[Qinael]

Hello Grip

You've asked what have the potential to be two very involved questions <chuckles.> I will attempt to answer them as briefly as possible, and include links to further information when it is possible.

Regarding the concept of evolution, the fact that there is a divergence of species in no way supports this theory. A valuable website for basic questions such as this, I have found, is Answers in Genesis. They also cover more in depth queries.

Briefly, a "kind" such as a human, a fish, or even a man, has a very complex genetic makeup, and it was moreso at the creation. We do not deny that since the creation, there have been changes. When groups of people or animals separate (such as to a different continent) and breed within their group, different genes become prominent while others become less prominent in that group.

Likewise, animals such as show dogs are often bred on this principle of genetic makeup and "good genes." The reason that evolution has no place in this whatsoever is that divergence of species comes from the mutation (i.e. change) or loss of genetic makeup - never can a mutation in DNA introduce *new* information into the pool. In other words, species variation is an example of lost or changed genes, not entirely new information suddenly arising or evolving, as evolution theorizes.

For example, you may selectively breed a wolf into a lapdog by taking the runt of each litter - you can never breed that lapdog back into a wolf. The information is gone, and no matter how many "millions of years" you may wait, it will never return of itself. Because it cannot be demonstrated or found anywhere that *new* information is formed in the DNA as opposed to previous information being lost or damaged, evolution is not a scientific nor biblical approach to the matter.

[Qinael]

I chose to respond to these two questions separately to prevent an unneccesarily long post.

Regarding your first question, you wrote:

“Second, as you gave in the example of Jesus words, "go and sin no more", what aspect of human nature therefore would drag him to sin after receiving power from God to be the son of God? John wrote, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name". John 1:12.”

The implied answer is obviously "None." See another writing of John: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, and cannot sin, because he is born of God, and his seed remaineth in him." (1 John 3:9)

Regarding human nature, see the very same Peter whom you later mentioned:

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:4)

Of course, the entire chapter of 1 John 3 is an excellent read, as he stated repeatedly and unequivically the fact that a Christian does not and cannot commit wilfull sin. There is no aspect of human nature which Christ has not conquered on our behalf; there is no propensity to sin which our Savior cannot save us from.

We can do all things through Christ - if a man believes this, the most obvious and first application is "Stop breaking His law." Anything short of this amounts to mere unbelief, or a belief that we have a God who either wishes us to continue in sin, or is powerless to keep us from it. Jude 1:24, of course, states otherwise.

Regarding Peter, see Luke 22:42. For all the time spent with Christ, he was obviously not converted or born again - in fact, none of the apostles could be said to have "got it" til Pentecost, after which we see a stark contrast in the experiences of the apostles and their testimonies of themselves; for example, Peter's own in 1 Peter 4:1,2.

One potential exemption you mentioned is Paul's words in Romans 7. We have a valuable article online at the link provided, entitled "The Two Pauls." To summarize it's contents briefly, the context that chapter with the surrounding chapters of 6 and 8, as well as every other epistle Paul penned that we have recorded in the Scriptures, shows that Romans 7 from verse 5 onwards was speaking about the experience he had while he was in a the flesh, a pre-converted Paul, and was not intending to convey his present-day experience.

The direct contradictions of Paul's testimony in Romans 7 with every other thing he spoke about himself is an important factor of this, as well as Paul's demonstratable writing style of setting the tense and then continuing to speak in present.

We do not believe in "once saved always saved."

If you are interested in understanding what we believe and why, please visit our website at The Creation Seventh Day (and) Adventist Church (CSDA not SDA) We have a FAQ section in the Binary Angel section of the site.

[grip_daddy]

Qinael,

I get it difficult to accept an assertion that salvation became part of the apostles during the Pentecost and not any earlier. My understanding has it that the Pentecost day was a special divine empowerment that would enable the disciples preach the gospel already in them as was taught by Christ and the Prophets. The day was a fulfilment of the early and latter rain prophecy which would both attest to the begining and end of gospel message respectively.

Currently, I hope, you believe that individuals get saved through believing in the name and sacrifice in Jesus, exercise faith in His promises, and being enabled to do His commandments. There is also the coming of special showering of the Holy Spirit as a fulfilment of the latter rain. Your statement that the apostles received salvation at the down of the former rain therefore is interpretable to mean those living at end time can only be saved during the empowerment by this latter rain.

There is a question I would like to ask but before then, would you explain the human nature as demonstrated by Old Testament Patriarchs? Also the acknowledgement that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God by Peter?

PS. I'll get humble time and go through your website to compare notes.

[Qinael]

Hi,

Of course, if you don't wish to accept this assertion on behalf of all of the apostles, that is fine. Peter was very plainly told by Christ that he was not yet converted right before he was told he would deny Him thrice, so Peter's case is a closed one from a Biblical standpoint, and his is the one that is most often cited to water down the effect of the passages from 1 John and other sources I cited earlier.

Whether one wishes to place the conversion of the apostles before Pentecost is relatively irrelevant to the matter of Christians not committing known sin, unless one would wish to make the Scriptures contradict themselves by saying that the testimony of these same men that "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" is somehow false, because these same men sinned after they were converted (A statement of their condition that the Bible never makes). We must, of course, hold direct statements from the Scripture in a higher light than guesses and inferences about the way it probably was, or when it probably happened.

If the Scriptures say that "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not; whosever sinneth hath not seen Him neither known Him." (1 John 3:6), then we must conclude that any who are in sin are not, by definition, born of God - no matter how faithfully they are following Him, they do not have Him formed within.

