Original Sin: How the Great Controversy Distorts the Sin Problem

Hey there. Thank you for being here, especially if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. Grace and peace to the body. I am grateful for the gospel. Are you grateful for the gospel? the incarnation, the sinless life, death, burial, resurrection of our Lord, his resurrection for our justification. Uh his representation for us before the father presenting his perfect work before him. I’m grateful for that tonight. You’ll have to bear with me a little bit. I am recovering from uh somewhat of a head cold or a viral infection of some sort. So, I have a

Throat loss in tonight because the show must go on. But the Lord is good. The Lord is good. Now, it’s been a bit, but tonight we’re going to be revisiting a series of sermons as we work our way through them from SDA Pastor Dennis Preebie. Last time we looked at a sermon from Mr. prebi. He sought to explain how evangelicalism has infiltrated Adventism, creating what he called two gospels within the SDA church. But like we looked at and saw, the problem is that both of those supposed gospels are actually false gospels because both are still built on the same foundation, the

Great controversy theme. That is not going to change going into tonight’s message either, as you will see. But this time we’re going to transition to his next part where he presents the classical SDA teaching on sin. And I say that very specifically, the classical the actual SDA teaching on sin. Not the neoadventist view of those of the likes of Tai Gibson and Tim Gillespie, etc., but the classic by the book shooting it straight down the barrel teaching on sin in the SDA church. a topic of significant importance teaching uh or rather touching on various theological

Issues. Arguably the most important being the true state and nature of man. What we’re going to see is that like every other facet of theology, the great controversy worldview clouds the SDA reading of scripture, inserting foreign ideas into the text, leading to a warped understanding in this case of what sin is and its true remedy. But before digging into that, oh, let me see here. There we go. If you like what we are doing here, consider becoming a channel member. You gain access to our growing library of membersonly content, including our membersonly live streams, the next of

Which is in 2 days this coming Saturday. And you help us uh or equip us to fulfill our mission of equipping as many Christians as possible to reach as many Seventh Day Adventists as possible with the true Christ and his gospel. You can click the little join button down below this video. If you do not see that, because some of you will not, the link is also in the description. If that fails on our channel homepage, you can go visit it. And like you see on screen, the button is also there in two places. It truly is the support of our members and partners that make this work

Possible. So, thank you guys so much for your support. So, now before getting into it, I want to start by defining sin. Now, it only takes about five seconds of interacting with a Seventh Day Adventist before you hear them throw First John 3:4 at you. That sin is transgression of the law. This is typically said to bolster their um warped understanding of the use of the law and its application. And a large portion of Adventists see sin as strictly behavioral, which is what we’re going to see Dennis PBY put forth this evening. But this is a very narrow definition of sin. I am on

Record numerous places bringing up how the truncated view of sin is what ultimately leads to the sinless perfectionism within Adventist theology to flourish. For those that do not know, the SDA church is uh semipolagian, but then uh with a little bit of a twist and once you come to Christ, it is practically pelagian. They have the same sort of Pelagian view of the nature of man. But aside from 1 John 3:4, we are also told that when someone knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it, to that person, it is sin. James 4:17. James also explains that sin starts

Internally when one is tempted and the evil desires as we’re going to see tonight within a person are enticed which gives birth to sin. James 1:13-15. This shows that there is an innate evil within humanity that is lurking and it can be enticed. It speaks into the conditional aspect of sin. something we will also be hearing about tonight. But Paul also tells us that anything not done of faith is sin in Romans 14, Romans 14:23, which shows there can be a subjective aspect to some sins because one person could do something not of good faith that isn’t a sin in and of itself, but

Because they violate their conscience, to them it is sin. All of this to say there is a bigger issue at hand. Biblically speaking, there are three categories that I think of when I think of how scripture defines sin. And understanding all of them is necessary to truly have a full orbed understanding of this very important topic. The first is that sin is a debt. Scripture, specifically the Lord Jesus, describes sinners as debtors who cannot pay their debts. In this case, it isn’t a financial indebtedness, but a moral indebtedness. So Jesus equates sin with legal moral

Debt in the Lord’s Prayer. You can cross reference Matthew 69-13 with Luke 11 1-4, but also within just Luke 11 1-4. When one fails to meet the standard put forth by Christ, loving God perfectly with every thought, word, deed, and motive, they become indebted to him as creator. The second is sin is an expression of enmity. This is why sin is not restricted to merely an external action that transgresses the law. Rather, it represents an internal motive that is driven by an innate or inherent rather hostility toward God. The biblical description of human

Fallenness includes the charge that we are by nature enemies of God who are born dead in our trespasses and sins. Romans 3:9-11, Ephesians 2 1-4. in our enmity toward God. We do not want to have him in our thinking and so we try and crowd him out with other things like idols. No, it’s not just bowing down to statues. Adventists, we don’t want to have him in our thinking. And this attitude is one of hostility toward the fact that God commands us to obey his will. So this is also why an understanding of reconciliation to God is so fundamental to the Christian faith. Because one of

The necessary conditions for reconciliation is that there has to be enmity that is then remedied. So Jesus Christ overcomes this enmity in his redeeming work as the believer’s mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:25. This is also why places such as Colossians 3:5, like I mentioned earlier, evil desires, Paul classifies evil desires as sinful, which means that sin is more than just behavioral. But thirdly, sin is a crime. This is where transgression of God’s law comes into play. Transgression of the law of God. This entails both active and passive disobedience.

What you could call sins of commission, doing something you should not, and sins of omission, not doing something that you should. When we fail to do what God requires, there is a lack of conformity on our part to be in accordance with his will, actively doing what God prohibits. So, thus, sin is a transgression against God’s law. Make sense? Because understanding this is so vital in this discussion because oftentimes, especially if you’re going to try and talk with Adventists about this, they use a much too narrow scope of sin leading to faulty conclusions

When they do an analysis or you’re doing an internal analysis of things that they might be saying, etc. But as you’re going to see, this is a perfect example tonight of the classical SDA view of sin. But with that full orbed view in focus, let’s listen to Mr. PBY. As you look at the outline you’ve been given, you will notice that there are two definitions of sin listed. Definition A and definition B. Definition A entitled original sin. Now, that’s a theological term. I have subtitled it sin as nature. And one again, once again, I’m going to review

What that means. Sin as nature means that we are not sinners because of what we do, say or think. We are sinners because Adam sinned. We are sinners because we are fallen sons of do and daughters of fallen Adam and Eve. We are sinners because of our inheritance. Again, I’m going to share with you a statement or two from those who believe. Definition A. sinful man is not lost because he has committed sins but because he is born of Adam and therefore already stands condemned in him even before he commits sins of his own. Catch that sinful man is not lost because he has committed

Sins but because he is born of Adam and therefore stands condemned in him. We are sinners because Adam sinned. Another person put it a slightly different way. We make sinful choices because we are already sinners by nature. Why do we lose our temper? Why do we do things that are not in harmony with God’s will when we know what we should be doing? Well, it’s because we’re already sinners. And that’s just one more outgrowth of our sin. We are sinners because Adam sinned. That’s definition A. All right. Before we hear him put forth definition B, the great controversy

Definition, that’s what definition B is, let’s explore his attempt to steal man, the Christian position. First, I would love to know who he was quoting from. But nevertheless, I find it fascinating that the SDA church has no fundamental belief on sin. The great controversy understanding is simply assumed and utilized throughout their fundamental beliefs book and within their theology. But let’s look at the Belgic Confession article 15 titled of original sin which puts forth not a unique view but gives a succinct statement and let’s see how Prieby’s

Representation adds up with this. All right. Quote, “We believe that through the disobedience of Adam, original sin is extended to all mankind, which is a corruption of the whole nature.” The whole nature and an hereditary disease wherewith infants themselves are infected even in their mother’s womb. and which producth in all man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof. Catch that.

And therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. nor is it by any means abolished or done away by baptism. Sorry, Catholic viewers. This is a reformationational document, by the way, folks, for those that do not know. But nevertheless, since sin always issues forth from this woeful source as water from a fountain, notwithstanding, it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by his grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption

Should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death. Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation. Close quote. So did you catch that? What PBY is going to put forth is the Pelagian understanding of sin. Yes. another area of church history where the SDA church is on the wrong side of history. It is over and over and over. It’s like folks, it is just crazy when you’ll hear Adventists, it’s like they they think it’s like they think if they can they can support the seventh day Sabbath and

Vindicate that that somehow vindicates Adventism. It’s like no, dude. on literally every theological controversy and issue, you’re forever on the wrong side. It’s like the mountain of errors piled up in the room. And yet you’re looking over here at this speck of dust on the ground. Like no, it’s like every turn. Every turn. Notice the Belgic confession recognizes both sin as a verb, an action, but also as a noun, a condition. It’s a both and. Notice what it said the root is. And again, this is not unique. This was not uniquely concocted up by the Belgic

Confession, folks. I just used I could have used all sorts of sources. There’s not some unique the aspect about it being washed away in baptism is not going to be accepted by the Roman Catholics for example but in terms of original sin not it’s necessarily its remedy of washing away etc. This is basic original sin both verb and noun both conditional or natural as well as actional. So scripture defines sin far more broadly than the great controversy worldview does. Original sin is not the teaching that sin is only a condition. Mr. for prebi he will be making this an eitheror

Throughout his presentation and it’s actually a both and and it’s this false dilemma fallacy which is what that is that those are the two options that this entire understanding is built upon. So remember that definition B says everything that definition A says that when Adam sinned he turned our natures inside out. So our natures are not what God designed them to be. Our natures are working against us all the time. Our natures are fighting our best intentions and our best decisions. Our natures are not our friend. And yes, those natures stay with us from

Birth until death. All that is the same. The one difference is in definition B. We are not automatically sinners because we have inherited bad equipment. We are not automatically sinners because we happen to be born on the slum planet in the universe. The place no other created being would want to live if they had their choice. We are sinners when knowing the difference between right and wrong, we deliberately choose to disobey God’s will. Sin in definition B is a choice that we make. And yes, that’s the minority position. There’s no question about it. That is not what most

Christians believe. But I came across an interesting quotation. Noah entered the ark as a minority. But when he stepped off, he was the vast majority. Minority is not always bad. Someday, someday the minorities will turn into the majorities and they will be the ones who will enjoy eternity without any fear or trouble. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Plaggianism is in the majority, sir. But he tried saying the great controversy understanding of sin is the same of the original sin position. But one caveat, we aren’t born with bad hardware. He uses this terminology a lot for people

That have listened to him, which makes absolutely no sense because what he’s ultimately saying is we aren’t conditionally born as sinners. That would be having bad hardware. If you reject that then no you don’t agree with everything from definition A as he called it because that’s a necessary component of definition A Mr. preview bit of an insight into the like plugandplay style of system that SDA theology is. But he basically put forward the idea of the age of accountability which was a novel response in the larger discussion of the nature of the will of man and what

Happens to infants that die. But it’s also interesting that he appeals to Noah entering the ark as a minority as though any sort of minority position you hold then can be supported by finding a figure in the Bible that was a minority and then extrapolate that out that you’re vindicated in your view because of that. I I mean, what that’s like one of those things that a pastor comes across and they’re like, “Oh, that’s going to preach good.” And it’ll get a lot of, “Oh, wow.” Horribly bad hermeneutics, though. Obviously, a horrible application of the

Text. I mean, Mormons would have a field day with that standard. All sorts of other fringe groups. They’re in the minority because they believe they’re going to be gods one day, Mr. Prey. Oh, but they’re going to be in the vast majority one day, right? because they’re actually correct because of that. Like what? Like what? Oh man. It’s obviously, like I said, one of those things that’s just like, “Oh, that’s going to preach good.” Yeah, but it’s just horribly bad hermeneutics. Obviously not sound reasoning either. But he gave zero uh biblical exped

Exposition for this claim. He didn’t walk through any scripture, draw out the author’s intended meaning. Ted Wilson keeps telling us the only approved hermeneutic in the SDA church is the historical grammatical method. yet Dennis didn’t utilize that. Spoiler alert, he’s not going to use it throughout the whole night, by the way. Lots of assertions and extra biblical analogies, but no ex Jesus. But with this in mind, I want to look at Romans 5, something that Mr. Prey isn’t even going to touch tonight with a 10-ft pole, and you’re going to see why. But

The first rule, folks, of sound biblical exesus and hermeneutics, and I didn’t make this up, by the way, so you can go and and check me on this. I’m just the messenger. It’s like hermeneutics 101 is that the clear passages of scripture govern and help interpret the unclear passages. Another area that Adventism has totally backwards. And on this subject, Romans 5 falls into that former category. So, let’s look at Paul’s chain of thought in Romans 5 12-21. Romans 5:12- 21 we read, “Therefore,” we’ll get to the therefore, “Just as sin came into the world through

One man and death through sin.” And so death spread to all men, because all sinned. Just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given. But sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the

Free gift by the grace of that one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for many. And the free gift is also not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to

Justification in life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners,

So by the one man’s obedience, the many will be made righteous. Now the law came into increase the trespass. But where sin is increased, grace abounded all the more. So that as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteous leading or righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So Paul’s chain of thought leading up to this verses 1-1 chain off of what he just laid out back in chapter 4. We’ve talked about this a lot here recently, chapters 3 and 4, which is a presentation chapter

4 of how even Old Testament figures such as Abraham and David were justified the same way that Paul has been explaining. He ends chapter 3 in verse 31 saying that faith upholds the law and says that what he’s teaching the churches at Rome is not a contradiction to the law and the prophets. To then support this, he then goes on to explain Abraham and David were justified on the basis of the righteousness that comes apart from the law. Romans 3:21. And he says in Romans 5:1 that we have peace with God because of this and that through Jesus’s death we have been

Reconciled to God. We then get to verse 12 where we get a transition from the apostle to the entry of sin into the world which is where we are at here. Verse starting at verse 12. Sin came by one man, Adam. Not Satan. Adventists are taught Satan is the root problem of sin. No, Adam. Adam. But he explains that sin was in the world before the law was given. And the very fact that this is the case shows that sin is a condition that came to all of Adam’s parogeny because he sinned. Verse 12. That’s why I repeated it. Sin came to all of Adam’s parogeny

Because of Adam’s action. You’re either in Adam or in Christ. There is no neutral condition. And it’s because of that one man, Adam, that death spread to all men. But verses 18 and 19 specifically do not jive with Preeby’s definition. They can scream that’s Calvinism until they’re blue in the face. Doesn’t change the facts. For those that don’t know, that’s one of their favorite boogeymen to to pin ju just viscerally respond. That’s Calvinism. It’s amazing what is what all is apparently Calvinism in the in the modern day. But nevertheless, doesn’t change the facts.

Doesn’t change what the text is saying. Death and sin spread to all people because of one man, Adam.

Paul tells us that because of one man, Adam’s disobedience, all of humanity is born dead in sins and trespasses, like we’re going to see in a little bit in Ephesians 2. But when Adam sinned, all sinned in him, which is perfectly consistent with Pauline theology across the board, like I said, as we are going to see more of later. But he also tells us that because of Jesus Christ, the second Adam’s perfect obedience, all of those who are united to him, that leads to justification before God. When one is transformed from the fallen, condemned family of Adam through the

Process of being born again, spiritual rebirth, you have a new representative, Jesus Christ, the second Adam, Adam 2.0, the new creation. All who are in Adam are condemned. All who are in Jesus Christ are saved.

Therefore, the one act of disobedience, the many were made sinners. So, by the one man’s obedience, the many will be made righteous. Two representatives. You’re born in the fallen condemned progyny of Adam. When you are born again and raised to spiritual newness of life, you have a new representative, the second Adam, the better Adam. This entire paricopy 12- 21 is a compare and contrast between the first and second Adams. And Paul is clearly laying out two different representatives that you are either in one or the other. Now, this next clip is a little bit

Long, but I want to let the whole clip play to let him finish his complete thought. We need to hear the whole complete thought. So, please bear with us. Like I said, it’s a it’s a little bit long. It’s about 9 minutes or so, but please stick with us. Pay very close attention to what this guy says now. All right. Two decisions. Original sin or sin as choice. If you’ll notice, I said there is a difference between evil and guilt. What precisely is that difference between evil and guilt? An illustration that I use over and over because it is the clearest illustration

I’ve ever come across. Some of you have a perfect example of this difference in your own homes in a little animal that you call a pet. But when you examine this little animal carefully, you really begin to wonder why in the world you ever chose that animal as a pet in your home because it has a problem. It’s called a split personality. There’s one side of your little pet that is warm and loving and affectionate. It’ll rub up against your legs. It’ll go to sleep on your lap. It is just the warmest, most loving little cat you ever could want. But you just open the door to the great

Out of doors and you watch the change in personality that comes over that sweet little pet of yours. The tail is at full attention. and the whiskers at full alert. Why is it going out into your backyard to to admire the sunset? Perhaps to smell the roses, maybe. Oh my. You see, in your house, there are just too many rules. There are rules about where to eat, where not to eat, where to jump, where not to jump. And your he cat’s head gets all cluttered up. It doesn’t know which rules it even wants to obey. But outdoors, there are only two rules that matter.

Rule number one, very important. You run from anything that’s bigger than you. It’s called survival. Have you noticed that your cat’s head is on a swivel out there in your backyard? It is checking out all directions at once. The ears go this way, the eyes go that way because it’s going to make sure it isn’t going to get trapped by something it can’t handle. So, it’s on the alert all the time. That’s rule number one. But rule number two is the fun rule. You catch anything that’s smaller than you. And your cat is sizing up animals to decide if you run from it or if you catch it.

That’s its job to make those decisions all the time. And so your cat finds that animal that is not quite so strong, quite so fast as your cat. And it catches that little mouse, that little gopher, whatever it is out in your backyard, and it quickly, humanely, and mercifully puts it out of its misery. Correct? As you’ve noticed, that’s not the way it happens. Because you see, your cat is not out there because its hunger pangs are destroying it. So, it has to get something to eat. You’ve taken care of that in your house. Its belly is full. Your cat is out there to catch and kill

Another animal because that’s fun. Strange thing happens if you if you watch it carefully. Your cat with its sharp claws and sharp teeth has caught that little mouse and somehow your cat gets distracted a little bit and the mouse is gone. Do you think that just happened by accident? Your cat is out there for the fun of the chase. And catching is only one phase of it because you want to do it all over again. You don’t see mice all that often. So when you get one, you want to get the most out of it you can. And so somehow that little mouse escapes

Those sharp teeth and claws and your cat gets to catch it all over again. And then it escapes again, which means you get a third chance to catch it all over again. Your cat is out there for the fun of the game. Now, do mice have vertebrae and nerves? They’re mammals, aren’t they? And all mammals have nerve endings. So, do mice feel pain? Sure they do. That little mouse is under real duress at this time because its life is coming to an end. And it’s not coming to an end quickly like in a mouse trap, is it? It’s coming to an end slowly, painfully,

Bit by bit. It can’t move as fast. It can’t run as fast. It’s suffering and dying. Does your cat care? Does your cat have any compassion at all? It’s out there to have its fun at the expense of anyone else. Who cares what the other person is feeling? All I care about is how much fun I’m having. You see, your cat has a fallen nature, too. Adam didn’t just give fallen natures to human beings. He gave it to the whole animal world. We call it instinct. It’s a fallen nature. Cats aren’t going to act like that in God’s new earth, but they do now. And your cat

Is only interested in its selfish pleasure. It’s going to have fun. Who cares about anyone else? Who cares who suffers? You watch it all from your backyard. And then perhaps on another day, your uh little sweet loving cat comes marching up to your back door, feathers sticking out of all sides of its mouth, waiting to be praised for the good job it has done in your backyard. Got rid of one more of those nasty little song birds that clutter up the neighborhood. What do you do now? You’ve enjoyed the singing of that little bird. It’s not going to sing

Anymore. Do you hold a little trial right on your back porch? Do you get a jury together to decide guilt or innocence? Do you have a jail cell prepared in in case the verdict is guilty? Of course, you don’t do any of those things. What you do is you scold your cat a little bit. You brush the feathers away and you actually welcome that little killer back into your house as if nothing had happened. You know what you’ve just done on your back porch? You have made a distinction between evil and guilt. That’s what you’ve done. You realize that what happened in your backyard was evil. Not

Part of God’s plan, part of the result of Adam’s sin. But you ascribed no guilt to your cat. Why? Because you decided that in that little brain, there is apparently no room for something we call conscience, which is an understanding of right and wrong. because it is right and wrong, not because of selfish pleasure or pain. And your cat doesn’t have that ability. All it knows is how it can survive in this world. And its instinct tells us I should go out and kill something. And you recognize that that evil happened in your backyard, but you attach no guilt to it. That’s what I

Mean by a distinction between evil and guilt. very important in this understanding of the of of sin and most Christians do not understand this. Okay. So, zero biblical exposition, just analogies. I mean, seriously, using a pet cat as an analogy for why original sin doesn’t carry guilt? I guess I missed Paul’s uh feline theology in Romans 5. No, Mr. Pre. A cat is not a human being. They’re not in a cat is not in the parogeny of Adam. Not only was there zero biblical exposition, but he committed so many category errors, which is a fallacy. Category error is a type of fallacy.

By equating the behavior of a cat to a human being which is a distinct part of creation a apart from the rest of the created order. This is why the adventist teaching around the nature of man touches on so many different areas. They don’t actually understand what it truly means to be made in the image of God. It shows they’re they’re just so many errors come from that part of their worldview that they’re so entrenched in and they think the truth is from Satan. That’s spirit spiritualism. Like I get it that in Adventism humans are really no different than an animal.

You only possess breath and a body like an animal. So, it makes sense why someone with a great controversy worldview would make this claim. But like, wow, what a mess. He He said, “Adam didn’t just give a fallen nature to humans, he also gave it to animals.” Wow. Wow. Romans 8 does indeed talk of all of creation being bound by the curse that God placed on it. Something else the great controversy worldview butchers, by the way. It’s like they often talk about it as like Satan is the the it just h no God is the one that placed a curse on the creation. He’s going to lift that off

One day. But it does indeed say that the creation was bound against its own will. It was man that plunged it. But it doesn’t say anything about animals receiving a fallen nature from Adam. A fallen nature like we saw in Romans 5 has to do with being in the line of the first Adam, being downchained in his parogeny. Horses, whales, termites, those are not sons and daughters of Adam, sir. The fallen nature is distinct to God’s image bearsers, not literally all living things by virtue of being living. He said cats are only focused on their own selfish pleasure and that instinct

Is actually selfishness. Uh, no. Survival skills do not equate to having a fallen nature or committing evil. Cats don’t have a moral code written on their conscience like God’s imagebearers. Cats are not selfish because selfishness is something that pertains to morality. And he seemingly admitted this but erently equated that to distinguishing between evil and guilt because the cat doesn’t know any better. Well, right. because the cat doesn’t have a the any sort of moral code from natural law written upon its conscience which again he recognized they don’t

Have a conscience but he used this and you’re going to see why to distinguish between guilt and evil but I’d really be curious to hear someone like Dennis Py actually exed the biblical text not cite a proof text and make assertions not do the gatling gun approach like Randy Ski and Doug Bachelor do where they cite so many proof texts from memory and sound super biblical but don’t actually do any actual exposition by walking through the text which that works on some people but some of us can see right through that there were so many errors there it would take

Us the rest of the evening to even address all of them but now we’re finally going to hear him at least try and utilize scripture so let’s listen so would you take your Bible and turn with me to the first text listed there, which is Genesis 2, verse 17.

Now, this is a very familiar text. It’s God’s first command to his first created beings. And as we read it, we’re puzzled because it didn’t seem to work out like God said it would. Genesis chapter 2, verse 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Well, they ate of the fruit, and they didn’t die. Not for 900 more years. And so, we wonder, what did the text mean? We puzzle about it. Well, let’s find out if Revelation 13:8 might shed any light on this dilemma.

Revelation 13 and verse 8. Now, I’m reading from the King James translation. Some other verses handle some other versions handle this verse differently. And I’m focusing on the last half of this verse. Revelation 13:8. The last part of the verse, it speaks of the book of life of the lamb. And then it says, “The lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Yes. And we puzzle again because he wasn’t slain at the foundation of the world. It was 4,000 years later that he died on the cross of Calvary. So now we have two puzzling texts instead of an answer.

Let’s look now at the outline. and you’ve been given. You will notice that the next page has spirit of prophecy statements on it. And we’re going to look at a couple of those to see if we can get further enlightenment and help. Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case? That’s the question. They took of the fruit, but they didn’t die because a ransom was found. God’s only begotten son volunteered to take the sin of men upon himself and to make an atonement for the fallen race. So something happened that changed the death sentence that day.

Notice how it happened. The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan and did the very things God had said he should not do, Christ, the son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, “Let the punishment fall on me. I will stand in man’s place.” He shall have another chance. Now, we’re getting close to the answer. Please notice one thing. God does not wait for Adam and Eve to come crawling back to him on hands and knees saying, “We’ve messed up. We don’t know what to do. Help us.” They don’t even know how serious the problem is at

This point. Notice the instant that sin comes into the picture, God is there. Our God is a seeking God. He’s not awaiting God. He is looking for us long before we look for him. And notice also that Jesus doesn’t ask if Adam wants him to step into the picture. Jesus does it on his own initiative at the instant of Adam’s sin. Why? Because the human race is in extreme danger right at that moment. God’s promises never fail. In the day you eat, you will end your existence is what God said. And the human race, that race that God had created in his own image, that’s you and

Me and everyone that has ever lived on planet Earth, is in extreme danger of non-existence because of Adam’s decision. And Jesus steps in to avert the crisis. And he says, “The only way that this crisis can be averted is if I take the death penalty that you deserve, Adam. If I step in your place and stand for you. And because I will stand for you, the human race will go on living and the human race will have a second chance for eternal life.” That’s what happened in the garden 6,000 years ago. Are you grateful for that? Holy hopscotch Batman. I mean, what a mess. Still zero biblical

Exposition. Like I said, I would really like to see someone like this actually walk through a biblical passage exeetically and explain it. Not just read a text here and read a text there and then cite Ellen White’s supposed inspired commentary, which is what he’s going to go on to do. But Mr. pre Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world because the cross of Christ wasn’t an afterthought. The linear act of the cross took place in time but was ordained from eternity. Acts chapter 4. Something else the great controversy theme gets wrong.

But and no, God said in the day you eat you will die. Notice he twisted that not begin to lead to non-existence. Again, another thing that the SDA view of the nature of man is incompatible with regarding the biblical text. Man spiritually died and needs raised again like we are about to see, made alive and united to Jesus Christ. But he made a fundamental error that Adventists often make in Genesis, and that’s that the command in Genesis 21:17 was given to both Adam and Eve. No, it wasn’t. Eve wasn’t even created yet. And this speaks into why Adam was

Deceived and the woman was not like Paul tells us in 1 Timothy and 2 Corinthians 11. Despite Ellen White also contradicting that in Patriarchs and Prophets, PBY ignores that immediately after verse 17 where the command is given, God then proceeds to say it wasn’t good for the man to be alone and creates for him a helpmate. But then we heard the classic claim from the great controversy theology and that’s that Adam and Eve didn’t die for another 900 years. Like I said, he twisted that there. Yeah, that did end up leading to that being a result, but

That’s not what God said actually happened. God told them in the day that they eat of the fruit they would die and didn’t. That’s what he said. Then he jumps to Revelation 13:8 to say it sheds light on this conundrum. A conundrum that isn’t actually a conundrum by saying Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Yet he didn’t die for some 400 or 4,000 years later and then proceeds to jump to Ellen White to solve the supposed dilemma. Like I mentioned, I would love to hear somebody like this actually do biblical ex Jesus. And I’d really love him to execute

Ephesians chapter 2. Because notice folks, Ephesians 2 1-7. And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world. Following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that’s now at work, and the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God being rich in mercy because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our

Trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. By grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So verses 1-5 absolutely obliterate what he is saying. By nature children of wrath, dead in sins and trespasses. And when a person according to what Paul said back in Ephesians 1, hears the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, they are

Given the Holy Spirit through regeneration, sealed with him unto the day of redemption. That regenerate process raises our dead spirits to life, making us alive together with Christ Jesus, union with Christ, which is why we are also raised with him, seated with him in the heavenlies. There’s no way that Adventism can deal with this without just saying, “Well, that’s just metaphorical. It just No. If you understand what we just talked about earlier about representation, union with Christ, and this process, you can understand the full scope of what

Scripture has to say about all sorts of subjects that Adventism doesn’t even talk about. Notice RC Sproul’s commentary on Ephesians 2. He makes a couple of excellent points that will speak into what we just talked about earlier. He says, quote, this is from his expositional commentary on Ephesians, specifically Ephesians 2:3. Quote, nature does not refer to man as he was originally created, but refers to the fallen character of man. Under the influence of humanism, people have the notion that human beings are born in a state of innocence with no bias in their

Hearts or inclination toward either goodness or evil. It is as though every human being goes through his own probation. Of course, such an explanation raises the question, how is it that society is corrupt? Society is simply people. And if every individual is born innocent with no inclination toward good or evil, we would expect about 50% of people to remain innocent. We would expect to find pockets of society with hosts of sinless people. Those pockets would continue to support and engender more sinless people. Yet no such civilization can be found because we are not born morally

Neutral. We are born fallen. We are born at enmity with God. We are born opposed to God. And that is why in our very nature we are exposed to the wrath of God and justly so. close quote. We will be looking at Romans 1, which is what Dr. Sproul is getting at in a little bit. But what Adventism teaches and preview put forth is exactly that, a second probation. He used the phrase second chance at eternal life. But that’s what he’s referring to. Great controversy theology has zero answers for being by nature dead in sins and trespasses other than dismissing it

Like I said as some poetics on Paul’s part etc. But no, a person is by nature a child of wrath, dead in their sins and trespasses and needs made alive by being united to Jesus Christ through faith by the power of the Holy Spirit that regenerates that dead spirit raises a person to spiritual newness of life seats them with Christ in the heavenlies. Again, consistent with Pauline theology regarding representation. We aren’t physically there yet, but by virtue of being in him, we are there. As it pertains to a second probation, there is a lot that we could unpack

Here, but I want to look at a couple of statements from Ellen White on this which elaborate on what Mr. PBY is referring to. First, in the October 15, 1900 Bible echo, she said, quote, “As an infinite cost to heaven, we have been given a second probation. Then should not God be in all our thoughts? Should not his will control our actions?” Close quote. So, part of the reason for the incarnation, for those that do not know, in SDA theology is that Jesus purchased a second probation for mankind. probation obviously being a major doctrinal aspect of the SDA system of

Theology. Speaking on this further in the November 22nd, 1905 signs of the times under the heading what the judgment will reveal. She says, quote, “There will be no second probation in which to prepare for eternity. It is in this life that we are to put on the robe of Christ’s righteousness. This is our only opportunity to form characters for the home which Christ has made ready for those who obey his commandments. The days of our probation are fast closing. The end is near. Solemnly there came down to us through the centuries the warning words of our

Lord from the Mount of Olives. Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with suffering and drunkenness and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. Beware, lest it find you unready. Take heed lest you be found at the king’s feast without a wedding garment. In such an in such an hour as ye as ye think not, the son of man cometh. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Watch ye therefore and pray always that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that

Shall come to pass and to stand before the son of man. Close quote. So she claims that there won’t be another probation after this one to prepare for eternity. What she means by there won’t be a second probation is that she’s not counting Adams in that. She’s saying for humanity. Humanity’s probation is the second probation because Adams was the first one. But she’s saying there won’t be a second one for you after this life. This is the second one that Jesus secured for humanity after Adam broke the first. And this is insight into how the great

Controversy portrays salvation. Salvation is dependent upon you getting to a totally sinless condition, which is what putting on the robe of Christ’s righteousness is in their system. It’s this work that supposedly silences Satan’s accusations that the law can’t be kept and vindicates God’s character in the great controversy. So, it is entirely necessary, not trying your best like modern SDAs want to claim. That wasn’t alle Satan’s alleged accusation. You can’t try your best to keep the law. No, he said the law couldn’t be kept. Jesus came to demonstrate yes, it can.

They define sin as transgression of God’s law. Use your thinking cap, folks. Oh, and Jesus’s teaching in the sermon on the mount is supposedly supporting this. Jesus meant this, the definitions of how Ellen is using them here, the queen of outof context proof texting. But what this showcases is an inability to distinguish between law and gospel. There’s no law gospel distinction taking place in the SDA system. While it could be said that Adam was on a probationary period, Ellen and the SDA pioneers were borrowing this language from some of the Puritans and the

Reformers as per usual. But like everything else, it’s then twisted due to the great controversy theme which they filter it through and then given its own unique understanding because of that. Probation is not then restarted with Jesus who came to die and give a redo at doing what Adam failed to do, which is essentially what the SDA system of covenant theology teaches. Now, I’ve talked about this before. They’ve taken reformed covenant theology, filtered it through the great controversy theme using all the same language, and then they’ll point to those people as well

And be like, “That’s what the reformers believed.” No, they didn’t have a great controversy worldview. Nice try. Now, the general Adventist doesn’t understand this. They’re not thinking at that level. They’re just taking what’s being taught to them and believing it and they’ve heard these things said, but they don’t understand that they even have a great controversy worldview. That’s part of the problem of Adventism. You’re equipped with this lens that you don’t even understand that you have. It’s like the fish in the water. How do you The fish doesn’t know it’s in water

Because that’s all it knows type thing. But it’s this filtering through the great controversy theme that then distorts the gospel by claiming that the good news is about Jesus who can enable you to now keep the law, silence Satan’s accusations, and all the other fog that gets ported in from that that worldview that’s not found in scripture. The gospel isn’t whatever good news one decides to port into the term. But in the SDA case, the good news is being able to now do something you couldn’t do before and vindicate God by siding with Jesus in the great

Controversy. In fact, notice what SDA theologian Norman Gully explains. The SDA church means by the term substitutionary when they claim to affirm substitutionary atonement. This is not to be confused with the Protestant teaching of penal substitutionary atonement. This is from a 1990 uh Adventist Theological Society journal article was titled toward understanding the atonement. He writes quote rightly used the word substitutionary in no way conotes that Christ took our place in living a perfect life so that we do not need to be fitted for heaven.

It need not conote this any more than it conotes that he ascended to heaven in our place. The word substitutionary properly employed applies solely to Christ taking our place at the cross doing for us what we could never do for ourselves. That is perish in the second death. Revelation 26. And still live for eternity. In paying the price for our sins, he alone could be our substitute. This is the most glorious good news, the wondrous exchange. Close quote. So that’s what Norman Gully says. The good news is the gospel. And if you understand it through all the

Other stuff, for those of you that have been with us for a long time, all the other stuff we’ve looked at, you’re starting to get familiar with this worldview. Jesus was a substitute only on the cross in paying the penalty for death. And remember what they mean when they use the term fitted for heaven. sinless perfectionism. Jesus’s perfect passive and active obedience is not credited to you, which is the only possible way to meet the standard. Not having a second chance probation to try your best to keep the law with Jesus as your divine cheerleader, helping get you to a

Totally sinless state so that Satan can be silenced. No, no, no. Jesus is only your substitute at Calvary in paying the penalty for death. So do not be confused when they you when they say they believe in substitutionary atonement. They don’t mean what Protestants mean. They don’t mean that the believer is already seen as righteous strictly on the basis of Jesus himself and his perfect work in life. No, they’ll claim that if you put forth what I just did that you’re just giving an excuse to live carnally, typically engaging in the false dilemma

Fallacy. Either you agree with them or you believe this other thing over here. But notice he even says that Jesus being your substitute doesn’t conote that he ascended into heaven in your place either. I mean, wow. All this talk that we’ve done on the past few weeks on representation, what we just saw in Romans 5, Ephesians 2, no concept of that in Adventist theology. Jesus came primarily as an example, a helper. No different Christ, folks. False Christ. Yet this movement wants to b and scoff at Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, give me a break.

Folks, I have said I don’t know how many times, and I’m going to keep saying it over and over and over in hopes that especially former Adventists as they’re coming out of this mess, this movement does not understand union with Christ or any of Paul’s language around such. Like, what did we just read in Ephesians, folks? that when a person is regenerated, they are raised and seated with Christ in the heavenlies. This is representation language. This happens to a ver a person by virtue of Jesus doing such and one day it’s going to physically happen as well.

But because Mr. Gully assumes his physicalist worldview, it makes sense that he would say this. It makes sense that because they don’t understand the new birth, being born dead in sins and needing to be made alive, united to Christ, that he would also not be able to realize what else Paul says in Ephesians 2. You see the the human race God loved so much that he was willing to let his own being in the form of Jesus Christ become the sacrifice so that the human race can choose again for eternal life. Now that doesn’t apply just to us. That applies to every being

Who has ever lived. Those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ, those who have hated the name of Jesus Christ are alive and have an opportunity for eternal life because of what Jesus did that day. Is he the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? And God’s promises never fail. Notice the next paragraph. It says, “As soon as there was sin, there was a savior.” As soon as Adam sinned, the son of God presented himself as shortity for the human race with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when he died upon the cross of

Calvary. So in a very significant way, the moment of sin produces a savior. Not the moment of repentance even because Jesus steps in as a savior to save the race from extinction before they even know how serious the problem is. So in a very important way, the savior steps in right there. And in a nutshell, that’s why I don’t believe in definition a original sin. Because original sin says that in spite of what Jesus did in the Garden of Eden, in spite of what he did on the cross of Calvary, I am still paying for Adam’s sin. I am still condemned because of Adam. Now, when

Jesus pays for something, what do you think? Is it paid for or do I pay a little extra? Well, if he paid for Adam’s sin, then what am I doing paying for Adam’s sin? That doesn’t make any sense. Now, could Adam and Eve still have been lost after Jesus paid for the sin of taking of the forbidden tree? We obviously know what happened to Cain and Abel, right? God said, “Because this is so serious what you have done, I am going to ask you to do something that is really going to hurt. I’m going to ask you to take a lamb that has done no wrong to you at all and with your own

Hand take the life of that animal and watch the blood drain from its throat as an understanding of how serious your sin is and how big the remedy is. How much it will cost? What does Abel say to that? If that’s your will, I will do it. What does Cain say? Wasn’t my problem. It was my parents’ problem. I didn’t get into this mess. I don’t shouldn’t have to bring a lamb. I don’t even take care of lambs. I’ll just go off to the garden and find something left over that I can bring as an offering. Why was Cain lost? Because he rejected the remedy. He rejected the way out. He

Turned away from the solution. He rejected the cross. And as best I can tell, that’s the way we can be lost today is by rejecting the remedy. Wow. Again, what a distortion. Now, I don’t think this guy’s malicious or anything, but he clearly does not understand what he is criticizing, which is always ironic because many Adventists will levy this charge against critics of Adventism. Yet, we continue seeing leaders within this movement that are guilty of that exact thing. They have so much to say about everyone else, yet at every turn they constantly are

Butchering it. Again, this exact charge they make against any person that thinks to question their theology. He said the reason he rejects original sin is because it says that despite Jesus coming and dying on the cross of Calvary, man is still paying for Adam’s sin. Uh yeah, you haven’t been glorified yet. You still fall short of the glory of God, Mr. Preyb. Yes, you. You still live in fallen flesh that has yet to be glorified. Yes, despite Jesus having fully accomplished redemption in full, something that their seven steps through the sanctuary contradicts. By the way,

All of that work hasn’t been applied yet. Redemption accomplished and applied. two distinct categories. Certain things in scripture, folks, when are talking about redemption are talking about the accomplishment of redemption, that’s not the same as it being applied universally. It’s not like when Jesus died on the cross, every single person that saved had glorification, justification, s everything just applied to every single one of the individuals. But Adventist theology will conflate this. You have to catch this, especially if you’re a former Adventist, because

They’ll try and do this to justify the investigative judgment. I don’t think they do it purposely. I think that they’re not able to to see category distinctions. Sometimes they will conflate statements that talk about Jesus working on redemption or things that have to do with with Christ working and say, “If you don’t agree with the investigative judgment, well, then you think Jesus isn’t doing anything.” And they don’t understand the difference between redemption accomplished and applied.

But all the work of Christ has not been applied yet. Namely, the the curse being lifted off of creation that God placed on it, the the glorification and resurrection of the fallen flesh, etc. But this is insight into how the SDA framework shortcircuits the process of salvation, and doesn’t really understand glorification and what all that entails. And it’s because of their false view of the nature of man. But it also goes back to what I said earlier. This whole presentation is built on a false dichotomy. Sin is both a noun and a verb. It’s not an eitheror.

But he presents original sin here as strictly believing sin is only a noun, a condition. No, that’s not true. We just saw that earlier in the Belgic confession. People are not only condemned for Adam’s sin, sir. He hasn’t clarified that original sin and original guilt are not exactly a onetoone. Man is condemned for his own sin, not just because of Adam. But see that he presents it this way to make it sound like it’s this unfair thing. It’s all because of Adam. It’s not because anything the person does. No, that’s not true. It’s a both and, not an either or.

And one leads to the fact of the other. Like we saw in Romans, when Adam sinned, all sinned. Very clear. People cannot like it. You can call, you can say that’s Calvinism or whatever you want to say to make yourself feel better, but it doesn’t change the facts. That’s what the text says. Let’s hear your exposition of how this actually doesn’t mean what what Paul is saying here. But he tried saying Cain and Abel is a picture of those that trust what God says and those that affirm original sin. Again, zero biblical exposition. But Cain blamed his parents for his sin, but

Abel didn’t. I mean, again, what a twisting of the text. No, Cain is not a picture of original sin versus the great controversy position. like they will extrapolate so much out of biblical texts that have nothing to do with it. Just like we saw with Noah earlier, but this is insight into the common caricature I hear, which is that if you believe original sin, you provide an excuse to blame someone else for your sin, which coming from the Adventist system is rather rich considering Satan is blamed for sin. I’ve heard numerous Adventists uh uh that blame Satan for

Their sin, Mr. Prey. In fact, they blame Satan for far more than the Bible even speaks to. It’s like this system is obsessed with Satan. But no, original sin doesn’t then mean a person has an excuse to now blame someone else or that people aren’t lost because they reject Christ. That is a total caricature of the position and an overextending of it actually beyond its rightful bounds. I know not one single person that understands original sin, any sort of official source document that affirms the teaching that says people are people aren’t lost because they reject Christ, but simply

Because of Adam. I know no one that says that that affirms original sin. You see, definition A, original sin, says that every baby is born on a slippery slide right into hell. And some people say you have to baptize that baby quick so it doesn’t end up in hell in case it dies a couple of hours after birth. But I believe that every baby is born into this world in some important way facing the cross of Jesus Christ. That baby is alive because of the cross of Jesus Christ. That baby has a chance for eternal life because of the cross of Jesus Christ. And the only way that baby

Can get to hell in is by growing up and trampling over the cross to get there. My friends, God is trying to make it hard for sinners to be lost. He’s trying to put every barrier in the way so that we don’t end up in final destruction. All right. So, we mentioned the Roman Catholic view of original sin being washed away in infant baptisms, something we saw uh mentioned earlier in the Belgic confession that is rejected by it. But we still got no actual biblical exposition, just emotions, opinion, etc. Like, I thought this guy is supposed to be a part of the most robust

Theologically bulletproof system of theology that God has ever gifted to the human race. They’ve got the theological God particle supposedly the theory of everything. Yet, it’s not able to allow them to walk through the biblical text and exedute. Interesting. That was Ellen White’s special gift. Now, all they need to do is familiarize themselves with her commentary and analogies about cats and other things to present that inspired commentary. He said that baby is alive because of the cross of Jesus Christ. And this is why what we looked at in Ephesians 2 is

So important. No, Dennis, that baby is physically alive because of the provision of God in knitting it together and gifting it with physical life, but it is spiritually dead and not born united to Jesus Christ alive. Now, I I both believe that God has the freedom to save infants just like he does adults. And I believe that God does grant faith and regenerate lots of infants. But no, that baby is born spiritually dead and only physically alive. The great controversy worldview has no category for this because of their physicalist worldview, which is one of

The key culprits behind what he is putting forth here. And like I said earlier, Preby’s view is not informed by the biblical text, but a novel 20th century concoction called age of accountability, which was an emotional response to the idea of what happens to infants that die. Now, my personal opinion on infants that die, since scripture does not exhaustively tell us, is that God regenerates and saves them. I don’t think he’s obligated to do such because of some emotional reason like we have. Oh, but it’s a baby and whatever because I don’t think he’s obligated to

Save anyone. That’s not how grace works. But I do truly believe that God regenerates and saves infants that die in infancy. He said God is trying to make it hard for sinners to be lost, which is rather interesting considering losing your salvation in Adventist theology might be one of the easiest things possible. They shouldn’t even really say you’ve lost your salvation because you can’t even consistently know if you’re saved in the system. It’s still totally up in the air. I know modern SDA scholarship has tried to weasel out of this and use different words and but the system has

Not changed fundamentally. It can’t. But Mr. Prebby just cited Ellen White earlier as his support. Let’s look at a couple of statements that speak on this, shall we? Notice what she says. quote testimonies for the church volume 5. This is to the SDA church. For those that do not know, the testimonies of the church are councils from God through Ellen White to the SDA church. Quote, “Not one of us will receive the seal of God, while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul

Temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Close quote. So I guess having a single spot or stain on your character is hard to have, right, Dennis? We’ve looked at this quote before and how Ellen was chiding SDAs here regarding their sanctification that they weren’t pursuing it hard enough. And in that she explains that just because you go to church on Saturday doesn’t mean you’re going to receive the seal of God. That’s only part of it. You got to get your character like Jesus’s was a

Perfect identical copy of Jesus’s having his divine merits right uh essentially imparted to you. Seventh day Sabbath observance is only a part of that. And this is said in the same vein as the notorious Christ object lessons that the last generation theology proponents like Prebby love and admire that Jesus won’t return until the perfect character of Jesus is perfectly replicated in enough Seventh Day Adventists, which is what she’s getting at at the tail end there regarding the latter rain being poured out. But again, notice what else she says.

We’ve looked at this before. quote, “Do not appeal to your own sympathies. Do not dwell upon what Brother Jay has done or has neglected to do. Humble your own heart before God. You’re not to sit in judgment upon the case of others until you show greater wisdom in making straight paths for your own feet.” You may say, “Does Sister White think me all bad?” No, I do not. But one blot upon the character, one sin unconfessed and unrepented of will close for you the gates of the city of God. Close quote. Again, same vein. Chiding a man who was worried about

Other people’s sanctification. And she tells him that one single blot upon the character will keep a person from entering heaven. And it’s shameful that SDA scholarship will try and tell us that she was just being balanced here regarding not being lazy and needing to take seeking holy living seriously. Yeah. No, there’s a major difference between properly understanding the role of seeking holiness over and against tying it to if you will be found worthy of salvation. There’s a massive chasm there. Finally, and there are far more than this, but just in the interest of time,

We have looked at this numerous times. Great controversy. Quote, now while our great high priest is making the atonement for us, investigative judgment, remember when they use the word atonement, we’ve looked at it before from their book salvation, contours of adventiology. John Pauline, what does he say? When we use the word atonement, we refer to what Jesus is presently doing in heaven. Not the cross of Christ. That’s where the atoning sacrifice took place, not where the atonement took place. And he recognizes this in that quote, if you remember. He says, “When Christians

Refer to the atonement, they’re referring to the cross of Christ where redemption was accomplished, like I was saying earlier. But when Adventists use that term, we’re talking about what Jesus is doing presently in heaven. Understand that in conjunction with what Norman Gully said earlier about substitutionary, Jesus was only your substitute at the cross because he did what? Paid the penalty for sin, death. That’s where the atoning sacrifice took place. That’s it. Now while our great high priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Ah,

What does that mean? Not even by a thought could our savior be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold, some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of himself, “The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me.” John 14:30 Satan could find nothing in the son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept his father’s commandments and there was no sin in him that Satan could use to his advantage.

This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble. Close quote. Not just trying your best. Being perfect in Christ means you are in an identical condition that Jesus was in. Total perfection. How much sin was found in him? Zero. If not, when the time of trouble starts, Satan’s going to get you. So, while on probation, you better hurry up and get your perfected character locked in before the time of trouble starts or you won’t make it because that’s when probation ends. Time of trouble will begin when probation ends.

So, don’t try and tell us that Adventist theology proper teaches that salvation is hard to lose. God is making it as easy as he possibly can or these other claims they make to the dismissal of these types of statements from Ellen White. They love all the flowery quotes but want to entirely ignore rank heresy like these statements which clearly show ML Andreas and last generation theology came from Ellen White, not some fringe corner of the movement somewhere. But this is also insight into how weak and impotent the avenous God is. and why they should really just formally

Accept open theism and be done with it. And for those that do not know, open theism has been heavily spearheaded and pioneered by a guy by the name of Richard Rice, who’s a Seventh Day Adventist. Believe it or not, look it up. Richard Rice, he actually recently released a book. I need to get it actually. It’s on my list. came out in 2022 about open theism. Like, at least he’s honest enough and consistent enough to see that yes, Adventists, for those that do not know, open theism is the teaching that God does not know the future. They love to use this phrase dynamic

Omniscience, but they’re open theists. They don’t believe that God knows the future yet because it’s determined ultimately by man’s decisions. That’s the system of the great controversy theme. God, their God is a reactionary. He’s constantly things are happening and he’s having to figure out a plan now, hold the council meetings, and then he like responds to evil and then oh no, this happened. Now let’s go back over here. He’s just such an impotent being. He’s like a man being made in the image of God is physical form as well. And you have three of

These physical forms that are united in a mission, but they’re getting absolutely decimated in the great controversy. Satan’s totally rocking their world. He’s trying his best, but doesn’t know what the future actually holds. At least those that reject the eternal decree of God, like formal Armenians, Roman Catholics, even to some degree. There’s nuance there. But they don’t breach the omniscience of God by lowering him down to the level of a creature in terms of his fornowledge. But all throughout the great controversy narrative, we see the Adventist God is

Like a man. Now, he’s going to attempt another swing at the biblical text, the words of Jesus. Let’s see if we finally get some biblical exposition to engage with. Let’s see what Jesus says on this subject. We’re not not going to read all of these texts. Let’s turn to John chapter 9:es 1:3. John chapter 9:es 1:3. Jesus and his disciples are walking along the road one day and they come to a man who was blind. And this man happened to be blind from his birth. Which sparks a question in the disciples minds that they’ve been puzzling about for some time? Notice

Their question in John chapter 9 verse two. Master, who did sin? This man or his parents that he was born blind? See, they have a dilemma on their hands. They know he’s a sinner. How do they know? Just look at his eyes. He’s blind. Of course, he’s a sinner. Now, since he’s born that way, they need to know how that works. Did his parents do something very bad and he’s being punished for his parents’ sin or somehow someway can you sin in your mother’s womb before you’re born and then be punished with blindness? That’s their question. Look at Jesus

Answer. Neither have this man sinned, nor his parents. What is Jesus saying to his disciples? You’ve got your premise all wrong. You looked at his eyes and you decided he was a sinner. Blindness has nothing to do with guilt. Blindness has nothing to do with condemnation. Blindness is a result, a curse of Adam’s sin, but it is not the penalty for Adam’s sin. And then he adds, “But that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” In just a few moments, Jesus will show the works of God in contrast to the works of Satan, which is blindness. And he how does Jesus do that? Does

Jesus hold out his hand and say, “I forgive your blindness.” Is that what he does? Does do the man’s eyes need forgiving? Of course not. What do they need? They need healing. They need restoration. That’s what evil needs. And Jesus heals that man’s eyes. So evil needs healing. Restoration. Guilt needs forgiveness. Two different categories. All right. So, John 9 1-3 apparently proves that original sin isn’t true. He is again committing a serious category error. And it’s predicated on this faulty dichotomy that he set up earlier that sin is either an action or

A verb, but can’t be both apparently. But furthermore, this passage isn’t dealing with original sin. He did a version of word association fallacy here that because the word sin is mentioned and guilt and is being discussed by the apostles that means original sin can now be referenced by this passage. No, Mr. Prey, the man was still a sinner. The man was still a sinner. Just because he wasn’t wasn’t blind because of sin doesn’t mean he wasn’t still by nature a child of wrath dead in sins and trespasses needing to be made alive by the power of the Holy Spirit in

The fallen condemned prerogyny of Adam by nature. This was a serious category error on his part. Serious serious category error. And it shows once again he does not understand original sin because the great controversy worldview does not understand what it criticizes 90% of the time. Notice what again we’re going to be looking at a decent amount of Sproul tonight. Just kind of the way the chips fell tonight. Notice his commentary on John 9:2 and what he highlights in the text. He says, “Many first century Jews believed, as did Job’s friends, that

Every temporal misfortune was God’s punishment for some specific sin.” With a consensual affliction, the explanation could be that the sin had to be committed in the womb or by the parents whose sinful act victimized their child. In this instance, Jesus dismisses these as improper explanations. in John 9:3 the next verse. But this is not to say that certain trials are not God ordained chastisements for certain sins. In example, the life of David after his adultery and murder, including the death of his newborn son, 2 Samuel 12-21. Neither does Jesus here dismiss the

Doctrine of original sin. Romans 5:12-21 which teaches that all suffering is ultimately the consequence of our corporate sin and rebellion in Adam. But it is unwise and uncharitable to judge that the sufferings of others are specifically punitive. Matthew 7:1 or to assume a direct correlation between individual suffering and their degree of guilt. Luke 13 1-5. The question put to Jesus presents a false dilemma. Only two possibilities are given as reasons for the man’s affliction. How how own sin uh his own sin or the sin of his parents. That should say his own

Sin. His own sin or the sin of his parents. Jesus offers a third option in verse three. close quote. So the point in citing RC is to show that Dennis PBY does not understand what he is criticizing. RC affirmed original sin. Yet he recognizes both the verbal component actions that people commit and the nounal component, the condition one is in. It is not an eitheror. But like he he rightly recognizes this passage does not negate original sin. But Dr. Sproul also rightly highlights and recognizes what is contextually taking place in the larger narrative

That these verses fall in. Dennis embraced the false dilemma fallacy that the disciples presented as if it was valid and reads out of that that it must refute original sin. But in doing so, he misses the entire point which is the glory of God. He’s going to to say that this is going to show uh notice again he saw it through the lens of the great controversy that the glory of God is going to demonstrate Jesus waring with Satan and this dichotomy between evil and guilt which he’s going to bring up a chart here shortly and you’ll see. But no, the the glory of God in the text

Is that this man was born blind for this specific moment in time to where the Savior himself would pass by him, giving him his sight and bring glory to God. Think about that, man. Wow. This man blind from birth, the first thing he ever physically saw when ever was God in the flesh. Wow. Wow. And other people then coming to Christ because of this. Like, stop and think about that. You’ve never seen anything before, ever, and you open your eyes and God is there. Wow. But Adventist theology does this constantly. It misses the glorious focus of a passage. Makes it all about man or

Adventism. the great controversy which again is ultimately about you. You need God needs you to vindicate him. The conditional aspect and behavioral aspect of sin will both be fully exterminated at the point of glorification. We’re not there yet. You aren’t going to get there today unless Jesus returns today. It’s like one does not strive after holiness to try and vindicate God and prove that you can be trusted in heaven, which is a central part of the great controversy system. Now, one strives for holiness out of new desires from being a new creation,

Out of a new love for God that wasn’t previously present in your deadness of sins and trespasses, which Paul breaks down in Romans 1, 2, and 3, which we’re going to look at some here in a little bit. Let’s go to one other text here, John 5:es 24, and 25, where Jesus seems to contradict himself in two verses right next to each other. John 5 verse 24 verily that means truthfully I say unto you he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life according to the words of

Jesus when can you have everlasting life how about right now if you believe in Jesus Christ isn’t that what he said and then look at verse Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead, the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. These are the ones who have believed in Jesus Christ and supposedly have everlasting life, and he says they’re dead. Does Jesus contradict himself here? Or when Jesus stepped into the garden 6,000 years ago, did he separate death into two parts? Did he say to Adam, “Because of your

Sin, you’re going to have to go back to the dust. You’re going to have to go back to the place that you started from. But it is only temporary. It’s just asleep, Adam. Because if you trust in me, your life is hid in my hand. You have everlasting life.” So does Jesus does not contradict himself here because the first death is really a meaningless death folks. Let’s understand that clearly in the great controversy in the great picture. Only the second death is what counts and you can have everlasting life and still sleep for a period of time. Yes, the great controversy is most

Certainly what is informing all of this. I’m glad he at least recognizes that. But no, Mr. freebie in this system you cannot truly believe you have eternal life and there are so many reasons why I mean one of them is just in the fact that you guys don’t understand the nature of man correctly think about this folks it’s just basic if you just think about what’s being said regarding eternal life if you have eternal life right now but in the Adventist worldview you have eternal life right now you die before Jesus returns Where are you at during that period?

Well, your body returns to the dust. Your breath goes back to God, but there’s no consciousness at all. You will then be from the memory of God ported back into a new body of new particles. Your character that was locked in during your probationary period will be infused into this body such that you can be recognized. That’s already not you. That’s again, it’s like cloning. But no, you didn’t have eternal life. You had life, stopped, and then you’re now back again. And then that will be indefinite. So, it isn’t eternal because eternal life includes knowing the true God and

An indefinite existence. That’s just one of the reasons why you can’t have it in their system right now at least. But he said, ‘It sounds like there’s a contradiction in John 5 because Jesus seemed to say that you can have eternal life right now, but there are people who believed and were dead. So how can you square the two unless you believe like the SDA church teaches essentially Mr. PBY, the focus of this entire paricopy is Jesus equating himself with Yahweh. That’s one. The Jews knew that only the God of Israel had the ability to raise the dead. Jesus here tells them that he

Will do that. Not just that, but he also possessed all the authority to judge for condemnation in the final day. Something else that they knew God alone, Yahweh alone could do. So Jesus here is equating himself with God to the Jewish leadership and onlookers and us by way of his word. But it is in this context that Jesus speaks about the giving of life etc. So, a number of things to point out here, Dennis. One, Jesus’s words have to be understood not just in light of the immediate context, but also in light of all of scripture. John says the exact same thing in his

First epistle, which is that he wrote those things so that they may know that they have present tense eternal life. And there’s no there’s no following verse that appears to contradict that. Two, the same Jesus tells us what eternal life is in his high priestly prayer. And it is knowing the true God, being united to him, which is why it’s erroneous for them to claim that Christians believe the lie of Satan that all people have eternal life by virtue of having an immortal soul. No, eternal life is not simply having indefinite conscious experience.

It is knowing the true God. John 17:3. But three, John’s words in this paricopy destroy the SDA teaching of the investigative judgment. Because contextually Jesus says that all judgment has been given to the son by the father and it’s the son that will do the judging. This is Apostles Creed, folks. Like Christianity 101. Second stanza, Apostles Creed. This is something the Jews in the immediate context would have recognized as Jesus claiming equality with God. And rightly so, he was. He is. But the judgment in focus is not all judgment period. Not that there’s zero judgment a

Believer will come into at all. Like the Apostles Creed also states, Christians believe in a great day of judgment. But contextually, Jesus says believers won’t come into judgment for what? Condemnation. Which is why I’m glad he’s using the New King James here because it picks up on this. Yet, the investigative judgment will be a judgment for condemnation for those who don’t pass it. And the SDA church says it’s a judgment only for professing believers. But fourth, Dennis is assuming that by dead, Jesus referred to the SDA view of the nature of man.

But that isn’t the death in focus. Jesus says, quote, “An hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Close quote. Jesus isn’t talking about physical bodily resurrection yet in verse 24 and five. He’s talking about spiritual life, the spiritual deadness of man that Mr. Prebby and Adventists reject. Jesus is talking about the being made alive like we saw in Ephesians 2. Notice again what RC Sproul says in his commentary on John 5:25. He explains what the text is saying super succinctly on the phrase or on the

The the statement dead will hear the voice of the son of God. He he says the hour is now here verse 24 when those who are spiritually dead will hear Jesus’s voice that is hears my word and believes verse 24 and pass into spiritual life. It is not coincidental that one Greek version of Daniel 12 1-2 identifies the final resurrection to be at the time of an endtime hour. This end time hour of resurrection is not merely future but has already begun. In Ephesians 2 1-10, Paul describes conversion as God’s supernatural and gracious act, imparting life to those dead in trespasses and

Sins and raising them up with Christ. Close quote. But then in verses 28 and 29, which Dennis did not read, Jesus goes on to talk about eventually the resurrection of the dead physical body. And notice what RC also highlights on that. This is on the phrase all who are in the tombs. Quote, “In the hour that is coming, Jesus’s voice will summon the physically dead from their graves, either to enjoy eternal life or to endure condemnation.” Verses 28 and 9 are a clear reference to Daniel 121-2, which here refer to the physical consummation of the latter-day

Resurrection that has begun spiritually in Jesus’s followers. See comments on John 5:24-5, which we just looked at. Close quote. So, Mr. Preby’s physicalist worldview and his lack of looking at the fuller context causes him to be able to un or causes him to be unable to see Jesus’s full point. There is an hour that’s already here where life is being given, the new birth, the new creation. That’s why I’m telling you folks, this is all over the Bible. Adventists are always looking for where does it verbatim say this? Well, it does in 2 Corinthians 5,

But anything that talks about the new Adam, the second Adam, all of that, the the good works that we were created to to walk out in Ephesians 1 were made new creatures. His workmanship here, it’s all over the Bible. It’s everywhere. Yes, there’s a new creation. This is not to be confused with the new heaven, the new earth. It shows that the process of all that has already started. There’s something happening now. That’s what Jesus is talking about here. We looked at this in the the the first stream I did on the the with Mark Finley on the Sabbath.

We looked at this passage because in this passage they go on to try and condemn Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath. And he talks about how him and his father have been working since the creation. But notice he’s he’s speaking about the new birth. There’s an hour that’s already here. But then an hour is coming that hasn’t yet where the raising of the physical body will be raised on the day of judgment. Those who were united to Christ will not come into condemnation because, as Jesus explained, they’ve already passed from death to life. But those who didn’t pass

From death to life and aren’t born again will come into judgment for condemnation. He said in Genesis, God separated death into two parts. But unfortunately, misses that the two parts in focus in John 5 are physical death and spiritual death. not physical death and then death being like asleep. But five fifth thing I’d say that what he just claimed Dennis can’t actually believe a person has passed from death to life because man is only a physical creature in their view. He can’t understand the full orbed nature of Jesus’s statement which speaks not only

Of physical resurrection but spiritual as well. And sixthly, sixthly, the fact that John and Jesus both tell us believers present tense have eternal life must by necessity refute the SDA views uh of the SDA church’s view of the of man’s nature. Because like I said to reiterate, it’s not eternal life to cease to exist for a period and be brought back. Once you know and are united to the true God, that never ends. If your conscious awareness of the true God ceases for a season, then that by definition would not be eternal life because Jesus says eternal life is to

Know the true God. Well, they say the dead know nothing. Uh-oh. If you’re conscious awareness of the true God ceases for a season like they claim, they love Ecclesiastes. The dead know nothing. Well, Jesus says eternal life is to know the true God. John 17:3. Then by that definition, you wouldn’t have eternal life. There would be a break in that relationship of knowing the true God due to you ceasing to exist temporally. And he only retains a memory of you in his mind. There’s absolutely no apparent contradiction here by the Lord Jesus. only if you don’t see the bigger picture

Of what’s being said and you have a great controversy worldview that assumes a physicalist view of reality. But ironically again, it does create contradictions for the SDA system regarding coming into judgment for condemnation, going from death to life, and possessing eternal life right now. All things that contextually can be demonstrated if you look at more than just two verses. Now he’s going to transition to a graphic that I mentioned earlier and explain sin. All right, let’s see what we can put together out of this sin. The sin that Adam and Eve brought into

