Bible Discussions on SDA Doctrines (The Law and the Prophets)

2 thoughts on “Bible Discussions on SDA Doctrines (The Law and the Prophets)”

1. Brother Geoff:

   Sabbath greetings to all. I have read the most recent comments and am pained in many ways, for at the end of the day, the inspiration of the Bible is not under attack, but you have established some guidelines “against” which to appraise a true prophet, and I helped you to see that when strictly applied many of the prophets of the Bible would be condemned, including our very own, Sister White.

   Ellen Whit is not under attack either, only that you feel she was moved of God (YHWH) to instruct the body of believers to install a Christmas tree into the Church. And while you excuse Elijah’s doctrinal error for not only running away from God’s call and from Jezebel’s wrath, you would equally apologise for his doctrinal failure in believing and teaching that he was the only one left as a true worshiper of YHWH in Israel, being completely ignorant of the 7000 undefiled ones.

   With respect to the Law, you’ve reduced it to the ten commandments without going beyond the limitations of the English Language, so see the Hebrew or Greek original meanings of various words, phrases and expressions used in the Scriptures. For example, you privately apply this principle:

   “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” Exodus 25:21.
   While the covenant with all the other laws and statutes supporting the 10 commandments was placed in the side of the ark”
   “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deuteronomy 31:26.

   Here you are establishing the superiority of of “10 commandments” being “in” the ark to the inferiority of “the book of the law” which is in the side or on the outside of the ark. You do not simultaneously realize that your construction on this inspired passage is toing injury to the very throne of God, the Mercy Seat, which is above, or on the outside of the ark! By the methods of your reasoning, you make the Law more holy than the mercy seat, the very–throne of YHWH. Think of this logic closely, and you will see the total flaw it carries. Most of all, you totally ignore the fact that the the book of the law is in the “Most Holy place” of the Sanctuary. The geographics of the book of the law, in relation to the ark is meaningless, else the mercy seat is just is transient. We cannot have it both ways, we must walk the straight path of consistency.

   I have read in others of your correspondences and wondered in amazement that you would suggest that your questions on Col. 2: 14 have been sidestepped, yet, I can only wonder if you’ve seen the direct responses submitted to your questions on at least two separate occasions. In other words, I am not sure that you’ve read all the e-mails in this thread, for your questions have been adequately answered. Let me quote from one (this is also at the blog):

   What “handwriting of ordinances” was blotted out and nailed to the cross? I suppose you are here referring to Col. 2: 14-16.
   The problem here is with the reader, and not with Paul. It is quite easy to see that Paul was not calling one part of YHWH’s laws “ordinances”—ceremonial, and the other part “the law”—moral, as most Christians today do. I have established that this type of division of the Torah is foreign to the Scriptures. But without taking much time, let’s examine the context for clues (iii), and search the Scriptures for harmony (vi).
   Paul starts out with this warning, beware lest anyone “beguile you with enticing words,” (Col 2:4), and instructs them to be “Rooted and built up in him [Christ], and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.” Col. 2: 7. It is important to find out what have they been taught of Paul. Did he teach them to keep the holy festivals (1 Cor. 5: 7, 9)? Did he teach them to ignore those Jewish feasts because they are a part of the ceremonial law which has been nailed to the Cross? The answer will be self-evident shortly.
   “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Col. 2: 8. Paul here warns the new church to be on guard against the vain philosophers, the vain deceivers, who engender doctrines “after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.” Most people who are antagonistic to God’s Holy Festivals, do not take time to read this verse or ask the question, is there a part of God’s law which is “after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ?” The correct answer here is no, and so the context shows that Paul was not attacking God’s law, he was attacking the theology of “vain philosophers” who teach doctrines which have not been taught by the Apostles, or “after Christ.”
   “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Col. 2: 11. Paul is here showing that the “circumcision of Christ”—was the greater object of the “circumcision of the foreskin”—the new heart circumcision we have in Messiah, which he shows opens with our baptismal commitment to following Christ as savior and Lord.
   He continued to develop this thought, announcing: “13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Col 2: 13, 14. Speaking to a purely “Gentile audience,” his being “the Apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul spoke of “the uncircumcision of your flesh,” because they were uncircumcised from birth, being Gentiles, and as such were “dead in their sins,” but forgiven when Christ circumcised their hearts in the new-birth experience. Having now obtained that cardio-circumcision, they were to continue growing in Christ, and not be deceived by vain philosophers, “after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ?”
   Now we come to verse-14, the one of the so-called ceremonial law. So we must now ask the question, which part of God’s Law, declared to be “holy, just and good,” (Rom. 7:12), was intended to be “against us?” The moral, ceremonial, civil, Noah ide, health, etc. (I include all these components of the Torah to satisfy the Adventist version of the Law, knowing fully well that the Bible nowhere makes room for these divisions, but that’s another discussion.) Let’s see this verses from other translations to see how the literal Greek was intended:
   English Standard Version
   by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
   New American Standard Bible
   having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
   King James Bible
   Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
   Holman Christian Standard Bible
   He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross.
   International Standard Version
   having erased the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations that were hostile to us. He took those charges away when he nailed them to the cross.
   NET Bible
   He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
   Aramaic Bible in Plain English
   And he has blotted out by his authority the bill of our debts which was adverse to us and he took it from the midst and nailed it to his cross.
   GOD’S WORD® Translation
   He did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the written laws God had established. He took the charges away by nailing them to the cross.
   Jubilee Bible 2000
   blotting out the bill of the decrees that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross {Gr. stauro – stake},
   In short: Christ removed the record (charges, condemnation, guilt, debt) of our sins when the was nailed to the Cross. He did not “nail the law” to his cross, only our transgressions—our sins. I can hear the words of a familiar song—“They were nailed to the cross, nailed to the Cross, O how much he was willing to bear, with what anguish and loss, Jesus went to the Cross, and He carried my sins with Him there.” (This is a paraphrase from one of our Hymnal songs.). When you understand more fully the work of the atoning sacrifice, you realize that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and Christ’s atoning blood necessarily had to have carried our sins to the Cross. This is an imagery from the Sanctuary. So, to repeat, Christ did not take his holy law and nailed it to the Cross, but he took our sins, mingled with His blood, and nailed the record (testimony) of our sins there.

   Is that The Ministry of Healing, 333 quote on the first Communion showing Christ instituting a new observance or perpetuating the old observance of Passover? See Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Hebrews 9:15.
   Please re-read my response on Friday, May 16, 2014 11:40 AM: I have answered this item in great detail there. I provide adequate information that “communion” as a feast is foreign to the practices of early Church, they only knew Passover.
   Talk about Catholic interference, the NIV is most suspect (see these 16 missing verse – Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7). Now, what is this Communion, or Participation, or Sharing In, or Fellowship In, or Partaking Of, or Fellowship Of, or Joint-Participation?
   Please re-read my response on Friday, May 16, 2014 11:40 AM: I have answered this item in great detail there.
   I did not rest my conclusions on the testimony of the NIV, but argued that all those translations had a dog in this theological fight, so to speak, and they did not, even in one instance, render the word “communion” as a sacred feast among Christians. This is a Catholic interference.
   Please give me even one example of a prophet who reversed his prophecy (besides conditional prophecies like that of Jonah in Jonah 3:4 and Isaiah in Isaiah 38:1) in the Bible or in the SOP. Where did Ellen White apologetically or unapologetically reversed an unconditional prophecy?
   I know of no prophet who has “reversed his prophecy,” conditional or not. But the root of your question is deeper, and that is whether or not Ellen White has reversed herself on any theological precept, and to that I shall answer below:
   Here is Ellen White in 1856, reporting on a vision she had in company of many people: “I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: “Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” Ellen G. White, 1 Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27, 1856.
   I will not make this reply longer by quoting the entire chapter, that’s for you to do in your research. But from my reading there is nothing “conditional” about this prophetic vision. What I find most eye-opening is the simple fact that all those who were “present,” have died, and essentially became “food for worms.” The seven last plagues have not yet fallen, Christ has not yet come, but the vision holds that some “some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” The bottom line is clear, they are all dead today and Christ has not yet come. I would be more than happy for you to show me the “condition” in that prophecy, which was not met and thereby altered this prediction with angelic support.
   Where does Sister White provide clarity (an Appendix of sorts) to this early work of her ministry? I have seen much writing from our apologists, but nothing from her pen.
   Look at this statement: “The colored people should not urge that they be placed on an equality with white people. The relation of the two races has been a matter hard to deal with, and I fear that it will ever remain a most perplexing problem. So far as possible, everything that would stir up the race prejudice of the white people should be avoided.” 9T, p. 214. Is this the cause for the Black and White conferences in our church, even till today?
   “In reply to inquiries regarding the advisability of intermarriage between Christian young people of the white and black races, I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people. Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction. Time is too precious to be lost in controversy that will arise over this matter. Let not questions of this kind be permitted to call our ministers from their work. The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God”.–Letter 36, 1912. (Selected Messages, Book 2, page 344, paragraphs 1,2).
   I will allow the emphasis to dictate my questions. Has this position been reversed by her since 1912?
   “You have no license from God to exclude the colored people from places of worship. Treat them as Christ’s property, which they are, just as much as yourselves. They should hold membership in the church with the white brethren. Every effort should be made to wipe out the terrible wrong [slavery] which has been done them. At the same time we must not carry things to extremes and run into fanaticism on this question. Some would think it right to throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people, but this is not the right thing to teach or practice.” (The Southern Work, P. 15)
   What does this mean? Can we now violate this directive against SOP solemn counsel?
   On the Question of Jerusalem’s having been built up, we must simply consult the The Planning Zoning Department of the State of Israel, to confirm this, and they will be happy to let you know that there has been much building up. Fruther, there are millions of Jews who have accepted both the First and Second advent of Christ. Do you know any? As I’ve stated yesterday, in 1848 there was no notion of “Old Jerusalem” in East and West segments as we have since 1948. Jerusalem rises and falls as a whole, not a part of Jerusalem, and that was not the ground of the prophecy which states that it shall “never” be built up again.
   As I stated, my objective is to go beyond these nebulous points, as I have never lead anyone from belief in Ellen White’s writings, and will not venture to attempt at that here. I believe there are depths of truths available to us in God’s word today which were unfamiliar to Ellen White in her days and that we must improve the light which shines upon us today as they improved that which fell on them in their day.– https://sdaprophecies.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/bible-discussions-on-sda-doctrines-the-law-and-the-prophets/
   This continuous conversation has been continued because of one person–Ellen G White. If Sister White should awake from her grave and confess that her early views on the pagan tree were wrong, than and only then, will some accept that the Bible had condemned its practice form the start. Because of this fact, the notion of the pagan tree, should we confess that she was wrong on this point, based on the limited light given her on this topic, then we fear that she will be wrong on other points, and totally discard her writings. Strangely enough, there is only about 30% of the North American church which accept the inspiration of Ellen White, and even around the world, those churches which esteem her writings, vociferously reject the pagan tree. You’ll not see the “christmas tree” in a Jamaican church, for example, at least until recently that has been the direction of the Jamaican Union on this question. And I don’t believe it is because of some sin in their lives why they reject the pagan tree and the Easter campaign which is so rampant here.

   What I fear is that we are protecting the law of ten commandments above the TORAH, the “whole law.” If we are honest as a Church, we must confess that Adventists have historically taught only two laws: (1) the Moral law, and (2) the Ceremonial law. It is only of late that we have artificially subdivided it into dietary laws, cleanliness laws, civil laws, etc. Here is an excellent reminder of the historic Adventist position on this question: http://www.chodesh.info/day7/versus1.htm

   Unless we are completely dependent on the Bible for our conclusions, we will be speaking past each other. I would encourage you to not only read the words, but research the “meaning” of the words in the original languages to see how they were conveyed to the audiences of those times, and not limit t hem to the the current english word meaning. For example, I know this is heavy on your heart:

   “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” Col. 2: 16

   As a church, we hold that this verse is speaking about the “nailing” of the ceremonial law including the feast days, to the Cross. And we make much out of the word “days” being pluralized, to show that these are the ceremonial or feast day sabbaths. This position ignores the fact that Paul was instructing the Colossians’ thusly: “Let no man therefore condemn you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” The judging or condemning, was coming from vain philosophers who were bend on bring condemnation against the church for their keeping, or respecting, “of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” The only ones worthy, or capable of passing this judgment is “the body of christ” the church.

   While we make much of the italicized word, days, which was “added” by the translators, we equally turn to Ezek. 20, and used the word “sabbaths” same as “sabbath days” in our theology, to suggest that the Sabbath is the seal of God! Is this consistent?

   “12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
   13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.” Ezek. 20: 12, 13

   Notice that “sabbaths” here means the same as “sabbath days.” Our position on Ezek 20 is 180-degrees out of phase with our teaching on Col. 2, surrounding the same word “sabbaths” or “days”. God is not the author of confusion, and we have confused the truth of Scripture on this point.

   “And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.” Ezek. 20: 20. Look a the the word in bold, it is a family of holy days–“they,” and not simply the same day every week. If we restrict ourselves merely to the King James English without consult a Hebrew or Greek lexicon, we will further limit our understandings of the truth of God’s Law and other facets of truth the HOly Spirit wants to teach us. The enemy of souls has sought to destroy God’s Holy Law, but I a grateful that in the last days, God will have a people to proclaim His Law more fully. This fullness of the law begins with a fuller appreciation of the word “sabbaths” and Law. I want to be among these 144,000 evangelists, how about you?

   Shalom in Messiah,

   Garrick

   PS: I’ll post to the blog. Please forgive all typos.

   On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:39 AM, TeRay Bingham wrote:
   Please see blog for reply posted. https://sdaprophecies.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/the-law-our-schoolmaster/comment-page-1/#comment-5

   Should be updated there soon. You also could post your reply there so that this discussion has a chance to reach many people. They can weigh the evidence and make informed decisions.

