- Part One: The Apostles' Creed - "From Thence He Shall Come to Judge the Living and the Dead"
- How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus
- Priestly Perfection
- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
But Jesus fainted beneath the burden. Three times they laid on him the heavy cross, and three times he fainted" Spiritual Gifts, vol. Again we see that any details that are given are called contradictions. There must have been a reason Simon was compelled to carry the cross. Satan told Christ EGW: No "As soon as Christ began his fast, Satan appeared as an angel of light, and claimed to be a messenger of heaven.
He told him it was not the will of God that he should suffer this pain and self denial" Christ Our Saviour p. But the glory departed, and He was left to battle with temptation. For forty days he fasted and prayed Now he supposed he could overcome Christ. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. In the third Ellen White statement above she is quoting Luke almost word for word. With this particular allegation we are forced to make a decision: either Matthew was inspired and Luke and Ellen White were not inspired and in error , or Luke and Ellen White give a more detailed account of what happened, revealing that some temptations began during the 40 days and not after.
Matthew like Ellen White in that fourth quote simply focused on the first of the three main temptations listed in his and Luke's books. John doesn't mention this encounter at all, and Mark just says "And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
White contradicts the Bible and confuses the mind. The Bible says nothing about Satan coming to tempt Jesus before his fast or tempting him for forty days, but after fasting forty days the tempter came to Jesus. EGW: NO "His hands stretched upon the cross; the hammer and the nails were brought, and as the spikes were driven through the tender flesh, All those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things the crucifixion. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it" Luke , 49, These things happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" John , There are two issues addressed here: 1 Mary led away from the Cross No, the Bible doesn't say that Mary was led away from the scene.
It also doesn't say that she stayed there for every part of the heartbreaking event. A continued reading of the reference above Spiritual Gifts, Vol. When one was crucified, that is how it was done. Every Christian has seen illustrations of Jesus on the Cross and this is certainly not an Ellen White concoction some claim the nails were actually driven through the wrists, but even this would require them to go "through" the bone.
Jesus Himself backs up all of this when He appears to the hiding disciples after the Resurrection. They fear he is a ghost and he tells them to "behold my hands and my feet" and then "he shewed them his hands and his feet. Some may say that this was not to show the nail prints, but rather to show that He had flesh. They had told him that Jesus had shown them the nail prints in His hands and feet. Then when Jesus appears to Thomas He tells him to examine His hands and side the spear scar , which Thomas does, and then believes verse Now, having established that Jesus definitely had the nails go through His hands and feet see also Isaiah ; Psalm ; Zech , we must ask ourselves if they ever went "through" the bone.
No matter where the nails were driven they must have encountered a bone and thus they still had to go "through" bones somehow in order to pierce Jesus to the cross. When the Bible speaks of not one of Christ's bones being broken Psalm , it clarifies just what it meant in John , where we see that when the soldiers came around to break the legs bones of those who had been crucified that day, they didn't break Christ's bones for He was already dead.
The Bible makes no mention of what specifically happened biologically when the nails were driven through His hands and feet. But even if God miraculously preserved the bones in Christ's hands and feet, it doesn't change the biblical fact that the nails went "through" them. This again is really about semantics. Ellen White said "through;" the Bible said "pierced. Ellen White never said that Christ's "bones were broken. This is not a case where one sentence was changed to cover up a mistake, but simply telling the story again in a different book. Why would she need to change something that was in harmony with Scripture in the first place?
Let's look at both Ellen White statements in their context: " 'In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Yet Jesus Christ whom God gave for the ransom of the world purchased the church with His own blood. The Majesty of heaven was made to suffer at the hands of religious zealots, who claimed to be the most enlightened people upon the face of the earth. Although the "fulness of the Godhead" dwelt in Him "bodily" it was the Son only who had to sink in death under the agonies of Calvary; every Christian knows this.
Jesus "purchased the church with His own blood. Now the next statement, in its entirety: "There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary , yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The Father and Holy Spirit did not "sink" into death like Jesus did. She is clearly saying that although Jesus and the Father are one, the entire Godhead did not sink under the torture of the Cross.
Christians understand that when Jesus died, God the Father did not die also. The other two Persons of the Godhead or Trinity were still very much alive; it was the Son who was to die in our stead, not the entire Deity. She is saying, in the context, that although the "Deity" Father included did not suffer and die on the Cross, nevertheless God the Father gave His Son to die for us, and what agony that must have been --watching Him die.
Here EGW is clearly contrasting the role of the Son with the rest of the Godhead and it is this Godhead to which the word "Deity" refers in this instance. In summary, was Jesus Deity? Are the Father and Holy Spirit Deity? This is simply a case where a word like the word "law" for example is used different ways. But Christ gave his life that man should have another trial.
He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation" Testimonies to Ministers, p. The three Bible texts given are wonderful truths about the gospel, but they do not address nor refute the issue in Ellen White's statement at all. Here are four that support what she said: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh : That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Part One: The Apostles' Creed - "From Thence He Shall Come to Judge the Living and the Dead"
Daniel referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming" Testimonies, vol. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus and [sic] fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" Romans For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" Romans Bible: Yes "Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Again the texts chosen are wonderful truths, but they do not address what our High Priest is doing for us in heaven at this moment. The second one says that we are justified freely, and that Jesus was a sacrifice of atonement.
He was definitely that. This is the only text of the four that even has the word "atone" or "atonement" in it. The third and fourth texts say that we have been reconciled to God through Jesus. No one should ever question this fact. All of these facts are embraced by Ellen White in her writings and Adventists in their beliefs. They are in perfect harmony with the Investigative Judgment starting in The subject of the Investigative Judgmentin no way contradicts the Bible. It is a Bible study all in itself and for the sake of space we will not go through that entire study here.
The "atonement" in regard to Jesus taking our sins completely from us when we confess them and cleansing us with His blood is indeed complete and Ellen White taught this see Review and Herald , Nov. But God has a plan to end the "sin problem" forever, and that does indeed involve more than blanket forgiveness. Christians readily acknowledge that Jesus' work for us isn't "finished" in every sense, for the Bible says He still makes intercession for us on a daily basis Hebrews ; Romans He still has a judgment to perform Acts ; Romans And He still must rescue His faithful children from a dying planet John ; Matthew Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him" Romans This allegation is a re-wording of the last one and again, one needs to study the Investigative Judgment for one's self to understand the validity of it.
A few quotes will not shed much light on the issue. Any Bible student would be blessed by studying the matter. Both Ellen White and Adventists, however, do reject the teaching of "once saved always saved" for the Bible does not teach it. EGW: Yes "As the sins of the people were anciently transferred in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. Bible: No "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
This allegation also deals with the Investigative Judgment. The texts used to refute Ellen White only support what she had said in the quotes listed. EGW: SATAN "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, Another Investigative Judgment statement.
If one rejects the Investigative Judgment or the Sabbath, or soul sleep in death, or the Flood for that matter then that person will be able to find plenty of Ellen White statements that are apparently "wrong". Jesus paid the price for our sins, but Satan is responsible for tempting us to sin. If Jesus wants Satan to pay a price for that, that is His decision.
Again, we suggest the reader study the Day of Atonement and read Clifford Goldstein's book on this subject. In these cases the best you can do is to bring a trespass offering to the altar of the Lord, and He will accept and pardon you" Testimonies, vol. We recommend reading the entire section of Testimonies , Vol. Ellen White was writing to a man who had a problem with money and dishonesty. Apparently he had wronged some people financially and some of them, over the years, had died.
Ellen White then refers the man to Zacchaeus and his Christian act of vowing to pay back fourfold of all that he had wrongfully taken. If we have gotten financial gain from taking advantage of others and breaking God's law in the process, of course we are to restore to them all that we have taken. And if they and their relatives are gone, then we should restore this money to God.
There should be something coming out of what we have gained. We cannot steal from a wealthy man and then accept Christ, but insist on continuing to live the good life on money that we wrongfully acquired. Ellen White's point is that the money should first and foremost go to the one s that have been wronged, but if that isn't possible, then we should turn the money over to God. A reading of the entire section would clear up any confusion as to what Ellen White meant.
That's not the issue here; EGW was talking to a particular individual who had a particular problem. She was by no means saying this is the way we come to Christ—with a financial offering. EGW contradicts the Bible by telling you to bring a trespass offering in order to be pardoned. Ellen White does not tell "you" to bring a trespass offering in order to be pardoned. EGW: NO "Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved.
Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves" Christ's Object Lessons, p. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. 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.
God's word declares, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried. Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life. James They lose sight of their own weakness and their constant need of divine strength. They are unprepared for Satan's devices, and under temptation many, like Peter, fall into the very depths of sin.
We are admonished, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. Our only safety is in constant distrust of self, and dependence on Christ. Peter is, as she said, a perfect example of what happens when we declare something to be fact, as if we are out of the range of falling.
This is the kind of assurance we need. But this text does not say that we should go out and proclaim that we cannot fall, as Peter did. We are warned by Paul to take heed if we think we stand, lest we fall 1 Cor. And Jesus said that some of the "branches" that had "abided" in Him would be cut off and burned if they did not bear fruit John In Matthew Jesus describes a class of people who come to Him, convinced that they are "saved" and to them He says "I never knew you.
The beauty of all this is not that we doubt God and His ability to save, but rather we doubt ourselves and our ability to do any good thing or overcome sin in our strength. We aren't strong enough to overcome. Only Jesus through us can overcome. This constant awareness of our weaknesses is the only safeguard against presumption and choosing sin over Jesus.
Lack of faith in self is one of the most important lessons we can learn. The question is asked, 'How can little children have this test and trial? They alone would be saved. Or if I send a plague into that land and pour out My wrath upon it, They would save only themselves by their righteousness" Ezekiel The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him Ezekiel The three texts above are not referring to little children who are not yet accountable even the first text which says "son or daughter" does not specify little children who do not know right from wrong. Here are some texts that deal with accountability and light given: James : "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Isaiah : "But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.
These texts do not mean that any accountable person has a blanket covering of forgiveness based on a relative's faith. But they are no more contradictory or confusing than the Ellen White quote in question. It would not be logical to believe that God judges adults by the light that they have, but condemns little babies who know nothing.
God "winks" at their ignorance because "ignorant" is all they are. The Bible says those prayers and faith do make a difference see James As for what happens to the babies who die of wicked parents, we don't know how all of that works, and it is not our business. Fortunately God alone is Judge and He will work it all out, we can be sure. Although this text is talking about causing someone to stumble as opposed to preventing them from knowing truth—as in the case of the slave—the text supports the fact that God does require us to answer for our influence in the sins of others.
In the Second Commandment, God Himself says " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. The man will die in his own sin, but there is a cause and effect going on. She was merely supporting the principle of Ezekiel , and using a phrase right out of the Second Commandment.
Would God welcome a slave owner to heaven with open arms who has intentionally kept the gospel from his slave? Since God loves the slave as much as the slave owner then such an action would no doubt sadden and anger God. He loves all of His children equally. Here Ellen White is not talking about just any "ignorant" slave, but the same slave whose sins would be "visited upon" the slave master in the above argument. God "winks" at ignorance; yet this does not mean He ignores chosen evil characteristics. If a person disobeys God's counsel while ignorant of that counsel, God winks at it. Ellen White explains this by saying that God "does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do.
He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied. In other words, this slave, although not saved, will not face the punishment of the lost either. He will simply stay "asleep" for all eternity, while the slave master suffers in the lake of fire before he is consumed.
They quote John "The true light Jesus that gives light to every man was coming into the world. His master kept him from the Bible and from God, so the slave's hateful attitude or whatever sins he had was never overcome. Yet God does not punish the slave, either. The question that heads the alleged contradiction is also inaccurate. The issue isn't whether or not an "ignorant" slave can be saved. It is whether one who has not lived up to the light that he has can be saved.
The thing that breaks God's heart is knowing what would have happened had that hardened slave read the Bible. That is why the slave master is going to suffer. A few pages after this very statement she states: "I saw the pious slave rise [in the resurrection] in triumph and victory. Some critics object to the idea that some will remain in their graves in light of John ,29 which states that all who are in their graves will come forth.
But the Bible has several instances in regard to the end time events where all-inclusive language contains definite restrictions. The best example of this is found in Revelation ,16 which says that at the Second Coming " every bondman [slave] and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all his precepts" Manuscript , , quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol.
God requires of us perfect obedience. We are to purify ourselves, even as he is pure. By keeping his commandments, we are to reveal our love for the Supreme Ruler of the universe" Review and Herald, September 27, , p. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" 1 John , 9.
Ellen White did address this issue in other places though, and here's a sample of what she said: "Those who are really seeking to perfect Christian character will never indulge the thought that they are sinless. Their lives may be irreproachable, they may be living representatives of the truth which they have accepted; but the more they discipline their minds to dwell upon the character of Christ, and the nearer they approach to His divine image, the more clearly will they discern its spotless perfection, and the more deeply will they feel their own defects.
As we have clearer views of Christ's spotlessness and infinite purity, we shall feel as did Daniel, when he beheld the glory of the Lord, and said, "My comeliness was turned in me into corruption. It is because they are so far from Christ. Ellen White consistently expressed this view as shown above. The second text Eph. Again, Ellen White consistently expressed this view: "When men learn they cannot earn righteousness by their own merit of works , and they look with firm and entire reliance upon Jesus Christ as their only hope, there will not be so much of self and so little of Jesus.
Souls and bodies are defiled and polluted by sin, the heart is estranged from God, yet many are struggling in their own finite strength to win salvation by good works. Jesus, they think, will do some of the saving; they must do the rest. They need to see by faith the righteousness of Christ as their only hope for time and for eternity.
We have seen that Ellen White fully supported what the Bible taught on salvation by grace through faith. But does the Bible support what she said about overcoming? With no additional commentary, consider the following texts in light of the Ellen White quotes. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. To obtain something does not always mean to "earn" it. Obtain can simply mean to "come into possession of. But what about that wording "obtain His favor"? If the Bible uses language like this, then we cannot fault Ellen White. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Finding wisdom thus obtaining the favor of the Lord, according to this text is contrasted with sinning transgressing God's law — 1 John Ellen White says just what Solomon did, and his wisdom and inspiration few would question.
But are there any biblical examples of a person obtaining God's favor? Gen " And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven , and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Yet thou hast said, ' I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight. He must accept the provisions of the gospel; he must be reconciled to God through obedience to his law and faith in Jesus Christ" Testimonies, vol. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" Colosians , The first sentence in the Ellen White quote speaks for itself. She goes on: "He must accept the provisions of the gospel The full gospel provides both forgiveness and power, according to the Bible.
If we take issue with Ellen White's reference to obedience then we must take issue with the following texts: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently. By taking heed thereto according to thy word. Whoever believes in him is not condemned" John , Now let's consider what "in Christ" and "believe" really mean. Ellen White's statement was about health. The Bible says: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Adventists believe that it is a sin to destroy your body through intemperance smoking, drinking, destructive eating habits, etc. This belief is based on the sixth commandment Thou shalt not kill as well as a host of other texts like the one above. The Bible definitely promotes Christian health, which is a study all in itself. In light of the above text, would one still be "in Christ" if he or she is intentionally defiling the temple of God.
This goes back to the teaching of "once saved always saved" which is not supported by the Bible. Christ Himself taught that there will be those who were at one time "in Christ" but who chose not to maintain that relationship see John ; Matt. This relationship is not a one-time decision, but must be maintained daily see 1 Cor. For many Christians the word "believe" takes in far too little. The Scriptures tell us that even the devils "believe" and tremble James , but they are eternally lost.
God isn't asking us to merely believe that He is real and that Jesus was crucified 2, years ago. He wants us to believe " every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Do we believe that Jesus is able to empower us Jude 24, 1 Cor ; 2 Cor ; etc. If so, then He will; if not, then we don't have faith, and thus do not really "believe" Matt. It's quite simple.
It is not for us to decide which portions of God's promises we will believe and which we will doubt. The condition that keeps us out of condemnation is to believe them all. It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" Testimonies, vol. You are uncultivated, unrefined, and unsanctified. There is no place in heaven for such a character as you now possess.
- The Passion of Christ.
- Post-Kleinian Psychoanalysis: The Biella Seminars (Forensic Psychotherapy Monograph).
- Cookies on the BBC website?
- Poker Tattoo Designs;
- La meditazione passo dopo passo (Italian Edition).
- False prophets and pastors deceiving people;
You are further today from the standard of Christian perfection He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" Acts The question asked was " Must I be perfect before Christ will accept me? The other two quotes are not talking about perfection but about conditions which will be understood when we look at the quotes in their context.
Ellen White time and time again repeated the fact that we cannot change ourselves, and that we need to come to Christ just as we are for any changes. In fact, she even said we do not need to repent before coming to Christ, for it is He who gives us repentance see Steps to Christ , p.
Here she says that many err by thinking that they cannot come to Christ until they repent. Then on page 18 she says "If you see your sinfulness, do not wait to make yourself better There is help for us only in God. On that same page she says that if we wait to be "good enough" to come to Jesus, we will never come, but to come as we are. Anyone who has read Ellen White's writings knows her very decisive position on this.
In all three cases she is talking to individuals , for their particular situation. We need to see what that situation is before we can know what she meant in the condensed quotes above. You possess a hasty, passionate temper, and are arbitrary and overbearing in your family. Can we serve two masters? Does Christ consider a selfish heart the essence of Satan's problem "acceptable" or does this man need a great work to be accomplished for him by Christ? Did she say "you have a lot of work to do before you can go to Jesus"? Who does the work for us? Jesus does. Not one person is "acceptable to Christ" in a selfish, overbearing condition.
Only Universalists would debate this point. Did a "great work" need to be done for King Nebuchadnezzar before he was "accepted" by God, or was he just fine when he was setting up an idol and trying to burn God's faithful servants? The "great work" was accomplished for him by God in Daniel chapter 4.
This page clearly lays out what "great work" they a couple need to do. How much clearer can it be? But all growth and victories in our lives come directly from Him. And the statement "It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" has nothing to do with perfection, but rather supports the biblical teaching that "Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" Hebrews It was impossible for the Pharisees to be saved as they were; they needed Christ desperately. It was impossible for you and I to be saved as we were before Christ, for all of our righteousness is as filthy rags Isaiah This is all in harmony with the Bible.
With this quote the subject changes from "Christ accepting me" to "perfection" or victory over sin. Here Ellen White is talking about the transformation of character that comes along after a person has come to Christ. Peter talks about those who accept Christ and then turn away.
He says that it would have been better for them if they had never known the truth and likens them to a dog returning to his vomit see 2 Peter Jesus Himself talked about being "perfect. Be perfect , be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. And no one in Adventism, including Ellen White, has ever taught that one must be perfect before coming to Christ. No such statement exists. The issue here in quote 3 is victory over sin and the perfection of character which Christ not us works out in His children.
How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus
But with this quote—as with the previous 2—if one reads the whole passage it is clear that Ellen White teaches that the help comes from Christ and we don't change ourselves. In light of all EGW says about how one comes to Christ, there is no more reason to attack her on these statements than there is to call Paul a false prophet for admonishing us to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We need to look at all Paul said on the subject before we say he contradicts the rest of Scripture. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in l Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where he now stands by the ark" Early Writings, p.
This first text listed says nothing about Jesus being in the Most Holy Place. God's "throne" can be wherever He wants it to be. It is a movable throne can you imagine God being confined to any one place? He was seen by the outer door of the Holy Place with Moses, for one thing see Ex. There needs to be some text that declares that God the Father was and is always in the Most Holy Place compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for Ellen White and Adventists to be wrong on this one. No such text exists. The only time the book of Hebrews speaks of the second apartment Most Holy Place specifically and on its own is in Hebrews , where it uses the Greek hagia hagion , and translates it correctly as "the holiest of all.
