The Day of Atonement

Health Reform Vegetarianism As A Test
21

This is exactly my point about sitting in judgment over someone’s eternal salvation. I my view, that is stretching the text to say something the author did not intend. Of course, you are allowed to have a private interpretation of Isaiah 22 and the unpardonable sin, but I think you’ll find that your perception of the unpardonable sin is mistaken and misapplied, and I doubt you are going to find any prophetic support for that interpretation.

I think you have made your objections and points clear here, as have I in response to them, so I won’t continue to repeat what I’ve already written.

Another point you mention:

Ellen White warned us against taking expressions in the Testimonies beyond the application they were intended to occupy, such as taking counsel given for particular cases and circumstances and turning it into a universal rule.

In 1863, some ministers were making her visions “a rule by which to measure all”, a course she said she and her husband “have never pursued”. The result was that “some honest souls have been driven to take positions against the visions and against the body which they never would have taken had their cases been managed with discretion and mercy” (1T 382).

Twenty years later she republished that counsel under the heading “Wrong Use of the Testimonies”, opening with this: “Some who believe the Testimonies have erred by urging them unduly upon others” (5T 668.1). In 1906 she was still pointing people to the same chapter as her answer on “the proper use of the testimonies” (Ms 113, 1906).

She said the same specifically about health reform:

“We see those who will select from the testimonies the strongest expressions and, without bringing in or making any account of the circumstances under which the cautions and warnings are given, make them of force in every case.” (Ms 5, 1881)

That is precisely where we need to be careful when creating blanket church rules. A principle may certainly have a wider application, but that does not mean every strong statement from the Testimonies should be used as we sit fit to drive church legislated tests, especially in the absence of the living prophet.

You also wrote:

That, Ariadne, is simply an impossible standard. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” None of us possesses a perfect understanding of truth. We can think we do, but at best, we can know just some truth, grow in the truth, and be led by the Spirit “into all truth,”. Our understanding remains incomplete, and while we still have self and the enemy to contend with, it is very much in our interest to remain teachable and capable of correction.

That is especially important where people have been exposed to confused, distorted, or erroneous teaching - where truth itself has been presented within a framework of error. A sincere person may fully accept the authority of Scripture while still misunderstanding particular doctrines, struggling to separate truth from error, or needing time to unlearn ideas they have been taught for years. That does not mean they are rejecting truth, much less that they have committed the unpardonable sin.

Ellen White herself warned against exactly the danger of treating our own understanding as though it were infallible:

“As a people we are certainly in great danger, if we are not constantly guarded, of considering our ideas, because long cherished, to be Bible doctrines and on every point infallible, and measuring everyone by the rule of our interpretation of Bible truth. This is our danger, and this would be the greatest evil that could ever come to us as a people.” 1888 830.1

We cannot completely separate truth from our perception of it. If we could do that perfectly, none of us would ever misunderstand Scripture and we would have no need to remain open to correction. We are not inspired prophets.

There is therefore an important difference between requiring a baptismal candidate to understand and sincerely accept the foundational teachings of the gospel, and requiring them to possess a “perfect understanding” of every doctrine, principle, and point of present truth as interpreted by the church - or, in this case, according to John Thiel’s interpretation of those things.

22

God says that iniquity will not be purged if they eat meat in the day of atonement. That’s what I meant by unpardonable. If they don’t stop eating meat.

23

Yes, I understand that is what God said, but that is the prerogative of God to say, not for us to think it, let alone say of another fellow human being.

But John Thiel claims to have the capacity to know who has committed the unpardonable sin, and this is what he has taught you. So I don’t blame you for thinking it.

In Reaching the Point of No Return - Has Probation Already Closed? (Oct 5, 2009), he says :

“this person maybe living and probation has closed for him,” “there is a company of people who’s probation has closed,” and “the case of all such is hopeless.”

Then, he applies that category to people who have left his church.

“It has been stated to me several times over the past few years – while there is life, there is hope. This has been uttered in reference to souls who have turned away from the word and us in upholding the pure word.”

He then answers that objection by teaching that hope is not always present, and instructs:

“If you try to work with these people that will not return, you are wasting your time… If you are trying to bring them to church, you will not succeed… If you want to have bible studies with them, you won’t succeed.”
“How do you know their probation is closed? You will read it, you will know.”
“Don’t continue to walk with those people who are not walking with you in the beautiful truth.”

That is a very misguided perspective, when not even the prophet herself claimed to know such things.

“I have never been given the testimony to bear to any one, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin.’ God never told any one to say to a fellow being, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin.’” (RH July 30, 1901, par. 5)

24

When I made that statement, I was not referring specifically to John Thiel’s interpretation or merely repeating something he had taught me. It is also my own understanding of Isaiah 22, considered alongside Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

I maintain two large websites containing material from a wide range of sources. My second website, Sermons and Studies, includes transcribed sermons from various Adventist and Reform preachers. Sometimes I ask ChatGPT to search both websites, together with the Spirit of Prophecy. Therefore, my understanding is drawn from a wide circle of biblical, prophetic and historical material.

I do believe that some people may still be alive after their personal probation has closed because they have persistently and finally rejected the Holy Spirit. Ellen White clearly teaches that such a condition can be reached:

“When the Spirit is finally rejected, there is no more that God can do for the soul.” The Desire of Ages, p. 321.3.

“On and on they go, jesting and joking as they travel the broad road, until at length their probation is ended.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 435.2.

“It is by the rejection of this light that the eyes are blinded and the heart hardened.” The Desire of Ages, p. 322.1.

Therefore, the general teaching that a living person’s probation may already have ended is supported by the Spirit of Prophecy. It is not a doctrine invented by John Thiel.

There is still a distinction between recognising this biblical principle and personally pronouncing God’s final judgment upon a named individual. Ellen White wrote:

“I have never been given the testimony to bear to any one, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin.’ God never told any one to say to a fellow being, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin.’” Review and Herald, July 30, 1901, par. 5.

That statement does not deny that some living people may have passed the point of repentance. It warns us against assuming God’s prerogative and declaring to a particular person that he or she has committed the unpardonable sin.

I have questioned John Thiel about why he continues to mention the Reform Movement because I would prefer that he did not. His response was that Jesus also identified apostasy and warned people plainly about their spiritual danger. Christ called the Pharisees “blind guides” in Matthew 23:16, compared them to “whited sepulchres” in Matthew 23:27, and said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” in Matthew 23:33. He also declared, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” in Matthew 23:38. In John 8:44 He told certain religious leaders, “Ye are of your father the devil.” These were severe warnings directed towards people who possessed great religious light but continually resisted it.

Amos 5 presents the same principle in relation to an apostate religious body. God rejected Israel’s feast days, solemn assemblies, offerings and religious music because the people had departed from righteousness. He declared, “I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies” and commanded, “Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs” in Amos 5:21–23. Amos also warned, “The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise” in Amos 5:2, while directing the faithful to “Seek ye me, and ye shall live” in Amos 5:4.

Although Amos 5 does not use the modern word “denominations,” it establishes the principle that an organised religious body can fall, retain its outward worship and yet have that worship rejected by God. The faithful are called to seek God rather than place their confidence in an apostate organisation. I believe this principle applies to fallen denominations and supports the understanding that God’s faithful remnant cannot be defined merely by affiliation with a religious organisation.

He is of the belief that the denominations today have fallen especially those under the Laodicean umbrella. When you look at leadership and the general conference, I agree. I believe there are individuals that will be saved and called out but the denominations have fallen. All of them. The seven golden candlesticks have been left behind. Revelation three points to the overcomer and the remnant. Having said that, I don’t think I am Better or any group because we are all being tested and we have to see our own simpleness but the bar is a lot higher than people think to be God’s church

25

What I was addressing was not the general teaching you describe here - that a living person’s probation may, in some circumstances, already have closed. My concern is with the further claim you made earlier: that there are identifiable signs (eating meat) by which we can know that a particular person who has ‘been elightened’ has sinned against the Holy Spirit and that their probation has ended. That is taking a liberty not even the prophet herself claimed.

That is also where I take issue with John Thiel’s doctrine. He does not merely teach that such a possibility exists; he claims for himself and his followers the ability to discern when a particular individual has actually crossed that line.

26

I think you have misunderstood me. I believe that if a person doesn’t want to come up to all of truth including health reform, and rejects that, then they’re setting themselves up for failure. I wouldn’t know if their probation has already closed. I don’t know every individual but it is a test in the last days so not unusual that the church requires it for membership.

27

Ariadne,

Thanks for clarifying that, and I’m glad you don’t believe it, but now your position places you at odds with the teaching and instruction of your own pastor.

What John Thiel teaches about this is deeply wrong. The claim that a person can discern that a living brother or sister has crossed the line, sinned away their probation, and is beyond the reach of repentance is a false doctrine.

Interestingly, there was a man in Sr. White’s day making the same claim to posses the unique ability to determine that certain individuals had sinned away their day of grace. Here is what she wrote about him:

“I know that God never gave mortal man such a message as that which Brother Nelson has borne concerning his brethren. It is not like our God. After the disappointment of 1844 there were those who would say to others, “You are lost; you have gone too far to be saved.” Then I was brought to my feet to bid them in the name of the Lord to cease their condemnation. God has never empowered one mortal to say to another mortal, “You are lost.” We are all human beings. We are on this earth to form characters which will fit us to inherit eternal life. If we heed the word of the Lord, He will correct us and guide us.” RH July 30, 1901, par. 6

28

Having said that, I do agree with the notion that some people on the earth have had their probation already closed. But not over the meat eating issue. But the rejection of God. I believe that if a person has had light on Health reform and Isaiah 22 and continues to eat meat, then that will be an issue.