   Here are some points I wish to address from your letter. I should apologize for assuming you understand Israel as the SDA church without asking your position. I am thrilled to see that you know the Lord has had a continuum of Israelite believers and you and I may be amongst the scattered. Does that mean you hold that a literalJerusalem on earth is referred to when God says he will restore his people Judah to Jerusalem?

   Joel 3: 1For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity ofJudah and Jerusalem,

   You have accepted that that means a literal Judah, do you also accept that this is a literal Jerusalemthat they will be restored to in the last days?

   I too admit that Peter was inspired in 1st and 2ndPeter.

   Now, on to Duet 31 and the word Against.

   17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

   19Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for meagainst the children of Israel. 20For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. 21And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.22Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

   23And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.

   24And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 27For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? 28Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. 29For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

   From the reference of “against” in Duet 31 we can see that it simply means to be held as a witness.

   Joshua records the same use of the word against.

   Josh 24
   And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.

   Nasv
   Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God.”

   Again, we see the law against them simply means it is a legal witness un case the covenant were broken.

   The longevity of the book of the law is stated to be the same as the two great stones.

   Deut 24:28-29
   Says the book of the law would be a witness “in the latter days” to the rebellious nation.

   28Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. 29For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

   From the reference of “against” in Duet 31 we can see that it simply means to be held as a witness.

   It is not practical to write the entire book of the law in stone and carry it. So it was written on parchment.

   Why a separate location within the same arch? The two great stones being moved from place to place in the wilderness over 40years would have destroyed the book of the law over time from friction. As a civil engineer im sure you see that that would be a flawed design?

   Now, with the stone in center of ark and book in the side of the ark, the MERCY SEAT covers the entire ark. The mercy seat contains the entire law; everything the ark carries including the rod.

   Now I have asked you on numerous occasions. Is the book of the law from God or Moses? Since I did not see your reply I will show, all the law is attributed to Moses but from God.

   The bible makes no distinction between moses’ law and God’s law.

   Look how interchangeable tge terms are so that when you do away with moses law you have done the same to God’s law.

   Neh 9:13-14
   Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

   John 7:19

   Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

   Nehemiah 8:1

   And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel.

   Finally, Col 2:14-16

   4 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

   The handwriting of ordinances simply means list of the legal record of our sins.

   International Standard Version

   having erased the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations that were hostile to us. He took those charges away when he nailed them to the cross.

   NET Bible

   He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.

   Aramaic Bible in Plain English

   And he has blotted out by his authority the bill of our debts which was adverse to us and he took it from the midst and nailed it to his cross.

   GOD’S WORD® Translation

   He did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the written laws God had established. He took the charges away by nailing them to the cross.

   Jubilee Bible 2000

   blotting out the bill of the decrees that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross {Gr. stauro – stake},

   King James 2000

   BibleBlotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

   Sabbath Days
   Now you may respond to any part you like but please at least respond to col 2:16 and acts 15.

   1. Col 2:16 sabbath days a reference to weekly Sabbath? If not provide evidence from the bible to demonstrate otherwise.

   2. In Acts 15
   Why arent any of the 4laws given to the gentiles from the 10commandments? Why are all 4 from the book of the law PLACED IN THE SIDE OF THE ARK (that are against us)???

   Acts 15
   18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fromfornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

   Why aren’t any of the laws given to new believers from the MORAL LAW 10 COMMANDMENTS?

   Why instruct new believers to keep the law that was AGAINST US; NAILED TO THE CROSS?

   Why give these gentiles the “CEREMONIAL LAWS” to keep?

   Awaiting your reply…

   T.

   Hi T,
   What does Peter’s fault of cowardess have to do with the inspiration or 1 and 2 Peter, for instance? Elijah lost his wit for a short time too in 1 King 19, but his prophecies were reliable 100%. No one claims prophets are themselves infallible (they all had faults). It’s just that they must be 100% prophetically accurate. No one speaking under inspiration is allowed inaccuracy.
   “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3.
   My brother, I will not contend with you about the law. And I’m not here to defend Ellen G. White. She has made no racist statements. Twisted misunderstanding has been placed on some very plain and practical statements she made. And some of my very pointed and honest questions have been sidestepped. For instance, what exactly was nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14. Also, some unfounded allegations have been made against me, like “You mean by this quote thatJudah is the SDA church,” even though I did not say or even insinuate that. God has had a continuum of faithful people throughout the ages, not only Israel, Judah or the Adventist Church. I will not force honesty here. So let’s take the heat of the flame and passion, and get off the contentious war path.

