pretty entertaining. :)

26/5/08 00:43
agaricus said...
Vincent, Daniel

Apologies for not having gotten back to you both sooner. Please understand that I have many committments offline, which does not allow me the pleasureof being able to potter about online - or even with my computer! - as much as I'd like. My response to you both will be of necessity a long one: and as it's being written in snatches of spare time, I'm afraid you will have to be patient. Hence this note, to assure you both that I haven't forgotten about replying.

Phew. The iPhone is murder to type on.

26/5/08 08:38
vincit omnia veritas said...
This post has been removed by the author.
26/5/08 09:10
vincit omnia veritas said...
Dear Agaricus,

Like myself, we are both very busy!

I am mugging most of the time. When I am free, I am working from 8-5pm :P

But I am only asking you a very simple question. It only requires a ONE WORD ANSWER. How difficult can it get?

"Do you believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ as the ONLY basis for our salvation (i.e. forensic justification)?"

Multiple choice:

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don want to say
d) I don't know and I don't want to know
e) Let me think about it again and I'll answer a or b or c.

What is your take?

26/5/08 09:12
vincit omnia veritas said...
Dear Agaricus,

RE: SDA-ism is another Gospel according to your Articles of Faith.

I refer to your official articles of faith:

"The Ground of Our Acceptance With God
Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God. Saving righteousness comes from the one righteous Man, Jesus, and is conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit. We can contribute nothing to Christ's gift of righteousness; we can only receive it. No one other than Christ is righteous (Rom. 3:10); independent human righteousness is only filthy rags (Isa. 64:6; see also Dan. 9:7, 11, 20; 1 Cor. 1:30).14

Even what we do in response to Christ's saving love cannot form the basis of our acceptance with God. That acceptance is identified with the work of Christ. In bringing Christ to us, the Holy Spirit brings that acceptance.

Is our acceptance based on Christ's justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both? John Calvin pointed out that as "Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable."15 Christ's ministry has to be seen in its totality. This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by "trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . . Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?"16

Just as the sun has light and heat—inseparable, yet with unique functions—so Christ has become to us righteousness as well as sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). Not only are we fully justified but also fully sanctified in Him.

The Holy Spirit brings the "It is finished" of Calvary within, applying the only experience of God's acceptance of humanity to us. This "It is finished" of the cross calls in question all other human attempts to gain acceptance. In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us."

The serious error lies in this phrase: "Is our acceptance based on Christ's justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both? ... Christ's ministry has to be seen in its totality. This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by "trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . . Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?"

Here, is it very clear that the article misquotes Calvin (see end note 15) out of context and made him say what he was actually refuting in his Institutes in III, XI, 6 against the errors of Osiander.

Here, we may peruse the writings of Seng-Kong Tan in "Calvin's doctrine of Our Union with Christ," Quodlibet Journal 5 (2003) to put the issue in perspective:

"Through participatio Christi, Calvin asserts that “we principally receive [the] double grace” of justification and regeneration. Both “our purgation and regeneration” are fundamentally trinitarian “events” wherein one recognizes “in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect.”[52] Echoing the Chalcedonian Christological principle, this double grace of justification and sanctification are not to be separated,[53] but united in Christ;[54] and yet, they must be distinguished and not confused.[55] Calvin considers the sun to be a most apposite metaphor in explicating this double grace: “The sun, by its heat, quickens and fructifies the earth [sanctification], by its beams brightens and illumines it [justification by faith].”[56] To pull apart justification and good works is to hold a “Nestorian” soteriology;[57] to make them indistinguishable is to hold on to an “Eutychian” view of salvation, as Osiander did.[58] Union with Christ is, therefore, the soteriological correlate to the Christological notion of the hypostatic union."

SDA-ism commits the same error of "Eutychain" soteriology by confounding justification and sanctification, and making these two doctrines indistinguishable as Osiander did. John Calvin was refuting this error in the respective portions of his Institutes. He writes:

"Yet reason itself forbids us to transfer the peculiar qualities of the one to the other. In this confusion of the two kinds of grace that Osiander forces upon us there is a like absurdity. For since God, for the preservation of righteousness, renews those whom he freely reckons as righteous, Osiander mixes that gift of regeneration with this free acceptance and contends that they are one and the same. ... [The apostle Paul] clearly indicates that to be justified means something different from being made new creatures." (III, xi, 6)

This reflects very badly upon the integrity and scholarship of SDA scholars, even in their articles of faith which should all the more be reflective of honest research.

SDA-ism therefore conclusively preaches another gospel, which is different from the one I know.

Yours truly,

26/5/08 10:56
vincit omnia veritas said...
The following quote from "Questions on Doctrine" speaks clearly concerning the SDA's repudiation of forensic justification based upon the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ apart from works of Man.


"IX. Investigative Judgment as Part of the Program of God

In view of the principles here set forth, it seems to us abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person's destiny. His life record after conversion is also important. A man may go back on his repentance, or by careless inattention let slip the very life he has espoused. Nor can it be said that a man's record is closed when he comes to the end of his days. He is responsible for his influence during life, and is just as surely responsible for his evil influence after he is dead. To quote the words of the poet, "The evil that men do lives after them," leaving a trail of sin to be charged to the account. In order to be just, it would seem that God would need to take all these things into account in the judgment."

So, according to SDA-ism, "it seems to [them] abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person's destiny." This begs the question: is forensic justification conditioned upon the "life record [of the man] after conversion" i.e. works? According to SDA official doctrine, the answer is inevitably yes.

This seriously confounds justification with sanctification, and falls prey to the heresy of "Eutychian" soteriology - which is salvation by works.

26/5/08 14:59
vincit omnia veritas said...
The whole originally published "Questions on Doctrine" is available here:

26/5/08 15:03

[See the ghetto one-two formulae in play? Quote a handbook, next come out with a meta-definition, then point out a hyperlink. After that, say that he's busy with examinations. Next, confrontational objective questions in order to establish a person's position on a cardinal doctrine - so that we can KIV for later "anathemas". A person's "take", "side" or "position" is the most important thing to these adherents in the cult of handbook-correctness (otherwise, it's another gospel and deserving of anathemas). Very, very scary people. Finally, Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon! Wow! In this day and age even...]

No comments: