"Eternal Security" - "Unconditional Security"

[Jarthur001]

Hi Claudia,


You said..
Here, this might help your understanding...

James…
Its not something I need to understand to address this. However, I feel I do understand the doctrine as White stated.

This is not the point....the point..and what I have asked...was white wrong?

Lets make it very easy. If Miller said the waters in all the rivers would turn red..and White as a messager from God said..I agree, then the waters should turn red..RIGHT?

I mean...being she that gets visions from God. Right?

visions that started in 1844.

If however, the waters in all the rivers do not turn red when she agreed that they would…does this mean she was wrong?

Like wise…being that she agreed with the shut door doctrine at one time…but now she has changed it to another meaning…was God wrong when God told her to agree with that doctrine back in 1844…or was white wrong in what she thought God said?

Now you and I and joe and ann and bob and mary can ALL change our minds. But we do not claim to have visions from God...so that's ok

*************************

Claudia posted…
William Miller ….. He interpreted the ten "virgins" as those summoned to meet the returning Lord, the "wedding" as the eternal kingdom, and the shutting of the "door" (verse 10) as "the closing up of the mediatorial kingdom, and finishing the gospel period"--in other words, the closing of the "door of salvation" or the close of human probation.

James…
I want to point out your own post.

“closing of the door of salvation”. This was the meaning back in 1844. this was what white agreed it was. She held this doctrine PAST 1844...did she not? for a few years past 1844.

You posted it…I would take also that you believe this is true. This was based on Matt 25:10
***********************

Claudia posted…
Because they expected Christ to return at the close of the 2300 prophetic days of Daniel 8:14, Millerite adventists had emphasized that probation would close at the end of that period. Therefore, for a short period after the disappointment of October 1844, Miller and many of his followers, including young Ellen Harmon (later Ellen White), felt that their work of warning sinners was finished for the world.

James…
There you have it. White along with miller felt like their work of warning sinners was finished in this world. Why? They felt like this because the 1844 date had past…and they AGREED that the door was shut. Shut for a few years. Or..they only thought this a few years. Then they change the doctrine to something else. WHY? Was God wrong…or were they wrong?

Notice they always call it “the disappointment of October 1844” or the “GREAT disappointment”. What do they mean when they say.. disappointment? The wording means..the appointment was not met. Yep…you got that right. But really happen is they were WRONG…but I don’t want to use the word wrong. Why not say she was wrong? Why? Because that means she really didn’t here a message from God telling her to agree.

*******************


Claudia posted…
While a majority of Millerites soon gave up their belief that prophecy had been fulfilled in 1844, a small group continued to hold that the time had been correct, but that they had been mistaken in the event expected.

James..
The others left..for they saw the movement was wrong.
**********************

Claudia posted…
They were convinced that the movement was of God, that the 2300-day prophecy had been fulfilled, and that the "door" referred to in the parable was therefore shut--whatever that might mean. Thus, to believe in the "shut door" became equivalent to believing in the validity of the 1844 movement as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

James..
I want to point out one line here. They STILL even to this day...think 1844 was right. All one needs to do..is CHANGE the meaning

*********************


Claudia posted…
What is important to recognize is that the term "shut door" underwent a change in meaning among those who saw that the 2300-day prophecy referred to a change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The "shut door" was seen as applying to the closing of the first phase and the opening of the second and final phase of Christ's intercession in heaven. It is erroneous to read into all of Ellen White's "shut door" statements the initial Millerite definition.

James…

BINGO>>There you go.

So…was God right or wrong in 1844 to tell this to white and others?

Or maybe we should ask this…was white wrong?

In Christ…James

 

[Claudia_T]

James

If you would like to find out what really took place in 1844 you can go here and read these chapters.

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc20.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc21.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc22.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc23.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc24.html

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
James

If you would like to find out what really took place in 1844 you can go here and read these chapters.

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc20.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc21.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc22.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc23.html

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/gc/gc24.html

Claudia,

You already posted what happen in 1844. I trust since you posted it...It is what happen..right?

I only replied to your post. Will these links listed above tell another story other then what you posted? if so...why post the 1st story. If its the same story...why read it again?

I'm sorry to be a pain...but i still do not have a answer.

a simple yes or no would do.

Was white wrong when she agreed with miller as you posted? yes or no.

In debates like this...I only ask 5-6 times then I drop it. I have not counted yet...but I think we are close to that time when i stop asking for there must be something there you do not want to say. No need to push you into anything.

OK...this WILL be my last time.

YES or NO?

In Christ..James

 

[Briguy]

Claudia, the law would encompass all those things from the early books of the Bible, like stoning our children for being disrespectful, killing witches, sacrificing animals, etc... The law is not just the ten commandments. The point I made was that for the believer, the law no longer condemms us. The law exposes sin and dealt with sin. Now Jesus deals with sin. The law is just simply removed for the Christian (saved person), in terms of the condemnation that it delivers to the non-believer. "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Once the law is removed so is the chance of being condemmed for our sin, therefore OSAS.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Briguy]

Hi Claudia, On Luke 13 you posted the parable but not the verses right before the parable that set up the context. The context is repentance for salvation, not repentance in salvation. I didn't research this but many parables like this were meant for the Jews, who had belief in God but needed to believe in the Messiah to be saved. The old chosen of God would have a chance to Repent and accept Christ like the Gentiles would. It was different in that the Jews were already "believers" of God in a sense. Anyway, the parable does not support the notion that we must show God our actions to keep our salvation. God sees the heart directly. Our works are never to keep our salvation, for that is sure. Our works our what draw others to God and that is why they are very very important.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
Bob,

You said...
What that has to do with "unconditional security" however is beyond me. Why not start an 1844 thread if you are interested in the 2300 days of Daniel 8??


James...
If SDA post her writings then it is fair to reply. I never brought up White..it was and always is a SDA that post her notes.
**************

Agree that an SDA here started posting E White for some reason - I did not read those posts to see that they were a reference to the 2300 year prophecy of Daniel 8 and 1844 -- I thought that was something you inserted.

I simply assumed the E White posts had something to do with OSAS not being true. (i.e. the subject of this thread).

My point for any SDA that would do that is -- "if the Bible argument is not working with those that believe in OSAS - why in the world would you resort to an argument based on E White?"

My point for any non-SDA interested in this 2300 year prophecy from DAniel 8 is -- start a thread on it - don't hijack this one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob...
These are facts that your spin does not make clear for the reader.

James...

Let be very clear this time. The SDA took on the doctrine of the "shut door" MAINLY...not the only reason...but MANILY because White said she had a vision. That is a FACT!!!! This is in many SDA writings.

Now i ask for the 3rd time...was she right? If not..where did she get her vision?
*******************
Bob....
Why mix that in here??

James...
I replied to a post...one of many post made by a SDA. She said...SDA looked to her (white) for understanding. This was posted on this thread. The "shut door" doctrine of the SDA church in FACT does teach that those inside the door are secure in Christ. This means Christ went into the Holy of Holies and SHUT the door. Shut door doctrine teaches..salvation is ended back in 1844.

Now some "actual facts" to go with your factoid revisionism.

#1. Ellen White never claimed to have a vision stating that salvation ended for all the unsaved in 1844.

#2. NO SDA ever claimed that she said that about any vision she ever had.

#3. The SDA church was not formed until 15 years later.

#4. Millerites in general (who had promoted the 1844 movement) did not accept the prophetic gift given to E White.

The only leg you have to stand on here - is that APART from any vision - Ellen White herself believed in the the group's notion about the shut door in Revelation as applying to the end of salvation in 1844 for all unblievers -- for a very brief period of time she held that view. But her own testimony is very clear that this had never been shown to her in a vision.

If "infallibility of the person" was a test of a prophet then Peter and Nathan would have failed that test. We can not simply "make stuff up" because we don't like someone as a prophet.

P.S -- At the time she held to the wrong view on the shut door of Revelation - she also was not keeping Sabbath and was eating pork. Absolute knowledge on all doctrinal subjects held by the "individual" is not a test of a prophet. The test is that the communication they get from God MUST be accurate - infallibly correct because GOD must have absolute knowledge on all doctrinal subject. Trying to transfer that God-attribute to the messenger is error.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Bob...
These are facts that your spin does not make clear for the reader.

James...

Let be very clear this time. The SDA took on the doctrine of the "shut door" MAINLY...not the only reason...but MANILY because White said she had a vision. That is a FACT!!!! This is in many SDA writings.

Now i ask for the 3rd time...was she right? If not..where did she get her vision?
*******************
Bob....
Why mix that in here??

James...
I replied to a post...one of many post made by a SDA. She said...SDA looked to her (white) for understanding. This was posted on this thread. The "shut door" doctrine of the SDA church in FACT does teach that those inside the door are secure in Christ. This means Christ went into the Holy of Holies and SHUT the door. Shut door doctrine teaches..salvation is ended back in 1844.

Now some "actual facts" to go with your factoid revisionism.