Nowhere in the entire book of Hebrews is hagia hagion used to tell us where Christ is in heaven. If He entered into the hagia hagion , why didn't Hebrews mention this even once? Again, we suggest Clifford Goldstein's book Made Simple for a more in-depth look at this and other charges against the Investigative Judgment. In the great day of final award, the dead are to be 'judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works' Revelation Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven" Patriarchs and Prophets, p.
The Bible, Ellen White, and Adventism are all three correct in proclaiming this doctrine. These texts all say, in essence, that God will forgive us and remember our sins no more. Forgiveness comes when we come to Christ 1 John , but God does not wipe the memory of them from existence until after the close of probation.
These texts say nothing about when this happens. Proof that their memory has not yet been blotted out is found in the Bible stories themselves. Has David's sin with Bathsheba been wiped from existence? Millions of people read about it every year. Yes, when the great controversy between Christ and Satan finally ends, God will, for all eternity, remember our sins no more; they will be wiped from existence. As stated previously, what Jesus does with those sins in the meantime is His business.
We just need to give them to Him now. Christ sends him to the very disciples whom he had been so bitterly persecuting, to learn of them. Now Paul was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach the truth. Christ directs Paul to His chosen servants, thus placing him in connection with His church. The very men whom Paul was purposing to destroy were to be his instructors in the very religion that he had despised and persecuted" Testimonies, vol. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles -- only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie" Galatians , The Ellen White quote comes just after EGW had been describing the biblical account of Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus.
Listen to the words from the Bible itself: "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. The fact is, Ellen White was correct that Christ did tell Paul to go to the Christians and they would tell him what to do and help instruct him. From the same page that their EGW quote is taken from, she says this: "Jesus directs him [Paul] to His agents in the church for a further knowledge of duty.
Thus He gives authority and sanction to His organized church. Christ had done the work of revelation and conviction , and now Paul was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach the truth. Ellen White didn't say that Paul learned all about the gospel from the disciples, but that Christ sent Paul to the organized church that he had been fighting to "receive instruction. Of course. Paul is talking about the essence of the gospel, making it clear to the Galatians that he wasn't duped by the fables of men into believing what he did about Jesus, but that this was given to him supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.
Does that mean that he received no instruction by the early church in regard to the practical things that they were doing and the direction in which they were going? Jesus could have healed Paul of his blindness just moments after afflicting him. He could have told him everything he needed to know right then and there, forgetting about the early church.
But He did not do this. He wanted to connect Paul to them just as soon as possible, and it was through Ananias' miracle by God's grace that Paul's sight was restored. If one reads the pages before and after the EGW passage quoted, this becomes quite plain. There is no contradiction when these portions are included. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God" Great Controversy, p.
Adventists use these same texts all the time in Bible studies, for they help explain what the seal really is and Who does the sealing. They will keep God's Sabbath day holy. The texts listed here do not disprove the belief that the Sabbath is God's seal in the final days.
It should be inferred that Paul was using the word 'apostle' with a broader range of meaning than 'one of the twelve apostles'. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me. Jesus appeared to 'the twelve', and only later did Jesus appear to Paul. By his own words, Paul did not consider himself to be a member of 'the twelve'; they were a group whose number was complete even before his calling. It may again be inferred from Paul's wording that his definition of the word 'apostle' could include people outside of 'the twelve'. In the passage above, it is implied that 'the twelve' are a subset of 'all the apostles'. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
I won't bother with the details of the debate surrounding how to best translate this verse. In the course of this answer, I take it for granted that Paul is identifying Andronicus and Junia as apostles. As written by John Chrysostom: ' How great is this woman's devotion that she should be counted worthy of the title of "apostle"!
Conceivably, Andronicus and Junia could be counted in that larger grouping of 'all the apostles' mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, above. Both Acts and Paul use the word 'apostle' with a degree of fluidity. Depending on the context, it could be used specifically for the twelve apostles, or it could refer other people who met the same qualifications and carried out the same functions. Meanwhile, Paul, Barnabas, Jesus' brother James, Andronicus, and Junia were some of an unknown number of other 'apostles'. Jesus initiated the action of choosing Paul and what a spectacular conversion story!
