JESUIT DIALOGUES !! VI
(Trouble on the Internet discussion
forums! ATODAY). . .
Probing the mind of Greg Billock!
Updated 12/27/2005
[Tom Norris now, like every other determined Anti-Adventist we have found on all the "Adventist" internet discussion forums, prepares to convince us that Adventist doctrine is similar to Catholic doctrine and proclamations, by referring to the Council of Trent. Among those who have done this also was Pat Darnell and Ernesto Gil: two eternally avowed enemies of Adventism who also push papal principles. Why are there such similarities?
There is a strategy behind this. By this they hope to weaken all resolve in Adventist doctrine (the Sabbath included) so that when pressure from the Sunday Laws come we would capitulate. Other than that, when national moral reform takes shape in response to national catastrophe, the morality will be brought back outwardly to the credit of the Catholic Church.]
By Tom Norris (Tnorris) on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 11:13 pm:
Bob: It is now clear that you support the false Gospel. Your gospel says obey or your salvation will be removed!
[Must we deal with this issue! We already demonstrated through Hebrews 4:2 that the Old Testament saints had the same Gospel we have today. Did their Gospel tell them that if they are disobedient they would be saved? What proof have we that the Old Covenant failed? Did the Israelites not sin and therefore perished in the wilderness? Why is their behavior examples to us till the end of the world?]
You even said; "Jesus is our example. Through Him, we can live the same life He lived... We can be perfect (Matt 5:48). We can live without sin (I John 1:7,9 and 2:1), though as John points out in ch 1:8,10 it takes a while to become sinless."
[Now listen again to the type of rhetoric Greg Billock regularly tolerates. What is the only difference between Tom, and EC? EC defends Adventism and Tom opposes it! EC presents points and asks for answers to them while Tom constantly demands that Adventists surrender their beliefs!]
Bob; If that's not "mumbo jumbo" I don't know how to spell "Roman Catholic."
[Tom is trying to deceive us here. The Protestants were not only a moral people, but they all used to revere the Ten Commandments. The following words are now far more ingredients and reasons for Greg to expel Tom Norris from his cell group. But look what happens:]
I thought you were getting this and Stan was not, but perhaps he did get it and needs some time to absorb it all. But you don't have a clue. You are just a proud, confused, Adventist legalist who would have shouted down Waggoner and Jones in 1888 and voted to exile Dr. Ford at Glacier View. The enemies of the Gospel are legion. How sad. Where is Stan...help... [Notice the accusations?]
By Emmanuel Clarke (Emmanuel) on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 07:31 am:
This argument about the Council of Trent and the Catholic view of salvation compared to the Protestant has been a key feature in the gospel given out by those who are the eternal foes of Adventism. So far my eyes have not seen one true-hearted enemy who has directly stated that he or she hates Adventism and Ellen White who has not presented this same argument that Tom and others are presenting on this system.
My question is, what is the difference between they and Tom? They all present these messages. They all say they want an environment of free thought, and because we refuse to submit to their views, we are intolerant. They all then come to present the facts we could never attain in free thought. They all then fight vigorously for the Adventist Church to change and show that they do not care what they have to do to acquire it. They all focus their gun rifles straight for the end-time and prophetic doctrines of Adventism. When pressed for answers to specific questions they cannot or dare not answer, they ignore the questions and proceed as if they had answered and then continue to present their points which had been disproven.
What therefore is the difference between they and Tom? Is the difference only that they state that they hate Adventism and Tom doesn't state so? Is the difference the idea that they state that they hate Ellen White and Tom does not state so?
Tom, you told us that if Ellen White were to view our position today, she would laugh at us. Then at several key times you stated that Ellen White cannot be brought into discussion since she had been dead so long and that the dead know not anything.
I personally do not view the writings of Ellen White as a threat to anything that I believe. Nevertheless, I am asking what the scriptures say on the matter of salvation as it relates to the law. It is to my understanding that the Gospel Christians are supposed to have today is the same the OT saints had. How is this exemplified in what we are being urged today? I have read some of what was posted here about what the Protestants have said, and yet I cannot relate to the idea that anyone can take their writings and quote it at any time when it was made known that they had many errors at first from their departure from the Roman Church and entered a gradual learning process as time progressed. I also do not see in their example and lives their disrespect or disregard for the 10 commandments even from day one.