#1. Ellen White never claimed to have a vision stating that salvation ended for all the unsaved in 1844.

#2. NO SDA ever claimed that she said that about any vision she ever had.

#3. The SDA church was not formed until 15 years later.

#4. Millerites in general (who had promoted the 1844 movement) did not accept the prophetic gift given to E White.

The only leg you have to stand on here - is that APART from any vision - Ellen White herself believed in the the group's notion about the shut door in Revelation as applying to the end of salvation in 1844 for all unblievers -- for a very brief period of time she held that view. But her own testimony is very clear that this had never been shown to her in a vision.

If "infallibility of the person" was a test of a prophet then Peter and Nathan would have failed that test. We can not simply "make stuff up" because we don't like someone as a prophet.

P.S -- At the time she held to the wrong view on the shut door of Revelation - she also was not keeping Sabbath and was eating pork. Absolute knowledge on all doctrinal subjects held by the "individual" is not a test of a prophet. The test is that the communication they get from God MUST be accurate - infallibly correct because GOD must have absolute knowledge on all doctrinal subject. Trying to transfer that God-attribute to the messenger is error.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Thanks for being open about it. Lets drop it and get back to the subject.


In Christ..James

PS...However..i think your agree with me..if OTHERS post Calvin, Luther, or white...then each of us can reply to that post as fair game.

 

[Claudia_T]

To Everbody,

Im ill in bed. The subject was about Once Saved Always Saved. Right now because of my condition, I am having to lie down on my right side most the time to type which isnt easy. But it gets really boring lying here with nothing to do.

So I posted a message and rather than lying here trying to type out 10 different paragraphs about the various things I believe in faith and works to explain the balance I think I have on it, I copied and pasted some of Ellen White's writings on te same subject and stated that I agree with all she says.It was easier for me to do it that way.

In my opinion it might of been appropriate for James to comment on the various idea of faith and works that I posted from Ellen White but not start up a whole topic on the subject of 1844 and the "shut door"...

however since James kept bringing it up I didnt know what else to do but reply.

anyway hopefully, back to the subject at hand now.

Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

Brian,

actually, it says this:

Rom:8:
1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Notice it says that to be carnally minded means to be at enmity with God's Law and this is death. "but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

the Holy Spirit in you doesnt cause you to disregard the Law of God it causes you to obey it and mortify the deeds of the flesh.

Also the 10 commandment law is separate from the other laws, it is termed the "Royal Law" and stands fast forever and ever... it was placed inside the ark while the ceremonial laws were placed in the side of the ark signifying they were temporary.It wont ever be ok to kill your neighbor, steal, worship idols, etc

 

[BobRyan]

PS...However..i think your agree with me..if OTHERS post Calvin, Luther, or white...then each of us can reply to that post as fair game.

I do agree with you 100%. They are basically "begging for a close review of the one they are quoting". But having said that - I also agree that if you go down that road the posts quickly start to go off-topic.

I say you have every right to take a quote from Claudia and start a thread and go to town on that one since she has gone out on that limb by appealing to Ellen White instead of the Bible. (She might even enjoy having that discussion for all I know.)

But this thread subject is already pretty interesting to both you and me so we might as well keep it on topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:

So I posted a message and rather than lying here trying to type out 10 different paragraphs about the various things I believe in faith and works to explain the balance I think I have on it, I copied and pasted some of Ellen White's writings on te same subject and stated that I agree with all she says.It was easier for me to do it that way.

Claudia [/QB]

I would simply point out that if you quote someone (even if it is Ellen White) as a convenient way to summarize your own thoughts - then at the end of the post you have only posted "your own thoughts" and not a single item of "proof" - as in actual Bible evidence showing that your own thoughts are in fact correct.

So while the quote may well summarize and perfectly represent your views as you point out - the quote still has no "substance" (proves nothing to those that oppose those views) until you actually get to the Bible evidence in favor of your perfectly worded thoughts.

I know you have posted scripture on this thread already - I am just pointing out the fact that your argument in some of your posts can not be carried forward by simply stating your views without a strong Bible case at every step. Having your views perfectly summarized by someone else is only useful if that someone else happens to be on the "other side".

So for example - if you had a quote from Calvin or R.C Sproul or Spurgeon pefectly supporting your views - then all the readers that place a lot of credit with them - but not with the Bible doctrine on perseverance or conditional salvation wouild have to sit up and take notice.

Quoting yourself or quoting Ellen White as a convenient way to quote yourself is not going to carry an argument forward with those that oppose your views to start with.