Everything about this is wonderful. He was a sinner against the church. He had to humble himself and submit to Jesus and the other disciples had to submit to Jesus and trust Him on this. He was the instrument God chose to write a great portion of the Bible. I think it is clear that he wasn't to fill in Judas' empty place but rather he was grafted in from outside. Don't we often convince ourselves that God is leading us in a certain direction in our lives and then suddenly things take a strange and wonderful turn,resulting in something you know was God's will all along?
Although we were not privy to the way things would turn out? I see Paul's conversion like that. If he wasn't meant to be the replacement for Judas, then Jesus choosing him out of the blue for such a great calling seems so random. But Jesus is always rational and methodical in achieving his goals.
Paul replaced James making 12 apostles these are still the apostles that laid the foundation " Christ" upon which the church is built. They will always be the only Apostles chosen by the Lord and not by men.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
There are quite a lot of apostles who were not mentioned of how they operated or what they did. The reason for this is quite obvious. If they were to keep to the gospel, then the left hand shouldn't know what the right hand was doing. Their goal wouldn't be to glorify themselves, but to spread the gospel. The book containing the story of Christ have no emphasis on the apostles but on Christ. Even Paul's books have no emphasis on what he was doing, but more of the things needed to be known. As for the book of acts, which was designed to tell the story of the acts of the apostles, mere intend was again so that people could understand in broad the work of an apostle, not that a lot of people understood it, but still the book was written.
There are 12 apostles for a reason.
But it is not the reason most people think. Paul was not the only apostle, other than the And when questioned about his apostleship he refered to it as though that of Peter and tried to drew a comparison. Not a comparison to put himself in the same level, but to the understanding of what is gift was.
You see there are 12 differrent types of apostles. And in essension, if one didn't understand the function of or how to identify an apostle, it would be extremely hard to identify the office into which an apostle was appointed. Each apostle is send with a word. This word gives him power in times of need, when he struggles.
No man can appoint an apostle, though there are those foolish enough to claim to be it. If God appointed one to be an apostle, you would be that from birth, just like if God appointed you, or Samaul, Moses, Jeremiah as a Prophet you would be that from birth. Or more Biblical correct:. Jer Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
It is not something you choose, earn or achieve. It is within the very fabric of your soul. You cannot one day wake up and decide, I am going to be an apostle. You can however decide that you are going to be with Christ or not. Whether you are going to perform the duties of to which is expected of an apostle or not. Let me use a prophet as an example. The purpose and function of any prophet is to motivate, warn and edify. This they do with various methods, but ultimately listen to God. When the prophet see somebody is going to be in a car crash, he can warn that person, or he can not do his duty.
What he has seen, he has seen. But he can decide not to fulfill his job. He can sense a spiritual attack on the body of Christ. He can do nothing, but he can also inform the specific target of the attack. Ultimately there are various different types of prophets. This is as clear as day when one perceive the various prophets in the Bible. Moses did not function even remotely the same as David, even though there was similarities which would identify both as being prophets and not something else.
But they were both in the role of leading Isreal, yet they did it totally different based on the gift they received. The same it is was with the apostles. Now let's look at the scripture: Act Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Act And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, Act That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Two were appointed. These two had to meet two criteria The reason why there were only two out of two hundred, was because there was only two apostles that was with them from the beginning. For there were many others but they were not apostles and couldn't fulfill the function of the office of Judas. However only one of them were the same type as Judas were.
Again born, not chosen by man, but chosen by God. And God pointed out that Matthias had the same gift and placing and therefore he joined the twelve. And only once the twelve was completed and in union again could the next step take place. The Holy Spirit filled them and they could minister as their office held. Paul was not the only other apostle, but he was well known for the reason that he was literate and wrote to the churches. He was however of the same type as Peter and understood this.