Again however I see the continual lie about a free thought environment that "communists" like me are trying to prevent given by those who tell us they are not.
By Elaine Nelson (Elaine) on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 01:40 pm:
Thanks, Tom. Yes, I believe in the gospel: Jesus' doing and dying and obeying FOR ME.
[So now she can be disobedient as she and her friends are demonstrating.]
However, if He kept all the Jewish laws: circumcision, sacrifice, Passover, and other rituals and ceremonies, are we still EXPECTED to keep them also? How many? How do you separate them? ALL of the law that was given to the Israelites (Jews) contained hundreds of laws: clean, unclean food, feast days, time of Sabbath observance (work being the only restriction), were THE LAW. How would anyone understand even WHEN the Sabbath began if not from the other 600+ laws?
I also agree with you that there is NOTHING we can do to merit our salvation. The question follows, then: What benefit, or what is there in it for those who observe the Sabbath, and those who do not? How important is the Sabbath that it is defended as THE day of worship? To some of us, there is an appararent contradiction: You do not need to keep the Sabbath---BUT, you WILL want to (?) to show that you worship God the Creator, or because He did, or whatever reasons there are given.
How is that different from telling your child that he doesn't need to be at home by a certain time, HOWEVER, if he REALLY loves you, he will come home when you set the time?
Sorry, I'm still confused. Please explain to me (and perhaps others) the importance you give the Sabbath commandment for Christians today. Is it optional or not? Do non-Sabbath keeping Christians share equally in salvation?
If it is important, how and why?
If it isn't, why the continual refrain about it being part of a Christian's practice today? Is he sinning if he doesn't observe the seventh-day Sabbath? How is Sabbath-keeping related to the commandment which is called the greatest: Love your neighbor as yourself?
BTW, I agree fully with your thesis that tithe paying is NO WHERE commanded, instructed, or taught for the new Christian church.
However, why do you not also use the same consistent application for the seventh-day Sabbath observance, since now where is it commanded, instructed, or taught for the new Christian church?
By Tom Norris (Tnorris) on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 04:43 pm:
Elaine; Good for you! You got it! Amazing Grace how sweet the sound....
The Apostles determined what laws were to be kept and what belonged to the past. Many things that were associated with ceremonial applications like the sacrifices, priesthood, tithing, circumcision etc. were replaced with simple and universal New Covenant ceremonies like baptism and the Lord's supper. "Sharing" replaced tithing, Christ replaced the priesthood with himself, baptism replaced circumcision and the followers of Jesus became the new Israel who were marching to the heavenly land of Canaan that contained the "new Jerusalem' that God has prepared. (Heb 11: 16).
But now that we have Jesus' perfect obedience to the law, does that mean it is ok to murder, steal, worship heathen Gods, etc.? (Rom 3:7,8).
[No, but we can tell people about a free-thought environment in an agenda to cause whole institutions to submit to pressure from an upcoming crisis caused by Rome! I CALL THAT LYING! No, but we can concede to an upcoming Sunday law!]
The Apostles & Reformers would say "no". We still have a duty to live correctly, even though there is no "salvific credit" for any of our behavior. Listen to Paul's instruction in Titus 3.;
"These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,"
[Tom quoted about being subject to rulers. Is it possible that the upcoming Sunday Laws are in his mind as he is a living agent in that conspiracy against all liberty?
Tom also forgot, "Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;" Ephesians 6:2 as a New Testament commandment that directly quotes the Ten Commandments. Then again, what good is even all this advice and struggle in revisionism if Tom Norris can accuse others like the way he has? Since they have the burden of bringing the love of Christ they claim we don't have in revision, shouldn't they more demonstrate their devotion to the principles they proclaim? How would you like the idea of receiving the "righteousness" that Tom Norris has found?]
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men." Remember, the law has not been removed. It is still there and will be so forever. Thank God, Christ's Righteousness will also be eternally valid for us.
The Sabbath is not like tithe, circumcision or animal sacrifices. It represents so many things, from the creation of the world to the re-creation of the new earth. It also represents our rest in Christ as well as our honor and respect for the law written by God's own hand.