Aside from that - I am sorry to hear about your ill health and hope you feel better soon.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Claudia, On Luke 13 you posted the parable but not the verses right before the parable that set up the context. The context is repentance for salvation, not repentance in salvation. I didn't research this but many parables like this were meant for the Jews, who had belief in God but needed to believe in the Messiah to be saved. The old chosen of God would have a chance to Repent and accept Christ like the Gentiles would. It was different in that the Jews were already "believers" of God in a sense. Anyway, the parable does not support the notion that we must show God our actions to keep our salvation. God sees the heart directly. Our works are never to keep our salvation, for that is sure. Our works our what draw others to God and that is why they are very very important.

In Christ,
Brian

There is no such thing as half-saved.

The list of saints including Hebrews and even Jews in Heb 11 is not a list of the "half-saved".

John the baptizer died before Christ was sacrificed for our sins. He was not "half saved".

Many saints in the OT died without fully understanding the role of the Messiah.

But here is the "Real problem" with your views - when Christ left He told His disciples to TEACH OTHERS what Christ TAUGHT THEM. You make the argument "Yes but nothing Christ said applies to me" which is totally without merrit in this case.

The Gospel account you are reading is IN RESPONSE to the command that Christ's own followers were to teach others WHAT HE TAUGHT THEM.

Your response is "YES but that is what Christ taught THEM - so not for me".

That kind of thinking just does not fit the Gospel message that we see Christ giving.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So...assurance of salvation is now no longer part of SDA doctrine.

Wrong. It is very much a part of SDA teaching -- notice Romans 8:16 "His Spirit bears witness WITH our spirit THAT WE ARE the children of God"

But that is not the docrinal error of OSAS.

While on the "judgment phase"...ask yourself this...When Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished," ...or completed, paid in full, it can it be that there is yet another salvation event more than 1,800 years later,

You are simply "making stuff up" again as a form of proof. That does not work.

AFTER the cross the next salvation "event" was the resurrection of Christ according to the GOSPEL!

After the resurection of Christ the NEXT significant salvation EVENT was the start of Christ's work FOR US in heaven as our high Priest according to Heb 7-9!!

Pretending like His death the cross was the last salvific - and significant thing Christ ever did is to turn a blind eye to the NT speaking of the way we find entrance into that salvation through Christ - the living way - to this very day!

just as essential to salvation as Christ's death on the cross, in which one must believe in order to be saved.

Dividing Christ against Christ is not the Gospel model -- but you can try it if you wish.

The either-or model of slicing up the work of Christ is not justified in the Bible. Your approach is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6–9).

PAUL HIMSELF states that the future judgment of Christ is central to the Gospel when he says that "ACCORDING TO the GOSPEL" Christ will judge all mankind in Romans 2.

The "everlasting Gospel" message in Rev 13 is "Fear God and give glory to Him... for the hour of His judgment has come".

All your slicing and dicing of the Gospel - and dividing Christ against Christ - does not hold up to the test of scripture. It is "another gospel".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

I'm sorry, I feel like I messed up the whole thread. I wish I could do a rewind and you guys could take up where you left off before I came along and goofed it all up.

 

[wopik]

yes indeed

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
What are you trying to say here?
If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another. That is one complete thought. There were no punctuation marks in the original documents. That statement stands alone.
The next statement stands alone.
The blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin.
That is a one time action. It does not need to be done every time one sins. He died and shed his blood once. His blood covers all my sin: past, present and future. If any verse teaches OSAS, it is this one. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. It can't be any clearer can it? Do you believe this statement or not. It is not conditioned on the first part of the verse. It stands alone.
DHK [/QB]

So that is your approach to rightly dividing the word???? You just ignore the first half of a verse if it doesn't fit with what you believe?

The last half of the verse does not stand alone. No verse in scripture stands alone. You only have partial truth when you do that.

Also verses 9 and 10 of I Jn 1 says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. "

Yes, he is talking to Christians, that proves my point. How is it possible for a Christian to "not walk in the light"?

What if a christian stops confessing their sins to God? What if they stop growing and adding to their faith, virtue...???

James 5:19-20, "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Please someone explain this to me. I have asked it again and again and nobody has ever answered it.

If OSAS were true, how could it ever be possible for a person to "have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", and "it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness". - II Pet 2:20-21

If a person has escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and OSAS is true, the that person is ALWAYS better off having known the way of righteousness.

Only when one rejects OSAS, can Peter's statement in II Pet 2;20-21 makes sense. Otherwise let the mental gymnastics begin, because this can't mean what it says, or maybe you just igore it too???