The world brought two phases of sin. Evil and guilt. the evil in our world, the problems in our world, suffering, pain, tornadoes, earthquakes, and our evil nature. And it brought guilt as well. Adam was guilty. We are guilty. Now, these two aspects of sin lead to two different results. The evil in our world leads to the first death, the natural result of Adam’s sin. The guilt of sin leads to hell. the second death which is the penalty for sin. So how does God handle these two aspects? Well, he forgives our guilt. He does not hold us guilty. When guilt is

Gone out of our present, what is gone out of our future? There’s no hell in your future. You don’t have to fear it at all. It doesn’t apply to you. Is evil gone out of your present at the same time that guilt is gone? Or does it stay? Your nature stays within you and the pain in this world stays as well. When is that taken care of? When Jesus comes. How does he take care of it? Not by forgiving, but by healing and by recreation. Two different aspects of sin handled in two separate ways by God. And most of the Christian world does not understand

That. They lump it all together as the disciples did on that day with Jesus. Two aspects must be kept separate or we will not understand what sin is and what the gospel is. So I want to note and remind everyone that Mr. PBY never dealt with the problem that Genesis presents for their position which is that Adam and Eve did die that day. A real living aspect of their being died. It wasn’t that death would merely begin now and a countdown timer on their life began ticking. One of the first thoughts that I had when hearing this was his misunderstanding of recreation

Or what he what we would call like I’ve mentioned the new creation. He mentioned it here but then he also said recreation. He seems to conflate that with glorification and resurrection. And in the SDA system, as we’ve looked at before, they don’t even really believe in resurrection. I mentioned this earlier. Notice this is from the SDA Bible commentary, which is quoting Ellen White’s book, Heaven, from page 40. SDA Bible commentary, volume 6. Quote, “Our personal identity is preserved in the resurrection, though not the same particles of matter or material

Substance as went into the grave. The wondrous works of God are a mystery to man. The spirit, the character of man, is returned to God. They’re to be preserved. In the resurrection, every man will have his own character. God in his own time will call forth the dead, giving again the breath of life and bidding the dry bones live. The same form will come forth, but it will be free from disease and every defect. It lives again bearing the same individuality of features so that friend will recognize friend. There is no law of God in nature which shows that God

Gives back the same identical particles of matter which compose the body before death. God shall give the righteous dead a body that will please him. Close quote. That’s what he means by recreation. But that is not resurrection. Nor does that accurately describe the new creation. 1 Corinthians 15:42 is clear. What is sown is raised. A new body of new particles was never sown to be raised. Jesus is the example that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 for the resurrection. Same body that uh is buried is raised. But he conflates that with the new creation.

Essentially glorification and resurrection. The Adventist definition of those two things, that’s the new creation. No sir, the the new creation is a present reality according to 2 Corinthians 5, Ephesians 1:10, like I said earlier, etc. The second thing is that wasn’t a full orb view of sin like we looked at in the beginning. Yet, he describes distinguishing between evil and guilt as the exhaustive understanding of sin. But no, it isn’t. and he claimed understanding that distinction is necessary to understanding what the gospel is. All right, we’re going going to go down

To section C. I’m going to go directly to John 9:41. John chapter 9 verse 41. Jesus is talking to the Pharisees and he says to them, “If ye were blind,” meaning if you were ignorant, ye should have no sin, but now ye say, “We see, we know what’s going on. Therefore, your sin remainth.” What is Jesus tying sin to here? very clearly he’s tying it to something called light, knowledge, understanding, and a choice based on that light. Were the Pharisees born with the same bad natures that we’re born with? But Jesus says, “If you truly did not know, meaning having no

Opportunity to know, you would have no sin in the sense of guilt. But now, since the light has come to you, you know what is true and you have rejected it. Therefore, your sin remains. pretty clear. Okay. So to support this dichotomy, he says John 9 is an example because the Pharisees had the same bad natures we have. But Jesus said they had no light which shows they weren’t guilty. But now that they did have light, that’s when the second aspect of sin, guilt, became present. Did you catch that? standard classic classical classical Adventist teaching on this.

This is to say, you’re only guilty of sins when you have light on them. Now, you’ll still physically die because of it, but if you’re ignorant, there’s no guilt present. So, let’s read John 9:35-41 and see what’s going on in this exchange because there is some more word association fallacy on Dennis’s part, namely with the word guilt. Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him. It is he who is speaking to you.” He

Said,”Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him. Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world that those who do not see may see, and those who may uh may become blind.” Oh, and those who see may become blind. Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt. But now that you say we see, your guilt remains.” Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So, leading up to this encounter, Jesus heals the man born blind. The Jewish leadership did not believe this man and

Began to question him. You go read the the fuller chapter. The man proceeds to tell them about Jesus who did this healing and the leaders begin to grumble amongst themselves as to where Jesus came from. They say that we know God spoke through Moses, but as for Jesus, they don’t know. To which the blind man tells them that never before has he heard of anyone who healed a man’s sight who was born blind. So if Jesus weren’t from God, he couldn’t have done it. to which the Pharisees respond in verse 34 by saying he was born in utter sin yet he was trying to teach them. So they

Mock and scoff amongst themselves. Say you’re saying this guy came from God. You’re this they were it was looking with their noses up at him. you were born in sin and you’re because of your you’re blind which is evidence that you were born in sin and you’re going to try and teach us get out of here that’s the sort of mentality basically claiming to be superior to him which leads to them casting this gentleman out then we see what we read Jesus hears this found the man and asked him do you believe in the son of man to which the man asked who is that that I

May believe in him to which the Lord tells him, it’s me. The man then believes on the Lord Jesus and worships him, which is a picture of conversion by means of literal eyesight being given. Jesus then tells them, “For judgment he came into the world that those who don’t see the ignorant and lowly might see that he is the Messiah, and that those who do see the arrogant Jewish leadership may become blind in missing that he’s the Jewish Messiah. This was foretold in the Old Testament, folks, namely in Isaiah, Isaiah 28 and elsewhere. John had has already told us in the

First chapter, John 1:11. Jesus came to his own, but they rejected him. That’s the Jewish people. He was the stone that the builders rejected and became a stumbling block of offense to them. The Pharisees then overhear Jesus’s discussion with the man and then seek to trap him like they always did. Well, what about us? Are we all so blind? Meaning, are we so dumb like the man who thinks he’s going to teach us? To which Jesus responds with, “If you were blind,” meaning physically blind, you’d have no guilt. But because you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Jesus is chiding them for claiming to be religious leaders who claim to know the law and the prophets. They have eyes physically to see supposedly. Yet the law and the prophets pointed to Jesus who was there in their midst, and they missed him. Yet a man who was physically blind was given his physical sight which pointed to the greater reality of him being given spiritual sight to see. This is the Lord. He’s the Messiah. This is the one that the scriptures foretold of. I believe this is Jesus in true fashion showcasing a divine irony. This pricky has nothing to do with

Saying the Jewish leaders weren’t guilty for their sin because they didn’t have light. So therefore, sin is divided into evil and guilt. Evil produces death, but guilt results in annihilation. What a miss. He completely misses the whole point of what’s being said. Jesus is pointing out a divine irony. You’re bing and scoffing at this man who was physically blind, who through being given his physical sight was able to recognize the law and the prophets pointed to me. You claim to be teachers of the law and the prophets and you have your physical sight and can’t even see.

Nothing about them not being guilty. This is the problem with the proof text hermeneutic of Adventism. I get frustrated when I hear this stuff, man. It’s like SDAs hear this stuff and just sounds good for whatever reason. It’s like, dude, you’re you’re not even getting what the Bible actually teaches. You’re getting Ellen White given to you with a couple verses read here and there with word association fallacy to make it appear like this is what the word of God is teaching. Oh, it misses the actual point that the author is trying to communicate and

Latches on to oftentimes single words like guilt and sin. All right, now to the next text that he’s going to cite. Claims it’s the clearest text on the subject in all of scripture. Let’s listen in. Turn to James 4:1 17, which I think is the clearest text in the entire Bible on this very controversial subject. James 4:1 17 doesn’t need a preacher, doesn’t need a commentary, just a careful reading of the verse. Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. To the one who knows and does not obey. Does a baby know? Then how can a baby be a sinner from

Birth? as I read in those statements that every baby is born a sinner to the one who knows and does it not. Turn to James chapter 1. All right. So, the Christian church in all of history was apparently unaware of James 4:17, which clearly refutes the idea that a baby can be a sinner. Once again, we get a lack of understanding that sin is both a verb and a noun. I mentioned this text in the introduction. No, it’s not some death blow to original sin. All it does is showcase that the standard SDA definition of sin, 1 John 3:4, is far too truncated.

But James 4:17 isn’t the end- all beall either, Mr. Prey. You have to understand James 4:17 in light of all of scripture. As we saw earlier, Romans 5 plainly shows that sin is not just a verb, but a noun. There is a conditional aspect. That’s precisely what the teaching of original sin is getting at. Not that actions can’t be sinful either. It’s strictly because of Adam. Yes, infants are born dead in sins and trespasses. Having a fallen nature doesn’t just mean having a bent towards sin like he seems to be putting forth. You do, but that’s not all it is.

It’s very telling that he claims this is the clearest passage in all of scripture on the subject when Paul actually dedicates half of an entire chapter, more if we want to actually be technical, to the subject, but he hasn’t even bothered to make mention of it. SDA theology has to reject representation and headship in order for their system to remain intact. But then in the same breath, the system also wants to try and tell us they believe in imputation, justification by faith, etc. No, they use those terms. You use those terms. Yes, but no, you use the two two phrases and

Terms, but define them in light of what has already been mentioned. The great controversy theme. When I say that, I’m saying that to the organization. By the way, folks, general SDA probably doesn’t understand at this level. They’re they’re not thinking on this level. They’re just genuinely going along. Believe this. What? Whatever. But those guys at the top, they under they know that’s who I’m talking to, not the general SDA tonight. So if you’re a general SDA, I’m not chiding you for this. But understand that is what you’re being taught in the

System. I don’t care what people say about Ellen White’s never mentioned at my church. Does not matter, folks. You you’re you don’t understand the bigger picture. You you don’t understand the bigger picture. This whole system is filtered through the great controversy theme at the highest levels and then is distributed down from there through the hierarchy. You are at the bottom of the stream getting the distilled down after all of that like PB is doing here. All PBY is doing is citing and regurgitating Ellen White right now. It’s her commentary on these verses that

He is then just putting in his own words. James 4:17 doesn’t pose any problems whatsoever for original sin because original sin is a doctrine arrived at looking at the totality of scripture. James 4 4:17 included, not just single proof text in isolation, which he’s going to continue now with James 1. James 1:14 and 15, the clearest definition of temptation that I have found in the Bible. And believe it or not, most Christians do not know the difference between temptation and sin. Check yourself very carefully right here. Make sure you know the difference.

Temptation in verse 14. But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Now the word lust means a desire for anything out of harmony with the will of God. It covers many categories. And it says his own coming out of his own or her own nature. So this desire which is a bad desire, an evil desire, comes out of our own natures and we’re pulled toward it. We’re enticed by it. You see, in this world of sin, temptation to be a temptation has to have two parts. When you watch the evening news, are you personally interested in trying

Everything you see and hear on the evening news at least once just to see what it will feel like? You’re not. Are there some things you see that you couldn’t be paid enough money to do? Were you tempted by that? It wasn’t the slightest temptation to you, was it? You were repulsed by it. But obviously, someone was tempted by it. Is that correct? Because it was on the evening news. So, you see, in this world of sin, Satan has many stimuli because we’re all different. many different attractions, hoping that one or two of those many stimuli will reach home to where we

Live, our own nature, and draw from within us a responsive cord. We’ll be drawn toward that stimulus. We’ll be enticed by it. That’s temptation. But you know what? The Christian world says, “No, no, that’s sin.” Should you be drawn toward that? Of course not. Is it evil to be drawn toward that? Yes, it is. Therefore, you have sinned because you were drawn, you were pulled, you were enticed by it. Even if you you said no to it, the very fact that you were drawn is your sin. That’s what the Christian world says. That’s definition A. But is that what we

Just read? Is it describing sin here? It’s describing temptation. Sin is in the next verse. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. Four steps. We’re drawn of our own nature. We’re enticed by it. We conceive something is being born. And what is being born is sin. Sin isn’t being born in still steps three and four. One and two are temptation. And yet the Christian world puts sin in step one. while the Bible puts sin in step three as the conceiving process. So once again, the Christian world has mistaken temptation for sin, evil nature for sin,

Birth state for sin when the Bible says no, it takes light to produce guilt in rejecting light. No sir, that that butchering of John that he did about light and guilt as we just saw. No. So this is now resting upon that and then now the butchering of of James chapter 1. No more analogies, no biblical exposition. But he claims that Christians confuse temptation with sin. And sure, some probably do, but he said the Christian world make it seem like some official Christian statements of faith or something like that. No, I I know not a single statement of

Faith, and I’ve read many. I know not one single one that says this. Not Protestant, not Roman Catholic, not Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc. Not a single one of them states that simply being tempted is a sin. However, Mr. Prey, pay very close attention to the word of God, sir. Colossians 3 1-10.

