God expects us to live up to the light we have.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Steaver:

"I have already prayed, studied and received light from God that OSAS is Truth. And as I stiudied and prayed about pork and Sabbath keeping I received further light that these things had nothing to do with salvation. I also received light that EGW and Joe Smith were false prophets just pushing their own agendas and are basically just popes for different religious movements. So God has been very busy with enlightening me as I seek Him and study His Word. Praise Him!"


GE:

You do no different than did EGW right here in this statement of faith as I see it of yours. Especially how is it 'light' that taught you 'from the Scriptures' these things if nothing of any in the least is Scripture-based or just Scriptures straight quoted.

I think grace certainly brought you to the 'light' of OSAS - and that is saving grace enough. Doesn't mean though you're completely in the dark about things like the Sabbath.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Doesn't mean though you're NOT completely in the dark about things like the Sabbath.

 

[Claudia_T]

I have already prayed, studied and received light from God that OSAS is Truth. And as I stiudied and prayed about pork and Sabbath keeping I received further light that these things had nothing to do with salvation. I also received light that EGW and Joe Smith were false prophets just pushing their own agendas and are basically just popes for different religious movements. So God has been very busy with enlightening me as I seek Him and study His Word. Praise Him! :thumbs:

God Bless!

and thats exactly why I avoid talking to you. because I knew thats what you were really getting at from the start, so it isnt "off topic"... it WAS the real topic.


Here are some "children" who dont want to hear a true prophet, and the real reason why:

Isaiah 30:
8: Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
9: That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits


and here is how you can tell if you have no light:

Isa:8:20: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


and here's how you can tell you are making war against the wrong people:

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[steaver]

GE:

You do no different than did EGW right here in this statement of faith as I see it of yours. Especially how is it 'light' that taught you 'from the Scriptures' these things if nothing of any in the least is Scripture-based or just Scriptures straight quoted.

Exactly! You can see this but the SDA's cannot. They have a special "light" which would be the "correct" light!

Remember, this thread was to define this "light" the SDA's speak of which can determine a Christian's (that is one who has already been born of God) eternal destiny.

But both Bob and Claudia had nothing more than a position in as many words as.... "if you do not agree with SDA position, then you did not receive the CORRECT LIGHT because what you believe does not agree with what SDA believes BECAUSE the SDA's "light" matches the scriptures and your "light" does not"....

You see, it is a worthless argument and leaves us with nothing more than a person's OWN personal convictions of their interpretations of scripture. The SDA's call their "interpretations" of scripture "light" from above while you and mine interpretations of scripture are purely misguided preconceived, traditions that we just refuse to let go of.

You see, they cannot prove that their "light" is correct WITHOUT their own personal "interpretations" of the scriptures to back it up. This is nothing more than what anyone can do and we are then left with "interpretations" being the final authority and not any so called "light" from above from ANYBODY!

So when Claudia or Bob or any SDA says that a Christian's pork eating is excused until they receive "light" from God that it is sin, and they are not held accountable for that sin, it is an empty proclamation. It is meaningless.

SO that is why in their world they could say that they have received "light" from God that pork eating is sin and here is the scripture to back it up. ANd I could say the same thing but that pork eating is ok also giving scripture, And what would be left but the hashing it out of who is reading the scriptures correctly and therefore the so called "light" is cast aside and worthless because niether side repects the other sides "light".

And you know why? this light thing is a non issue because it cannot be proven as truth. SO this is why I created this thread, to show them that falling back on this "light" tactic has no merit from scripture. It cannot prove their position but only in their own minds, which of course can be deceived as was EGW's.

To the SDA's "light" is gospel! It cannot be wrong! Especially EGW's. To everyone else who studies the scriptures "light" is personal conviction from God about the true application of the Word. It is always suspect because we are mere human beings. But in the SDA case, EGW's "light" given from God is perfect! If not, give one doctrine that EGW has claimed "light" on that you believe might be in correct. You will have none because you cannot go against what you have decided in your own mind is a Prophet from God. Face it, SDA's follow EGW's interpretations of scripture, nothing more, no special "light giver", just another human being trying to gather some fame by being a spokes person for Jesus Christ. And as always, God's goofy sheep fall for it...You hae the Popes, Joe Smith, EGW, Watch Tower, ect..

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[DQuixote]

Steaver, thanks for sticking with it, never wavering. Check out what Helen has written on these boards for a good understanding of doctrine. Not that you don't understand, just supplement your learning with hers.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All right, Steaver, your post 64 may be dead right.
Nevertheless, this thread is about: "God expects us to live up to the light we have". Doesn't matter who says so, it is true. It applies to any confessing Christian.