What I think we can take from this is that sister White made two statements about the Revelation 18 Angel and Its rejection and being ridiculed:

“In 1888 at the General Conference held in Minneapolis, Minn. The angel of Revelation 18:1 came down to do his work, and was ridiculed criticized and rejected. And when the message he brings again swells into a loud cry, it will again be ridiculed, spoken against and rejected by the majority." Ellen G. White , Taking up a Reproach.

“There is to be in the churches a wonderful manifestation of the power of God, but it will not move upon those who have not humbled themselves before the Lord, and opened the door of their hearts by confession and repentance. In the manifestation of that power which lightens the earth with the glory of God they will see something which will arouse their fears, and they will brace themselves to resist it. Because the Lord does not work accordingly to their expectations and ideas they will oppose the work. ‘Why ,’ they say, ’ should we not know the Spirit of God when we have been in the work for so many years?’ Ellen G. White, Bible Training School , May, 1907.

it’s normal in adventure circles for people to say that meat eating is not a test of salvation and many of them continue to eat meat. But we read Isaiah 22 that is an iniquity that will not be purged. Is it not therefore a test? And yes, a church can come up with its own creed and principles to join in baptism. I don’t think therefore that the reform are doing the wrong thing in making it a test of baptism. I think we can move on from this topic. Do you have any other topics for discussion?

Do you think it’s wrong that the church states dress reform as a requirement of membership?

29

I’m glad you corrected that.

The iniquity that cannot be purged in Isaiah 22 is an unrepentant attitude - not their choice of food.

A church has already done this. We know it as the Roman Catholic Church. Both Scripture and Tradition are regarded by them as equally authoritative. Of course, in practice a creed really is a killer to the prophetic gift.

If you’d like to create another topic about dress - feel free to do so, so we keep everything categorised.

30

I wanted to address what is written here again and where you point out John Thiels use is the word “ gone out from among us”

Ellen White’s statement is valid. No human being has the prerogative to walk up to another individual and pronounce:

“You have committed the unpardonable sin, or You are eternally lost.”

John nor I can read a person’s heart, and that is not what I understand the sermon to be teaching.

The Bible already describes a class of people who have been enlightened, have known the truth, and then deliberately turn away from it. In fact, the sermon begins with:

Hebrews 6:4–6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance…

That did not originate with John Thiel. It is the language of Scripture itself.

when he spoke about people who had turned away from the word and us in upholding the pure word, he was using the same kind of language the apostles themselves used:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

John says they went out from us. It’s showing a group who had been among believers and then departed.

The apostles and elders at Jerusalem used the same language:

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.

And certain which went out from us. So objecting to the expression “people who turned away from us” does not prove that someone is claiming divine omniscience. The apostles themselves described people in precisely that manner.

Acts 20:29–30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The bible teaches that apostasy can arise from within the body of believers.

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

This apostolic principle is being referred to in the sermon. before the statement about not continuing with such people, the sermon quotes Paul’s instruction, “from such turn away.” It is therefore misleading to present the idea of separation as though John Thiel simply invented it as a rule concerning people who left his congregation. The sermon is applying Paul’s instruction.

Paul says the same thing elsewhere:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Paul does not say that Christians must continue indefinitely trying to maintain religious fellowship with someone who persistently rejects the doctrine they have received. He says to recognise the situation and avoid them.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord…

Saying, “I personally know the secret judgment of heaven concerning this particular individual and declare that God can never save him,” would be going beyond what a human being has been authorised to say.

recognising the conditions described in the Bible, recognising persistent rejection of truth, and obeying the apostolic instruction to “turn away,” “avoid,” or “withdraw yourselves” is an entirely different matter.

Ellen White’s statement does not abolish those Bible passages. She was rebuking the practice of one mortal pronouncing another mortal personally and finally lost. Her words were: “God never told any one to say to a fellow being, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin.’” In the very next paragraph she objected to people telling named individuals, You are lost.

That is not the same proposition as saying that the Bible describes a class who can reach a condition from which they will not repent.

The sermon itself quotes Ellen White saying:

“Those who delay a preparation for the day of God cannot obtain it in the time of trouble or at any subsequent time. The case of all such is hopeless.” The Great Controversy, p. 620.

“the case of all such is hopeless.” That is Ellen White herself describing a class of people whose condition becomes hopeless. The sermon did not invent that expression.

the issue cannot be reduced to, “Ellen White said nobody can ever know that anyone has gone too far.” Her statement needs to be read alongside Hebrews 6:4–6, the warnings concerning persistent apostasy, and her own statements regarding classes of people whose cases become hopeless.

The Bible also tells us why separation can sometimes become necessary:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us…

Acts 15:24 Certain which went out from us…

Acts 20:30 Of your own selves shall men arise…

Romans 16:17 Mark them… and avoid them.

2 Timothy 3:5 From such turn away.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Withdraw yourselves…

2 Corinthians 6:17 Come out from among them, and be ye separate.

Hebrews 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

The apostles understood that there are times when people depart from the truth and when faithful believers must separate from error. They did not regard recognising that fact as judging another person’s eternal destiny.