If then you have been raised with Christ, we hear that phrase again, seek the things that are above where Christ is, seated at the seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, what is earthly in you. Now, Paul’s going to list a bunch of sins. Sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

On account of these, the wrath of God is coming. In these you two once walked, when you were living in them, but now you must put them all away, anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices, and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So, just like we saw in Ephesians 2 with regards to being raised with Christ, the born again experience, talking about the

Spiritual rebirth, the new creation, if you’ve been raised with Christ, you’ve been seated with Christ in the heavenlies. So, set your mind on heavenly things and not on earthly things. We have died and our life has been hidden in Christ. I will note in passing, this is an example of how the word dead must be understood contextually, not ported over from verse to verse, always meaning the same thing. But Paul then explains what he means about what has died. And it’s the old man. And what is earthly refers to fleshly desires, one of which was what?

Evil desire. What is evil desire? being drawn toward evil, desiring it but not acting, something Mr. Prieb says isn’t actually a sin. Yes, sir. Some forms of temptation and enticement are sinful and they are only so for fallen humans because Jesus had no evil desires or temptations toward lust. For example, Jesus’s temptations came in the form of things that are inherent uh that are not inherently evil, such as food. He was tempted in his fasting experience with food. Well, that’s food is not sinful. That wasn’t an evil desire, even if he desired the food.

But he was tempted with it. It isn’t only sin when one acts upon evil desires. This shows once again that Dennis is operating on a less than full tank of gas when he is discussing this subject. Everything’s not always boiled down as simple and less nuanced as he thinks. Christians recognize the fuller orb and that it’s not always an eitheror. Same can be said for Jesus’s sermon on the mount. Yes, some temptations are sinful, not all temptations. Jesus was obviously tempted. doesn’t mean he had evil desires, sinful desires, etc. It’s like acting like

Christians are stupid and haven’t ever considered these verses is rather tonedeaf, but it’s so accurate in this world for those of you that did not come from this world. This is the sort of thing that just it’s just so normal in that world. They just talk about Christians like they’re idiots and like they’re here to just see they’re all wrong. They’re all that’s part of a cult. That’s what they do in cults is like can you believe all those clueless, you know, they’re not going to say it necessarily that bluntly. Some will, but that’s it just is saturated in that.

Like everyone else was stupid until they came along. It’s just ridiculous. And I’m going to let you read the other texts on your own. We’re going to go directly to the rest of the Spirit of Prophecy statements and look at some of them. On the first page of the spirit of prophecy statements in the middle of the page, patriarchs and prophets, page 306, it is inevitable that children should suffer from the consequences of parental wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents guilt except as they participate in their sins. Consequences, yes. Results, yes. Guilt, no, until

Participation. The last paragraph on the first page, Gospel Workers 162. Light makes manifest and reproves the errors that were concealed in darkness. And as light comes, the life and character of men must change correspondingly to be in harmony with it. Sins that were once sins of ignorance because of the blindness of the mind can no more be indulged in without incurring guilt. Notice very carefully. A sin of ignorance is when you do something that you do not know is wrong. Many, many people will keep their very first Sabbath on the way to heaven.

A sin of ignorance during their entire lives because no opportunity to know. But a sin of ignorance does not carry guilt with it according to what we have just read until the light comes. light changes a sin of ignorance which is evil into a sin of guilt for which I am responsible. Wow. Did he say that? So, we heard the 7-day trip to heaven that we’re going to stop along the way to keep the seventh day Sabbath claim. You’ll get Adventist and will tell you that I’m lying when I say this.

Yes, this is what many Adventists like Priy teach and believe because Ellen White said this. This is a perfect example of what I talk about a lot and that’s the bringing of Ellen White to the biblical text and interpreting it how she’s laid out. Adventists will ignore that the Adventist system of theology that is taught in the system has been distilled through this woman as the infallible interpreter and is then taught and they’ll point to a Bible verse and they think because they can point to a Bible verse and just so the 7-day trip to heaven they point to Revelation 8:1

There was silence in heaven for about a period of a half an hour. They then say that half an hour is about a 7-day period in prophetic time. And since it’s quiet and it’s talking about the second coming, it means Jesus is coming with the angels and it’s going to take seven days to get here. So, it’ll take seven days to go back. Therefore, it’s biblical. That’s what they mean by we have biblical support for this. Yeah. Give me a freaking break. Give me a break. No, no. He started by quoting Ellen White earlier, then cited biblical proof text, and then cites more Ellen White,

Which is using the language he used to describe what the Bible was supposedly saying. But as we saw, the idea he’s putting forth isn’t what the text is putting forth. The idea is not derived from biblical exesus. It is the doctrine in search of a text game. Hunting around for proof texts that sound like they can support an idea by virtue of doing word association fallacy and then claiming, “Wow, it’s entirely biblical.” Think about the practical application of what Dennis Prebby is putting forth by way of Ellen White. Sins that are committed in ignorance don’t actually

Deserve condemnation, damnation, etc. that only comes when there’s guilt and guilt is only incurred when you have light. This is why you will get Adventists that answer the question, “What about tribes in remote parts of the world where they’ve never heard of Jesus? What happens to them?” They’ll say, “Well, they’ll be saved based on the light they were given, based on how well they obeyed the light they were given.” Those people are only guilty if they have light given to them. Which would mean that sending missionaries to people would be the worst thing to do for them.

You should just hope they die in ignorance and not run the risk of taking the message to them, which is light, and then they reject it. Now they’re guilty. But if Adventism, Adventist theology understood Romans 1, Paul makes this very clear. Everyone’s without excuse. Notice what he says, folks. Like at this point, we’ve almost executed on the channel in the past like month Romans 1-5. Romans 1:18 through32 after giving his credentials. This is the start of his apologetic presentation of the gospel. Chapters 1 through 3 deal with sin. Chapters 3 through 11 deal with

Salvation, the remedy to the sin problem. and then service in in chapters 12-6. How should one now live as a Christian after hearing the gospel and being saved starting in verse 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that

Have been made. So they are without excuse. But hold up. Dennis Prey and Ellen White told us that some people don’t have light given to them and can’t be guilty of sin. They’re only evil and will die, but have not incurred guilt for their sin because that only comes when you have light. Yet Paul speaking about fallen humanity says that the wrath of God present tense is revealed from heaven against ungodliness and sin who in their sin suppressed the truth. What truth? The truth of God, the one true God. He’s revealed himself through the creation

Which is a testament to his eternal power and divine nature. One can look up at the stars and the ecosystem and clearly see this was designed. It’s far too fine-tuned and has the fingerprints of a creator all over it. And it’s because of this that fallen humanity is without excuse. This is integral to what he goes on to say in chapter 3 regarding all both Jews and Gentiles being in the same boat despite the law being given to the Jews. that apart from the law, there’s still condemnation that is due. Yes, even for Gentiles that didn’t have that light

Given to them. But Paul continues, verse 21, for although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore, God gave them up in their lust to the heart uh of Let me start that over. Therefore, God gave them up in their lust of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they

Exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever. Amen. So, fallen humanity actively rejects the creator because of the collective love of sin. This is what RC Sproul was mentioning earlier when talking about enmity. That’s what’s being talked about here. The natural enmity that fallen humanity has toward the creator who has revealed himself through general revelation. Paul goes on to say in the second chapter that the conscience of man is one of those ways. The creation itself is one

Of those ways. It generally reveals enough knowledge to a person that they are condemned for rejecting him. Fallen humanity actively rejects the creator because of their collective love of sin and that sin suppresses the truth. Humans humans exalt things like career, possessions, idols to the divine status to replace that innate knowledge of the true God that they are guilty before. The idea that guilt is only incurred when you have light flies in the face of this as all people have sufficient light for their condemnation. He continues, “For this reason God gave them up to

Dishonorable passions, for their women exchanged the natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women, and were consumed with passions for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are

Gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they do not or they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. So in their rejection of God, fallen man then slides into deeper depravity and debauchery. This is a present active wrath of God on the unrighteous. They’re given over to debased passions, a blinded mind, their God-given conscience becomes seared, it’s no longer convicted

Over sin, etc. That is a judgment from God on a person. The idea that all Paul has in mind here is that the individuals in focus only deserve to die physically but don’t incur any guilt, therefore aren’t guilty and worthy of damnation is totally foreign to the entire apologetic put forth by Paul through chapters 1-3. He very clearly explains God has given sufficient light through his eternal creative power that there is a creator. you are then stand before that creator liable. He goes on in chapter two to discuss the conscience and how God has designed

Humanity with an internal law unto oneself written upon the conscience. When you violate that and it convicts you to then go against that is sin. Paul says that’s enough light to condemn a person to predition. Not just death of the physical body, but and not guilt. This is the problem with this less than rigorous handling of the text and wrestling through it verse by verse. It relies far more on stories, analogies, proof texts, hopscotching around the Bible, etc. Turn to the last page of the Spirit of Prophecy Statements, page two, the second paragraph, testimonies,

Volume five, page 177. The sin of evil speaking begins with the cherishing of evil thoughts. Guile includes impurity in all its forms. An impure thought tolerated. Stop right there. Is it good or evil to have an impure thought come across your mind? It’s evil, isn’t it? Won’t you be glad when that is no longer the case? But that’s going to wait until the second coming of Jesus Christ. The impure thought tolerated, an unholy desire cherished, and the soul is contaminated, its integrity compromised. Can you guess what definition A says contaminates the

Soul? The impure thought untolerated, the unholy desire uncharished, and you’re still contaminated. You still sin. That’s what definition A says, the majority position of the Christian world. You don’t have to tolerate it. The very fact that it’s there makes you a sinner. That is the dominant view of sin throughout the Christian world and now increasingly in the 7th day Adventist church. This view is becoming very strong in Adventism that you don’t have to do anything. Just get yourself born with this bad equipment inside and you become a lost condemned sinner.

So according to him and Ellen White, no thought can actually be sinful and be deserved of condemnation. It’s only evil which is worthy of death but not guilt and condemnation. When an impure thought comes across the mind, it’s evil, he says. And remember his chart, evil is deserving of physical death, not hell. Mr. PBY, yes certain thoughts are sinful, sir. meaning condemnation, not just this false dichotomy you’ve inserted. The mind is touched by sin. The sermon on the mount, Jesus says, “Looking at someone with lust in the heart is sin despite not acting upon it.”

In Jesus’s teaching about defilement, that’s the context in Mark 7. Notice what he says. And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and they defile a person.” Sorry.

Notice what’s in that list. It isn’t what goes into a person that defiles them, but what comes out. And notice that evil thoughts is included with a bunch of sins. We’re really supposed to believe that by evil here, Jesus is only referring to this defilement leading to physical death, but not condemnation until light is given. Again, Romans 1 says there’s already sufficient light in creation, including the conscience, to condemn a person. Jesus is obviously showcasing that even the thoughts of a person are touched by sin. Thoughts are a part of what comes

From inside a person where true defilement lies. The psalmist, Psalm 139:19- 24, notice, “Oh, that you would slay the wicked, oh God. Oh men of blood, depart from me. They speak against you with malicious intent. Your enemies take your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate you, oh Lord, and do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with a complete hatred. I count them my enemies. Search me, oh God, and know my heart. Try me and know my thoughts and see if there be any grievous way in me and lead me in the everlasting way. David here doesn’t sound like he’s

Following the SDA temperance doctrines. He hates the wicked that rise up against the true God. He hates them with a perfect hatred. Well, that’s not very Christlike David. Nevertheless, he ends this crying out to God and partially an impregatory psalm by saying, “God, search me. See that I’m not like the wicked that are coming against me and hate you.” And he says, “Know my thoughts and see if there’s any grievous way in me.” The phrase grievous way is interesting. Notice what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on this word or this phrase. Is this commentary on Psalm 139:24?