To you as well. Do you scorn the Sabbath of the LORD your God? Do you eat what for the LORD your God is an "abomination"? Is God changeable? Is His judgment inconsistent? Are His standards pliable? Or was He wrong at first, and unfair in the past, and improves with time?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Wisdom is no saviour; it is a hard task-master; it never gives you a break. Wisdom is not for me, I would have preferred the Law if I had a choice, it's much kinder. But I am conquered by the Almighty; the other giants compare like fleas. (In Gulliver's travels - who were those tiny oukies who tied him up while he slept?)

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by steaver
Bob, you have not made any connection between "light" and "scripture". In fact you seem to give all credit to "sola scripture" as though this "light" thing is secondary. Claudia states many times that those who have not received "light" concerning pork eating, or anything else, is not held accountable. This seems to put "light" as the final authority over the scriptures

In John 16 Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you can not receive them now"

He also states that the Spirit is given as the "Spirit of truth" and He GUIDES us into ALL truth. The Spirit is as much the author of scripture as He is the one who guides us into all truth. We are relying on one and the same member of the trinity when we READ scripture and also pray to God the Holy Spirit to REVEAL truth to us.

It is not the case that ALL humanity is open to the SAME truth when they read Rom 2:11-13 -- some are down right opposed to what it says - while others embrace it.

There is no way to deny this.

Also your "most of us do not agree with you" argument is the same one the Jewish leaders had to use against the Apostles. It is not a form of Bible Exegesis. But be that as it may - this is WHY I often appeal to NON-SDA Bible commentators showing that EVEN THEY agree with key points being denied here by those who are either opposed to Christ's Sabbth or Lev 11 or some other portion of scripture.

John 16

12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

This is not the Calvinist spin "I will not LET you see truth for some strange reason" it is the much more obvious "I have MORE to tell you but YOU are not ready".

First part of this statement implies that the Holy Spirit does NOT reveal truth to ALL of humanity. Is this correct? If so, one cannot oppose what one has not been allowed to see by God. However, please stick with Christians only, those who have already been born of God.

That would be the disciples of John 16 who had ALREADY been sent out as evangelists in Matt 10.

So "yes" we are talking about Christians and we are speaking to the obvious point (for example) that while there ARE saved Christians in both the Lutheran and RC denominiation they STILL do not agree on all points and the RCC actuallly opposed truth violently in the dark ages.

NOT because God blinded them but because the NT church over time CHOSE error.

Steaver said -
We know that God has blinded some concerning salvation, it is not for us to know who, but I am dealing with those whom God has already given the Holy Spirit.

This is not a question of "SAVED vs not Saved" as I pointed out ...



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver said

This leaves the second part of your statement disconnected from the first. The second part you imply that some "oppose" what it says while others "embrace" it. You have not made a connection between the giving of light with the reading of the scripture FOR CHRISTIANS.

Are you saying that those who disagree with your position has either 1) Chose to oppose it even though the Holy Spirit has given them light on the reading? Or 2) Simply disagree with your position because the Holy Spirit has NOT given them light on the reading of the scripture?

Both conditions exist - usually for the same person at the same time - but on different doctrinal points.

Recall the Lutheran and RC example in the previous post.

Steaver said

I am trying my best to explain my questions and inquiries. Maybe if I give an example...

without outlining all of the many scriptures dealing with the subject of let's say Sabbath keeping, let's assume that you and I have put every passage of scripture onto the board in the attempt to deliberate and reach a correct conclusion about the issue. We both pray as we study each passage. After all passages are studied and prayed over you conclude that Sabbath keeping is what God wants and I conclude that it is not.

Ok

Steaver said -


Now, how do you see my position? 1) I have read and received light from God but I am stubbornly rejecting it. 2) I have read and studied but I have not been given any light from God on this issue else I would see it as you do.

#1. If you used sound principles of exegesis and are open minded - you would accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as He stated it "SO shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath" - so we know that in the New Heaven and New Earth (at the very latest) even you will come to accept this Truth of Scripture according to Is 66. That is beyond debate.

#2. I agree with you that rejection of this truth can either be because you are not being convicted on this point by the Holy Spirit -- as He is busy guiding you into some other doctrinal point that you have not accepted yet - OR you are simply choosiing to dredge up every roadblock possible to oppose what He is convicting. YET the Bible STILL remains abundantly clear on this point. Human nature - man-made tradition -- plus free will -- what a combination.