   Again, I will not dispute the law with you. It seems you have rejected the Spirit of Prophecy (you know which part) and in the process, end up rejecting the light in the Bible. Otherwise, why have you overlooked Deuteronomy 31:26 and mentioned only Colossians 2:14? Why have you overlooked the distinct locations of the Decalog and the rest of the statutes?
   “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” Exodus 25:21.
   While the covenant with all the other laws and statutes supporting the 10 commandments was placed in the side of the ark”
   “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deuteronomy 31:26.
   Why have you ignored the unit (10 statutes)? Why do you deny the delineation?
   “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” Deuteronomy 5:22.
   It’s time for total honesty! We can talk but let’s be completely honest. OK?

   Sincerely,
   *** Geoff ***

   Sent from the Samsung Galaxy Rugby Pro, an AT&T LTE smartphone

   ——– Original message ——–
   From: Earle Greaves
   Date: 06/06/2014 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
   To: TeRay Bingham ,Garrick Augustus ,Roosevelt Marsden
   Subject: Re: NO COLOR LINE

   Hi TeRay,
   What does Peter’s fault of cowardess have to do with the inspiration or 1 and 2 Peter, for instance? Elijah lost his wit for a short time too in 1 King 19, but his prophecies were reliable 100%. No one claims prophets are themselves infallible (they all had faults). It’s just that they must be 100% prophetically accurate. No one speaking under inspiration is allowed inaccuracy.
   “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3.
   My brother, I will not contend with you about the law. And I’m not here to defend Ellen G. White. She has made no racist statements. Twisted misunderstanding has been placed on some very plain and practical statements she made. And some of my very pointed and honest questions have been sidestepped. For instance, what exactly was nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14. Also, some unfounded allegations have been made against me, like “You mean by this quote that Judah is the SDA church,” even though I did not say or even insinuate that. God has had a continuum of faithful people throughout the ages, not only Israel, Judah or the Adventist Church. I will not force honesty here. So let’s take the heat of the flame and passion, and get off the contentious war path.

   Again, I will not dispute the law with you. It seems you have rejected the Spirit of Prophecy (you know which part) and in the process, end up rejecting the light in the Bible. Otherwise, why have you overlooked Deuteronomy 31:26 and mentioned only Colossians 2:14? Why have you overlooked the distinct locations of the Decalog and the rest of the statutes?
   “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” Exodus 25:21.
   While the covenant with all the other laws and statutes supporting the 10 commandments was placed in the side of the ark”
   “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deuteronomy 31:26.
   Why have you ignored the unit (10 statutes)? Why do you deny the delineation?
   “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” Deuteronomy 5:22.
   It’s time for total honesty! We can talk but let’s be completely honest. OK?

   Sincerely,
   *** Geoff ***
   “Those only will enter heaven who have overcome the temptation to speak and act unkindly and harshly” This Day with God, p 111.

   From: TeRay Bingham
   To: Earle Greaves ; Garrick Augustus ; Roosevelt Marsden
   Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:22 PM
   Subject: RE: NO COLOR LINE

   Here it comes.