Similarly, yes, one could theoretically interpret my personal conclusion to mean that a person must wait til the latter rain to be converted. This would be of course a very faulty conclusion for several reasons, so it is fortunate that no one has attempted to make it.

Something I notice is that you seem to have equated the terms "converted" and "saved," which is not always an accurate way to view things. Men are judged according to the light that they have - for those who lived before the days of Christ for example, who did not have a perfect example before them, we find occasions of them sinning, such as Moses at the rock, and surely other examples which you have in mind.

While these men certainly did "the best they knew", they were not partakers of the new covenant, and Paul makes this abundantly clear. Were the laws of God written in their hearts, they would and could not have broken them. Since Christ came to the earth and gave a perfect example of how humanity may overcome, there has not been this same level of ignorance.

As you said, being enabled to keep God's commandments is a part of the salvation experience. For the born again Christian, this enabling is not in vain, and this is the essence of what the Scriptures are saying in the cases I have cited thus far; a Christian is a new man with a divine nature and the fruit of the Spirit, including love. As love fulfills the law, a man with this love, this new heart, has the law written ON his heart, and cannot willfully transgress the law of God in word, thought, or deed. If one does so, it shows that they have not yet become partakers of this covenant.

When it comes down to the crux of the issue, no man is our example - Christ is our example, and the Scriptures make it abundantly clear what a person born of God does and does not do when it comes to obedience to the Father. All other theories and considerations vanish in light of the very plain declarations of the Word about what is, and is not.

[grip_daddy]

Qinael,

So far I have realised that your fundamental beliefs are similar with those held by conservative SDAs who have refused to accept progressive creation, inability to achieve perfection in Christ, and attempts to explain away God's power to cause instantaneous events.

I would say that as a matter of philosophy most of my adventist friends subscribe to your well established rationale based on the expounded scriptural references you gave above, which to me implies that CSDA separation from SDA was not warrented. Was frontiering reforms from within an impossibility given that Adventism has undergone various shaking experiences before? Remarkably that of 1888?

[Qinael]

Hello,

I suggest that you take a more careful read of our website (particularly the first page) before attempting to draw a sound conclusion about whether our separation was warranted.

There are two things that are worthy of pointing out in particular - one is that you said "as a matter of philosophy..." As a matter of philosophy there are groups that agree with us in word. As a matter of reality, we have found none. We do not say that Christians will someday cease to sin - we say this is the testimony to be born now. The Scriptures do not endorse those who talk about the commandments of God and faith of Jesus, but those who keep them. Of course, if you know of people who have this testimony now, that Christ keeps them from all known sin, I would be very happy to meet with them.

Second, we certainly we admit that our beliefs are directly in line with early Adventist doctrine. The reason we separated was not merely difference in doctrine - for as you implied, this would mean a time for reform from within, not without.

We were forced to separate, however, when the Adventist leadership on behalf of the denomination united with the U.S. government in applying for and receiving a trademark on the name "Seventh-day Adventist" (Which Ellen White said was given to us by God) and proceeded to, on behalf of every member, initiate lawsuits against those who used the SDA name outside of the denominational guidelines.

As a matter of SDA and Biblical doctrine, any time a church uses civil power to punish heretics or settle religious differences, whatever auspices they may set it forth under, they have fallen as a church, and the faithful are called out as per Revelation 18:1,2 lest they be held accountable for the corporate sins of the body.

There are many, many references I could cite (that are available on the aforementioned site), but I will use only two here for brevity's sake:

[Qinael]

"When the early church departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon. When she united with the state, she fell, and, as an organization, was the body of Christ no longer. While the Reformation churches held fast to the word, Christ was with them. Then they crystallized their various errors into creeds and endeavored thus to confine God's word, they made themselves daughters of Babylon. When some of them united with the state, they fell, and God had to use other people, called out of Babylon to carry forward His work.

Now among these very churches which came out of the second Babylon, confusion reigns; and now great Babylon, including later daughters, is in adulterous union with the kings of earth , and is endeavoring to make that union stronger. God calls no church Babylon which holds to His word, and follows the light that shines from it, even though there are in its membership many who do not know Christ When the controlling influence of a church is downward, it erects some other standard besides God's word." (First Quarter Sabbath School, Lesson IX, February 29, 1896, p. 33)

[Qinael]

It has ever been true that a backslidden body, one that has turned from god's word to men, from god's power to the state, was never reformed in itself. Invariably god's message has called out those from the fallen church who would do his will and preach his gospel. Israel went down to egypt for help, and their captivity and loss of power followed. Out of the captives god gathered a faithful band to do his work. The jewish church failed, and god called out the apostolic church to do his bidding. The roman church failed, and out of it god called the churches of the reformation. Some of these churches failed to advance, and god called out others to bear his gospel to the world such as the baptist, methodist, congregationalist, disciple, adventists. His last called out people will know no standard but his word, no power but his spirit. (first quarter sabbath school, lesson x, march 7, 1896, pp. 35,36)

[Qinael]

In trademarking the name Seventh-day Adventist, the denomination was given authority over religious observances conducted in that name. Should one use the name that we are told God has given us without the "Approval" of the Conference, civil court and federal penalties are invoked against them, including imprisonment and fines if the person does not agree to go along with a court order to relinquish the name.

We see this as a blatant violation of Christian conduct, plain Biblical doctrine, the Spirit of Prophecy writings, the Constitution, early Adventist writings, and the Spirit of Christ itself.

As Ellen White once wrote, "Force is the last resort of every false religion." This is why we separated - conservative Adventist belief demands it.