We know for example that many of the priests and Pharisees accepted Christ AFTER his resurrection though they opposed him BEFORE. Christ never argued that all jews were lost and going to hell when He was on earth. In fact He pointed to a number of them as being forgiven "your sins ARE forgiven go and sin no more" and were accepted by Him - in His fold while He had still others to gather in.

Hence the NT church evolving to the point of the Dark Ages is yet another example in History of the free will principle being pressed on the one hand by the sinful nature and traditions of man - and on the other hand by the convicting of truth by the Holy Spirit.

Notice in Matt 16 Peter is convicted on TRUTH about "who the Son of Man IS" -- but then when Christ takes Him to the NEXT truth in Matt 16 Peter said "OH No Lord may it never BE".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Exactly! You can see this but the SDA's cannot. They have a special "light" which would be the "correct" light!

Remember, this thread was to define this "light" the SDA's speak of which can determine a Christian's (that is one who has already been born of God) eternal destiny.

But both Bob and Claudia had nothing more than a position in as many words as.... "if you do not agree with SDA position, then you did not receive the CORRECT LIGHT because what you believe does not agree with what SDA believes BECAUSE the SDA's "light" matches the scriptures and your "light" does not"....

You see, it is a worthless argument and leaves us with nothing more than a person's OWN personal convictions of their interpretations of scripture. The SDA's call their "interpretations" of scripture "light" from above while you and mine interpretations of scripture are purely misguided preconceived, traditions that we just refuse to let go of.

You see, they cannot prove that their "light" is correct WITHOUT their own personal "interpretations" of the scriptures to back it up. This is nothing more than what anyone can do and we are then left with "interpretations" being the final authority and not any so called "light" from above from ANYBODY!

So when Claudia or Bob or any SDA says that a Christian's pork eating is excused until they receive "light" from God that it is sin, and they are not held accountable for that sin, it is an empty proclamation. It is meaningless.

SO that is why in their world they could say that they have received "light" from God that pork eating is sin and here is the scripture to back it up. ANd I could say the same thing but that pork eating is ok also giving scripture, And what would be left but the hashing it out of who is reading the scriptures correctly and therefore the so called "light" is cast aside and worthless because niether side repects the other sides "light".

And you know why? this light thing is a non issue because it cannot be proven as truth. SO this is why I created this thread, to show them that falling back on this "light" tactic has no merit from scripture. It cannot prove their position but only in their own minds, which of course can be deceived as was EGW's.

To the SDA's "light" is gospel! It cannot be wrong! Especially EGW's. To everyone else who studies the scriptures "light" is personal conviction from God about the true application of the Word. It is always suspect because we are mere human beings. But in the SDA case, EGW's "light" given from God is perfect! If not, give one doctrine that EGW has claimed "light" on that you believe might be in correct. You will have none because you cannot go against what you have decided in your own mind is a Prophet from God. Face it, SDA's follow EGW's interpretations of scripture, nothing more, no special "light giver", just another human being trying to gather some fame by being a spokes person for Jesus Christ. And as always, God's goofy sheep fall for it...You hae the Popes, Joe Smith, EGW, Watch Tower, ect..

God Bless! :thumbs:

well at least now you are being honest about why you really actually made this thread, thats progress.

 

[BobRyan]

Both conditions exist - usually for the same person at the same time - but on different doctrinal points.

Recall the Lutheran and RC example in the previous post.



Ok



#1. If you used sound principles of exegesis and are open minded - you would accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as He stated it "SO shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath" - so we know that in the New Heaven and New Earth (at the very latest) even you will come to accept this Truth of Scripture according to Is 66. That is beyond debate.

#2. I agree with you that rejection of this truth can either be because you are not being convicted on this point by the Holy Spirit -- as He is busy guiding you into some other doctrinal point that you have not accepted yet - OR you are simply choosiing to dredge up every roadblock possible to oppose what He is convicting. YET the Bible STILL remains abundantly clear on this point. Human nature - man-made tradition -- plus free will -- what a combination.

We know for example that many of the priests and Pharisees accepted Christ AFTER his resurrection though they opposed him BEFORE. Christ never argued that all jews were lost and going to hell when He was on earth. In fact He pointed to a number of them as being forgiven "your sins ARE forgiven go and sin no more" and were accepted by Him - in His fold while He had still others to gather in.

Hence the NT church evolving to the point of the Dark Ages is yet another example in History of the free will principle being pressed on the one hand by the sinful nature and traditions of man - and on the other hand by the convicting of truth by the Holy Spirit.

