Again, I admire Doug Bachelor very much. I have learned a great deal from the insights that God has blessed him with. He's on my top ten list of great modern evangelists and has been a big influence on me.

The fact that I'm pointing out the interpretations I can't fully accept does not make me an adversary, but it really shows I'm familiar with all his interpretations. That means I'm a big fan. There really are only a few things I have trouble with out of all the hundreds of revelations I agree with. If I'm wrong on any of these things, then please set me strait. If you have wisdom, I will submit to your correction.

I don't seek contention. I have tried to show these things to Pastor Doug, but he's not getting any of my emails. I've kept these things to myself for over a year, fearing misunderstanding from my brethren. But now I have to share.

This is about the "Rich Young Ruler" in Matthew 19:16-22.



People ask on Bible Answers why did Jesus say: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God", but Amazing Facts keeps saying "Jesus is God." The answer Doug gives is pretty lame. He says like Jesus was just trying to hint that He was God, or if He's calling Jesus good, he's acknowledging Him to be God.

Did Jesus not set an example of what He taught His disciples?



So after that Jesus is supposed to allow someone to call him "Good Master"? Jesus was setting the example. He even washes feet to set an example:



Of course His disciples could say "My Lord and my God", (John 20:28), after the resurrection when they realized He was the Christ. But this young ruler had no such revelation. He probably addressed all the Rabbis with such reverence.

Surely Jesus would also let this man know he wouldn't get anywhere with flattery, but He would speak the truth, even as God Himself is no respecter of persons. That probably gave the man confidence in spite of himself.

[size:"3]Part 2[/color]

On the same passage, people sometimes ask why did Jesus only quote 5 of the 10 Commandments. The answer Doug gives is that the man interrupted Jesus before He could finish.

Again, I could never wish to insult Brother Doug. Bless his soul and praise the Lord for the work he's doing for God. He's worthy of much honor. But may he not refuse to be corrected in this matter.

Are we to imagine this was another bout of schizophrenia, like when Paul talks about idolatry and then make one line about Jewish feasts and then changes the subject back to idolatry again? So also was this man showing great respect for this renowned Prophet of God, and then his other personality kicks in and the man shows contempt for Jesus? Was the man a demoniac as well?

In Mark's rendition, the man came running and kneels before Jesus.
That's alot of respect. And he calls Him "Good Master". And he's a rich man. He knows how to conduct himself probably even among great men. How then is he going to make a buffoon of himself in front of all those and cut Jesus off mid sentence?

Either the man is seriously bi-polar, or Jesus was actually finished speaking and the man broke the silence.

Why would Jesus finish with quoting only those commandments? Notice the man's response: "All these things have I kept from my youth up".

Would he have been able to say that if Jesus had quoted all 10 of the Ten Commandments? Doubtful.

It's obvious that his circumstance prevented him from keeping the commandments Jesus didn't list. His money and business where causing him to sin. "... if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off,", (Matt. 5:30). It was a curse to him. It may have been gained through some compromise that defiled his conscience, or maybe the man was a workaholic so that even on the Sabbath he couldn't take his mind off his work:



Then he would have been breaking the Sabbath. That's commandment (#4), one of which Jesus didn't mention.

No doubt he would have then fallen to covetousness, (#10).

And covetousness is idolatry (#2):

Eph. 5:5 ... nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Col. 3:5 ... covetousness, which is idolatry:

In most cases idolatry breaks also the 1st, (#1).

One who is bound by such evil, if he makes a profession of faith, will only be taking the name of the Lord in vain, (#3).

That's one possible scenario. Here's what Ellen White says about this man:



She says he was in transgression of God's law. It's not that the man was keeping God's law, but that wasn't enough. Jesus says it is enough:



Jesus said if you can do that, you shall live. That's a big if. But no one can without help from God, and such help takes a covenant, and to have a covenant, you must obey God's counsel, and this man was counseled to give up his stuff.

Cain was given the same two options. Either take God's counsel and give up his pride, and God helps Cain to resist sin, or Cain refuses God's counsel and is left to resist sin in his own strength, if that where possible:



Option 1: Sacrifice a lamb like Abel
Option 2: Sin lies at the door with a never resting desire to overtake Cain, and Cain shall rule over sin, (resist temptation), by himself, without any help from God.

The sin was murder, not sacrificing fruits. The counsel was offered to give Cain the power to resist and overcome sin.

The only way the young ruler would get the victory over sin was to take the counsel Jesus gave. That was the only counsel God had for him.

There are many situations where if a person wants eternal life and feels he lacks something, they would have to give up everything. The movie star, for instance, would have to quit show-business and serve the Lord and use his talents in ministry. His career would cause him to compromise what he believes in. He would advocate smoking, drinking, adultery, evolution, using the Lord's name in vain, and every evil and vice, before billions of people. Even his money would be a snare to him. It would probably bring him into association with those who would revile his new faith and lead him back into sin.

And when people disregard the poor, is it not iniquity. Men more honorable than these millionaires are starving in 3rd world countries, breaking their backs for a couple dollars a day which is not enough to live on. The slaves in America lived like kings compared to these victims of corporate and political corruption. If you have tons of money, why would you not help them? Is it not covetousness that prevents you? Is it not evil? If that poor man starves to death and you did nothing to feed him, is it not murder?



Ellen White does not indicate that the man interrupted Jesus:


So Jesus must have been finished speaking. He must have spoken only those commandments deliberately. We also say that what Jesus wrote in the sand where the sins of the men who condemned the woman:



Yet this was not plainly revealed in the Bible. Why didn't Jesus bring them to open shame? They would have harden their hearts.



In both cases, Jesus graciously covered a matter. But we see it now. Don't we? Am I the only one?

Thank you and God bless you for any kind of constructive feedback you can give.

Thanks. It could be that Jesus was probing this man's faith. "Why do YOU call Me good?" Has My identity been revealed to you from above like it was to Peter?


regards,

oG

That makes sense. But if he knew He where the Messiah, then wouldn't he have left all to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.(also Luke 18:28)

I don't think it was revealed unto him. He was too worldly. Now if Ellen White had said something, that would settle the issue.

Wait. Here's something.



I should have checked with the prophet first. Still I don't see her saying Jesus was "hinting" that He was the Son of God. That doesn't sound right at all.

The conclusion I came up with on my own was that Jesus was setting an example and letting this man know he was not going to be moved by flattery but would give a faithful witness. She does say that he addressed Jesus like he would any Rabbi.

She says: "Jesus desired to test the ruler's sincerity, and to draw from him the way in which he regarded him as good."

So his address lacked sincerity. It was flattery. It was also a bit of blasphemy. Like how people call the Pope "Holy Father", and how some are called "Reverend".

I must maintain that this still applies:


Concerning the other issue:



That does confirm he was not keeping the Ten Commandments because of his money. It's certainly not correct to say that he was keeping them, yet he still lacked something.

I don't think we can assume that to be true. Many people today claim to know that Jesus is the Messiah, yet they are unwilling to leave all and follow him.

There were evidently many who were convicted that Jesus was the Messiah but they had other things in their lives that kept them from surrendering everything to him, the same as often happens today. Judas was convicted of Christ's true identity, yet he did not give up all for Jesus.

Good point.

So I should have said: "But if he knew He where the Messiah, then Ellen White wouldn't have wrote this:"

This is an easy one IF one understands the "in Christ" motif!

Christ is God. God is agape. Agape is not one of God's attributes, rather God is agape. Agape is who God is.....

Now at the incarnation, Jesus (the 2nd God of the Trinity), was "mysteriously blended" with our humanity that needed redeeming. Christ remained Himself, namely God, while assuming our sinful, fallen life that stands under the curse of the law.

Now when the Rich Young Ruler addressed Christ he was addressing Him as a mere man. He wasn't addressing Him as the Son of God. Christ as God is "good" - He is holy - He is righteous, but as the Son of Man the humanity He assumed was sinful. Don't believe me? Here:

2 Cor 5:21 He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus as God) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we (sinners) might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Notice Jesus as God, who knew no sin, became sin! Now I am not calling Jesus a sinner. I am calling the humanity that He assumed sin!

You see we are sinners by birth. (See Ps 51:5) And Paul tells us that "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law...." [Gal 4:4] To be born of a woman implies that Christ's assumed humanity was sinful and therefore it stood under the curse.

Now it is true that Christ never sinned in our fallen, sinful humanity. Yet we know He lived His whole life in the shadow of the cross (the curse of the law). Why? Our humanity - His assumed humanity was/is sinful - it is rotten.

Hence when the rich young ruler addressed Christ he was addressing Him as a mere man. According to Paul "there is none good, no, not even one." [Rom 3:12] So Christ is saying that as a man my assumed humanity is rotten - it's sinful. Call no man good because there is none good.

The more important question is why did Jesus tell him this truth?

Rob

I didn't intend to point out anything there that I disagreed with you about. I was just making the observation that not everyone who knows Jesus is the Messiah gives up everything to follow Him.

Look at the initial context:

16 And, behold, one [the rich young ruler] came and said unto him [Jesus as a mere man], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Jesus answers his question in two parts.

Here's part 1: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God

Part 2: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

What was the RYR question? What must I do to get into heaven....He wants heaven by doing something...works, etc.

How does Christ correct his self-righteous, legalistic theology? Before giving him the standard of righteousness (i.e., the law), Christ let's him know the impossibility of keeping the law. He does this by telling him that there's none good, except God of course. If mankind is not good then he can't keep a holy law and therefore it is impossible for him to gain heaven by works. That's Christ point and He proves this in the remaining verses (see 18-30).

If you read closely you will realize that even Christ's disciples gave up everything (not that they really had anything) for self-centered, selfish motives:

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

Note the disciples didn't give up their jobs for selfless reasons. They did it to get something in return. Agape or true love...true righteousness, is not self-seeking. It expects nothing in return.

Here's more evidence of their selfishness:

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Again, this proves what Christ said: "There is none good but one, that is, God. Why? We are sinners because we are selfish. That's the essence of sin. If you give all your goodies to the poor, but not from agape, all your goodness is as filthy rags - it's useless! (see 1 Cor 13:3)

I agree with the essence of what you are saying about selfishness and true love.

Is it sinful to do what the Holy Spirit leads us to do?

For instance, is there anything wrong or sinful with a person's accepting Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit has given him a longing for God's forgiveness and salvation?

Is there anything wrong or sinful with wanting to be spiritually healed and to live with God forever?

@Robert
Thank you Rob. That's very insightful. But one thing.


I don't think Jesus at this point was telling people He was the Son of God, nor was that what He was trying to get this man to understand.



(also: Matt. 17:9; Mark 8:30; 9:9; Luke 9:21)

The young ruler was completely unconverted. He was far from such a revelation.

Jesus taught: "...call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven", (Matt. 23:9).

To understand things properly, we need to compare verses. The phrase "one is your Father, which is in heaven" matches well with "[there is] none good but one, [that is], God".

Religious leaders should be given honor and respect, but there's a line that should not be crossed or it will cause them to fall.

If Jesus would have accepted the man's address He would not have taught a good lesson.

Do you understand? No?


@John317
Thanks. Again, that's a good point. And not all where called to give up everything to be a disciple.

In the case of this ruler, his things where causing him to sin.
In the case of Joseph of Arimathaea, he bought Jesus a very expensive tomb and used his influence to get the body from Pilate, (Matt. 27:57-60).
In the case of Zacchaeus, he gave half his goods to the poor and payed 4x to any he defrauded, but didn't liquidate all and go around with Jesus in the capacity of the 12 disciples. And Jesus said: "This day is salvation come to this house,", (Luke 19:9).


@Robert again

I believe man can keep God's law. Temptation can seem very strong sometimes, but the promise remains: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you", (James 4:7).

Man does need God's help, therefore: "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you", (James 4:8).


@Robert again


This observation doesn't make much of a point. It looks like you disagree with them asking such a question and with Jesus' response:



It's good that they asked that. It gave Jesus an opportunity to tell us what to expect in return for our sacrifice.

The Lord offers all kinds of incentive: "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men", (Matt. 4:19).

It takes faith to want treasure in heaven more than treasure on earth. It's good to claim the promises of God and want what He offers.

It was implied through the forgiveness of sin (only God can forgive sin) and the Jews knew this.



Jesus was trying to prove two things:

1] Mankind is selfish by nature and therefore,

2] He can't keep God's law.

Why? Agape is the ingredient by which the law can be kept. Please remember that agape has no self-love or self-seeking in it. Therefore God's law requires that even your motives and thoughts must be perfect.




It doesn't matter if you believe you can keep God's law. The fact is you need forgiveness daily. Forgiveness is because you fail to keep God's law. Not only this, but you are failing to fully measure up. Since the law will not accept anything short of perfection you don't stand a chance of getting into heaven by your goodness.



1 Cor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor ..., but have not love, it means nothing. [Why?]4 Love is...not self-seeking....


The disciples were breaking the 10th commandment as was the RYR. Both were selfish and self-seeking. Proof? Let's return to Matt 19:17

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

Please remember the RYR's question: What good things must I do to gain heaven? What did Jesus do? He gave him the law - the measuring stick of righteousness!

18 “Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, ”‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Wait, aren't there 6 commandments? I read only 5!

If you notice Jesus replaced the 10th commandment (you shall not covet) with "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself". So coveting is loving yourself instead of your neighbor.


You must remember that Jesus is talking to sinners when he says, "You (i.e., you sinners) must love your neighbor as you (naturally) love yourself." In other words take that self-love and redirect it towards your neighbor. His welfare is to the your highest ambition instead of what is in it for me.

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Notice the RYR's bragging: I've done it all...where do I lack?

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect [no coveting], go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

That's perfection! See why Jesus told the RYR that there's none truly good except one? All of us are failing here.

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

You see to the Jew a rich man is a good man blessed of God for his obedience to God's law. So, in his mind, to give up his possessions meant he was no longer in God's favor.

As the young man turned away, Jesus said to His disciples, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God." These words astonished the disciples. They had been taught to look upon the rich as the favorites of heaven; worldly power and riches they themselves hoped to receive in the Messiah's kingdom; if the rich were to fail of entering the kingdom, what hope could there be for the rest of men?…. [COL 292]

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Christ's point? If you think that your wealth proves your goodness, well, it really proves your selfishness. It takes a lot of self-love to become rich (unless it falls in your lap).

Christ, on the other hand, had no place to lay His head. He never lived for Himself for even 1 ms. That's perfection....

“The law of God condemns all selfishness, all pride of heart, every species of dishonesty, every secret or open transgression.” [ST 3-30-1888]

“There is not a motive in the depths of the heart, not a secret within us, not a design that God does not fully comprehend.” [OHC 139]

“God's law reaches the feelings and motives, as well as the outward acts. It reveals the secrets of the heart, flashing light upon things before buried in darkness. God knows every thought, every purpose, every plan, every motive. The books of heaven record the sins that would have been committed had there been opportunity. God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing. “ [5BC 1085]


Rob

We find this concept of "agape" hard to comprehend don't we?

That's why Paul states, "but when perfection comes [when we receive our immortal, sinless bodies], the imperfect disappears. .... 12 Now we see [context: this agape love] as but a poor reflection in a mirror; then we shall see face to face [i.e., we shall see God who is agape]. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully...." [ 1 Cor 13:10-12]

The fact is that God's law requires perfect agape love. But Paul tells me I'll never fully understand it this side of eternity. Therefore perfection is an impossibility. Yes, growth in grace, but perfect law obedience? No way! Hence 1 John 1:8 and Romans 3:23.

Rob

Thanks again Rob. So well said.

It is clear to me that we sin until the day we die. But praise God. We are not going to get what we deserve. Praise God that HE died for my sins. The matter is settled. I AM SAVED. He took care of that.

It is true that we can't keep God's law on our own. That's utterly impossible.

But with God in our life, it is possible to obey God's will. Jesus said, "All things are possible with God." And, "You can do nothing without me."

Keeping the holy law by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit has nothing whatever to do with gaining heaven by works.

There are works of law and there are works of faith. What kind of works did Jesus do? He calls His followers to do the same kinds of works-- works empowered by the Holy Spirit and motivated by faith and love.

Of course it goes without saying that these things can only be done as we remain connected to the vine, Jesus Christ.

It is also equally true that even with the power of God through faith .... that we can't keep the law well enough to earn salvation. That is something that the power of God does not have power enough to do. We are not saved by the law. We are saved by the life of Jesus who kept the law ... and accepting that through faith. The Law no longer has it's curse on us. The curse has been removed by Christ for those who accept Him by Faith.

Isn't that ALL of us. We ALL fail and fall short of the Glory of God. We ALL fail to "leave ALL". The power is there ... YES. But we refuse it. If we accpeted it ... we would be perfect and without sin.

Is all falling short of the glory of God due to refusing the power of the Holy Spirit?

According to the Bible, all members of the human race, sinful as we all are, may still be perfect, or mature. The fact that we are sinful humans, then, is no reason not to be perfect in the Biblical sense. God has the power to make us mature but we have to allow Him to control us instead of the other power.

By "leaving all," Jesus meant to make a complete heart-commitment to Him. It is similar to Deut. 6: 5 that commands us to "love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Those two verses are fundamentally saying the same thing.

Mature? Yes.

Perfect, as in living Christ's life in all it's perfection? No.

I might make an exception for the last generation of Christians just before Christ returns. They are so connected, so surrendered, that it's possible for them to fully reflect Christ. Look at the reasons:

1] All earthly support is cutoff.

2] They are completely God dependent.

However, if you could interview them, I don't think the last generation of Christians would feel that they are perfect in their reflection of Christ. Nevertheless, the Bible states that there's no self-love in their works of faith because they love not their lives even unto death. I see 100% agape with no mixture of "self".

Now this doesn't imply perfection. Perfection is more than just performance. To be perfect, as God is perfect, we must have "holy flesh" - i.e., we must shed this old life indwelt with sin and receive our new immortal lives. This happens at translation. Then we will be perfect as God is perfect.

Rob

Agreed. The maturity is really a living up to what we know to be truth at each stage or step of our lives as we walk with Christ. It doesn't mean that we don't make mistakes or fail occasionally or that the Holy Spirit is not convicting us of things we need to change by God's grace. It is like a child who is learning to walk and falls down from time to time, or at first very often. But he won't be doing the same thing at 20 that he did at 5, etc. So we say that the person is mature at each stage of his life. For the Christian, it means complete commitment to Christ all along the way. Of course he becomes more committed as he grows spiritually and experiences Christ in his life.

A 13 year old Christian perhaps just baptized is going to be different in some ways from the way he will be after he has been a Christian a long time. At least he should be if he is growing. Yet if he is totally committed to Christ along the way, the Bible calls him a mature Christian whether he is 13 or 45.

Even Christ grew spiritually and learned obedience and faith in His Father through the things he suffered and experienced. That doesn't mean he was imperfect or sinned at any point. At 9 He did not know what He knew at 12, and at 12 He did not know what he knew at 29.



I agree with you about the last generation. But God has had those kinds of people all through history. Think of Enoch, for instance. There have been others.

I think you're terribly, tragically mistaken to think that we must wait until something happens in the future before we can begin practicing this kind of connection and surrender. Those who wait for something to happen before they get totally connected or surrendered will not be ready for the coming of Christ. Now is the time to put that kind of faith into practice.

It may be compared to the children of Israel who were on the borders of Promised Land and felt that they didn't need to practice faith until they actually set foot on the other side of the Jordan. A whole generation who felt that way died in the wilderness and didn't make it in. They should have been learning and practicing that faith while they had opportunity and not have put it off.

A mistaken idea is that God is waiting for a particular time before He comes, but every generation could be the one to be translated if we will fully obey God and get ready. It's the same with the children who died in the wilderness: God was willing to take them straight into the Promised Land. It wasn't God's fault that they did not go in right away. So also God is waiting for a spiritual condition in His church. The condition is reflecting Jesus Christ. When that condition is reached, God will allow those events in the world to occur that have been prophesied in the Bible, such as the the end of probation and the seven last plagues, etc. The reflection of Jesus does not come after those events but BEFORE they occur. The bride of Christ, His church, makes herself ready for the wedding, and this is why Jesus comes for them.

This is something that Ellen White says over and over again. Are we listening?




I agree with you here. The closer we get to Christ while on this earth, the more we see our difference from His sinless character. Yet the Holy Spirit also shows us how He has been leading us and we know that we are God's children because we can see what He has done in our lives as we remember the past. Our spiritual victories give us confidence that we belong to God and that Jesus is in our lives. (See 1 John 2: 28, 29; 3: 17-23; 4:17; 5:4,5, 10-15.)



It seems here you are talking about being absolutely perfect and sinless, and if that's what you mean, then I completely agree with you. We won't have "holy flesh" or be sinless as God is sinless until the translation.

I believe it will take total separation from "the world" (which is under Lucifer's principle of "self") in order to fully mature. I mean, think about it, here in America the whole concept of Capitalism is based on the principle of "self" - as in self-seeking, you know...me, me, me....Everything in this world is based on the love of self - everything!

Turn to 1 John 2:15

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. [Why?] 16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes [i.e., what he sees he wants] and the boasting [i.e., educationally, economically, etc...] of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Sequeira puts it like this:

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

Some good points. I don't have any disagreement with the critique of capitalism or about selfishness, but I just don't understand the idea that we can wait until the last generation, when the fact is we could be that last generation.

It seems to me that we ought to be preparing now for that time when we will need to be separated from the world. Why not do it now, I mean.

@Robert and Redwood

Do you turn every thread into a debate for "New Theology", aka "Holy Flesh" doctrine? The Bible commands that you should be disfellowshipped, that if we allow you in our house or even bid you Godspeed, then we partake of your evil deeds. To stay faithful to Christ I would have to ban you for teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh. You should also be disfellowshipped from the SDA church.

If we don't disfellowship you, we disobey the Apostles.

For those who have not hardened their hearts, I will say a few things that you may resist this apostasy.

Take heed. This "New Theology satisfies a big demand. Lots of people want to sin and not feel bad.



Doug Bachelor always says if you say you can't overcome sin, you're saying your devil is more powerful than your God. It's Satan who gets you to doubt the Word of God and sin and it's God who gives you victory over sin.

Sin is a choice that you make not something that you just have to keep doing until Jesus comes. When the temptation comes, you can choose to give in or to resist. It's that simple. Those who know Christ will choose to resist and continue to resist until the temptation goes away. If they fail, the Lord will pick them up as long as they repent and are not willing to justify their sin.

I take my stand with Doug Bachelor, Joe Crews, Brian McMahon, Lyle Albrecht, Jack Colon, David Asscherick, and all the rest who are seen on 3abn and Amazing Facts. How do I know they teach victory over sin? Because I know 3abn won't allow those who are defiled by the "New Theology" error. Nor is it allowed in Amazing Facts. The SDA church should disfellowship people for it.

Here's an article by Joe Crews:
Is It Possible to Live Without Sinning?

Here's another quote:



Then there's Ellen White. In all her writings she never says it's impossible to overcome sin.



The "Holy Flesh" doctrine denies that Jesus came in the flesh, therefore it is Antichrist.



John says antichrist denies that Jesus came in the flesh, then says "... Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God", (2 John 1:9).

They transgress, because they think they have to. They don't understand that Jesus came in the flesh an condemned sin in the flesh.



Ellen White tells us that we have to condemn sin in the flesh too:



I brace myself to endure the hardness of your hearts.

"Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it" (Psalm 34:14; 1 Peter 3:11).
og

I agree with you here. There is no excuse for sin. Ellen White also makes this statement. To sin is to willfully decide against God because the power to not sin is available to each of us. I'm glad to have you on my side because few here will agree with us.



But it is when you quote someone like Joe Crews that you really lose me. I'm sorry. But I have to try hard to not laugh. You don't want to get me started on quoting Joe Crews. But you might refer to some previous threads that I've started on the topic of Joe Crews. Some interesting reading.

Hmmm? Something must have pricked your conscience to make you turn on me like this? I hope that I've illustrated the impossibility of gaining heaven by your law keeping even though there's growth. You see my friend you are falling short of God's apage love unless you can prove to me that there's absolutely no "self-seeking" in your life.




In other words your faithfulness to Christ is conditional on having me banned? Sounds like you're power hungry, which is a sinful attribute. Sad day.....

As for Joe Crews, well, that's where my hell on earth began. He meant well, but heresy is still just that....Joe Crews was a fine subtle legalist.



Paul says that we are continually falling short of God's agape love. John says if we ever come to the point of saying we are without sin we are most deceived (see Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8) Even Ellen G. White essentially states the same when she states that there'll be no point where we can claim perfection. Look it up.....




You love yourself, don't you? The law commands us to take that love of self and redirect it to our neighbors (even our enemies). Are you resisting that temptation or do you justify your love of self. It was Lucifer who develop this u-turn agape. This is what you fail to understand!



You do that because I'll take my stand with Christ my righteousness. While these men have some good things to say, they also teach heresy. It's called "another gospel", which is good old fashioned legalism and self-righteousness.



Wrong! The Holy Flesh doctrine states we can be perfect while in the flesh. This doctrine has nothing to do with the humanity of Christ. You are simply confused.

So let's get you straight on the facts. Look up 1 Cor 13:3

"If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love [agape], it [the act] is meaningless."

You were not born with agape (a selfless love). You were born selfish and from the moment you took your first breath all you did outwardly was out of your love for self. Hence, as David states, you and I were sinners by birth.

Now look at how Paul defines holiness: 4 [agape] is patient, [agape] is kind. [agape]does not envy, [agape] does not boast, [agape] is not proud. 5 [agape] is not rude, [agape] is not self-seeking....

Now let's reference EGW: In explaining agape, Ellen states:

“...There will be no rivalry, no self-seeking, no desire for the highest place. [Now she gives an example:] You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth.” [DA 439]

Note your ambition should be centered in others. Your desires shouldn't be inward, as in my wealth, my education, my this...my that. Everything you do should be for others. You should live for their prosperity and they yours. That's how it will be in heaven where there's no sin (selfishness).

Now let's see what Ellen states concerning sin:

"There should be less proud self-seeking, less self-importance. When the members of the church are clothed with humility, when they put from them self-esteem and self-seeking, when they seek constantly to do God's will, then they will work together in harmony." [5T, 479]

Note she didn't say, "There should be no self-seeking [sin]". In other words she is saying sin less. She didn't say a little sin is okay...no, but then again she understood our human predicament. Even Christ said, "The spirit [the person] is willing, but the flesh is weak."

We are sinners, although growing. You will never be good enough for heaven outside Christ your righteousness. Get that down.