[Others use this scripture to show us that the Sabbath is spiritualized away or that we can replace its observance by "resting in Christ." Is Tom inching that way? You may think I am unfair for assuming such a thing. Well let's continue on and see if the question I asked is unfair:]
It was made for man, and obeyed perfectly by Christ. Jesus reformed the Sabbath and left us with His example of observance as the Apostolic scriptures clearly demonstrate. Furthermore, these same scriptures record the words of Jesus to the Apostles stating bluntly that the Sabbath would be in existence at the end of the Christian age. (Matt 24; 20). In fact, even the whole vision of the end of the world was given to John on the Sabbath and that fact was knowingly shared by the Apostle to the seven churches.
Moreover, the Sabbath doctrine represents our fidelity to scripture, submission to God and an outward sign that we accept ALL of Christ's Righteousness, for there can be no imputed righteousness for Sunday Sabbath because Jesus never worshiped on Sunday for anyone. There is no command or duty to observe Sunday Sabbath. So if we need the Righteousness Of Christ for our Sabbath keeping (and we do) then the only righteousness offered is Christ's obedience of the Seventh Day Sabbath commandment. When this is properly understood and presented to Sunday keepers, the Sabbath will then be a sign, or test, of how well one understands and accepts the historic Gospel. (Sunday keepers for the most part do not deny that there is a weekly Sabbath obligation. Only former SDA's who don't understand the law and the Gospel take that unbiblical and spiteful position. Sunday keepers are saved the same way as anyone else--only because of the Gospel.)
[Contained in that last statement are many cleverly laid jabs against the Sabbath obligation and mandate. Did you see it? Keep your eyes peeled now for the awesomely blasphemous statements in this next paragraph:]
There is no merit in Sabbath worship for anyone. And it should not be observed as if we are Jewish and without knowledge of the gospel. Away with the long list of rules and regulations, the sunset calendars, and the banishment of joy and fun. We do not want to be like the confused Jews who were elevating the Sabbath above their Messiah and today are fearful of turning on a light switch or cooking a meal. The curse in the Garden was one of work and endless struggle for sinful man. How fitting that those who have the true Gospel are entitled to a weekly day of rest and relaxation from our weekly troubles. The Sabbath is a weekly vacation that we can choose to take advantage of or not. A day to thank God for the gospel and the new earth that will soon be ours. But no matter how you honor the day, with a special meal, or church attendance, a silent prayer or bible study, or fellowship, rest, a long hike in the country, or helping a neighbor in need, or working at your job, or whatever...take the gospel along, for that is the only thing that is salvific. That is the key to all our "rest", both in this life and the life to come. (Happy Sabbath and enjoy the gospel).
By Emmanuel Clarke (Emmanuel) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 03:17 pm:
Please check out that website I told you about:
http://anzwers.org/free/adventism/home.htm [Old address]
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/home2.htm
for it cuts through much of the errors and heresies being posted on this system. I have found it to be a great source of comfort and direction amidst all the confusion. If I get permission, I would like to post some of the articles from that site to this system.
Beyond that I must say that it is truly difficult to accept the idea that I can be taught of the Gospel from someone who could not even recognize that it is found all over the 27 fundamentals, who accused me of being a communist while saying that we should have a free-thought environment, and who yet attacked all ideas that are contrary to his. Yes I am talking about Tom Norris.
If the Gospel was taught to the OT folks as it is today, I don't understand why those coming with the new theology since all hell broke loose on this denomination as soon as they arrived cannot explain to us what is the difference between the Gospel preached during OT times and that which they preach today. What is the difference? Were the OT saints saved by the law? Are we today? Did the OT saints keep the law? Are we to do the same today?
These are simple questions which deserve simple and direct answers.
By Emmanuel Clarke (Emmanuel) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 03:46 pm:
After earlier promising me that the gospel Dr. Ford was bringing would not destroy the Sabbath for the Adventist Church, Tom wrote the following which would have severed his membership absolutely permanently from this denomination for its entire history to this very day:
>>>> There is no merit in Sabbath worship for anyone. And it should not be observed as if we are Jewish and without knowledge of the gospel. Away with the long list of rules and regulations, the sunset calendars, and the banishment of joy and fun. We do not want to be like the confused Jews who were elevating the Sabbath above their Messiah and today are fearful of turning on a light switch or cooking a meal. >>>>
For your information Tom has boldly attacked the foundations of Adventism in this statement. What is the secret of his boldness? For your information the scriptures told us that the Gospel was preached to the Jews as it was to us. Christ Himself told us that salvation is of the Jews. There needs to be a different place for these agendistic antisemitic remarks. If Moses commanded anything of the Jews that were not for their salvation he would not have been regarded as among the best of prophets. What did Moses give them that wasn't for their good and salvation? As we go further, Tom is vaguely trying to show us that the true Gospel is different now from back in OT times contrary to the testimony of the scriptures:
>>>>>>> The curse in the Garden was one of work and endless struggle for sinful man. How fitting that those who have the true Gospel are entitled to A weekly day of rest and relaxation from our weekly troubles. The Sabbath is A weekly vacation that we can choose to take advantage of or not. >>>>>>>
Tom did not clarify for us that if we don't choose to take advantage of that which was commanded us, we are lost. He is implying here that we can choose not to take advantage of this rest and yet be saved.