   T: {My responses are in brackets; T.}
   Geoof: Hi T.,
   I spotted your 8:45 response just now, but I’m responding to this earlier response in order to include your response.
   Let’s be quite honest. I have made a similar response to Garrick. Why in the world would you rely on a Bible and a prophet as the ones you present? If Ellen White and Peter were racists and the SOP and portions of scripture present inaccurate prophecy, then honestly, why depend on them?
   T: {Hello Geoof, Do you deny that Peter was being a bigot and had to be corrected “to his face by Paul?” or do you deny that EGW wrote statements that lean toward calling some races of people lower than whites? Listen, I worship Yahovah; not Peter and certainly not EGW.}
   Geoof: And why even profess to be a Seventh-day Adventist if you no longer share the Seventh-day Adventist world view?
   T: {I do not profess to be SDA. I could careless about that label. I was born SDA. The foundation is an excellent place to start. It is not the end of the line of truth however. Nor is the SDA church without error. I am not here to defend or discuss the SDA church. I am presenting the bible speaks of the law as a unit verses any doctrine or worldview that wants to separate the law into disposable chunks.}
   Geoof: I’m not casting you out of the church, but it seems that somehow you have jumped tracks. Often there is some darling sin or lifestyle that prevents folks from accepting tried and true standards.
   T: {So, must I be living in sin if I don’t fully accept EGW or the SDA worldview? This is arrogant.}
   Geoof: You are not saved by believing in Ellen g. White, but history has proven those who follow the spirit of prophecy and adhere to the Bible and not private interpretation fare much better.
   T:{I have stated that EGW devotional study has been beneficial to me. I was baptized because of the little book called Steps to Christ.
   But my allegiance and confidence are to El-Shaddai not El-len White.}
   Geoof: “Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” 2 Chronicles 20:20
   T: {Your comment here seriously exposes you. You mean by this quote that Judah is the SDA church. You mean that Jerusalem is “in your heart.” I reject both of those “replacement theologies.” Judah, are the literal physical and spiritual children of Abraham. Jerusalem is really Jerusalem. It is not “in your heart.” God still keeps his promises. He promised to bless the literal, blood physical and spiritual children of Abraham in the exact physical location of the promised land on the earth prior to going to heaven.
   SDA’ s erroneously teach that God turned from the Jews at “the stoning of Steven.” The truth is that Israel was blinded for a time- until the fullness of the gentiles- then God will return them to the real tangible Jerusalem on earth before “take off” to heaven.}
   Geoof: The SOP is reliable, not because it proves or disproves the Bible, but because it 100% agrees with and promotes the Bible.
   T. {Your comment here sounds like that of Islamic peoples when they claim that the angel Gabriel spoke to directly Mohammed and that he, Mohammed, is without error. Mormon’s make a similar claim. You would not see any errors presented about EGW and I am fine with that. In seminary, several of her errors and disagreements are presented. I could list 100 disagreements, but that is not my point, to tear down confidence in EGW or not. My objective is to state that I only accept the bible and am not concerned with what EGW states. Do you have a problem with people accepting just the bible?
   If you have found truth in Ellen White’s writing that agrees with the bible, then simply show it to me from the bible, and not from her writings. If it can be found in the bible then why not use the bible?}
   Geoof: Being a “lesser light” to the “greater light” of the Bible does not relax the requirement for the prophet to pass or fail the Biblical tests of a prophet. And so she is either in or out just as all of the prophets recorded in the Bible. Please don’t hold on to her for mere emotional entertainment. What an insult to the Holy Spirit!
   T: {The Holy Spirit is a big God; He can respond accordingly to any insults on himself. I hold the bible canon finished with the book of Revelation. I see none of your EGW quotes as anything other than WHITE noise. Is it that you cannot prove your ideas using the bible only, so you depend on EGW?}
   Geoof: As for the law, you seem to make the case for me. The reasoning is this. Since God’s holy ten commandment law is consistent and never changing and you wish to add to it more than the 10 on the two tables of stone,
   T: {Wait, wait wait. I have not added to the ten commandments. I am telling you that the ten commandments are not the full extent of the law. For example where in the ten commandments does it say to give 10% of your income to the church? Did you see how in the same sentence you said LAW and then 10 commandemnts? That is intellectual dec.i e tThe the ten commandments are not the LAW, they are a part of it. So, it is not I that have added to the commandments but that you have limited the commandments to 9 of 10 that you like. SDA churches break the 2nd commandment regarding images of God in the use of Jesus pictures.}
   Geoof: then the others must be of the same nature and needs no adjustment. Therefore we should still be sacrificing animals regardless if Jesus came and died and rose again.
   T: {I have provided for you on 3 occasions Num 28:9 that states that sacrifices of animals is to be made each weekly Sabbath. That is twice as many animals commanded to be killed each Sabbath than on any other day. Yet, you have never sacrificed an animal on Sabbath, why? It is because you recognize that the day is holy and to be kept without sacrifices post- Christ’s’ sacrifice. The Feast of the Lord are Holy and are to be kept without sacrifices because his law is from eternity past.}
   Geoof: You correctly stated the law was kept in the ark. What you failted to recognize is the specific geographics. The 10 were stored inside the ark:
   “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” Exodus 25:21.
   While the covenant with all the other laws and statutes supporting the 10 commandments was placed in the side of the ark”
   “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deuteronomy 31:26.
   Please notice the “witness against thee.” Sound familiar?
   T. {Did you fail to see the geographic location of the Ark? It is in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary (and on earth)! So, though the Ten Commandments are in the center of the ark and the BOOK of the LAW in the side of the Ark, both are in the Ark and the Ark is in the most holy place. This book of the law that you deem as less than the Ten Commandments, because it is geographically in the side of the Ark, is it from GOD or from MOSES?
   Are the other commandments (the Book of the Law) from GOD or from MOSES?
   Do you mean that placing them in the side of the Ark means they are not of equal value but are somewhat lesser and not everlasting?
   Eve, if you recall was taken out of a rib the was in the side of Adam. Is she lesser or not worthy of eternity because she is from the side and not the head?}
   Geoof: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
   T. {Again, respectfully be informed about handwriting of ordinances. You seem to come up short in understanding them. I was there before. You owe it to yourself to discover what that means. Hint, it is a legal term that does not refer to the keeping of the law.
   Whenever you come up short you start to do personal digs such as “are you living in sin, because you do not fully embrace sister white?” You are reading with another man’s or in this case woman’s (EGW’s) glasses on.
   You are inserting the Feast Days any where you like without study. The handwriting of ordinances is NOT a reference to the Feast Days.
   You have ordinances every 13 sabbath- communion. Where did that ordinance come from? Why 13 sabbaths? Where is the command to have the ordinance of communion? Where is the command to have it every 13 sabbaths?}
   Geoof: that was against us, which was contrary to us,
   T: {Sunday Christians say the law was against us when we present the Sabbath. It is because they would rather remain ill informed than to educate themselves on the law and follow that up with obedience.
   You too would like to remain under informed and teach that God gave us a LAW that was against us and then PUNISHES us for not keeping a LAW that he KNEW was CONTRARY to us.
   This makes little sense. You must restudy this angel when you see it’s logical conclusions. The Law is holy just and good. It was never against us. Without being rude, I am willing to explain it to you just what it is that was against us and taken out of the way, if you are ready to hear it?}
   Geoff: and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” Colossians 2:14.
   More on this a little later as time permits.
   Happy Preparation Day and Sabbath,
   ** Geoff ***
   T: {Happy Sabbath. T.}