I agree that we should never presume to sit in the judgment seat of God and declare the eternal destiny of a particular human being. But neither should Ellen White’s statement be used to cancel very plain apostolic instruction concerning apostasy, separation and people who went out from us.

Those are two very different issues.

You can see in the world today, people they don’t want to know God. We have told to avoid them. We’re not judging them we’re told to stay away from them. We’re told by your fruit you should know them and we are told to have discernment. I think you need to exercise caution making statement statements like the below:

“John Thiel claims to have the capacity to know who has committed the unpardonable sin, and this is what he has taught you. So I don’t blame you for thinking it.”

31

I don’t believe that eating meat is separated from knowledge and obedience is the unpardonable sin. I am saying that during the antitypical day of atonement knowingly rejecting the light God has given regarding appetite and flesh eating is a serious matter, and Isaiah 22 connects this refusal with the eating of flesh.

God was calling His people to humiliation, repentance, self denial and affliction of soul. But instead people say:

Isaiah 22:13 And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.

God then says:

Isaiah 22:14 And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

it is not accurate to say that the eating of flesh has nothing to do with that verse.

the underlying problem is rebellion, impenitence and refusal to respond to God’s call. the Bible says slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine as part of the behaviour through which that rebellious attitude was manifested.

The eating and drinking cannot be removed from the text as though God did not mention them.

This becomes even more significant when Isaiah 22 is considered in relation to the antitypical Day of Atonement. it is not that food possesses some mysterious power to save or condemn a person. The issue is obedience to known light.

If God reveals his will to a person, and that person knowingly refuses to follow that light because appetite is more important to them than obedience, then the question is no longer merely about food. It becomes a question of character and submission to God. It’s the same principle

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

What we eat matters.

The Bible does not separate religion from the ordinary habits of life. Eating, drinking, dress, conduct, appetite and self control all form part of Christian character.

During the antitypical Day of Atonement there is an even greater significance attached to self denial and affliction of soul.

Leviticus 23:27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

The antitypical Day of Atonement is not a time for indulgence of appetite. It is a time of searching of heart, repentance, self denial and purification of character.

This is why Isaiah 22 is so serious.

God called them to mourning and affliction of soul, but their response was indulgence. They were slaying oxen, killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. Then God said: Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die.

I believe that knowingly persisting in flesh eating after receiving the light on health reform has salvational implications.

I am not saying that every person in the world who eats meat is automatically condemned regardless of what they know. God judges according to light received But where there is knowledge, there is responsibility.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That is the principle I am talking about.

Ellen White connected physical habits with spiritual life. She taught that the religious life is closely connected with physical habits and that indulgence of appetite affects spiritual discernment.

She also warned those who had received light on health reform against deliberately disregarding that light.

The issue therefore is much greater than simply asking whether a particular food is technically permissible.

The question is whether we are willing to follow all the light God gives us.

I think my comments about a church having a belief system have also been misunderstood.

I am not saying that a church has the authority to invent doctrine.

I am not saying that a church may create a human creed and place that creed above Scripture.

The Bible remains the authority.

What I am saying is that a body of believers can study the Scriptures, determine what they understand the Scriptures to teach, and establish clearly defined principles and doctrines according to that faith.

That is exactly what the SDARM has always done.

Every organised Christian body does this in one form or another.

The SDARM itself has published Fundamental Christian Beliefs.

Those beliefs explain what the church understands Scripture to teach concerning God, Christ, the church, the Sabbath, health reform and many other subjects.

That is a doctrinal system.

There is nothing wrong with having a doctrinal system provided that the doctrines come from Scripture and remain subject to Scripture.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church is therefore not meant to be doctrinally vague.

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Letter 55, 1888, par. 54.

During ages of spiritual darkness the church of God has been as a city set on a hill. From age to age, through successive generations, the pure doctrines of heaven have been unfolding within its borders. The Acts of the Apostles, p. 12.

The pure doctrines of heaven were unfolding within the borders of God’s church.

The church does not manufacture those doctrines.

So when I speak of a church having a belief system, I am not talking about creating truth.

If God has given light concerning appetite, self control and preparation during the antitypical Day of Atonement, then knowingly refusing that light becomes a spiritual issue.

That is why Isaiah 22 matters.

The problem was an unrepentant attitude, but the eating of flesh was one of the very manifestations of that attitude named by the Bible .

It cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant to the passage.

32

Regarding the prophecy being applied to us today. I dealt with this in Part 1 and in my earlier replies here (#10 and #12). The “in that day” of verse 12 belongs to the same setting as the “in that day” of verse 25, where the one associated with the key of David is cut down and falls.

You’ve already acknowledged the point when you said, “Revelation only authorises the application of the portion that Christ Himself claims, namely the Key of David.”

That undermines your attempt to take verses 12–14 and turn them into end-time dietary instruction.