>>>>>>> A day to thank God for the gospel and the new earth that will soon be ours. But no matter how you honor the day, with a special meal, or church attendance, a silent prayer or bible study, or fellowship, rest, a long hike in the country, or helping a neighbor in need, or working at your job, or whatever...take the gospel along, for that is the only thing that is salvific. That is the key to all our "rest", both in this life and the life to come. (Happy Sabbath and enjoy the gospel). >>>>>>>
Tom has here sneakily told us that we can work on our jobs on the Sabbath. If our job is driving a bus, we can honor God by commemorating His Sabbath hours through driving that bus and earning that paycheck. The deadly agenda is covered over with the word Gospel. The Gospel only--forget about what the Man who provided this opportunity has commanded us specifically.
Does anybody understand now why Tom tells us that the Adventist Church is dying since people like him came inside? Can you understand now why it is dying because he brought a gospel with him? What else can happen when someone tells you that the Three Angels Messages are closed up? The third tells us that there will be a terrible test related to the command of the Sabbath given by Christ. It tells us that the laws of the United States especially and the entire world will be arrayed to punish those who try to exercise their God-given rights to respect the day. Tom knows that this has not happened yet, but what else can he say but what you have just read after telling us that the Three Angels Messages have closed up?
It is now left for you to think about the situation. Is it really true now that if Ellen White were here she would laugh at our position as Tom claimed? Is it true that she would oppose us, yet we should not use her writings for discussion in order to take away the confusion Tom is bringing in?
Ellen White's writings most definitely oppose what Tom is saying as is the scriptures. Talking is mere formality. Tom is not here to merely talk. You need to take back your denomination; for with it is enveloped your civil and religious liberty.
By Tom Norris (Tnorris) on Friday, January 21, 2000 - 08:59 pm:
[Notice that Tom will not even address the conclusive statement made against him just earlier after he wrote words that would have placed him completely out of any of the environs of the Adventist Church permanently for all its history except now??? He is just a string of the strange figments of Jack Chick's very vivid imagination that followed the same policy out of the Jesuit Oath. When pushed to the wall, repeat nonsense that has even been disproven.]
EC: I think I said that Luther would "laugh" at our confused SDA gospel. Ellen White, however, would cry a river of tears. She lived through the 1888 conflict when this battle over the law and gospel ruined the Battle Creek SDA Empire and almost destroyed the entire Advent Movement. She would not think any of this was very funny. And Yes, I can give you many EGW quotes supporting this "new light" about the Protestant gospel. Try SC. p62 or 2SM pp32,33. She supported Waggoner & Jones' new gospel message and had she been at Glacier View there is no doubt in my mind that she would have supported Dr. Ford. There is also little doubt that our "blind guides" would have sent her packing once again. In fact, she was ostracized and attacked by the leadership for supporting the new 1888 gospel formula and paid a heavy price. She was exiled to Australia for 10 years. Waggoner was sent to England. The fact that much of this history has been covered up is no excuse for us today to misunderstand the historic gospel, Protestant church history or our own more recent SDA history. We need to grow up and stop playing games with all this.
The Refomation was all about heroic Gospel reform. So when ever the topic comes up, it must be compared to what has gone before. How do you think Waggoner came up with his 1888 gospel ideas? Not from Uriah Smith or Butler or even Ellen White, that's for sure! No, he found it by reading the Reformers. In fact, it was Luther who brought Waggoner to the conclusion that the SDA gospel formula was INCORRECT. So he tried to remove our works--not the law or the Sabbath--but our works, from the incorrect SDA equation of; Faith + our good works = Salvation. He placed "Christ's Righteousness" in the place of our "our good works". He said, like Luther, that the 10 commandment law represents the Old Covenant. The SDA leaders went ballistic. They were so protective of the Sabbath and the Law, they thought that such a doctrinal change would undermine the Sabbath which was the crown jewel of their eschatological mission and message.
Because they were more anxious to defend their position rather then find more truth, they never heard or understood what Waggoner was saying. They "never got it" in 1888 and they "didn't get" in 1980. Here we are at 2,000 AD. and we still cannot seem to comprehend the greatest of all doctrines, (which by the way is the last one to be reformed just prior to the 2nd coming. The pioneers incorrectly thought that Sabbath Reform was last). As a people we have forgotten our Battle Creek history.
Listen to AT Jones discussing the 1888 gospel debate four years later, at the 1893 GC session. "He who thinks of receiving that message of Christ's righteousness according to his own idea of it, will miss it entirely. We are to receive it according to God's own idea of it, and nothing else than God's idea of righteousness, nothing else then that is righteousness. There is the thought again that we had the other night, that when it was presented four years ago (1888) and all along since, some accepted it just as it was given and were glad of the news that God has righteousness that would pass the judgment and would stand accepted in his sight. A righteousness that is a good deal better than anything that people could manufacture by years and years of hard work."
"People had worn out their souls almost trying to manufacture a sufficient degree of righteousness to stand in the time of trouble, and meet the Savior in peace when he comes. But they had not accomplished it. These were so glad to find out that God had already manufactured a robe of righteousness and offered it as a free gift to everyone that would take it, (a righteousness) that would answer now, and in the time of the plagues, and in the time of the judgment, and to all eternity...They received it gladly just as God gave it and heartily thanked the Lord for it."
Jones continues; "Others would not have anything to do with it at all; but rejected the whole thing. Others seemed to take a middle position. They did not fully accept it, neither did they openly reject it. They thought to take a middle position and go along with the crowd...others deliberately discounted the message about 50% ,and counted THAT, the righteousness of God".
"And so, all the way between open and free deliberate surrender and acceptance of it, to open, deliberate and positive rejection of it--all the way in between--the compromisers have been scattered ever since; and those who have taken that compromising position are no better prepared tonight to discern what is the message of the righteousness of Christ than they were four years ago. (1888)"
A.T. is letting them have it! In fact, it seems as if he was listening to our little discussion and speaking directly to Stan, Bob and the lovable EC.
[Tom had to comment about the terrible manners of EC, since EC cannot acquire righteousness by faith like Tom can. Also, A.T. Jones should have spoken to Ellen White also, for, just show us one statement Ellen White made that would tell us we can commemorate the Sabbath on our jobs. Email the statement to us!]
How the Battle Creek leaders hated this guy. No doubt they were slipping out the back muttering under their breath about how these new upstarts are trying to destroy Adventism with this "new light". YOU PEOPLE WHO HOLD THAT OUR WORKS ARE PART OF THE GOSPEL EQUATION ARE TAKING A POSITION AGAINST THE REFORMERS, AGAINST THE 1888 GOSPEL ADVANCES PROMOTED BY WAGGONER, JONES & ELLEN WHITE.
[We have seen that letting Tom know and understand that while Ellen White defended Jones and Waggoner for their presentation of the concept of righteousness by faith, she kept the commandments and made sure she told everyone else to do so. There was never a dark day we can think of where Ellen White told anyone that he can take the gospel along on the Sabbath at his place of employment.]
Jones continues his public GC address; "Some of these brethren since the Minneapolis meeting I have heard myself, say 'amen' to preaching, (and ) to statements that were utterly heathen...Some of those who stood so openly against that (righteousness of Christ) at that time (IN 1888) and voted with uplifted hand against it (have since that time said) 'amen' to statements that were openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them."
"That I shall bring in here in one of these lessons, and call your attention to the Catholic church's statement and her doctrine of justification by faith. 'Why' says one, 'I didn't know that the Catholic church believes in justification by faith'. Oh yes she does! Yes indeed she does: you can read it out of her books. Says one 'I thought they believed in justification by works'. They do and they do not believe in anything else: but they pass it off under the head of justification by faith. And they are not the only people in the world that are doing it." ( General Conference Daily Bulletin 1893, The Third Angel's Message-No. 11 pp242-246; Elder A. T. Jones)
[We believe in justification by faith. If you can't understand that, it is because you keep hearing voices like Tom's telling us what we are even before we know it. Ellen White believed in justification by faith. Did she break the Sabbath? All the OT and NT saints believed the same.
As was stated by EC, all the other forums, along with this one, featuring the worst enemies of Adventism, always contained this same argument against it used by Tom Norris. By lip service, Tom tells us that he is Adventist and that he loves the concept. How come his views so much parallels those of the others who even make websites and write books against Adventism, having no problem confessing their hatred of Ellen White and the faith?]
So to protect the Sabbath, our 19th century leaders went to war against the correct gospel and the Advent movement was almost destroyed in the process. (That's when they moved to Taloma Park.) The real truth about this historic 19th century gospel debate was covered up (and still is) by the church leaders.
But in the late 20th century, the Gospel debate broke out again, this time in Daniel, rather then Galatians, with Dr. Ford and the IJ etc. Although the Protestant GOSPEL was correctly agreed to at Palmdale in 1976 it was soon ignored as the Adventist Judaizers and Pharisees managed to exile Dr. Ford and rid themselves of the Gospel--or so they thought.
[During those years after Dr. Ford was justly sent away, there was no talk about the Adventist Church dying. Now that he is back with his huge invisible army, they are telling us that it is about to die. Well, we know the reason why. To add to the proof, understand and notice that Tom and his friends are DEMANDING that we change our views, accept their Gospel, and they are even telling us that the church will change to their Gospel whether we like it or not. Do you need much more proof than that that it comes from Rome?]
Another SDA gospel war ensued. Another purge took place, complete with another theological cover-up and growing hierarchical control by the leadership, followed by corruption, theological apathy and the disintegration of the Advent Movement. Because the lessons of 1888 have been ignored, and the gospel has been rejected again--this time at Glacier View, the same fate of schism and destruction that took place in Battle Creek is happening to the church today. Only the gospel can save Adventism now.
[Tom is twisting everything. He is placing his attributes upon others who do not deserve it. Do you yet see and understand that he has attacked the Sabbath above?
Well understand that although Jones and Waggoner opposed the Adventist leaders in the 1880's, they did not infiltrate in order to change it outside of the knowledge or consent of anyone. Remember people like John Harvey Kellogg, who, like Tom Norris and the rest of the invisible army, worked underhandedly through the political process to attain change by any means possible. Tom's example and that of Dr. Desmond Ford really is aligned to these apostate spiritual leaders who attacked the church and whom Ellen White had to struggle against. Jones and Waggoner did not oppose the law or the commandments at that particular time in 1888 when Ellen White supported them. We have seen that with the gospel Tom is bringing us, we can commemorate the Sabbath on our jobs.
If there is no coverup by these with the new gospel of force, how are they so sure that the church will change whether we like it or not?]
It is time to tell the truth about what happened in 1888 and what happened in 1980 and initiate gospel reform before it's to late. (If you are scoring SDA history at home it goes like this; The historic Gospel; 0. The false gospel; 2).
Perhaps in the 21st century we will finally get it correct. Then we would have the law, as evidenced by the Sabbath -- AND --the Gospel as evidenced by our love and good works FOR both God and man. [Would this righteousness and love convince the strange ones bringing in this gospel that they shouldn't always proclaim that they want an environment of free thought before they brow-beat everyone into accepting their intolerance? Now with that evident lie they refuse to even address or comment about, please rescore that Gospel game Tom told us about just above.] What a day that would be? Then we would need an updated "Gospel based" eschatology. This theological package would replace the tired, worn and expired 3rd angels message of Rev 14 with an updated paradigm called the 4th angels message located in Rev, 18. Adventism could then advance to the "loud cry and latter rain " portion of the eschatological program.
[That's right! This is a papist! EC shared knowledge of our website with the other posters on the Atoday forum. Since Tom Norris talks about righteousness, take a look at his next words so that you understand ultimately what type of righteousness you will receive if you sit back and do nothing. If you do nothing, YOU WILL RECEIVE TOM'S GOSPEL BY MERE FORFEITURE. It is the Vatican gospel. It is coming whether you like it or not:]
PS. EC: THAT WAS A NICE WEB SITE YOU SHARED WITH US; I always wondered what would happen if computer tecnology fell into the wrong hands? Well, now I know! All that site needs to be perfect is lots of SWASTIKAS and some German marching music to lighten the mood up a bit. I can't wait to find the "links" section: SDA militia web sites no doubt?
Tom norris