Notice in Matt 16 Peter is convicted on TRUTH about "who the Son of Man IS" -- but then when Christ takes Him to the NEXT truth in Matt 16 Peter said "OH No Lord may it never BE".

In Christ,

Bob

I thought that went well.

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly! You can see this but the SDA's cannot. They have a special "light" which would be the "correct" light!

Remember, this thread was to define this "light" the SDA's speak of which can determine a Christian's (that is one who has already been born of God) eternal destiny.

But both Bob and Claudia had nothing more than a position in as many words as.... "if you do not agree with SDA position, then you did not receive the CORRECT LIGHT because what you believe does not agree with what SDA believes BECAUSE the SDA's "light" matches the scriptures and your "light" does not"....

My how enlightening that when Christ confronts the Jewish leaders in Mark 7 for inserting their own man-made traditions HE is arguing that HIS position is faithful to the bible text and PROVES it - while THEIRS is merely tradition in place of scripture!

(And obviously the Jews did not PROMOTE their views by saying "HEY we are WRONG! We replace scripture with our man-made ideas and are in gross error". In fact they went around saying "We are learned in the scriptures - formally trained to interpret much better then some unlearned carpenter")

Yet you ignore this glaring fact.

How enlightening that when the Protestant groups confronted the traditions of the RCC that opposed scripture THEY TOO argued a sola scriptura "sound exegesis" position saying that the RCC traditions were in violation of a clear and unbiased reading of the text!

(The did not SAY that ALL bible doctrines of the RCC were in error but that SOME were).

Now when SDAs use that SAME protestant principle Steaver finds that as a point to be REJECTED????

How instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When the Jews were confronted by the Bible ENDORSING views of Christ in Mark 7 ,, and the RCC leaders confronted by the sound sola-scriptura exegetically pure arguments of the reformers -- I can just "hear them saying"

You see, it is a worthless argument and leaves us with nothing more than a person's OWN personal convictions of their interpretations of scripture. The SDA's call their "interpretations" of scripture "light" from above while you and mine interpretations of scripture are purely misguided preconceived, traditions that we just refuse to let go of.

You see, they cannot prove that their "light" is correct WITHOUT their own personal "interpretations" of the scriptures to back it up. This is nothing more than what anyone can do and we are then left with "interpretations" being the final authority and not any so called "light" from above from ANYBODY!

How "instructive" that Steaver frames their argument FOR THEM!

I would not have believed it if I had not just seen it posted here for all to read - by Steaver!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver

And you know why? this light thing is a non issue because it cannot be proven as truth. SO this is why I created this thread, to show them that falling back on this "light" tactic has no merit from scripture.

Steaver's silence is deafening on the post about Peter and Matt 16 AND the post on the NT church evolving into the RCC of the dark ages... He simply avoids the inconvenient facts that refute his "not in scripture" empty assertions.

I guess that is "one way" to argue a failed position -

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

BobRyan......#1. If you used sound principles of exegesis and are open minded - you would accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as He stated it "SO shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath" - so we know that in the New Heaven and New Earth (at the very latest) even you will come to accept this Truth of Scripture according to Is 66. That is beyond debate.

Also beyond debate for Joe.

Joe Smith......"We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost."

Anyone can say as much, It all comes down to what has been written (not "additional" light) and how each student allows the scriptures to interpret themselves.

This so called "light" interpretating is bogus! The scriptures ARE God's light concerning doctrinal matters. Interpretation is a matter of "study".

Ellen and Joe, SDA and Mormon, have this same distinction about their religion, that is they both claim that if you REALLY want to know the truth you will be "open minded" or "seek in faith" and then the Holy Spirit will reveal to you that THEIR DOCTRINE IS THE RIGHT ONE! Well, they don't say it like that, but that is the result of the what they preach. And if you disagree, well you don't really want to see the truth.

I believe that this thread has accomplished what I had intended it to do. Which is one, it shows that a SDA saying "God expects us to live up to the light we have" is exposed as meaning "God expects us to live up to what the SDA church (EGW) has declared is correct doctrine". Because if you were really "open minded" you would see the "truth" and that "truth" is what the SDA says it is, just like the Mormon's version.

In reality, following correct doctrine is about carefully studying what God has given each Christian equally, at least on this board, because we all have all of God's written Word availiable to us and we all have the Holy Spirit indwellment. Some Christians do not have the written word, but the ones here do.

Some of SDA doctrine is wrong because they do not keep specific issues in proper context or they do not bring the full counsel of God's Word together in harmony, or they just simply misinterpret or have a bias given by EGW or their denomination. And the same goes for Baptist or Calvin doctrines as well, or any others. It has nothing to do with a special "light" determining the "truth".