   https://sdaprophecies.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/the-law-our-schoolmaster/comment-page-1/#comment-4

   Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:58:50 -0700
   From: dukearle@yahoo.com
   Subject: Re: NO COLOR LINE
   To: terayjb@hotmail.com; gaugustus336@gmail.com; rooseveltmarsden@verizon.net

   Sorry I missed it. The link does not have any comments and it’s dated November 8, 2011.
   *** Geoff ***

   “Those only will enter heaven who have overcome the temptation to speak and act unkindly and harshly” This Day with God, p 111.

   From: TeRay Bingham
   To: Earle Greaves ; Garrick Augustus ; Roosevelt Marsden
   Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 11:09 AM
   Subject: RE: NO COLOR LINE

   My reply is in the blog. https://sdaprophecies.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/the-law-our-schoolmaster/comment-page-1/#comment-4

   Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:24:47 -0700
   From: dukearle@yahoo.com
   Subject: Re: NO COLOR LINE
   To: terayjb@hotmail.com; gaugustus336@gmail.com; rooseveltmarsden@verizon.net

   Hi TeRay,
   I spotted your 8:45 response just now, but I’m responding to this earlier response in order to include your response.

   Let’s be quite honest. I have made a similar response to Garrick. Why in the world would you rely on a Bible and a prophet as the ones you present? If Ellen White and Peter were racists and the SOP and portions of scripture present inaccurate prophecy, then honestly, why depend on them? And why even profess to be a Seventh-day Adventist if you no longer share the Seventh-day Adventist world view?

   I’m not casting you out of the church, but it seems that somehow you have jumped tracks. Often there is some darling sin or lifestyle that prevents folks from accepting tried and true standards. You are not saved by believing in Ellen g. White, but history has proven those who follow the spirit of prophecy and adhere to the Bible and not private interpretation fare much better.

   “Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” 2 Chronicles 20:20

   The SOP is reliable, not because it proves or disproves the Bible, but because it 100% agrees with and promotes the Bible. Being a “lesser light” to the “greater light” of the Bible does not relax the requirement for the prophet to pass or fail the Biblical tests of a prophet. And so she is either in or out just as all of the prophets recorded in the Bible. Please don’t hold on to her for mere emotional entertainment. What an insult to the Holy Spirit!

   As for the law, you seem to make the case for me. The reasoning is this. Since God’s holy ten commandment law is consistent and never changing and you wish to add to it more than the 10 on the two tables of stone, then the others must be of the same nature and needs no adjustment. Therefore we should still be sacrificing animals regardless if Jesus came and died and rose again. You correctly stated the law was kept in the ark. What you failed to recognize is the specific geographics. The 10 were stored inside the ark:
   “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” Exodus 25:21.
   While the covenant with all the other laws and statutes supporting the 10 commandments was placed in the side of the ark”
   “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deuteronomy 31:26.
   Please notice the “witness against thee.” Sound familiar?
   “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” Colossians 2:14.
   More on this a little later as time permits.

   Happy Preparation Day and Sabbath,

   ** Geoff ***
   “Those only will enter heaven who have overcome the temptation to speak and act unkindly and harshly” This Day with God, p 111.

   From: TeRay Bingham
   To: Earle Greaves ; Garrick Augustus ; Roosevelt Marsden
   Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 5:47 PM
   Subject: RE: NO COLOR LINE

   Geoof,

   Great to hear from you my brother, I am TeRay Bingham. I was raised SDA and am appreciative of that foundation. I have two SDA uncles that are pastors. I am a third generation SDA. However, I use the bible and history only and have never quoted from Ellen White to sustain a point of scripture and have never accepted a quote from her to believe or refute scripture. I do not hold her writings as scripture. I do not believe the writings she has called Spirit of Prophecy or Testimonies are what the bible refers to by the same name. I usually ignore any quote from her writings that you send to establish a point of doctrine. I have read her books and am reading them now for devotion and have been blessed.