He never considered himself as of high rank or value, but emphasised that he must be seen as the least of the apostles because of the persecution that he have done against the Christians. I can think of a couple of the other apostles of the twelve that was also never mentioned or wrote anything. The reason is simple. It was not their purpose. It could even be that they were illiterate and couldn't write. The reason for them not being more evident is not for us to know. But understanding the gospel, these people would have tried to fulfill their obligation without trying to make a name for themselves to earn more in the Kingdom of God.
May I suggest that we look forward to the New Jerusalem Rev 21 v 14 ; here we read that the twelve foundations have the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. This is recorded in the same passage as the twelve tribes of Israel being named on the twelve gates and has eternal significance! I would humbly suggest that it is difficult to seriously consider that the Apostle Paul is excluded from this list.
I find it incredulous to think of Matthias being named here!! Add to this the weight of Paul's unique conversion experience, his leadership and influence on the early church, his NT writings and finally, his martyrdom. I suggest that Paul was and is the twelfth Apostle, appointed by the risen Lord Jesus not men. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? On the choice of Matthais, I've heard things similar to this: Also, we wonder if Luke was pointing out that casting lots, used all through the Old Testament, was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who became the source of wisdom and discernment for such decisions after Pentecost.
As Lloyd Ogilive says: What happened to Matthias? Affable Geek Affable Geek Read more about locked posts here. FWIW, I am not even sure they had to pick a replacement. Why did they need to stick to twelve? How do we know Matthias's position was filled by Paul? We know Paul was an Apostle, but that doesn't tell me that he replaced Matthias.
Presumably Ogilive had some other evidence I'm not aware of. Do you know how he came to that conclusion? Voting to close. This can not be answered today and backed up with relevant facts. It is just going to lead to arguing between different opinions. Which is not what this site is about. To find out what happened to the twelve, read the 4th.
Eusebius's History of the Church. This is both opinion based and a guessing the mind of God question. Barnabas was sent by the church. I believe that he is therefore an apostle of the church at Antioch. I think we need to distinguish here between apostle and Apostle. As noted in the original question the word apostle means one who was sent. The question is who sent them? Apostles of Christ must be sent by Christ. If you could give me dates to suggest that Paul filled a later void, I could reconsider my acceptance. My understanding, however, is that Paul was considered an apostle by at least 52 AD, and while I'm not sure when the first of the 12 apostles were martyred, I suspect that's not until the mid 50s.
We do know that James one of 'em became the Bishop of Jerusalem. So even though he was "sent" he didn't appear to go anywhere. AffableGeek According to Acts , James the brother of John was martyred significantly before the other Apostles and not long before the missionary journeys of Paul i. Acts In those days Peter stood up among the believers a gathering of about one hundred and twenty people and said, Peter then recounts the ministry of Judas and how he fell away.
Frank Luke Frank Luke 7 7 silver badges 15 15 bronze badges. Good answer, you may also like to include Prov as additional support for it. Also, consider the following: Acts NIV 12 The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people.
Galations NIV 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. Aeoril Aeoril 1 1 silver badge 6 6 bronze badges. Nate Bunney Nate Bunney 1, 1 1 gold badge 12 12 silver badges 23 23 bronze badges. To claim that Paul is an apostle based completely on his own words. Which were quite prolific which is why we have so much of them today is very circumstantial evidence.
I am not arguing that he was not inspired and not an apostle, but to unequivocally say that he is and Matthais is not, is very presumptuous. As MasonWheeler said we simply don't know. According to Acts After prayer, the remaining eleven apostles cast lots and settle on Matthias to replace Judas. According to Paul Paul uses the term 'apostle' for himself and for others quite frequently in his letters, but he rarely identifies anyone else by name. Galatians 1. Romans Summary Both Acts and Paul use the word 'apostle' with a degree of fluidity.
Matthias was chosen to replace Judas as a member of the core twelve 'apostles'. Mark Edward Mark Edward 2, 12 12 silver badges 14 14 bronze badges. The eleven cast lots and one of two was chosen. Peter initiated this action. Lynn Lynn 19 1 1 bronze badge. Welcome to the site. We are glad you decided to participate. This answer needs more support.