"Light" is God's Word in print and God's Word indwelling a Chrisian via the Holy Spirit. We here on this board have all of God's light that He wants us to have in print and in Christ, now we all must study and rightly divide the word of truth.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Claudia_T]

Exactly! You can see this but the SDA's cannot. They have a special "light" which would be the "correct" light!

Remember, this thread was to define this "light" the SDA's speak of which can determine a Christian's (that is one who has already been born of God) eternal destiny.

But both Bob and Claudia had nothing more than a position in as many words as.... "if you do not agree with SDA position, then you did not receive the CORRECT LIGHT because what you believe does not agree with what SDA believes BECAUSE the SDA's "light" matches the scriptures and your "light" does not"....

You see, it is a worthless argument and leaves us with nothing more than a person's OWN personal convictions of their interpretations of scripture. The SDA's call their "interpretations" of scripture "light" from above while you and mine interpretations of scripture are purely misguided preconceived, traditions that we just refuse to let go of.

You see, they cannot prove that their "light" is correct WITHOUT their own personal "interpretations" of the scriptures to back it up. This is nothing more than what anyone can do and we are then left with "interpretations" being the final authority and not any so called "light" from above from ANYBODY!

So when Claudia or Bob or any SDA says that a Christian's pork eating is excused until they receive "light" from God that it is sin, and they are not held accountable for that sin, it is an empty proclamation. It is meaningless.

SO that is why in their world they could say that they have received "light" from God that pork eating is sin and here is the scripture to back it up. ANd I could say the same thing but that pork eating is ok also giving scripture, And what would be left but the hashing it out of who is reading the scriptures correctly and therefore the so called "light" is cast aside and worthless because niether side repects the other sides "light".

And you know why? this light thing is a non issue because it cannot be proven as truth. SO this is why I created this thread, to show them that falling back on this "light" tactic has no merit from scripture. It cannot prove their position but only in their own minds, which of course can be deceived as was EGW's.

To the SDA's "light" is gospel! It cannot be wrong! Especially EGW's. To everyone else who studies the scriptures "light" is personal conviction from God about the true application of the Word. It is always suspect because we are mere human beings. But in the SDA case, EGW's "light" given from God is perfect! If not, give one doctrine that EGW has claimed "light" on that you believe might be in correct. You will have none because you cannot go against what you have decided in your own mind is a Prophet from God. Face it, SDA's follow EGW's interpretations of scripture, nothing more, no special "light giver", just another human being trying to gather some fame by being a spokes person for Jesus Christ. And as always, God's goofy sheep fall for it...You hae the Popes, Joe Smith, EGW, Watch Tower, ect..

God Bless! :thumbs:

you are pretty much unbelievable Steaver, That you would say that based upon ANYTHING I have said is just astounding. The bad thing is people just read these things and believe them.

 

[Claudia_T]

well I am just astonished, and I cant believe Steaver got all these things he is coming up with from anything Ive said ... its laughable.

 

[steaver]

Bob, pretty much everything you posted is mixing apples and oranges and everyone can see that clearly you are equating the forth coming of the written word recorded in the gospels with todays Christian who is reading that word. It is an empty comparision.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Ellen and Joe, SDA and Mormon, have this same distinction about their religion, that is they both claim that if you REALLY want to know the truth you will be "open minded" or "seek in faith" and then the Holy Spirit will reveal to you that THEIR DOCTRINE IS THE RIGHT ONE! Well, they don't say it like that, but that is the result of the what they preach. And if you disagree, well you don't really want to see the truth.

I believe that this thread has accomplished what I had intended it to do. Which is one, it shows that a SDA saying "God expects us to live up to the light we have" is exposed as meaning "God expects us to live up to what the SDA church (EGW) has declared

It is "instructive" that failing TO HAVE me actually say that - Steaver INSERTS it and pronounces victory over his own made up argument AS IF I HAD MADE IT!!

What a great tool for debate in the dark ages -- but how well does it work in the light of day?

I think it would have been much more enlighteing to ADDRESS the points in my post -- instead of making up a bogus argument -

Instead of avoiding this post -- address post 69 showing that you oppose the very methods used by the reformers. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=940065&postcount=69

The same is shown in post 72 and 73 -- you simply ignore what you can not answer and then repeat some bogus argument nobody has MADE here!!

How in the world does that "SHOW" anything but the failure in your own position?

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

steve

have you been smoking something? some of the stuff you have come up with , I cant hardly believe it and have no clue how you couldve gotten any of it from what I have said...