Haskell is the only pioneer I’ve been able to find who applies Isaiah 22 in the way you are applying it, and what he draws from it is an appeal to self-denial and control of appetite. In a general way, I have no disagreement there actually - but not as evidence for a test of fellowship, that is a long, long stretch.

But furthermore, he does not turn it into a condition of church membership like you do. Neither does Isaiah 22 itself, and neither do the Testimonies.

James 4:17 deals with a person’s responsibility in relation to the light that person has received. You’ve said the same thing yourself: “God judges according to light received.”

A test of fellowship works differently. It sets one fixed standard and applies it to every candidate for baptism, regardless of the light they have personally understood or where they are in their Christian experience.

But this is where Ellen White’s counsel becomes relevant. As is spoken about on a different issue - but principally the same - ministers were not to establish a rule “by which to measure all,” but were to “make that difference with different persons which their cases require” (1T 382).

That is impossible to reconcile with making abstinence from flesh food a universal condition of baptism.

The same thing happens with 1 Corinthians 10:31. Look at where Ellen White herself uses that verse. She places it immediately after saying that flesh eating is not to be made a test of fellowship:

“We are not to make the use of flesh meat a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers, who use flesh meats, have over others. As God’s messengers, shall we not say to the people, ‘Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God’?” (Ms 37, 1909, par. 24)

The same text you are looking at, but she draws a different practical conclusion from it: teach the principle to the people, appeal to them, and encourage them to glorify God in what they eat and drink - but do not make it a test of fellowship.

So I would still put the question the same way I did in #16.

Granting everything you’ve said about appetite, obedience, self-denial, and the solemnity of the antitypical Day of Atonement - and I do grant those principles - where is the authorisation for the church to take that further step and make abstinence from flesh food a condition of baptism, especially in light of counsel from God not to do that?

On creeds - you did use the word creed :slight_smile: - my objection was not simply to a church writing down what it believes, it was against the idea of a creed. Our pioneers were against creeds for good reason. James White explained why this was particularly important for a people who believe God still gives light through the prophetic gift:

“Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement… A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other.” (1BIO 454.2)

Once a requirement has been fixed as a condition of membership, what happens if further light or prophetic counsel conflicts with it? Either the requirement has to give way, or the counsel does. But people who hold to a creed are always going to explain away the counsel instead of letting it correct their precious creed.

This is how Loughborough put it:

“The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.” (Review and Herald, October 8, 1861; 1BIO 453.1)

Wow, those are strong words.

33

Ariadne,

Most of what you are defending here isn’t what I raised, and the parts I did raise you haven’t really dealt with.

I’ve never said Hebrews 6 isn’t Scripture, or that there’s no such thing as a point of no return. I’ve also never said believers shouldn’t separate from error.

Go back and look at how John starts his sermon Reaching the Point of No Return:

“It has been stated to me several times over the past few years – while there is life, there is hope. This has been uttered in reference to souls who have turned away from the word and us in upholding the pure word.”

So people he spoke with were saying, about those who had left, “there’s still hope for them.” The sermon is his answer to that.

You said he was just applying Paul’s “from such turn away.” Here’s what John actually says after quoting that verse:

“This is the description of people whose probation has closed… What should you do with them? Turn away… This is a place of no return. If you try to work with these people that will not return, you are wasting your time. If you are trying to bring them to church, you will not succeed. If you want to have bible studies with them, you won’t succeed. How do you know their probation is closed? You will read it, you will know.”

That isn’t separating from false teaching. He’s telling people that the ones who left are past hope, that reaching out to them is a waste of time, and that they’ll be able to tell.

But you are now attempting to sanitise the error he clearly preached. You wrote, “John nor I can read a person’s heart.”, but John disagrees with you. John told his congregation, “You will read it, you will know.” Unless of course, he admits now that he misspoke and erred in what he taught?

You quoted 2 Thessalonians 3:6, “withdraw yourselves,” but nine verses later Paul says, “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” The same letter that says “from such turn away” also says, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).

While God calls us to be separated from error, yet we are instructed to still have hope for the person. John’s sermon tells people not to bother.

This is the very thing Sr. White wrote against after 1844.

“There were those who would say to others, ‘You are lost; you have gone too far to be saved.’ Then I was brought to my feet to bid them in the name of the Lord to cease their condemnation. God has never empowered one mortal to say to another mortal, ‘You are lost.’”

You quoted The Great Controversy, p. 620 but that is about people who put off their preparation until the time of trouble, after probation has closed for everyone. That’s a different thing from deciding now, while probation is still open, which of our brothers and sisters are past hope.

A few weeks back now, John preached another sermon on this issue called “Understanding the Unpardonable Sin.” The first half has good material, especially on what the Holy Spirit does in us. Where I think he goes off track is in his conclusion. Its not surprising though, because he preached the same conclusion more plainly in his earlier sermon, “Reaching the Point of No Return,” where he teaches that you can know when someone’s probation has closed.

Unfortunately, his sermons are riddled with confusing expressions. For someone who places such strong emphasis on the importance of people receiving pure doctrine, and who seems to take pains in educating the people upon his articulation of his perfectly understood doctrine – it should really be more concerning to the poor souls who are inevitably misguided by his teaching.

In the second part of his sermon - he ties the unpardonable sin to disagreeing with his teaching.

He says: “If that work and that knowledge and that truth has been brought clearly to every mind and then people say, ‘No, I don’t agree. It’s not truth. It’s error’… There you have it.”

Then he frames the Holy Spirit as saying, “Listen to my doctrine… don’t turn against the doctrine that I have imparted to you,” and in the same breath asks, “Can you hear the exhortation of this pulpit right now?” Listening to the Spirit and listening to his pulpit are presented as the same thing.

For anyone listening, the logic runs:

  1. The truth taught here is the Spirit’s doctrine.
  2. Anyone who once accepted it and now calls it error has fallen away.
  3. Hebrews 6 says such people cannot be brought back to repentance.

Where does this leave room for the Berean who searches the Scriptures and concludes that something they were taught and believed was actually wrong?

Part of the Holy Spirit’s work is to correct our misunderstandings of Bible truth. He can’t do that for John if John believes he already understands the truth perfectly.

But this then becomes a mechanism that is used for judging people.

The sermon leaves people in the group feeling able to judge those who leave. Did this person once believe, and do they now say it’s error? By that test, everyone who leaves and everyone who now questions is counted among the lost.

When I last spoke with John, he was explaining to me that he teaches the perfect platform of truth and so leaves people with no excuse. John believes and teaches that people who reject his leadership and the way he presents what he considers to be the perfectly understood platform of truth have committed the unpardonable sin. What a misguided, horrible doctrine.

But the Testimony of Jesus told us: “God never told any one to say to a fellow being, ‘You have committed the unpardonable sin’” (Review and Herald, July 30, 1901).

The reason people under his teaching find what he says so fascinating, is because of this:

“Error cannot stand alone, and would soon become extinct if it did not fasten itself like a parasite upon the tree of truth. Error draws its life from the truth of God. The traditions of men, like floating germs, attach themselves to the truth of God, and men regard them as a part of the truth. Through false doctrines, Satan gains a foothold, and captivates the minds of men, causing them to hold theories that have no foundation in truth.” RH October 22, 1895, par. 3

34

Yes,I used the word creed. I have also explained what I meant: a statement of the biblical beliefs a church understands and teaches. I was not advocating a human authority above the Bible or a fixed formula that prevents correction by further light. You have acknowledged that writing down beliefs was not your objection, so please apply that distinction to what I actually meant.

Ellen White herself used the word creed positively. She wrote:

“The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union.” Selected Messages, book 1, page 416.

She also wrote:

“The prayer of Christ to his Father, contained in the seventeenth chapter of John, is to be our church creed.” Selected Messages, book 3, page 21, paragraph 1. Manuscript 12, 1899. This statement also appears in Manuscript Releases, volume 5, page 49, paragraph 1.

These are two clear examples where the word itself is not condemned. They do not authorise us to invent binding doctrines. They demonstrate that we must consider what the speaker means by creed, rather than treating the word as automatically objectionable.

Furthermore, immediately after the James White passage you quoted, he says:

“The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed.” Ellen G. White: The Early Years, volume 1, page 454, paragraph 3. These are James White’s words quoted in the biography.

James White therefore used the very word you are challenging, while distinguishing the Bible as our creed from a human creed that restricts God’s instruction. His objection concerned the authority and restrictive function of the human formulation. It was not a prohibition against ever using the word.

I accept the seriousness of Loughborough’s warning. A church must not make its own formulation an unquestionable standard, condemn people merely for disagreeing with it, or refuse biblical correction. But quoting that warning does not establish that I was advocating those things. You would need to show that I am defending a requirement against Scripture or refusing correction, rather than simply point out that I used a particular word.

Your statement that people who hold a creed will always explain away prophetic counsel also goes further than you have demonstrated. That is a danger to guard against, but you cannot assume it describes my position after I have expressly clarified otherwise.

If a church requirement conflicts with genuine biblical light, the requirement must give way. Our understanding must remain answerable to God’s Word. That is entirely consistent with explaining and teaching the beliefs we presently understand Scripture to establish.

Please don’t pick on words when I have explained my meaning. People sometimes choose an imprecise word or express themselves imperfectly. Correct a genuine error where there is one, but allow a clarification to stand.

Regarding Isaiah 22

I appreciate your acknowledgement of Stephen Haskell’s interpretation of Isaiah 22. I agree that he was not proposing a formal test of church membership. He did not need to propose one to make a serious point about appetite, obedience and preparation for Christ’s return.

In The Cross and Its Shadow, pages 224–226, Haskell applies Isaiah 22:12–14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement. He connects God’s call to humiliation and self control with the warning against eating flesh and drinking wine. His concern includes both the quantity and quality of food, and whether people are allowing appetite to govern them instead of responding to God. That is the interpretation I am drawing attention to.

I acknowledge that Isaiah 22 describes people responding to God’s call to repentance with feasting and defiance. My position is that Haskell’s application of this passage to our preparation today deserves serious consideration. I am not claiming that the chapter itself sets out a church membership procedure.

Sister White did recognise the Spirit of God working through Haskell. She wrote:

“Elder Haskell spoke under the influence of the Spirit of God on Christ as the Rock.” Manuscript 127, 1897.

That statement concerns a particular sermon. It gives me reason to respect him as a faithful worker whose teaching deserves careful attention.

“We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work”. Review and Herald, May 25, 1905.

I would much rather carefully study the biblical reasoning of those experienced pioneers than dismiss their counsel because it conflicts with a modern Christian’s opinion. Their teaching must still be examined by Scripture, just as ours must.

On fellowship, Ellen White’s instruction is explicit:

“We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship”. Testimonies for the Church, volume 9, page 159.

I accept that instruction for the church back then only. But in the same paragraph she calls for a decided testimony against indulged appetite and challenges believers about their example and their response to God’s warnings. Not making something a test of fellowship does not mean that we should stop teaching it or treat it as spiritually insignificant before baptism

She also teaches that those awaiting Christ’s return will eventually cease eating flesh, and urges believers to work towards that end. That gives me a clear reason to educate and encourage people to leave meat behind. Counsels on Diet and Foods, pages 380–381.

My conviction is that we do not take God’s counsel seriously enough. I believe leaving flesh food behind is an important part of our preparation for what lies ahead, and that knowingly resisting God’s light has spiritual consequences. I am concerned when health reform is presented as though our response to it has no bearing on our walk with God. That is different from claiming that vegetarianism itself saves anyone or that I can determine another person’s salvation from their diet.

Yesterday, two Adventist friends visited my home. We discussed meat eating, and I shared the passages that have shaped my conviction. They both made a pledge to give it up. I found that encouraging. That is the work I want to do: explain, educate and encourage people to respond willingly.

I am going to leave this discussion here now. I appreciate the points you have acknowledged, but I do not think continuing the argument will be fruitful. I have explained my conviction and the distinction I am making between teaching reform and making it a test of fellowship. I believe both the SDARM, the IMS and my organised group are doing the right thing in making it a test of membership.

35

Thanks for the discussion Ariadne. And thanks for clarifying your usage of the term creed. Good to know we are on the same page there.

36

In the days of the prophets of Israel, and during the ministry of Jesus, God’s people were repeatedly warned of their spiritual danger. They were not simply reassured that everything was fine and that everyone would make it through regardless of their response to God. There were warnings, appeals, correction and rebuke because eternal matters were at stake.

Isaiah 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

Jesus Himself gave solemn warnings and called people to repentance.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

The need for faithful warning has not disappeared. God’s people today still need correction when truth has been forgotten, neglected or resisted. Being part of a religious body does not remove the responsibility to examine ourselves and respond to God.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

I have absolutely no objection to warnings supported by Scripture. However, I recognise that this is delicate work and must be undertaken very carefully, with humility, patience and love. A warning should seek a person’s restoration, and nobody should presume to take God’s place in determining another person’s eternal destiny.

Ellen White expressed that balance clearly:

“Christ Himself did not suppress one word of truth, but He spoke it always in love.” The Desire of Ages, p. 353. (ellenwhite.info⁠)

That is the standard. Truth should be spoken faithfully, and the manner in which it is spoken should reflect Christ.

From what I understand of the sermons, including Reaching the Point of No Return, I do not see the objection to presenting the biblical warnings themselves. If there is a particular interpretation you believe is wrong, then that interpretation can be identified and examined carefully against Scripture. The seriousness of a warning does not, by itself, make it wrong.

We are called to stand for truth and to love it because it is God’s truth. That includes being willing to receive correction ourselves. Truth is not always easy to accept, especially when it challenges a settled belief or something we would prefer to continue doing.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Frankly, I am tired of the conversation repeatedly returning to assertions that John Thiel is bad, that nobody should listen to him, or that he said or did this or that. Repeating personal criticisms does not settle whether a particular teaching is biblical. I would rather examine the actual message, its context and the Scripture offered in support of it.

Ellen White addressed this very tendency. She described people asking:

“Is it true—in harmony with God’s word? but, By whom is it advocated?” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pp. 105–106, paragraph 105.3. (text.egwwritings.org⁠)

Her point is that prejudice against the person presenting a teaching can prevent people from honestly examining its scriptural evidence. That principle requires fairness from everyone involved. No preacher is above examination, and neither should a message be rejected merely because someone dislikes its messenger.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

That is the approach I want to take. Examine the teaching, consider the biblical evidence, and establish whether it is true. I have no difficulty with a faithful warning given carefully and lovingly from Scripture. I do have difficulty with personal criticism continually taking the place of that examination.

37

That has been my whole point :slight_smile: . But that is what you initially did here, and then corrected your position. And I mentioned I didn’t blame you for it, as that is what your pastor has taught you - and still believes and teaches.

Regarding John. What personal criticisms do you think I’ve made about him? Our discussion here has been - as it relates to him - about his teachings. I’ve quoted his sermon in his own words. Here they are again, from Reaching the Point of No Return: “If you try to work with these people that will not return, you are wasting your time… How do you know their probation is closed? You will read it, you will know.” The sermon opens by saying it is about “souls who have turned away from the word and us.”

You asked me to identify the interpretation I think is wrong. That’s it. It teaches that we can know a living person’s probation has closed, and it tells people not to labour for those who have left.

That is false doctrine.

38

I have not corrected my position in the sense of reversing it. My position remains that no human being has the authority to take God’s place and independently determine another person’s eternal destiny. God is the Judge. That does not mean, however, that Scripture gives us no ability to recognise spiritual conditions or to discern where persistent rejection of truth leads.

There is a difference between saying, I have personally decided that this person is eternally lost, and reading the biblical descriptions of people who have persistently resisted God until they have placed themselves beyond further response to His appeals.

The Bible itself uses very serious language.

Hosea 4:17 “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.”

Hebrews 6:4–6 “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance.”

1 John 5:16 “There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

There are l conditions where continued resistance has produced a serious spiritual result. Acknowledging those passages is not the same thing as claiming that I possess God’s judgment seat.

Ellen White wrote that continued resistance makes a person increasingly incapable of responding to God, and then said:

“There is a point beyond which forbearance cannot go. Let it not be written of you, ‘Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.’” Review and Herald, September 24, 1895.

“By continual resistance the sinner places himself where he knows nothing but resistance.”

Hosea 4:17 : “Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone.”

So the underlying principle is not something invented. Ellen White explicitly teaches that there is a line beyond which God’s forbearance does not pass and that persistent resistance can bring a person into a condition where he knows nothing but resistance.

I have also reread the sermon you are quoting. It begins by asking whether there can be such a condition while a person is still alive, and the sermon develops that question through Cain, Esau, Judas, Scripture and Spirit of Prophecy. In the later presentation of the same subject he makes the distinction that people arrive at a condition in which they have so settled themselves in one direction that they will not change.

That does not mean that I believe I can open the heavenly records and pronounce somebody’s final sentence. I cannot, and I have never claimed that authority.

I am a Berean, as every Christian ought to be.

Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

The Bereans received the word which Paul preached, but then they searched the Scriptures to establish whether what they had heard was true. They did not refuse to listen to Paul because he was a preacher, nor did they blindly accept Paul because he was a preacher.

the Bereans were willing to investigate the doctrines preached by the apostles and that they compared scripture with scripture . Those sincerely seeking truth today will carefully investigate the doctrines presented to them in the light of God’s Word.

That is exactly how I understand Christian teaching.

Each individual must personally examine what is preached. each person cannot rely upon somebody else to do the studying for them, and that even after hearing the Word we must personally study it and apply it to our own case.

the suggestion that I simply believe something because my preacher said it does not fairly represent either my position or what is actually taught

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 11:1 “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

That is the biblical relationship between a teacher and the believer. I can follow a brother insofar as he follows Christ. The moment his teaching cannot be sustained by the Word of God, the Word takes precedence.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

When you attend church on Sabbath, are you preaching every Sabbath yourself? Or do you also sit beneath the ministry of another brother, listen to the words and receive spiritual food? Having a preacher does not mean surrendering your conscience or your responsibility to search the Bible.

God Himself speaks of pastors who feed His people:

Jeremiah 3:15 “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

And Paul told the elders:

Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock… to feed the church of God.”

There is nothing unbiblical about being fed by the ministry of another person while still testing everything.

Even the manna illustrates the principle. Israel gathered manna during the six working days. On the sixth day they gathered a double portion because no manna fell on the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:26 “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.”

On the Sabbath they ate what God had already provided and preserved for them. a double quantity fell on the sixth day, none on the seventh, and the portion required for the Sabbath was l preserved.

I am not using manna as a proof text that Christians should stop studying their Bibles on Sabbath. I am using it as an illustration. There is a biblical place for gathering personally and there is also a place for sitting down and being spiritually fed.

Scripture is our spiritual food and we are to feast upon the word of God.

I listen to my brother when he preaches. I receive what he presents with readiness of mind. Then, like the Bereans, I examine it against scripture .

That is not following a man.

That is exactly what the Bereans did with the apostle Paul.

Christians should be able to say to others, “Follow me as I follow Christ.”

Therefore I do not believe John because he is John. I believe what I can see sustained by Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. Where Scripture speaks, I accept it. Where a human being goes beyond Scripture, I am under no obligation to follow him.