   The points you raise are important and so I will comb through this email and respond to some of them each time, but not all at once.

   Here is a quote from Ellen White as evidence of why I don’t use her materials to prove or disprove the bible.

   “The hour of the evening sacrifice arrives. The priest stands in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem ready to offer a lamb as sacrifice. As he raises the knife to kill the victim, the earth convulses. Terrified, he drops the knife and the lamb escapes. Over the din of the earthquake he hears a loud ripping noise as an unseen hand rends the veil of the Temple from top to bottom.

   Across town, black clouds enshroud a cross. When Jesus, the Passover Lamb of God, calls out, “It is finished!” He dies for the sins of the world.

   Type has met antitype. The very event the Temple services have pointed to through the centuries has taken place. The Saviour has completed His atoning sacrifice, and because symbol has met reality, the rituals foreshadowing this sacrifice have been superseded. Thus the rent veil, the dropped knife, the escaped lamb.

   But there is more to salvation history. It reaches beyond the cross. Jesus’ resurrection and ascension direct our attention to the heavenly sanctuary, where, no longer the Lamb, He ministers as priest. The once-for-all sacrifice has been offered (Heb. 9:28); now He makes available to all the benefits of this atoning sacrifice.”

   And at the very same Passover here is the bible:

   “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God .” Luke 22:15, 16.

   If I understand sister white correctly, it would seem that at the very moment when Jews kill the Passover lamb, Christ was on the cross and said “It is finished.” Then the lamb that was going to be killed escaped and that would have been the last lamb that represented Christ.

   However, the bible says that Jesus was not on the cross at the time of Passover meal because he was eating with his disciples.

   In this instance, I must accept or reject the bible based on what EGW says. I only accept the bible. EGW’s comments here are emotionally entertaining at best.

   You have already established that the Law is eternal from eternity past. The point you and I have a disagreement on is that the LAW means just the 10 commandments.

   Here you suggest that Moses received only the 10 commandments: “and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.”

   The 10 Commandments are a transcript of God’s character:

   “The law of God in the sanctuary in heaven is the great original, of which the precepts inscribed upon the tables of stone and recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch were an unerring transcript.”

   But, the bible teaches that Moses himself recorded a vast amount of law beyond the two tables of stone. Ex 24 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

   Again, you correctly lay the following text and summary: ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.’ Matthew 5:18. The law of God, being a revelation of His will, a transcript of His character, must forever endure, ‘as a faithful witness in heaven.’ Not one command has been annulled; not a jot or tittle has been changed.

   Yet, if I understand you correctly, you are saying, at the cross other laws were actually fulfilled. That means, not merely jots and tittles wiped out but whole chunks and chapters are passed away, although heaven and earth are not. That means you disagree with your own quote that not one command has been annulled because you have reduce that “not one command” to just ten, plus, plus (diets, and tithing). I feel you have not a reliable biblical source to extract diets and tithing from the death of the ceremonial law ashes, because as you claim, they were before the ceremonial law was given or because they make sense to you. This is not a
   hermeneutical stance. This is here a little there a little picking and choosing. It is an unfair form of reasoning.

   My two year old does the same thing. Don’t be offended here. I know that we have established a seriousness for truth seeking. But, as I was saying, I tell my two year old “No, you cannot have it. It is dangerous. Daddy says no!” And he just says “I want it” until I give in or go nuts. He is not considering my points, he is not using sound reasoning. He is not weighing the evidence. He is just having his own way. You cannot have your own way with the ten commandments and add the other two, one for good measure, and one to grow on.

   The commandments came in a package. They are a set. I would even say yes, they came in two sets; the Ten on stone and the others written and placed in the side of the ark; the totality is called the Law of God. What biblical exegetical standard do you use to rescue the dietary laws and tithing from the other ceremonial laws? What measure do you use to determine which laws get in the ceremonial packet and which are left out?

   And when choosing the dietary laws why did you not accept the commandment against eating of blood and how to properly kill an animal to drain the blood, as did the gentiles in Acts 15? The meat that Adventist call “clean” is not clean do to the blood violation! Why did you not take the whole law on dietary cleanliness?

   Here you quote Psalms:

   ‘Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.’ ‘All His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever.’ ” Psalm 119:89

   But just like the Sabbath School Quarterly, in one breath you say we keep his whole law, but you have your fingers crossed, because you mean only the Ten Commandments will last and forever. You teach the other commandments have expired except for homosexuality and beastiality.
   …

   [Message clipped]

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. To the Reader:

   I never did receive Geoff’s article on “Honesty,” and that is why it is not posted here. The conversation, seems to have died out without our discussing “honesty” with Ellen G. White. Stay tuned….

   LikeLike

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