And see if there be any wicked way in me. The margin reads way of pain or grief. The Hebrew word properly means in image idol. Isaiah 48:25 is another area. But it also means pain. 1 Chronicles 4:9, Isaiah 14:3. The word in the form used here does not occur elsewhere. Gasinius the lexican refers it here to idol worship. Dwit way of idols. Professor Alexander way of pain. The Septuagent and the Vulgate way of iniquity. So does Luther. The Syriak way of falsehood. Rosen Mueller way of idol. According to this, the prayer is that God would search him and see if there

Was anything in him that partook of the nature of idolatry or of defection from the true religion. Any tendency to go back from God to worship other gods to leave the worship of the true God as idolatry comprehends the sum of all that is evil as being alienation from the true God. The prayer is that there might be nothing found in his heart which tended to alienate him from God. It would indicate unfaithfulness or want of attachment to him. Ah so David was saying God search my mind my thoughts something only God can do. Romans 8 tells us that the Holy

Spirit searches the heart. But David asks God to do this and see if any sinful thoughts be in him. any tendencies to pull him toward idolatry that in his mind is he exalting an idol like those that hate the true God and were coming against him which means Mr. Prey idolatry can take place in the thoughts those thoughts then being sinful not just acting upon said thing acting upon it only compounds the sin so no I’m sorry Mr. Prebby, your inspired commentary wasn’t a very good one because what she’s presenting as divinely inspired is a very truncated

Understanding of sin that Christians don’t believe. Not only because it isn’t biblical, but because it’s an also very a uh it’s also a very narrowsighted view that misses the bigger picture. You know, it does feel contaminating, doesn’t it, to have this thought roam through your head. And so it does feel reasonable to say, “Well, that’s sin.” Do we go by what feels reasonable when determining sin and salvation? Or do we go by what God says in spite of our feelings? God says, “You are not contaminated until you tolerate and cherish that thought. You hold on to that thought.

You make it your thought. No longer is it a part of your nature. Now it is a part of your character.” And God is trying to change your character. He’ll take care of your nature at the second coming. But it is character that has to be changed today. And God is saying, “I need that fixed up before I take you to heaven.” And so character is the tolerating and the cherishing that turns temptation into sin. In this same paragraph, go down with me halfway down the paragraph after the second set of three dots, the second ellipsus. No man can be forced to transgress. His

Own consent must be first gained. The soul must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. And what a tragedy that Christian theology has turned temptation into sin. The next paragraph said the angel, “If light comes and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God. But before the light comes, there is no sin. For there is no light for them to reject.” I simply wonder if the English language could

Possibly be any clearer on this subject than what we have just read. Before the light comes, there is no sin. And yet the whole Christian world says before the light comes, there is sin. And we are just as guilty for the sin of our birth state as we are for the sin of stealing and lying, etc. All right, a round of applause for Dennis Prieb.

Because I could not agree more, sir. If the English language has any real concrete meaning, understanding Ellen White is very easy. Thank you, sir. Thank you for admitting the obvious that so many Adventists want to try and claim the opposite. When he reads Ellen White, it’s just it’s just obvious. It’s easy to understand when someone that’s reading critically though and using their critical thinking faculties, the exact same writings. No, no, no. They’re cryptic and you need someone to hold your hand to to really understand them. Okay. But he also said, “God says you’re

Not contaminated until you tolerate and cherish that thought. You make it your own thought.” Aka Ellen White said this and Jesus is supposedly speaking there. Except no, as we saw, yes, temptation and some thoughts, some temptation and some thoughts can absolutely be sinful. Not simply cherishing said thought and then it becoming a part of your character. We got an insight into the classical SDA misunderstanding again of glorification. That glorification will include nothing about a change in one’s character, only the nature. And we saw what that was

Earlier in regards to what they mean by resurrection. Not understanding that a person’s character is impacted by their nature. That’s why back in the Belgic confession, you notice that it mentioned the root problem. Because if you understand both the verbal and the nounal component of sin, there’s no problem here. These are not two things that are entirely separate from one another. your character and your nature. And like we saw from the SDA Bible commentary earlier, that is a different body that God will create and download your character into that new body such

That you’re recognizable. But since they don’t understand the actual nature and condition of man, they are led to these faulty sort of conclusions. But it’s also fascinating that he reads or or read Ellen White who said temptation can never be used as an excuse for sin. but then immediately said, “And how tragic that the Christian world has turned temptation into a sin, which seems to imply that Christians use temptation as an excuse for sin.” It’s like I wish he he would cite some sort of confession of faith, a formal statement of some sort, not just say the Christian world,

Because I’ve yet to see a Christian, a single Christian statement of faith that says temptation outright across the board is sin. And it’s an excuse for why somebody sins. Again, the book of Romans gets into this. If Mr. Prebby would get out of Ellen White’s head and dust off his Bible, he might be able to understand this. Notice Romans 7. Romans 7 1-6. Or do you not know, brothers? For I’m speaking to those who know the law. This was a mixed body of Christians, Jews and Gentiles. So he’s basically saying, I’m speaking to you Jews who this was given to. You

Should 100% understand this that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives. For a married woman is bound by law to her husband until he lives or while he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law. And if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to

Another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. Ah sinful passions. What are passions? Desires, urges, wants. Which mi which means Mr. PBY? Yes, certain desires, thoughts, etc. can be

Sinful by virtue of simply having them. Which is why the apostle goes on in the chapter to explain the war that takes place over the entire course of the believer’s life against sin, fighting the good fight to eventually have all of redemption applied. But Ellen White said before, a passion can become sinful, one’s own consent must first be gained, and the soul must what? purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason or iniquity triumph over conscience. Uh, no. Some passions in and of themselves are sinful, not all. Folks, this is why I’m say always saying

Adventists that believe in sinless perfection, such as Prieb only do so because of Ellen White’s very truncated, watered down, subjective view of sin. They only think this because the bar is so low that they actually think they hurdle it. They don’t understand the depths and the breadth of sin. Next paragraph. I love it. There are thoughts and feelings suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men. But if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt and no other is defiled by their influence. Do you praise God for

His mercy? Bible. He texts I’ve ever it is so he knows we’re caught in a bad situation. He knows we are faced with things that we can’t do anything about. And he says, “I will not hold you responsible for what you can’t control. I will only ask you to repulse it as hateful.” Amen. So my friends, we have taken a little look at this doctrine of sin. Why is it so important? Let’s say you believe in definition A. If we are condemned and guilty because of our birth state, then clearly Jesus Christ cannot take that state and be sinless, can he? He has to have a 4,000-year exemption from

Heredity. There is a church that teaches something like that, isn’t there? called the Immaculate Conception Doctrine. They apply it to Mary. Protestants apply it to Jesus. It’s the same doctrine, just one generation removed. And that requires a 4,000-year skip in heredity to believe definition A. And then, of course, if that’s true, then we will be sinning by nature until Jesus comes, which means that justification can be is the only solution for sin. Sanctification will only be partial. it’ll never be complete. Don’t count on sanctification, justification,

Forgiveness is the gospel. And if that’s true, how can we even begin to even think there can be perfection of character before the second coming of Christ? Because we will be sinning until Jesus comes. That’s the first gospel built on the first definition of sin. If you believe, however, that sin is choice, then Jesus can take our nature and be tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. And justification, forgiveness, and sanctification can work together in partnership in which the past is blotted out and the present is transformed. And God can pro perfect his people

Before the second coming. There can be a close of probation. Jesus actually can step out of the most holy place, put on the robes of justice, and there can be a people complete in him. Amen. Two different definitions of sin, my friends. Two different gospels built on that. This may be one of the most important decisions you make in your entire religious experience. What is sin? Because two different gospels flow out of it. And my friends, there are not two different gospels. There is the gospel of Jesus Christ and there is a counterfeit gospel just like there’s a

Counterfeit day of worship. And Satan is having more success in his counterfeit gospel within the 7th day Adventist church than any other counterfeit he has ever devised. It is sweeping through our beloved 7th day Adventist church. We need to know what we believe, why we believe it, and what is truth in contrast with error. So he ends by recapping and re uh reshowcasing the false dichotomy that he started with. But Mr. Prebby, I could not agree more. There is only one gospel. But it isn’t either of the two that we saw him present in the last part

That are present within Adventism. That’s another false dichotomy because there’s more than those two options. Both of those supposed gospels in Adventism are false gospels that are built on the same foundation of the great controversy worldview. Talk about embarrassing. No, Mr. Prey. The the the Immaculate Conception isn’t accepted by Protestants who then apply that to Jesus instead of Mary. Wow. It’s exclusively the teaching that Mary was miraculously conceived without sin. That extreme blunder aside, Mr. Prebby, no, it isn’t Roman Catholic to reject

Your guys’ twisted idea of the nature of Jesus Christ. Rome did not invent the idea that Jesus isn’t in the fallen line of the first Adam. This is why you’ll get Adventists that’ll tell you the new creation. That’s Roman Catholicism. Yeah, believe it or not, that doesn’t make something wrong just because Roman Catholics believe it. You understand that Roman Catholicism believes a lot of true things. Like a lot of true things more than Adventism. Such a joke. Rome didn’t invent the idea that Jesus isn’t in the fallen line of the first Adam. The Bible says this.

Had he even bothered to crack open the Bible for more than five minutes in this presentation and do some serious exam of entire passages, namely Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, he’d see this is what the Bible teaches. Rome just happens to be in line with scripture on this, whereas the SDA church isn’t. How ironic. Jesus is the second Adam. He’s Adam 2.0. He’s not in the fallen progyny of the first Adam like the Advenist Jesus is. This is also why the virgin birth is such an important doctrine and why his miraculous incarnation as the second Adam is also a very important

Doctrine. This is to say no it’s because of the Bible namely the large portions that you entirely ignored which are some of the more most important ones in this discussion. Don’t blame Roman Catholicism. Yes, believers will struggle with sin until Jesus comes. You too, sir. Romans 7 being the clearest example. It’s evidence actually that you’re a believer. Unbelievers don’t war with their sin. Jesus taught in the Lord’s prayer, which is to be a daily prayer. Something else I’ve heard SDA say that’s Roman Catholic to say the RF brother. Lord help us.

They got to stop with this man. You guys are going to have to stop with this silly. Jesus taught his disciples to pray the Our Father daily. Part of which includes we know this by him saying give us our daily bread. Part of this includes asking forgiveness for our sins. This was being taught to believers, not to the lost. The wicked aren’t the ones praying that asking asking Jesus how to pray. There are lots of areas in scripture that get into the lifelong struggle and war with sin that believers will have until they’re glorified. Again, we see the SDA claim that

Christians don’t take sanctification seriously as well. Because well, unless you affirm sinless perfectionism like Dennis Prebby puts forth, well, that means you don’t take holiness seriously. Such a joke. Such a joke. It’s only in a convoluted system like Adventism where this understanding of Christ’s nature and the human condition throws a wrench in the gears because in their system they teach sinless perfection and one has to get to that state to vindicate God in the great controversy. And Jesus came to demonstrate that it can be done. So he

Has to be identical to how we are with no advantages whatsoever, which that will ultimately um vindicate God in the end by Jesus demonstrating that man can keep the law, etc. That’s what’s ultimately in the driver’s seat in that system, not the Bible. They use the Bible like Prieb did, but it’s because of what Ellen said on any given passage. That’s what the passage really means. Not exposition, not exeetical work. We have to be praying for people like this, folks. Dennis Prieb, Adventist, etc. Make this a habit. Ask God to give them eyes to see and

Ears to hear that they would be cr If you’re an Adventist and you’re hearing this, I hope you are crushed under the weight of your sin so bad tonight that you can’t even fall asleep. that when you lay down in your bed tonight, it is like a a hot iron being stabbed into your conscience that you feel the flames of hell on your back that you realize, “Holy smokes, I’ve sinned against a holy God.” That God, his presence would come over you so strongly that you would feel overwhelming conviction that causes you to fall on your face and say, “Lord God,

Have mercy on me, a sinner. I am so unworthy. you are incredibly holy and that you will then experience the most incredible exhilaration from going from total fear to the most overwhelming peace. Oh, only the true God has that power folks to bring you to a point of total fear and trembling and then bring about absolute peace. Ah, I pray that you experience the true new birth, the true new creation, that you really understand what Jesus is saying when he says those that come to him find rest for their souls. I hope he raises you to spiritual newness of life, uniting you to Jesus

Christ, who yes, is the perfect representative of all of those that are in him, not just a substitute on the cross that well, he paid death, but that’s all for you to make you to give you a second probation, a second doover in the great contro and all this nonsense that you would experience. what it’s like when the perfect passive and active obedience of Christ, the only thing that can actually bring about being seen as righteous in in God cuz that’s the standard that you experience what that’s like credited to you when you understand that in full not this well all the past

Things and then now moving forward there’s this no because all of that mess that comes with the SCA that that’s using biblical language, Christian. No, it’s not the message. It’s not the good news. Thank God the real Christ is a perfect and powerful savior. Thank God that the true Christ is able to be a savior because he is one, not because he’s enabled to be one by you. Thank God for the real gospel, folks. May we take this gospel to the whole world, including Adventists, and watch God do what he does best, redeem sinners and bring life, making

Dry bones live. Jesus Christ is alive right now. He’s actually alive currently. He’s going to come back one day. Be ready. Be ready. Not in the way that Adventism teaches. That’s not going to have you ready. You can do all the checklist. You can do all the stuff that the SDA church says. That’s not going to have you ready. You need to experience what I just talked about because that will actually change your life. And then you’ll know that you’re ready because of Christ, not because of you, not because of am I doing this good enough or am I doing

That good enough. That stuff comes as a byproduct. You can rest secured in Christ. Thank you for being here and may God richly bless you in the grace and peace won by Jesus Christ and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners.