Suppose a criminal in court ...

[Ronald R. Walker, M.D.]

Dear ARCA:

 

Hmmm ....  Another attack on my statement:

 

"Christians, true Christians, fall, they sin -- their lifestyles should not be characteristic of constant, unrestrained sinning, but they may occasionally (or slightly more than occasionally) fall and sin ... "

 

Interesting how the last part of my statement is always omitted:

 

" -- this does not make them non-Christians, it makes them Christians who need the forgiveness/purification from their Lord and SAVIOR and who need to work at their relationship with their saving Lord, for He is the ROOT of their salvation, while good works and non-sinning is the FRUIT of their salvation."

 

Ah, the outrage from Cindy, when I quoted Harold Kupp's statement ...

 

"It is no secret that I often do not act in love"   (HK)

... and did not quote the second part of his statement (cf. my post, "Harold Kupp and the 'Counterfeit Christian'").

 

Yet, the Kuppites have no reservations about quoting only a part of my statement.

 

The latest attack from the Kupp Korner is another EGW quotation.  Amazing how they continue to try to disprove what the Scriptures teach by quoting EGW.  Of course, SDA's have repeatedly shown that Kuppites [who are NOT SDA's] regularly misinterpret EGW, so we should see if they have heeded our attempts to help them to understand EGW.

 

Let's see what they have quoted:

 

Suppose a criminal in court, who had violated the law of his State, should make his plea that he had generally obeyed the laws.  He had only stolen his neighbor's goods occasionally, and had led an honest life for the most part; would that relieve justice from executing the penalty?  Could a just judge and jury bring in a verdict "not guilty"?  You can see the absurdity of the case, and yet men of intelligence in all worldly affairs are not wise in matters pertaining to their eternal salvation.  {ST, December 15, 1887, par. 8}

 

[BTW, Lamarr, I did note the date!]

 

Now, let's see who EGW is talking about!

 

"To excuse sin on the plea that God is lax in his government is dishonoring to the great Governor of the universe, and perilous to man.  It is an attempt to belittle his requirements, and to take away the force of law."  {par.1}

 

In the article in question, EGW deals with those who are not keeping the Law and making excuses for not keeping the Law.

 

I have posted, and defended using the Scriptures, EGW and SDA Theology, the following definition of sin:

 

"Any deviation from the will of God, whether by thought, word or action, is sin."

 

Of course, the Kupp Korner rejects such a definition of sin.  We have heard the claim "I do not commit sin", followed by various excuses for sin, such as, I didn't know, it wasn't a sin, just a trespass, lustful thoughts are sin only if you act on them, besides, Jesus was tempted by evil thoughts and He was tempted when He was drawn away of his own lust, etc.

 

Instead of the Kuppite excuses, I have posted (in a thread entitled, "The Law"):

 

The apostle Paul (I figure that I am going to have to qualify the name "Paul" since we have a good Christian, Paul, who posts on the NG [ :-) ]),
uses an interesting analogy in Romans 7.  The fallen man is "married" to the Law.  To be a Christian he (or she) wants to marry Christ Jesus, but as long as either the Law or the fallen man lives, marrying Christ Jesus would be adultery.  Now, those who preach that the Law has been totally abolished, would say that the Law died to free the Christian to marry Christ Jesus.  But it is not the Law that dies -- it is the fallen man!  He dies and is resurrected, free to marry Christ Jesus.  Now, if we compare the Law and the Character of God, we find that the same words are used to describe both.  What is the difference?  Everything in the world!  While the Law is unable to give us the strength to obey or forgive us if we fail, Christ Jesus, who loves us, can do both.  Through our relationship with Him, He remakes us into His image, His character (of which the Law is a reflection), a lifetime process.  Does our being married to Christ Jesus give us license to act contrary to His character?  No.  If we love someone, then we want to do anything we can to please that person and avoid doing anything that displeases that person, because we love that person, not because we feel obligated to follow a rule.  The same is true of our love/marriage to Christ Jesus.  Because we love Him, we naturally want to do what pleases Him and avoid doing anything that displeases Him, not out of obligation, but out of love.  If we start working harder to keep the Law, instead of working harder on our relationship with the Law-Giver, Christ Jesus, then we again place ourselves "under the law", re-marry the Law -- adultery!  A beautiful illustration!

"Anything", not excuses.

But let us move on to the paragraphs immediately preceding the opening EGW quotation:

"If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," and to this refuge the repentant soul turns to plead the merits of his Saviour's blood.  But while the blood of Christ avails for the repenting soul, Christ is not the minister of sin, and there is no peace, no assurance, no genuine hope, for anyone who ignores the claims of God's law and tramples upon its just demands."  {par 6}

Here EGW contrasts the unrepentant sinner, who attempts to excuse sin, "who IGNORES the claims of God's law", with "the repentant soul" who, instead of excusing his (or her sin), repents of his (or her) sin.

It is interesting that EGW continues ...

... To suppose that a few deeds of beneficence or the performance of duty will cancel a life-time of sin, is a blindness ...  {par.6}

... showing that the unrepentant sinner, that she is describing, is not the sinner who occasionally falls, but one who has a "life-time of sin", a habitual sinner.  As I have shown in multiple posts expositing 1 John (from where the opening verse of this paragraph was taken), the Apostle John also contrasted those who sinned habitually with those who did not sin habitually, as EGW has done here.

In the next paragraph, EGW now indicates the more specific reason for her post -- she is addressing those who did not obey the Sabbath Commandment:

The sinner may plead he has been doing good in most things, but in order not to be out of harmony with the world, he did not obey the fourth commandment, but kept the day the world observed.  He has on the whole obeyed more that he has disregarded the commandments of God.  Would this reasoning stand approved before the courts of Jehovah?  {par. 7}

By extension, this admonition can be used to address anyone who, by choice and lifestyle, "has disregarded the commandments of God".  As we have seen above, EGW is not admonishing the "repentant soul" where "the blood of Christ avails the repenting soul", but again the unrepentant sinner, who regularly ignores and disregards one or more of the commandments of God, and who attempts to excuse his (or her) actions rather than repent.

It is this context, including the question, "Would this reasoning stand approved before the courts of Jehovah?" that EGW then writes the paragraph that was submitted to prove that I was contradicting EGW, when I stated that Christians sin occasionally:

Suppose a criminal in court, who had violated the law of his State, should make his plea that he had generally obeyed the laws.  He had only stolen his neighbor's goods occasionally, and had led an honest life for the most part; would that relieve justice from executing the penalty?  Could a just judge and jury bring in a verdict "not guilty"?  You can see the absurdity of the case, and yet men of intelligence in all worldly affairs are not wise in matters pertaining to their eternal salvation.  {par. 8}

 

From the context, we see that EGW is NOT addressing the repentant sinner who occasionally sins in the above paragraph, but is addressing the unrepentant sinner who again is attempting to excuse his (or her) actions, who thinks that the excuses will bring in a "not guilty" verdict.

Now, have I indicated that an unrepentant sinner is "not guilty"?  Absolutely not.  As a matter of record, I have posted the following, which was used to answer the Kuppite implication that I taught that "men can continue to disobey the commandments of God and still have eternal life" (so the excuse, I didn't know, is useless):

As long as the Christian confesses and repents his (or her) sin to God, then that Christian is forgiven.  However, if the Christian constantly rejects the working of the Holy Spirit to convict that Christian of sin, where that Christian no longer responds to the Holy Spirit and that Christian fails to confess and repent of sin and dies in that state (the "unpardonable sin"), then that Christian is finally lost, is apostate, is an adversary of God, and must face the judgment and consuming fire.

 

Therefore, I was not contradicting EGW with my "occasionally" statement.

As a matter of fact, EGW wrote:

There are those who have known the pardoning love of Christ and who really desire to be children of God, yet they realize that their character is imperfect, their life faulty, and they are ready to doubt whether their hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit.  To such I would say, Do not draw back in despair.  We shall OFTEN have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus because of our shortcomings and mistakes, but we are not to be discouraged.  Even if we are overcome by the enemy, we are not cast off, not forsaken and rejected of God.  No; Christ is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.  Said the beloved John, "These things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1.  [EMPHASIS ADDED.  COMMENT:  Notice how this ties together with the quotation from the ST article in question, where she began paragraph 6 with same 1 John quotation, "If any man sin ..." again showing that she was not addressing the repentant sinner in her article, but the unrepentant sinner, who attempted to excuse habitual sin.]

And:

Even those who are striving in sincerity to keep the law of God, are not always free from sin.  Through some deceptive temptation, they are deceived, and fall into error.  But when their sin comes home to their conscience, they see themselves condemned in the light of the holy precepts of God's law; but they do not war against the law which condemns them; they repent of their sin, and seek pardon through the merit of Christ, who died for their sins in order that they might be justified by faith in his blood.  They do not avoid confession and repentance when the neglected law of God is brought to their attention, by exclaiming, as do the self-righteous pretenders to holiness, "I am sanctified, I am holy, and I can not sin."  This is the class whom the apostle rebukes; for he says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."  {ST, 30 April 1896, par. 5}   [EMPHASIS ADDED]

Was EGW contradicting herself, when she wrote that Christians "shall often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus" because of our sins (note the use of the quotation from 1 John indicating that she was addressing "sin") and that Christians "are not always free from sin"?  No.  In the ST article in question, as stated above, EGW was NOT addressing the repentant sinner who occasionally sins, but is addressing the unrepentant sinner who again is attempting to excuse his (or her) habitual actions, who thinks that the excuses will bring in a "not guilty" verdict.

Since EGW was quoted in an attempt to condemn and criticize me for stating that Christians sin occasionally (while EGW used the word "often"), I found the closing statements of the last quotation that I posted from EGW interesting:

They do not avoid confession and repentance when the neglected law of God is brought to their attention, by exclaiming, as do the self-righteous pretenders to holiness, "I am sanctified, I am holy, and I can not sin."  This is the class whom the apostle rebukes; for he says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 

I found this last quotation interesting, not only in view of the Kuppite claim "I do not commit sin", but because of the statements made by EGW near the end of the ST article in question:

The Christian ... will not be of that class who are fond of lecturing others, sermonizing, condemning, criticizing, but will become meek and lowly in heart, representing Jesus, the Light of the world.  There is not need of being offensive in character, officiously taking a position above the brethren to point out their errors.  This is the position of the Pharisee ..."  {par. 12, 13}

Hopefully, this was helpful.

Doulos Xristou 'Ieesou,

Ron R. Walker, M.D.

 

[Andrew]

"Ronald R. Walker, M.D." wrote:
Dear ARCA:

Ah, the outrage from Cindy, when I quoted Harold Kupp's statement ...

"It is no secret that I often do not act in love" (HK)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cindy has not always manifested the spirit she has now, but has previously acknowledged
the dark character of Harold's "god" whom she said was "abhorrent," "demands perfection"
and was "a sinner."

She is now endorsing Harold's posts which have not changed in substance or character from
then, which therefore means she has now accepted his "god," whom she has previously cond-
emned and contrasted with "the true God." Cindy has dramatically changed since then, and
since she is quoting OTHERS from 4-5 years back, she should not mind me quoting her now:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3dc40ae3%40reseller.nntpserver.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Harold,

I am done with your accusations of the true God, in order to justify
your opinions and beliefs. The only thing worse than accusing the
brethren is accusing God. The accuser is Satan.

All sin is abhorant, your God who you believe transgresses his own law
is Abhorant to me. He is a sinner and is not Just, he hates, kills,
tortures, demands perfection and Is far from that himself, he is a
hypocrite and a liar. And he was a murderer from the beginning.

Please do not email me again unless you give up your worship of hate
and death.

I will keep you in my prayers.

~ Cindy

[Truth]

Dear Readers,

We are warned that in the time of trouble our own words will be brought
up and be used against us and to be careful of what we say.

It is no secret that Harold and I have disagreed, the problem was not in
our disagreeing the problem was in how we disagreed, it led to assuming
and misunderstanding.

Taking words back is rather like trying to put toothpaste back in the
tube.
I cannot do it, however Harold has forgiven me.

And while many may assume, that as he and I support each other where
God's word and truth and our personal convictions are concerned, that
means we agree on everything, that is not true. Neither of us will
support what we do not agree with for the sake of friendship, I would
have it no other way.

We can disagree and do, we just handle it differently now, I can't help
it if you do not notice, nor do I really care.

"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he
is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke
unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so
much the more, as ye see the day approaching Preach the word; be instant
in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering
and doctrine.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness." Heb 10, 2 Tim 4 & 2 tim3:16

I do not know what Andrews motive and intent is here, but since he has
been trying to teach me about love, and Christian fruits, apparently
this is his way of demonstrating his, I leave him to his demonstration.

~ Cindy

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:bm09jh$h73nv$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

[Alan M]

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in message
news:7a4a56f3740e3361...@news.teranews.com...

> Dear Readers,
>
> We are warned that in the time of trouble our own words will be brought
> up and be used against us and to be careful of what we say.
>

If that's the case Cindy, the time of trouble has been forever. For
instance, someone else in this group is continually referring to statements
made years ago, if at all. You don't seem to have a problem with this.

> It is no secret that Harold and I have disagreed, the problem was not in
> our disagreeing the problem was in how we disagreed, it led to assuming
> and misunderstanding.
>
> Taking words back is rather like trying to put toothpaste back in the
> tube.
> I cannot do it, however Harold has forgiven me.

Plus there'll be some cleaner teeth with the extra toothpaste.

[Truth]

"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:wcVgb.141893$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> "Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in
message
> news:7a4a56f3740e3361...@news.teranews.com...
> > Dear Readers,
> >
> > We are warned that in the time of trouble our own words will be
brought
> > up and be used against us and to be careful of what we say.
> >
>
> If that's the case Cindy, the time of trouble has been forever. For
> instance, someone else in this group is continually referring to
statements
> made years ago, if at all. You don't seem to have a problem with this.

It depends on if the words quoted apply to the subject matter, and
whether the person quoted is still saying and doing the same things, so
that the issue is still there.

What I object to, and will never condone is bringing up something
someone has repented of, and is no longer doing. Someone who repents
will do all they can to correct or make right that matter.These fruits
of repentance are able to be seen, unlike people who say "I'm sorry" and
then keep doing the same thing, as I used to do before I knew any
better.

Bringing up something from the past in the case where a person has
repented and is no longer doing the same thing, or saying the same thing
is not really an accusation against them, I believe it as an accusation
against Christ himself. The Accuser has put the blood of Jesus on trial,
and judged that Jesus cannot blot out another's sins,or save them, which
leaves the question of how they believe he can blot out theirs and
enable them to overcome?

~ Cindy

<snip>

[Truth]

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in
message news:d706de67eba309bb...@news.teranews.com...

I don't want to be misunderstood here, so let me just add this to
clarify, my words above have to do with bringing up the past to accuse
with. Using words from the past as an example, to explain, without the
intent to accuse or condemn the person now, is NOT what I was referring
to.

~ Cindy
>
>
> ~ Cindy
>
> <snip>
>
>

[Andrew]

"Cindy" wrote:
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood here, so let me just add this to
> clarify, my words above have to do with bringing up the past to accuse
> with.

This is something you would never do. Is this correct, Cindy?

[Andrew]

"Cindy" wrote:
>
> Dear Readers,
>
> We are warned that in the time of trouble our own words will be brought
> up and be used against us and to be careful of what we say.

Mr. Seeber has seen the fulfillment of the above, and now Teresita.

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bm1dad$h9ve2$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

Andrew,
If I have brought up anything that someone has repented of and
apologised for in order to accuse them, then kindly point it out, so
that I may apologise to them, and make it right.

Teresita and Seeber have not repented that I know of, and still have the
same beliefs. I cannot help it if you are choosing to defend them
anyway, it just demonstrates once again that murder and blasphemy is Ok
with you. It isn't with me.

~ Cindy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Andrew]

"Truth" wrote:
>
> I do not know what Andrews motive and intent is here,

Simply to illustrate how you have dramatically changed - that you did at one time have
a very different perspective and spirit. Didn't think you would mind since this was your
personal modus operandi. I thought I stated it clearly below.. In your subsequent posts
you testified in support of my premise that you indeed HAVE changed.

[Alan M]

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in message

news:d706de67eba309bb...@news.teranews.com...

Cindy,

I agree with your qualification on the subject matter and the principle of
repentance. In taking the discussion forward, I'll offer a different
perspective:

Past events can be raised whether someone repents or not. I don't believe
this is an accusation against Christ. If something happened, it happened.
The motives behind raising such events may well be mischievous, but if
someone has truly changed they should be able to rise above such tactics.
Generally I believe in giving people another chance. Some of my posts may
not indicate this belief but I don't claim to be perfect either. In your
case, I can remember the disagreement you had with Harold. You now say there
was misunderstanding and it's been resolved. I'll simply believe you, but
others may not. All you can do is correct them.

[Truth]

"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message

news:7axhb.144994$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Cindy,
>
> I agree with your qualification on the subject matter and the
principle of
> repentance. In taking the discussion forward, I'll offer a different
> perspective:
>
> Past events can be raised whether someone repents or not. I don't
believe
> this is an accusation against Christ.

Me neither. I realized after I wrote this post I did not express what I
was trying to say very clearly.
So thanks for giving me an oportunity to clarify.
I previously posted a story on this NG which more clearly demonstrates
what I was trying to say I will never condone. I am reposting it here,
at the end of this post.

If something happened, it happened.
> The motives behind raising such events may well be mischievous, but if
> someone has truly changed they should be able to rise above such
tactics.
> Generally I believe in giving people another chance. Some of my posts
may
> not indicate this belief but I don't claim to be perfect either. In
your
> case, I can remember the disagreement you had with Harold. You now say
there
> was misunderstanding and it's been resolved. I'll simply believe you,
but
> others may not. All you can do is correct them.
>

Thank you Alan. It has been my experience, (and learned painfully) that
most misunderstandings arise, not because of what someone says, but
because of how we perceive what someone says. We see them through a fog
made up of our opinions and feelings and then we assume, and project all
this on them.... This is not righteous judgment.

It is better to clarify things before forming a opinion which is based
on facts, better to ask "How do you know this?", "why would you say
this?", "What did you mean by this..?" or rephrase it, and ask "is this
what you were saying..?"etc.. Honest people will explain their
reasoning,with evidence or proof.

However when you question someone, and they refuse to answer, then what
are you to think?

It is also my experience that those who refuse to answer are not being
honest, either with others, or with themselves. To answer in that case
would be an admission they are wrong, and they either can't or won't
admit that. To my shame, I have been there myself also, pride is a
terrible thing.

As Christians we can't afford to have that kind of attitude. It really
matters not if we "were" wrong, what matters is learning and not
continuing to be wrong. Jesus is the only way to do this. My two cents.
:-)

~ Cindy

"One night in a church service a young woman felt the tug of God at her
heart. She responded to God's call and accepted Jesus as her Lord and
Saviour, she repented and made him Lord, committing herself to follow
Him no matter what the cost. The young woman had a very rough past,
involving alcohol, drugs, and prostitution. But, the change in her was
evident.

As time went on she became a faithful member of the church. She
eventually became involved in the ministry, teaching young children. It
was not very long until this faithful young woman had caught the eye and
heart of the pastor's son. The relationship grew and they began to make
wedding plans. That is when the problems began.

You see, about one half of the church did not think that a woman with a
past such as hers was suitable for a pastor's son. The church began to
argue and fight about the matter. So they decided to have a meeting. As
the people made their arguments and tensions increased, the meeting was
getting completely out of hand. The young woman became very upset about
all the things being brought up about her past. As she began to cry the
pastor's son stood to speak. He could not bear the pain it was causing
his wife-to-be. He began to speak and his statement was this, "My
fiancee's past is not what is on trial here. What you are questioning is
the ability of the blood of Jesus to wash away sin. Today you have put
the blood of Jesus on trial. So, does it wash away sin or not?"

The whole church began to weep as they realized that they had been
slandering the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Too often, even as
Christians, we bring up the past and use it as a weapon against our
brothers and sisters. Forgiveness is a very foundational part of the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. If the blood of Jesus does not cleanse
the other person completely then it cannot cleanse us completely.

If that is the case, then we are all in a lot of trouble. What can wash
away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus! End of case!!! "Cast your
burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain you. He shall never suffer
the righteous to be moved. Psalm 55:22" - author anon.

[Truth]

"Ronald R. Walker, M.D." <ron.walk...@starband.net> wrote in
message news:AGsgb.1374$Lm7.79...@twister2.starband.net...

Ronald,

Does Repentance in your understanding involve ceasing to do the sin that
has been repented of?

If someone say, me, apologised for something and
continued to do it occasionally would that be true repentance?

If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him,
is it possible for you to wilfully sin, as long as you are doing this?

I have asked you this in many ways before.
I am not interested in another encyclopdia like, or dictionary like
explanation at this point.

Would it be possible for you to just answer yes, or no?
And reserve your why's and how's etc,for another post?

~ Cindy

[Andrew]

> Does Repentance in your understanding involve ceasing to do the sin that
> has been repented of?

Yes, but we shall often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus, and IF we are
overcome we are not rejected by God, THERE IS AN ADVOCATE with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous.

"We shall often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus because of our shortcomings

and mistakes, but we are not to be discouraged. Even if we are overcome by the enemy, we
are not cast off, not forsaken and rejected of God. No; Christ is at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us. Said the beloved John, "These things write I unto you, that ye
sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

(1 John 2:1). RC123

[Russell G.]

While not Dr. Walker, I think I have the answer for you. Jesus calls
us to repent, turn away from our lives of sin. But, does that mean we
are able to perfectly obey for each time? No. Does it mean we don't
try? Never, we should always strive.

How shall we then think of forgiveness? Jesus answered perfectly
clearly in the Gospels. The disciples asked Jesus how many times they
had to forgive someone. What did they say, 7 times 7 times (49)?

Jesus looked at them and said they had to forgive sin 7 times 70 (490)
times for those who sin against us. Jesus didn't say forever and
ever. Neither does Dr. Walker nor Lamarr, nor Andrew, nor myself.

But, God does forgive. "If we sin we have an advocate, Christ Jesus."
That wasn't written to outsiders or strangers. It was written for
our (the church's) benefit.

God bless,
Russell G.

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in message news:<9b7a584c437d3167...@news.teranews.com>...

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bm7r3a$jovf9$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> > Does Repentance in your understanding involve ceasing to do the sin
that
> > has been repented of?
>

> Yes.

Thank you Andrew.

As You are fond of pointing out, we are posting on Christian Newsgroups
and only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is
important to reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming
love through you; so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?

Also:
I was just trying to get the basics established so I could move on and
discuss other things with Ronald..
as I find his posts very confusing.

But as you have answered anyway, would it be possible for you to also
answer the second, and third question now? You forgot??? Please note my
focus is the power of God for positive change in our lives, not
failures.

Here they are again:

If someone say, me, apologised for something and
continued to do it occasionally would that be true repentance?

If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him,
is it possible for you to wilfully sin, as long as you are doing this?

~ Cindy

[Truth]

"Russell G." <russel...@icomail.net> wrote in message
news:b30cefcb.03101...@posting.google.com...

> While not Dr. Walker, I think I have the answer for you. Jesus calls
> us to repent, turn away from our lives of sin. But, does that mean we
> are able to perfectly obey for each time?
> No. Does it mean we don't
> try? Never, we should always strive.

Is this because Jesus is not all powerful, or due to a lack of faith on
our part?
It is my belief that if we fail it is because we have put ourselves
right back under the old covenant and are tryig to do it by ourselves.
Of course that leads to failure.

Also My question was actually just regarding "one sin" not "all sin" in
our life. I believe victories ore won, one at a time, as I do not
believe in instant sanctification.

I will keep the rest in mind when we get to the subject of forgiveness.

Thank you.

~ Cindy

[Susan Williams]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:10:52 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote:

>
>"Truth" wrote:
>>
>> I do not know what Andrews motive and intent is here,

How could you do that Truth? How can you claim you don't know the
intents of the man claiming to be Adventist who has protected people
who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death boldly on
these newsgroups? Don't you know that HE CLAIMS TO KNOW ALL ABOUT
YOUR INTENTS AND YOUR HEART??

The super-terrorist responds:

>Simply to illustrate how you have dramatically changed - that you did at one time have
>a very different perspective and spirit. Didn't think you would mind since this was your
>personal modus operandi. I thought I stated it clearly below.. In your subsequent posts
>you testified in support of my premise that you indeed HAVE changed.

>Yes, "Jesus died for her and Seeber" as well as for you and the rest of us; but if
>you do not permit the Savior to reveal His character of healing and transforming
>love through you, then who are you working for and what are you accomplishing?

Since the man has defended every super-terrorist to date and then
becomes concerned that they are exposed, we ask him to give us an
answer for his service to the Antichrist. Whenever we even defend
human life, Antichrist Andrew keeps posting in how much we need
Christ. Obviously he met a psychiatrist like Joseph Meehan who told
us Abortionists are the worst killers today proven by the fact that
Christ is coming back to save His people by destroying them!

So we continue to ask the servant of the Antichrist:

But why do you blaspheme Christ Antichrist Andrew except that you are
a servant of the Antichrist. First realizing that Antichrist has
infected you and you therefore cannot answer the plainest questions
given to you since you are trained to have no conscience, I re-ask the
question so that others who have conscience can see what infests their
whole nations:

HOW DO YOU KNOW WE DON'T HAVE CHRIST JUST BECAUSE WE RESPECT HUMAN
LIFE AND YOU DON'T?

The question above is very plain, but if you are filled with the
Spirit of Antichrist from the Inquisitions, it is likely you will
supplant answering this with feigning a terrible concern that others
don't have the spirit of Antichrist as you do.

Even Atheists value human life, but you, claiming to be an Adventist,
always defends those who condemn non-Catholics to extermination but
say nothing about those who condemn life as Teresita has done in hate.

Now the Jesuit, trained in lying has to pretend to be very concerned
about lies being told. He posts:

>Your public declaration of my belief stating: "the *occasional* sin of murder and
>blasphemy is Ok," is patently untrue and therefore an example of willful rebellion
>against the Commandments which define sin. One of which says . . .
>
> "Thou shalt not bear FALSE WITNESS against thy neighbour." Ex 20:16

Teresita told us that non-Catholics should die and claimed it was duty
for Catholics to kill them.

After Brother Ted exposed Ted Seeber for condemning all non-Catholics
to persecution and death, Vatican Andrew came in upset in order to
insult and attack him in the way the Vatican trained him to:

============

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:15:26 -0700, "Andrew" <andre...@usa.net>
wrote:

>
>"Susan Williams" <salet...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Be it known that when he speaks of "wormwood".. he is speaking of me:
>>
>
>
>The demonic entity who controls this poster has identified itself.

By standing up to all non-Catholic life and even the lives of most
Catholics? That is what Andrew is saying, or rather that we post
frequently like Andrew and the other servants of the Antichrist? Ted
Seeber condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death during the
climate of September 11th. Ted McMillan exposed him and that is what
made the servant of the Antichrist Andrew become very bitter and
attacked him.

Andrew became very BITTER that a super-terrorist was exposed during
the climate of September 11th. Ted McMillan exposed him. Now let's
first see the servant of the Antichrist demonstrate the torture of his
souls further in his attacks. Andrew blaphemes here by quoting the
following scriptures:

>Bitterness (wormwood) is what he brings.. and this in light of the
>word of the Most High God who has pronounced this dreadful
>curse on those who bear ~~wormwood~~ .... ....
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Deuteronomy 29~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>"Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe,
> whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go
> and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you
> a root that beareth gall and WORMWOOD; v.18
>
> "The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and
> his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are
> written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out
> his name from under heaven." v.20
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He then adds and tries to make Brother McMillan look as much as what
he was trained to do:

>The purpose of this entity is to spread gall and bitterness,and to glorify
>his master Satan by continually magnifying the -atrocities- which he has
>inspired humans to perform; but there is a mighty God and Savior who
>is FAR GREATER than all the forces of darkness which will someday
>be destroyed forever.
>
>
> "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,
> that he might destroy the works of the devil."
> 1John 3:8

Remember that Brother Ted didn't even know this sub-castrated demon
from the Pope. Andrew advanced to attack him first with the following
post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=a3368n%245i3%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26selm%3Da3368n%25245i3%25241%2540nntp9.atl.mindspring.net

That post starts out like this:

================

Dear Ted,

It is most obvious from your frequent postings that you are a very
troubled and unhappy person. I know that it is easy and natural for
others to judge you not knowing the severe childhood trauma you may
have experienced coupled with a dysfunctional home from your early
days until now. You must have experienced great pain.

=================

From here Andrew was saying that anyone who posts frequently needs
Christ, has severe childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.

He has been asked how you can explain this, BUT HOW CAN HE?? He has
also been asked this:

HOW DID YOU CONFIRM OR PROVE THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD
TRAUMA AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE SOME SUPER-DAMNED PERSON
WHO KEEPS THE JESUIT OATH HATES HIM?

Here is the second part of it:

=================

I am sorry Ted, for these things in your life which have brought you
to the condition you are in now. Please be it known to you that there
is a God in heaven who loves you. There is an all powerful Savior who
is able to make something beautiful of your life and to give you a
place with Him through all future ages in His kingdom of glory.

It was unclear on other posts whether you claimed to be a Christian.
Now, while the door of mercy is still open, while probationary hours
are fast fleeting into eternity, is the opportunity for you (and all
of us) to respond to the powerful drawing of Jesus Christ .. to humble
ourselves before Him in repentance for our sins and to surrender our
lives to Him daily.

Dear Ted, if you do these things and learn of Jesus Christ through
prayer and the study of His words and teachings, then the peace of
heaven will replace the anxieties which plague you now. Then your
influence will reveal the fruits of God's spirit to the glory of Jesus
Christ.

Andrew then added this scripture:

____________ James 3: 13-18_______________
"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show
out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if
ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie
not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is
confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is
first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of
mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And
the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

May His peace and presence fill your heart as you surrender to Him now
is my prayer for you.

Andrew

=====================

All this came from the bitterness in the soul first of Satan, who was
a murderer from the beginning. Then Seeber condemning to death all
non-Catholics, and thence once exposed, another super-terrorist from
the Pope in Adventist clothes can't cease posting about us!

You can ask him himself why he is so bitter although we have shown
you. But still yet is the need for the demon to find peace by
answering the question of how he knew Brother Ted had severe childhood
trauma and a dysfunctional home during his early days to now based on
the fact that he does what even Andrew does: Posts frequently.

We have asked for his professional psychiatric analysis, but he comes
out just like Joe Meehan.

Andrew,

May the peace of jail fill your heart as you surrender to it now so
that you can reach that grand plateau. If you take the next necessary
stages, you will one day graduate to a human being. Then, in your
very old age with the constant effort, you may be able to become a
Christian.

Please! May you start the step-stage process from the beginning now
is our prayer for you.

And don't forget!!!

WE LOVE YOU ANTICHRIST DEMON ANDREW!! WE LOVE YOU!!

DON'T YOU LOVE US??

In His Grace,

Susan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Joseph Meehan]

Susan/Ted,

Why do you insist on cross posting what appears to be replies to message
on other newsgroups? Is your life so lacking that you crave attention that
much?

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Susan Williams" <SWilliam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btfabuko5r6qj3qr0...@4ax.com...

[Cindy]

repost...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,tnn.religion.catholic
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Suppose a criminal in court ...

:
: "Susan Williams" <SWilliam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:btfabuko5r6qj3qr0...@4ax.com...
: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:10:52 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>

wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >"Truth" wrote:
: > >>
: > >> I do not know what Andrews motive and intent is here,
: >
: > How could you do that Truth? How can you claim you don't know the
: > intents of the man claiming to be Adventist who has protected
people
: > who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death boldly on
: > these newsgroups?

:
: Put like that, I can see your point.
:
: He keeps revealing the same thinking which is causing nominal
Christians
: and nominal Adventists as well to join with the beast and think they
are
: doing God's will, most not even realizing what they are doing, or
how
: they are doing it, and when all restraint is lifted, will lead them
to
: murder God's very own.
:
: It is a strange sickness which whether people are aware of it or not
: infects them, our church , our country, and our very world, where
they
: all have the same symptoms, yet none of the psychiatrists can ever
: recognize the symptoms, or diagnose the disease, much less even
speak
: the same language, it sometimes seems.
:
: The truth is I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt all
: along, recognizing in certain things he says, things I used to say.
So I
: have hoped and prayed that what caused me to wake up would also work
: with him, and if I could somehow explain things in a different way,
or
: ask questions which would trigger his conscience, that God's truth
would
: be what is most important to him. But no matter what point I make,
no
: matter what evidence I give, and no matter what questions I ask, he
just
: pretends he doesn't even notice, and refuses to show the least sign
of a
: conscience.
:
: You are right, for him to answer, would be to give everything up.
:
: ~ Cindy
:
:
: > Don't you know that HE CLAIMS TO KNOW ALL ABOUT

: 241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26selm%3Da3
: 368n%25245i3%25241%2540nntp9.atl.mindspring.net
: >
: > That post starts out like this:

[Andrew]

"Cindy" wrote:
> ... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is important to

> reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love through you;

By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.

> so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
> testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?

My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was lifted
up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His presence at all
times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to prayer accor-
ding to His eternal purposes for us in love. I would make no personal claims
here but rather that Jesus Christ is very real and personal - that He is a Mighty
Savior and that - I love Him and worship Him.

The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John chapter 15,
which I notice you have recently cited. Therefore, when this is your focus and
experience, then you may have the living witness of a Christ centered life which
will naturally reveal this healing and transforming love which you have referred
to above. May this be your experience as you daily follow Him and His pathway
for you.

Andrew

"It is the work of every one to whom the message of warning has come,
TO LIFT UP JESUS, TO PRESENT HIM TO THE WORLD."

1SM 362

[Truth]

Background note:
I was personally acquainted with Robert Yates, who claimed to be
Adventist, but who is a confessed mass serial killer, he was known for
giving bible studies around the community, and is presently on death
row, and is still giving bible studies, all who knew him testify they
thought he was "kind" and "courteous" and "Christian", those who met him
in jail gave that same testimony in his defense, while he was being
defended against the death penalty. This is Andrews same testimony
about Seeber and Teresita...
I am not impressed by flowery words and claims. Actions, and not empty
words are the real testimony.

Let's examine what is really being said here:

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bmhpgh$n3649$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Cindy" quotes Andrew's constant accusation that those who defend life
and identify the charicteristics of antichrist, don't have his Christ,
have no love, and are sick:

> > "... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is
important to
> > reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love
through you;"

Because Andrew does his usual slice and dice job on the posts he
responds to, he now pretends he is
not responding to himself here, and just continues to make his same
accusation:

> By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.

Andrew is saying what he always says here: God's grace is revealed
through him, as he accuses and attacks while preaching against it, and
winks at blasphemy and murder and defends those who practice it, but it
is not revealed through me, because I believe this is dead wrong, but if
I accept his Christ I can
* also* have his same fruits.

Since Andrew makes a practice of ignoring the subject matter while
claiming the only important thing, is someone's personal testimony, so
he can accuse some more; I gave him the opportunity to prove this, by
asking him to back up his claim that he believes those who repent of a
sin, cease to do that sin,
and tell us what Jesus has done for him:

> > so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
> > testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?

Now Andrew who frequently gives his testimony about Jesus forgiving him,
refuses to expand on his testimony about how Jesus saves us *from* our
sins, by pretending I was asking him to toot his own horn:

>
> My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was
lifted
> up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His
presence at all
> times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to
prayer accor-
> ding to His eternal purposes for us in love.
> I would make no personal claims
> here but rather that Jesus Christ is very real and personal - that He
is a Mighty
> Savior and that - I love Him and worship Him.

These claims are nice, but how are they actually demonstrated by Andrew?
that is his living testimony.

He tells me that all accusation is the work of Satan.

Does Andrew accuse?

> The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John
chapter 15,
> which I notice you have recently cited.
> Therefore, when this is your focus and
> experience,

In otherwords Andrew is accusing me of not having this focus and
experience?

>then you may have the living witness of a Christ centered life

In otherwords Andrew is accusing me of not having a Christ centered life
now? ( Obviously so, you can read in this very thread he claims that I
worship a god of hate.)

>which
> will naturally reveal this healing and transforming love which you
have referred
> to above.

In otherwords Andrew is accusing me of not knowing the healing and
transforming love of my Savior
and that my abhorance of blasphemy and murder, and love for all life, is
not revealing this?

>May this be your experience as you daily follow Him and His pathway
> for you.

But what if by daily following him on this pathway I can recognize when
certain questions are not answered and addressed, and I can see that
this is evidence of deceit and dishonesty?

What if I know from my personal experience that it is not possible to
willfully disobey my Lord while abiding in him and praying "never the
less, not my will, but thine"?

What if I ask someone who defends murder and blasphemy about this:

"If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him,
is it possible for you to wilfully sin, as long as you are doing this?"

And he again ignores the question?

Will I be suprized?

He keeps telling me about being full of his Christ and yet this is his
previous testimony about what kind of fruits that brings, He did this
while actually claiming to know the motives and intents of the Apostle
Peter, and accusing him, (when I previously pointed this out he accused
me of embelishing, and being a pharisee)

Andrew:
"This was a SIN. Peter KNEW he was wrong, yet for the pressure
of the moment, he did it anyway - knowingly and willfully!
Imagine! The apostle Peter committing a known and deliberate sin
as we see here, EVEN __ AFTER__ he was filled with the mighty
power of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost!"

NO, I am not suprized by anything here.

~ Cindy

[Andrew]

Cindy, I notice you were unhappy with my response to your question. So,
please show us here now, how you believe it should be correctly answered
by giving us YOUR personal testimony. Thank you, Cindy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Harold Kupp]

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in message news:<7ec91742f05d6050...@news.teranews.com>...

> Background note:
> I was personally acquainted with Robert Yates, who claimed to be
> Adventist, but who is a confessed mass serial killer, he was known for
> giving bible studies around the community, and is presently on death
> row, and is still giving bible studies, all who knew him testify they
> thought he was "kind" and "courteous" and "Christian", those who met him
> in jail gave that same testimony in his defense, while he was being
> defended against the death penalty. This is Andrews same testimony
> about Seeber and Teresita...
> I am not impressed by flowery words and claims. Actions, and not empty
> words are the real testimony.
>

Good point Cindy... The apostle John agrees and carefully
warned us:

I Jn 2:3-4
And hereby we do know that we know him,
if we keep his commandments.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The Biblical test of knowing God is not flowery words and
claims, it is action.

HK

(Well Andrew - we are waiting?)

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bmjsq1$n071a$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
>
> Cindy, I notice you were unhappy with my response to your question.
So,
> please show us here now, how you believe it should be correctly
answered
> by giving us YOUR personal testimony. Thank you, Cindy.

You are as usual evading Andrew, by trying to changing the focus once
again.

It is you who claim without a personal testimony one cannot post about
truth.

I have previously given my testimony, many times and you have even
thanked me for doing so, immediatly before you started to accuse me
again.

Here is just one recent example you stomped over and ignored, in your
desire to claim I worshipped a god of hate:

10/03
"I couldn't disagree more. My Lord is personal to me, and all the chain
breakers in the world can never convince me he doesn't exist because I
know him. I have the evidence of his existence in my life and all around
me. I see the Creator of this world, the mighty God, the eternal Son of
the living God coming here in my flesh and with my human nature as an
act of incredible love, and sacrifice on his part, I have dragged him
down nowhere, he came of his own free will because he loved me so much.
It is amazing to me, he came here as a infant, what an incredible way to
start saving the world. He came to be like me in all ways so he could
not only tell me, but show me how to do everything, and give me
everything I need. But because I did not know this until I got to know
him and he showed me, he had to reach down to where I was because of my
transgressions of his law, because of my ignorance , my weakness and my
utter depravity, and then he took all those sins upon himself and gave
up his life for me, so that he could draw me to him, and lift me up and
put me on my feet, so he could save me, and lead me home. And I will
follow him because of that, and never be ashamed of the way he did it,
or who he became for me, and I will follow his words, I will obey his
commandments, because I love him. His story is the greatest triumph in
the history of our world, or in any world. It is the greatest story ever
told. And because of that he has been given a name above every name, and
before him every knee will bow. His life is a living testimony to the
power and Glory of God. I would rather die than betray him, I only live
because of him."

So what do claims prove?

Back to the Actual post you didn't address:

> > so would you be so kind as to give us your personal

> > testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?

Now Andrew who frequently gives his testimony about Jesus forgiving him,

[Andrew]

You are correct. Claims prove nothing if there are no fruits of the Spirit of Christ.
If one continues to manifest anger, hatred, bitterness, malice and wrath -- it clearly
demonstrates that they are not controlled by Christ but by the spirit of the one who
lost his first estate and is continuing his rebellion in this world.

[Lamarr Edwards]

But harold, you are a PROVEN LIAR, so why quote John, to condemn
yourself ? LE

[Susan Williams]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:29:37 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Cindy" wrote:
>> ... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is important to
>> reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love through you;
>
>By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.
>
>> so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
>> testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?
>
>My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was lifted
>up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His presence at all
>times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to prayer accor-
>ding to His eternal purposes for us in love.

Oh so you mean since Christ wrote in scripture constantly His concern
about His saints being put to death and how perilous times are coming,
that Christ compelled you to attack Brother Ted and myself for
exposing people who told us all non-Catholics should die?

This is not the Inquisitions yet, Antichrist Andrew! Truth is proven
by the evidence and not the lying, blaspheming and babbling words!

> I would make no personal claims
>here but rather that Jesus Christ is very real and personal - that He is a Mighty
>Savior and that - I love Him and worship Him.

Show us then how come you got upset with me and Brother Ted for
exposing at least two people who claimed all non-Catholics should be
persecuted and killed. Why did you lie, claiming you know Christ?

People are here condemning others to death, how come you didn't judge,
condemn and accuse them even asking them when they will accept Christ,
but you only do that to those who love human life?

>The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John chapter 15,
>which I notice you have recently cited.

But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to
a human being?

>Therefore, when this is your focus and
>experience, then you may have the living witness of a Christ centered life which
>will naturally reveal this healing and transforming love which you have referred
>to above. May this be your experience as you daily follow Him and His pathway
>for you.
>
>
>Andrew

Oh you mean then, like you, if someone condemns all non-Catholics to
persecution and death, then we would love that person supremely and
attack anyone who exposes that person as you do?

[Andrew]

"Susan Williams" wrote:

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >"Cindy" wrote:
> >> ... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is important to
> >> reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love through you;
> >
> >By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.
> >
> >> so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
> >> testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?
> >
> >My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was lifted
> >up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His presence at all
> >times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to prayer accor-
> >ding to His eternal purposes for us in love.
>
> Oh so you mean since Christ wrote in scripture constantly His concern
> about His saints being put to death and how perilous times are coming,

Jesus specifically addressed that issue and you have rejected His counsel.

> People are here condemning others to death, how come you didn't judge,
> condemn and accuse them even asking them when they will accept Christ,

If you knew Christ, then you could lead them to Him. And if Jesus asked
forgiveness for those who killed Him - why do you foment hatred instead?

> >The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John chapter 15,
> >which I notice you have recently cited.
>
> But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to
> a human being?

Jesus gives no such call to penance, but invites all to come just as we are.

> >Therefore, when this is your focus and experience, then you may have the living

> >witness of a Christ centered life which will naturally reveal this healing and trans-

> >forming love which you have referred to above. May this be your experience as
> >you daily follow Him and His pathway for you.
> >
>

> Oh you mean then, like you, if someone condemns all non-Catholics to
> persecution and death, then we would love that person

That's right! Now you've got it! If you are a Christian you will love
them even as Christ loves them. I knew there was hope for you, Ted!

>
>
> In His Grace,
>
>
>
> Susan
>

Andrew

[Susan Williams]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:38:10 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Cindy, I notice you were unhappy with my response to your question. So,
>please show us here now, how you believe it should be correctly answered
>by giving us YOUR personal testimony. Thank you, Cindy.

The man who constantly ignores our requests fr some kind of
explanation for his behavior continues to request from us what he
refuses to give!

We have asked Andrew for a personal testimony of his "Christ" that
enabled him to get upset that people condemning the lives of all
non-Catholics were being exposed.

We also need a testimony as to why the plainest questions dealing with
the Antchrist behavior of Andrew are being constantly and deliberately
ignored...

AS CHRIST DID???

Let's therefore show the vicious attack by Vatican Andrew, the fake
Adventist, who became angry that people condemning the lives of all
non-Catholics were exposed. We say this proves that he actually works
for the Vatican. He uses his lying tongue to tell us different.

Now listen to this unscrupulous Jesuit when he attacked Brother Ted
for exposing those who condemned all non-Catholics:

========

Dear Ted,

It is most obvious from your frequent postings that you are a very
troubled and unhappy person. I know that it is easy and natural for
others to judge you not knowing the severe childhood trauma you may
have experienced coupled with a dysfunctional home from your early
days until now. You must have experienced great pain.

=================
My comment:

Friends, you need to know what is an insult and you need to know
hatred at a glance! Let this Jesuit priestcraft written by Andrew be
reworded to President Bush and his frequent comments and attempts
against Osama Bin Laden.

To Jesuit Andrew:
From here you were saying that anyone who posts frequently needs

Christ, has severe childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.

You have been asked how you can explain this. You have also been
asked this:

HOW DID YOU CONFIRM OR PROVE THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD
TRAUMA AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE SOME SUPER-DAMNED PERSON
WHO KEEPS THE JESUIT OATH HATES HIM?

We then see that your demon souls is too tortured to answer, so you
keep posting your accusations, insults and slanders according to the
Jesuit Oath.

Nw it is time for Andrew to blaspheme the name of the Lord by
condemning things he freely does using the scriptures. Look above and
see the judgments this unscrupulous Jesuit has laid out upon me. Now
look at the quotes he is COMPLETELY immuned to:

> "For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son"
> John 5:22
>
>"since the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son," whoever presumes to judge
> the motives of others is again usurping the prerogative of the Son of God.

Dear stupid psychiatric patient of Joseph Meehan:

LOOK AT HOW YOU HAVE JUDGED JUST ABOVE AND IN ALL YOUR POSTS BECAUSE
SUPER-TERRORISTS AND UNSCRUPULOUS KILLERS WERE EXPOSED!

>These would-be
> judges and critics are placing themselves on the side of ANTICHRIST, "who opposeth and
> exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth
> in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
> 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Jesuits have no problem describing themselves when they are on the
attack for God's people!

The most immense issues where Seeber was condening all liberty and the
Constitution never bothers these like monsters. Now Andrew comes back
again to the irresistible job of protecting super-terrorists and the
super-terrorist factory of the ages!

>Mount of Blessing p.125
>E.G.White
>
>
>Revelation 18 is a message for God's people to come out of Babylon. But none will
>come out of anywhere as the result of condemnation and personal attack.

Read Andrew's personal attacks and go through the messages he has
FREQUENTLY posted around his dysfunctional home!

Each word and each more teaching brings more time in the fire. Christ
told us

Matt. 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy
words thou shalt be condemned.

Now look at the words of the Jesuit:

>Those not
>using -Christ's methods- are controlled by the dark power of the antichrist.
>
>
>Andrew

[Susan Williams]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:11:18 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>
>"Cindy" wrote:
>>
>> 10/03
>> "I couldn't disagree more. My Lord is personal to me, and all the chain
>> breakers in the world can never convince me he doesn't exist because I
>> know him.

We know Christ! We can more prove it since we were upset with people
who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death. Because we
exposed such people, Antichrist Andrew became upset with us. Here is
how he hated attacked Brother Ted out of the clear blue for exposing
Ted Seeber. Before we continue, let us make it known that Andrew
falsely claims to be an Adventist, and that means he is supposed to be
a non-Catholic:

[Susan Williams]

Lamarr Edwards, the servant of the Antichrist, after years preaching
against making accusatons and personal attack now accuses someone of
his supreme talents. He claims that Harold is a PROVEN LIAR, but left
out that proof. Now I will prove that Lamarr is actually the liar AND
I WILL ADD THE EVIDENCE!

Here Mr. Edwards defends two super-terrorists who claim that all
non-Catholics should die. Here Mr. Edwards cannot be reminded that he
claims to be a non-Catholic:

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:13:41 -0700 (MST), shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr
Edwards) wrote:

>Cindy - Come on now, I disagree with virtually everything Teresita
>says, but I have never seen her "use scripture to justify murder", don't
>windup like ted, drooling and spouting pure, absolute nonsense most of
>the time. LE

You mean like the nonsense you Jesuits tell us about we having to
understand that people will disagree? Will you for once comment upon
your supreme talent to lie so that we can understand your talent to
kill?

Teresita did justify murder. The problem is that since you are also a
servant of the Antichrist, killing Protestants is not regarded as
murder TO YOU!!! Ted Seeber condemned all non-Catholics to
persecution and death. IT DID NOT BOTHER YOU, and we can't imagine
that it didn't bother you because of your claim to be a non-Catholic!
Us exposing him DID bother you!

Here is the proof that Teresita condones the murders of millions of
people--MURDER to us, DUTY AND PRIVILEGE TO HER--in the documentaton
below:

Some of you may well not be convinced that Ted Seeber condemned all
non-Catholics on the newsgroups. Actually, to this day, even those on
the newsgroups who formerly denied it had to confess that Seeber did
just that, and they went into every manner of defense for Seeber. As
we expose the dialogues, we will more prove this. However, since we
started this work, another person came out more boldly and gave
approval of the deaths of millions of Christians. She posts under the
name of Teresita. When I made mention of that great Christian work
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, detailing centuries of uncountable murders of
bible-believing Christians, she referred to the work as, "Foxe's Book
of Hereticks." She therefore approved of their deaths because they
viewed religion differently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=b0165u09im%40drn.newsguy.com
1/14/2003

Naturally, we got on her case for her boldness here as we still have
the liberty to do in this free country. Teresita in response lied to
us, telling us that when she called Foxe's Book of Martyrs "Foxe's
Book of Heretics," she was only referring to the Albigenses of the
Protestant Reformation 5/29/2003 who were a minority group of
Christians during that time:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb521t01pej%40drn.newsguy.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3424526807d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbb521t01pej%2540drn.newsguy.com>

How do we know she was lying? The Albigenses were hardly mentioned in
that massive work. Protestants usually have little to say about the
Albigenses BECAUSE BOTH THEMSELVES AND ALL THEIR WORKS WERE COMPLETELY
ANNIHILATED BY ROME! But more proof that she was lying comes in her
next response as she worked to divert from my advancing questions.
Teresita belied her claim that she was only referring to the
Albigenses when she condemned the Christian martyrs as “hereticks” by
condemning Tyndale, who was not one of the Albigenses:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcfbru0230p%40drn.newsguy.com>

LASTLY AND MOST STRONGLY:

When pressed further and further to reveal her beliefs she is trained
to hide on the matter of the value of human life, Teresita says the
Vatican merely carried out God's commands when they killed millions of
Christians because the Israelites did the same with their enemies:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl270768597d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb5kmo0vt2%40drn.newsguy.com>

Isn’t it strange that such was the issue when people told us the Ten
Commandments should not be proudly displayed in buildings of secular
enforcement? “But shouldn’t we acknowledge God?!! That is done in
other ways, but the Ten Commandments IS MORE than an acknowledgement
of God. IT IS SPECIFIC RULES OF CONDUCT FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF
RELIGION. It is far more than acknowledging God on any state level!

Here is that dialogue concerning Teresita below:

From: Teresita (tere...@newsguy.com)
Subject: Re: Teresita responds inappropriatly

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, tnn.religion.catholic
Date: 2003-05-29 12:05:31 PST

In article <6s6bdv0l317i6dfjs...@4ax.com>, Susan says...
>
>Like Ted Seeber, you gave approval to their deaths and then come on the forums telling me I hate people just because they disagree.
>
>We are still under Homeland Security right through to the destruction of this nation. We are asked to report all terrorist activity found
>in people who have a profound disrespect of human life!

Teresita replies:
We merely carried out God's commandment in His Eternal Word:

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there is found among you, within any of your
towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what
is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his
covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or
the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have
forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall
inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an
abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth
to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you
shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

[Susan Williams]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:03:46 -0700 (MST), shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr
Edwards) wrote:

Lamarr Edwards, the servant of the Antichrist, after years preaching

[Susan Williams]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:35 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>
>"Susan Williams" wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >"Cindy" wrote:
>> >> ... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is important to
>> >> reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love through you;
>> >
>> >By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.
>> >
>> >> so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
>> >> testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?
>> >
>> >My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was lifted
>> >up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His presence at all
>> >times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to prayer accor-
>> >ding to His eternal purposes for us in love.
>>
>> Oh so you mean since Christ wrote in scripture constantly His concern
>> about His saints being put to death and how perilous times are coming,
>
>Jesus specifically addressed that issue and you have rejected His counsel.

We don't listen to their killers who don't provide any proof for what
they say!

>> People are here condemning others to death, how come you didn't judge,
>> condemn and accuse them even asking them when they will accept Christ,
>
>If you knew Christ, then you could lead them to Him. And if Jesus asked
>forgiveness for those who killed Him - why do you foment hatred instead?

Because you are a servant of the Antichrist, that's why you see
hatred. Why shouldn't President Bush foment hatred? He sent war
machines over to Afghanistan! What do you have to teach the praying
president O Son of the Antichrist?

I noticed hate right away when I saw Ted Seeber and Tereista condemn
all non-Catholics to persecution and death. You waited until the
murderers were exposed. THEN you saw hate because you are a servant
of the Antichrist? That's why you man your computer to address the
emergency of being exposed also. Seventh-day Adventists do not act
like you to only hate and attack those who point people out who
condemn all non-Catholics.

>> >The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John chapter 15,
>> >which I notice you have recently cited.
>>
>> But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to
>> a human being?
>
>Jesus gives no such call to penance, but invites all to come just as we are.

But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to

a human being? Which person in jail can condemn all non-Catholics to
death? Teresita did that and it didn't bother you. Ted Seeber did it
and it didn't bother you. ONLY when they were exposed it bothered you
because you claim to be a Christian and a premier non-Catholic: an
Adventist!

>> >Therefore, when this is your focus and experience, then you may have the living
>> >witness of a Christ centered life which will naturally reveal this healing and trans-
>> >forming love which you have referred to above. May this be your experience as
>> >you daily follow Him and His pathway for you.
>> >
>>
>> Oh you mean then, like you, if someone condemns all non-Catholics to
>> persecution and death, then we would love that person
>
>That's right! Now you've got it! If you are a Christian you will love
>them even as Christ loves them. I knew there was hope for you, Ted!

And then hate all those who expose them as you do us Vatican killer?
Then you will ignore all our questions you know you dare not answer?
How come you can't explain our questions or show us why your gospel
from the Antichrist is directly opposed to Homeland Security? My
Gospel isn't. I don't love killers and hate the victiims.

Come to jail Vatican Andrew! PLEASE SEEK NOW FOR CONSTANT
SUPPLICATION SO THAT YOU CAN REACH THAT PLATEAU! The bible shows
concern about persecution of Christ's people...

NOT FOR THE KILLERS THAT THRILL YOUR HEART!!

[Susan Williams]

Antichrist Andrew, son of the Antichrist who claims to be Adventist
but has given relentless attack against all who exposed people
condemning the lives of all non-Catholics, continues to behave as if
he was trined by Rome for centuries. He now follows other Jesuit
scoundrels, trying to mask his most hateful race and cult under the
word LOVE:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:35 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>

Dear Antichrist Andrew:

Please give us examples of this principle of love that would love
Osama Bin Laden and would attack President Bush. Tell us about the
bodies of thousands of people who died at the hands of people you just
love! Compare Osama to people like you who demand that people must
die JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CATHOLIC!

Notice that you finally answered a question we gave you because you
could! Now answer the questions we have been asking all along that
you knew you couldn't!

Here again is your attack upon Brother Ted because he exposed a man
who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death. You told us
we should love such people, but then you demontrated your hatred for
Brother Ted by attacking him with your training and talent from the
Vatican:

================

Dear Ted,

It is most obvious from your frequent postings that you are a very
troubled and unhappy person. I know that it is easy and natural for
others to judge you not knowing the severe childhood trauma you may
have experienced coupled with a dysfunctional home from your early
days until now. You must have experienced great pain.

=================

From here you were saying that anyone who posts frequently needs

Christ, has severe childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.

You have been asked how you can explain this. You have also been
asked this:

HOW DID YOU CONFIRM OR PROVE THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD
TRAUMA AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE SOME SUPER-DAMNED PERSON
WHO KEEPS THE JESUIT OATH HATES HIM?

We then see that your demon souls is too tortured to answer, so you
keep posting your accusations, insults and slanders according to the
Jesuit Oath.

The first observation here is that

EVERYBODY BASICALLY FREQUENTLY POSTS!

Lamarr Edwards does and clearly has an obsession with me, Brother Ted
and anyone who loves non-Catholic life. Larson does. He is obsessed
with the idea that anyone would know the Jesuit Oath which he and you
all keep may be proven true. THEN ANDREW POSTS FREQUENTLY!! Nothing
appears to be on his mind but me and Brother Ted!

With all of this we ask Andrew what is the benefit of his pitchforked
Christ from the Antichrist. His soul is too tortured to answer. To
answer is to give everything up!

Andrew therefore asked me in his same line of deceit:

>Why does your blood pressure go up whenever you read
>a Joe Meehan post?

Why does your blood pressure go up when you see men or women defending
the lives of non-Catholics? Why did you attack and insult Brother Ted
and refuse to answer my question of how you know he has had a
dysfunctional home and sever childhood trauma just because he exposed
super-terrorist condemning millions of lives?

>There ARE medicines to help those
>afflicted with mental torments.

WHAT NO CHRIST NOW??

>To suggest a route whereby
>one may find relief is Christian and proper.

Why should someone undergo this therapy just because they disagree
with people like you who believe that super-killers should be
protected?

>How can you purport to have such love for Ted McMillan
>and not want him to have relief from such obvious agony?

But we have given you a chance to have some peace that we expose
super-terrorist criminals from the pope, but you refuse to calm down
and quiet your tortured soul. Want an example:

HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AND A
DYSFUNCATIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE HE WAS UPSET AT A MAN WHO CONDEMNED
ALL NON-CATHOLICS TO PERSECUTION AND DEATH.

The question is simple to understand. We glory that, according to
you, troubled and insane people like us can understand what simple
questions are!

[Susan Williams]

Antichrist Andrew, son of the Antichrist who claims to be Adventist
but has given relentless attack against all who exposed people
condemning the lives of all non-Catholics, continues to behave as if
he was trined by Rome for centuries. He now follows other Jesuit
scoundrels, trying to mask his most hateful race and cult under the
word LOVE:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:35 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>

Dear Antichrist Andrew:

================

Dear Ted,

=================

EVERYBODY BASICALLY FREQUENTLY POSTS!

WHAT NO CHRIST NOW??

In His Grace,

[Andrew]

"Susan Williams" wrote:

> >"Cindy" wrote:
> > >
> > > "My Lord is personal to me, and all the chain breakers in the world can
> > > never convince me he doesn't exist because I know him.
>
> We know Christ! We can more prove it since we were upset with people
> who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death. Because we
> exposed such people,

If Jesus asked forgiveness for those who killed Him - why do you foment hatred
instead? This only demonstrates that you have been controlled by the enemy of
our Savior. . . for Christ came to REDEEM the lost - not to curse and condemn
like you are doing. No one was ever reclaimed from a wrong position by censure
and reproach.

Those who work for Christ may be easily identified because they have the
"ministry of reconciliation," - not censure and condemnation.

"God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved."
John 3:17

"God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
has given to us the ministry of reconciliation"
2 Cor 5:18

Andrew

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bmk99m$nrmn9$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Cindy" wrote:

> > So what do claims prove?
> >
>
> You are correct. Claims prove nothing

Well Finally...
This is very reason why you have been asked to explain and provide
evidence for your accusations and claims all along, which to this very
moment, you still refuse to do...

if there are no fruits of the Spirit of Christ.
> If one continues to manifest anger, hatred, bitterness, malice and
wrath -- it clearly
> demonstrates that they are not controlled by Christ but by the spirit
of the one who
> lost his first estate and is continuing his rebellion in this world.

You have frequently accused me, and others, of these very things.
And you may continue to attempt to project your feelings and opinions
upon me, but I DO NOT accept your opinion.
You have not, nor can you, prove your claims.

Apples, and oranges...

"kindness" "courtesy" etc. mean nothing by themselves as even atheists
and murderers can demonstrate these things, as I have shown you. The
fruits of the spirit, mean nothing by themselves, nor can anyone even
have them without having the Holy Spirit,"which God has given to those
who obey him". The test is keeping the commandments of God.

The bible also says to test the spirits...

Satan is the Father of murderers and liars.

How do you dare to come teach me about the fruits of the spirit while
defending those who uphold blasphemy and murder, and attacking
Christians?

Did Jesus do that?

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bmlbto$np4k1$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Susan Williams" wrote:
> > >"Cindy" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "My Lord is personal to me, and all the chain breakers in the
world can
> > > > never convince me he doesn't exist because I know him.
> >
> > We know Christ! We can more prove it since we were upset with
people
> > who condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death. Because
we
> > exposed such people,
>
>
> If Jesus asked forgiveness for those who killed Him - why do you
foment hatred
> instead? This only demonstrates that you have been controlled by the
enemy of
> our Savior. . . for Christ came to REDEEM the lost - not to curse and
condemn
> like you are doing. No one was ever reclaimed from a wrong position by
censure
> and reproach.

Andrew ignores the fact that if this is true than how can his censure
and reproach, bring others to his Christ as is his constant claim? I
previously pointed this out to him,when he threw any possible excuse he
had, out the window, but as is his constant behavior, he defies logic
and reason, pretends he didn't notice, and just continues to do the
same thing.

Will Andrew notice this?
How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation of the Pharisees
reclaim, and redeem them?
His purpose was to warn others, was it not?
He provided evidence also, did he not?

~ Cindy

[Truth]

Still not addressed:

Andrew wrote:
>May this be your experience as you daily follow Him and His pathway
> for you.

Cindy Asked:

But what if by daily following him on this pathway I can recognize when
certain questions are not answered and addressed, and I can see that
this is evidence of deceit and dishonesty?

What if I know from my personal experience that it is not possible to
willfully disobey my Lord while abiding in him and praying "never the
less, not my will, but thine"?

What if I ask someone who defends murder and blasphemy about this:
"If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him,

is it possible for you to willfully sin, as long as you are doing this?"

And he again ignores the question?

Will I be surprised?

He keeps telling me about being full of his Christ and yet this is his
previous testimony about what kind of fruits that brings, He did this
while actually claiming to know the motives and intents of the Apostle
Peter, and accusing him, (when I previously pointed this out he accused

me of embellishing, and being a Pharisee)

Andrew:
"This was a SIN. Peter KNEW he was wrong, yet for the pressure
of the moment, he did it anyway - knowingly and willfully!
Imagine! The apostle Peter committing a known and deliberate sin
as we see here, EVEN __ AFTER__ he was filled with the mighty
power of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost!"

NO, I am not surprised by anything here.

EGW:
PETER SAW THE ERROR INTO WHICH HE HAD FALLEN, and
**immediately set about repairing the evil that had been wrought, so far
as was in his power,**
God, who knows the end from the beginning, permitted Peter to
reveal this weakness of character in order that the tried apostle might
see that there was nothing in himself whereof he might boast. Even the
best of men, if LEFT TO THEMSELVES, WILL ERR IN JUDGMENT."-AA p 197

"Those who are in connection with God are channels for the power of the
Holy Spirit. If one who daily communes with God ERRS FROM THE PATH, if
he turns a moment from looking steadfastly unto Jesus,**IT IS NOT
BECAUSE HE SINS WILFULLY**; for when he sees HIS MISTAKE, he turns
again, and fastens his eyes upon Jesus, and the fact that HE HAS ERRED
does not make him less dear to the heart of God. He knows that he has
communion with the Saviour; and when reproved for his MISTAKE in some
matter of judgment,HE DOES NOT WALK SULLENLY AND COMPLAIN OF GOD BUT
TURNS THE MISTAKE INTO A VICTORY. He LEARNS A LESSON from the words of
the Master, and TAKES HEED THAT HE BE NOT AGAIN DECEIVED."{RH, May 12,
1896 par. 7}

~ Cindy

[Andrew]

"Cindy" wrote:
>
> How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation
> of the Pharisees reclaim, and redeem them?

"The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it ALWAYS IN LOVE. In
His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He was always kind
and thoughtful. HE WAS NEVER RUDE, never needlessly spoke a severe word,
never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness.
He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice
as He uttered His scathing rebukes. HE NEVER MADE TRUTH CRUEL, but ever
manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. EVERY SOUL WAS PRECIOUS IN
HIS SIGHT. HE SAW IN ALL, SOULS WHOM IT WAS HIS MISSION TO
SAVE."

Gospel Workers, p. 117.

> His purpose was to warn others, was it not?

Yes, but HOW.. and with what spirit and to what purpose.

>
> ~ Cindy
>
>

Those who work for Christ may be easily identified because they have the
"ministry of reconciliation," - not censure and condemnation.

"God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world;
but that the world through him might be SAVED."

[Susan Williams]

Many millions go to their deaths in the name of lliberty! September
11, 2001 was an infamous day of terrorist attack. It since led to a
praying president sneding war machines over to Afghanistan for
vengeance. Soon more war took place. That is happening over in Iraq
now. Take a look at thoe in action who hate liberty and those who
defend it. I am here talking about Vatican Andrew who falsely claims
to be Adventist:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:35 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>

>"Susan Williams" wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >"Cindy" wrote:
>> >> ... only as the lost come to Christ can they be saved, and it is important to
>> >> reveal the Savior's character of healing and transforming love through you;
>> >
>> >By the grace of God He may also be revealed through you, Cindy.
>> >
>> >> so would you be so kind as to give us your personal
>> >> testimony about this victory over this sin in your life?
>> >
>> >My focus and testimony would be more and more on the One who was lifted
>> >up for us; His life, His teachings, His word, His Spirit and His presence at all
>> >times, with His providential workings in our behalf in answer to prayer accor-
>> >ding to His eternal purposes for us in love.
>>
>> Oh so you mean since Christ wrote in scripture constantly His concern
>> about His saints being put to death and how perilous times are coming,
>
>Jesus specifically addressed that issue and you have rejected His counsel.

We don't listen to their killers who don't provide any proof for what
they say!

>> People are here condemning others to death, how come you didn't judge,

>> condemn and accuse them even asking them when they will accept Christ,
>
>If you knew Christ, then you could lead them to Him. And if Jesus asked
>forgiveness for those who killed Him - why do you foment hatred instead?

Because you are a servant of the Antichrist, that's why you see

hatred. Why shouldn't President Bush foment hatred? He sent war
machines over to Afghanistan! What do you have to teach the praying
president O Son of the Antichrist?

I noticed hate right away when I saw Ted Seeber and Tereista condemn
all non-Catholics to persecution and death. You waited until the
murderers were exposed. THEN you saw hate because you are a servant
of the Antichrist? That's why you man your computer to address the
emergency of being exposed also. Seventh-day Adventists do not act
like you to only hate and attack those who point people out who
condemn all non-Catholics.

>> >The essential factor of victory in the Christian life is found in John chapter 15,

>> >which I notice you have recently cited.
>>
>> But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to
>> a human being?
>
>Jesus gives no such call to penance, but invites all to come just as we are.

But when are you going to accept justice in jail and then graduate to

a human being? Which person in jail can condemn all non-Catholics to
death? Teresita did that and it didn't bother you. Ted Seeber did it
and it didn't bother you. ONLY when they were exposed it bothered you
because you claim to be a Christian and a premier non-Catholic: an
Adventist!

>> >Therefore, when this is your focus and experience, then you may have the living

>> >witness of a Christ centered life which will naturally reveal this healing and trans-
>> >forming love which you have referred to above. May this be your experience as
>> >you daily follow Him and His pathway for you.
>> >
>>
>> Oh you mean then, like you, if someone condemns all non-Catholics to
>> persecution and death, then we would love that person
>
>That's right! Now you've got it! If you are a Christian you will love
>them even as Christ loves them. I knew there was hope for you, Ted!

And then hate all those who expose them as you do us Vatican killer?

Then you will ignore all our questions you know you dare not answer?
How come you can't explain our questions or show us why your gospel
from the Antichrist is directly opposed to Homeland Security? My
Gospel isn't. I don't love killers and hate the victiims.

Come to jail Vatican Andrew! PLEASE SEEK NOW FOR CONSTANT
SUPPLICATION SO THAT YOU CAN REACH THAT PLATEAU! The bible shows
concern about persecution of Christ's people...

NOT FOR THE KILLERS THAT THRILL YOUR HEART!!

[Susan Williams]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:37:25 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>
>"Cindy" wrote:
>>
>> How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation
>> of the Pharisees reclaim, and redeem them?
>
>"The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it ALWAYS IN LOVE. In
> His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He was always kind
> and thoughtful. HE WAS NEVER RUDE, never needlessly spoke a severe word,
> never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness.
> He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice
> as He uttered His scathing rebukes. HE NEVER MADE TRUTH CRUEL, but ever
> manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. EVERY SOUL WAS PRECIOUS IN
> HIS SIGHT. HE SAW IN ALL, SOULS WHOM IT WAS HIS MISSION TO
> SAVE."
>
> Gospel Workers, p. 117.
>
>
>> His purpose was to warn others, was it not?
>
>Yes, but HOW.. and with what spirit and to what purpose.
>
>
>>
>> ~ Cindy
>>
>>
>
>
>Those who work for Christ may be easily identified because they have the
> "ministry of reconciliation," - not censure and condemnation.

Dear Antichrist Andrew,

What was your message of reconciliation to those who from love
endeavored to warn non-Catholics at least of the sentence of death
upon them? Ted Seeber and Teresita both said that non-Catholics
should die. Since that time you have defended them, attacked us and
preached against making condemnations and censure.

First however, since you are a servant of the Antichrist infiltrated
into Adventism, show us your practice in ignoring very pertinent
questions about your behavior and how the Saviour did that during
public discussions.

Here is your attack again unprovoked against Brother Ted for exposing
at least the two people who condemned the lives of all non-Catholics:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=a3368n%245i3%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net

================

Dear Ted,

It is most obvious from your frequent postings that you are a very
troubled and unhappy person. I know that it is easy and natural for
others to judge you not knowing the severe childhood trauma you may
have experienced coupled with a dysfunctional home from your early
days until now. You must have experienced great pain.

=================

From here you were saying that anyone who posts frequently needs

Christ, has severe childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.

You have been asked how you can explain this. You have also been
asked this:

HOW DID YOU CONFIRM OR PROVE THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD
TRAUMA AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE SOME SUPER-DAMNED PERSON
WHO KEEPS THE JESUIT OATH HATES HIM?

We then see that your demon souls is too tortured to answer, so you
keep posting your accusations, insults and slanders according to the
Jesuit Oath.

The first observation here is that

EVERYBODY BASICALLY FREQUENTLY POSTS!

WHAT NO CHRIST NOW??

In His Grace,

Susan

ANDREW QUOTES THIS BELOW ACCORDING TO THE JESUIT OATH:

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The servant of the Antichrist continues who falsely claims to be an
Adventist:

> "God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world;
> but that the world through him might be SAVED."
> John 3:17
>
> "God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
> has given to us the ministry of reconciliation"
> 2 Cor 5:18
>
>
>
>
>Andrew

How has Andrew fulfilled his blasphemous talent as shown here and
documented in Protestant literature with those who through love have
warned at least non-Catholics about their sentence of death? We were
called wormwood, demonic entity, ranter, hell-bound, etc by this
unscrupulous Jesuit.

[Susan Williams]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:37:25 -0700, "Andrew" <andr...@usa.net>
wrote:

>

>"Cindy" wrote:
>>
>> How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation
>> of the Pharisees reclaim, and redeem them?
>
>"The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it ALWAYS IN LOVE. In
> His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He was always kind
> and thoughtful. HE WAS NEVER RUDE, never needlessly spoke a severe word,
> never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness.
> He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice
> as He uttered His scathing rebukes. HE NEVER MADE TRUTH CRUEL, but ever
> manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. EVERY SOUL WAS PRECIOUS IN
> HIS SIGHT. HE SAW IN ALL, SOULS WHOM IT WAS HIS MISSION TO
> SAVE."
>
> Gospel Workers, p. 117.
>
>
>> His purpose was to warn others, was it not?
>
>Yes, but HOW.. and with what spirit and to what purpose.
>
>
>>
>> ~ Cindy
>>
>>
>
>
>Those who work for Christ may be easily identified because they have the
> "ministry of reconciliation," - not censure and condemnation.

Dear Antichrist Andrew,

What was your message of reconciliation to those who from love
endeavored to warn non-Catholics at least of the sentence of death
upon them? Ted Seeber and Teresita both said that non-Catholics
should die. Since that time you have defended them, attacked us and
preached against making condemnations and censure.

First however, since you are a servant of the Antichrist infiltrated
into Adventism, show us your practice in ignoring very pertinent
questions about your behavior and how the Saviour did that during
public discussions.

Here is your attack again unprovoked against Brother Ted for exposing
at least the two people who condemned the lives of all non-Catholics:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=a3368n%245i3%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net

================

Dear Ted,

It is most obvious from your frequent postings that you are a very
troubled and unhappy person. I know that it is easy and natural for
others to judge you not knowing the severe childhood trauma you may
have experienced coupled with a dysfunctional home from your early
days until now. You must have experienced great pain.

=================

From here you were saying that anyone who posts frequently needs

Christ, has severe childhood trauma and a dysfunctional home.

You have been asked how you can explain this. You have also been
asked this:

HOW DID YOU CONFIRM OR PROVE THAT BROTHER TED HAD SEVERE CHILDHOOD
TRAUMA AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME JUST BECAUSE SOME SUPER-DAMNED PERSON
WHO KEEPS THE JESUIT OATH HATES HIM?

We then see that your demon souls is too tortured to answer, so you
keep posting your accusations, insults and slanders according to the
Jesuit Oath.

The first observation here is that

EVERYBODY BASICALLY FREQUENTLY POSTS!

WHAT NO CHRIST NOW??

In His Grace,

Susan

The servant of the Antichrist continues who falsely claims to be an
Adventist:

> "God sent NOT his Son into the world TO CONDEMN the world;
> but that the world through him might be SAVED."
> John 3:17
>
> "God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
> has given to us the ministry of reconciliation"
> 2 Cor 5:18
>
>
>
>
>Andrew

How has Andrew fulfilled his blasphemous talent as shown here and
documented in Protestant literature with those who through love have
warned at least non-Catholics about their sentence of death? We were
called wormwood, demonic entity, ranter, hell-bound, etc by this
unscrupulous Jesuit.

In His Grace,

[Truth]

"Andrew" <andr...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:bmma3i$o9nfo$1...@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Cindy" wrote:
> >
> > How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation
> > of the Pharisees reclaim, and redeem them?
>
> "The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it ALWAYS IN
LOVE. In
> His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He
was always kind
> and thoughtful. HE WAS NEVER RUDE, never needlessly spoke a severe
word,
> never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure
human weakness.
> He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears
were in His voice
> as He uttered His scathing rebukes. HE NEVER MADE TRUTH CRUEL, but
ever
> manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. EVERY SOUL WAS PRECIOUS
IN
> HIS SIGHT. HE SAW IN ALL, SOULS WHOM IT WAS HIS MISSION TO
> SAVE."
>
> Gospel Workers, p. 117.

How eagerly the Pharisees sought to prove Christ a deceiver! How
they watched His every word, seeking to misrepresent and misinterpret
all His sayings! Pride and prejudice and passion closed every avenue of
the soul against the testimony of the Son of God. When He plainly
rebuked their iniquity and declared that their works proved them to be
the children of Satan, they angrily flung back the accusation, saying,
"Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" {1SM
70.2}

The Lord Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, likening them to sepulchers that
do not appear, hidden from sight, but full of corruption. The Lord hates
all deception, secrecy, and guile. This is Satan's work; the work of God
is open and frank. No one will work against a child of God on the
strength of the testimony of the Lord's enemy, and work after Satan's
manner--concealing himself, yet suggesting, instigating, planning in
perfect unity with the Lord's enemies. {TM 274.1}

>
>
> > His purpose was to warn others, was it not?
>
> Yes, but HOW.. and with what spirit and to what purpose.

Some recognized Christ as the Son of God, and received His words.
They opened their hearts to Him, and He entered in and abode with them,
and they were filled with courage, hope, and joy. But there were some
who grieved Him by their unbelief and hardness of heart. These He
faithfully warned and rebuked. He said unto them, "Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites." "Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father ye will do." Some would say, He is excited, harsh,
severe; but was He? Was it not necessary to rebuke and condemn those,
who, while they entered not in themselves, "shut up the kingdom of
heaven against men"? {BEcho, September 2, 1895 par. 3}

AND YOUR POINT AND PROOF IS WHAT ANDREW???

~ Cindy

[Andrew]

> AND YOUR POINT AND PROOF IS WHAT ANDREW???
>
> ~ Cindy
>
>

It is this . . .

[Shan]

Susan Williams <SWilliam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1tfsovo7ctu5ti0qe...@4ax.com>...

> Antichrist Andrew, son of the Antichrist who claims to be Adventist
> but has given relentless attack against all who exposed people
> condemning the lives of all non-Catholics, continues to behave as if
> he was trined by Rome for centuries. He now follows other Jesuit
> scoundrels, trying to mask his most hateful race and cult under the
> word LOVE:

This is an eighth reason why Shan must flame you.

Shan

[Teresita]

In article <1rasov8kdd630p6n3...@4ax.com>, Susan Williams says...

>Teresita did justify murder. The problem is that since you are also a
>servant of the Antichrist, killing Protestants is not regarded as
>murder TO YOU!!!

Protestant hands are not clean in this regard. Calvin, for example, not only
banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some
cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (Jacques Gouet, tortured and
beheaded in 1547; Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553).

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita

[Harold Kupp]

"Andrew"

> "Cindy" wrote:
> >
> > How did Jesus' censure, reproach and condemnation
> > of the Pharisees reclaim, and redeem them?

Andrew:

>
> "The Saviour never suppressed the truth, but He uttered it ALWAYS IN LOVE. In
> His intercourse with others, He exercised the greatest tact, and He was always kind
> and thoughtful. HE WAS NEVER RUDE, never needlessly spoke a severe word,
> never gave unnecessary pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness.
> He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice
> as He uttered His scathing rebukes. HE NEVER MADE TRUTH CRUEL, but ever
> manifested a deep tenderness for humanity. EVERY SOUL WAS PRECIOUS IN
> HIS SIGHT. HE SAW IN ALL, SOULS WHOM IT WAS HIS MISSION TO
> SAVE."
>
> Gospel Workers, p. 117.
>
>
>

Jesus exercising the greatest tact, speaking in love, being kind
and thoughtful said to them:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the
kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor
allow those who would enter to go in."

"You blind men..."

"...straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"

"...full of extortion and rapacity."

"...you appear righteous to men but within you are full of hypocrisy
and iniquity."

"You serpents, you brood of vipers..."

"Blind guides..."

"...how are you to escape being sentenced to hell."

Matthew 23:17,19
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or
the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
...
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or
the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Luke 11:40
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without
make that which is within also?

Luke 24:25
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken:

[Truth]

"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bmmdd...@drn.newsguy.com...

I remember this argument too. It was labelled "Blame is shared". Lamarr
likes this one too.
BUT, where have you ever seen us justifying this with scripture, as you
do? or saying it is just business?
(ha ha) , or necessary?
Where is this a mandate of our faith, as it is in the Church of Rome?
and where do we say forgive us, because that is loving, but we will not,
and do not change? and we will just tolerate you until we don't have to,
and then you will be exterminated? Or "resistance is futile, you will be
assimilated"?

Teresita's Rome speaks:

"Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western
emperorswas left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes, the Romans turned
to
one figure for aid and protection, and asked him to rule them; and thus,
commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes. And meekly
stepping to the throne of Caesar, the vicar of Christ took up the
scepter to
which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence
through so many ages."--American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See (the Vatican) and the Roman
Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world."-A Decree of the
Councilof Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, "The Most
Holy Councils," col. 1167.

"[It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from
the State, and the State from the Church." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
(of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section VI, Errors About Civil Society,
Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church, #55.

"[It is error to believe that] Kings and princes are not only
exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the
Church
in deciding questions of jurisdiction." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of
Errors), Issued in 1864, Section VI, Errors About Civil Society,
Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church, #54.

"[It is error to believe that] In the case of conflicting laws
enacted by the two powers (Church and civil), the civil law prevails."
Pope
Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section VI, Errors
About Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to
the
Church, # 42.

"Democracy is a michievous dream where the Catholic Church does not
predominate." -Brownson's Review.

"There is one, and only one, sure democracy, the Catholicism of the
Popes" -The Catholic World, Oct, 1937.

"Some dwell on the vastly increased tolerance shown in this country
now to Catholics and Catholic thugs... It betokens a decay of
Protestantism." -Catholic World, Oct. 1935, p.66

The old Protestant culture is about at the end of its rope... Why
can't we make the U.S. Catholic in legislation, Catholic in justice,
aims
andideals?" -Father F. X. Talbot, editor of America, official jesuit
magazine for the U.S. statement in New York Globe Dec. 14, 1930

"Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be
carriedinto effect without peril to the Catholic Church."
-Bishop O'Conner of Pittsburg.

"If Catholics ever gain sufficient numerical majority in this
country,religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say; so we
believe" -The Shephard of the Valley, journal of the late bishop of St.
Louis.

In the book Confusion Twice Confounded, Monsignor Joseph H. Brady
states that the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong in decisions regarding
"seperation of Church and State." He says: "A sound view of the
Constitution in
its relation to religion probably awaits a change in personnel in our
highest tribunal." -The Register, Jan. 23, 1955.

"But Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may
decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them
may
become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a
Catholic state?" -The State and the Church, pp.38,39, by Miller and
Ryan, imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes.

"The Catholic Church in this nation must live on to accomplish her
work, even though our Republican form of government disappears."
-The Catholic World, April, 1935, p.12.

They [Catholics] must penetrate wherever possible in the
administration of civil affairs... all Catholics should do all in their
power to
cause the constitution of states, and legislation to be modeled on the
principles of the true Church." -Encyclical of Leo XIII.

"It is error to believe that Every man is free to embrace and
profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall
consider true." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864,
Section III, Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism, #15.

"It is error to believe that hence it has been wisely decided by
law,in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein
shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." Pope
Pius
IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X, Errors Having
Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78.

"It is error to believe that Moreover, it is false that the civil
liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all,
of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and
thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the
people,
and to propagate the pest of indifferentism." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
(of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X, Errors Having Reference to
Modern LiberalismI, #79.

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd
and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must
be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil
affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest
impudence
that some advantage accrues to religion from it....a pestilence more
deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest
times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as
a
result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion,
license of free speech, and desire for novelty.Here We must include that
harmful and never sufficiently
denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them
to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a
clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious
errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets,and
other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice."
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious
Indifferentism), Encyclical promulgated on August 15, 1832, #14 &
15.

Under the influence of Germanic customs and concepts, torture was
little used from the 9th to the 12th centuries, but with the revival of
Roman law the practice was reestablished in the 12th century... In 1252
(Pope)Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil
authorities upon heretics, and torture came to have a recognized
place in the procedure of the inquisitional courts. -New Catholic
Encyclopedia, arts. "Inquisition", "Auto-da-Fe'," and "Massacre of
St Bartholomew's Day."

"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you
were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to
you?That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would
benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient,
he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even
hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you
for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty'
Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance
itself, for it is truth itself."--"Civil and Religious Liberty," in
TheRambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. ["The Rambler" was an English
Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].

"Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but
to put heretics (Protestants) to death; for the (Romish) church
proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely
excommunicatied them; afterwards she added a fine; then she
banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to
death." -Cardinal Bellarmine famous champion of Romanism
cited by Schumucker p. 76

'The church,' says [Martin] Luther, 'has never burned a heretic.'
. . I reply that this argument proves not the opinion, but the ignorance
or impudence of Luther. Since almost infinite numbers were either
burned or otherwise killed, Luther either did not know it, and was
therefore
ignorant, or if he was not ignorant, he is convicted of impudence
and falsehood,--for that heretics were often burned by the Catholic
Church may be proved from many examples."--Robert Bellarmine,
Disputationes
de Controversiis, Tom. II, Lib. III, cap. XXII, 1628 edition
[Bellarmine is one of the most respected Jesuit teachers in the history
of the
Gregorian University in Rome, the largest Jesuit training school in
the world].

Mr. Raywood Frazier, in the booklet "Catholic Words and Actions,"
presents documentary proof of the intensive persecution of
Protestants and non-Catholics in Columbia, South America, between
1949 and 1953.
The Catholic Church had the support of the Columbian government in the
destruction of many churches, and the liquidation of more than 1,000
documented cases -- some of whom were shot, drowned, or emasculated.
He says there is evidence of over 60,000 killed. Pope Pius XII awarded
the President of Columbia with one of the highest awards which the
Church bestows, and praised Columbia for its example of the Catholic
faith." (Pp. 59,60)

The defense of Roman Catholics to this presentation is as follows:
"Communists destroy churches because they are God's enemies;
Catholic's destroy churches because they are God's friends... Against
such
men-founded churches... Catholics in Latin America should arise and
wipe them out with fire." -John J. Oberlander, in The Voice of Freedom,
1954, p. 20.

The rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, H.M.A. Baudrillart,
revealed the attitude of the church and her leaders toward
persecution."When confronted with heresy," he said, "she does not
content
herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order
appear
to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal
punishment, to torture."
The Catholic Church, The Renassance, and Protestantism,pp.182-183

"It no longer can be said today that the U.S. is a Protestant
country." -Cardinal Strich of Chicago, quoted in Time Magazine, Aug.
5, 1955 "

"It is error to believe that hence it has been wisely decided by
law,in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein
shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." Pope
Pius
IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X, Errors Having
Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78.

"It is error to believe that Moreover, it is false that the civil
liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all,
of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and
thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the
people,
and to propagate the pest of indifferentism." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
(of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X, Errors Having Reference to
Modern LiberalismI, #79.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, Sunday shows and Sunday theaters,
it was complained, hindered the "devotion of the faithful," because
many ofthe members attended them in preference to the church services.
The
church, therefore, demanded that the state interfere, and promote
Sunday observance by law. "In this way, " Says Neander "the church
received
help from the state for the furtherence of her ends." This union of
church and state served to establish the Papacy in power. A simular
course pursued now will produce the same results. -AUGUSTUS NEANDER,
General History of the Christian Religion and the Church, Torey
translation (3rd American ed.), vol. 2, pp. 300,301

On September 7, 1947, Pope Pius XII declared that "the time for
reflection and planning is past in religious and moral fields and
the time for action has arrived." He said that "the battle in religious
and moral fields hinged on five points: Religious culture, the
sanctifying of Sunday, the saving of the Christian family, social
justice and
loyalty and truthfulness in dealings."
-Evening Star (Washington D.C.), Sept. 8, 1947.

"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All
preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They
shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!" -Pope Leo X,
1516

"The church may by Divine right confiscate the property of heretics,
imprison their persons, and condemn them to the flames." -Vatican II

"Consequently, John Paul was criticized by liberal and moderate
politicians and newspapers for transgressing the boundary between
church and state." TIME June 1, 1981 article "Not Yet Hale, but Hearty"
By
George Russell

In sermons based on the Ten Commandments, John Paul denounced
excessivematerialism, divorce, contraception and the separation of
church and
state, TIME June 17, 1991 "The Gift Of Life" p. 47 Sermons from A
Native Son

Recent statements by the Polish Episcopate have fueled apprehension.
In late April the bishops urged that the new constitution exclude any
provision for the separation of church and state. Instead, they
suggested, "exceptional emphasis should be laid on the need for
cooperation between the state and the Catholic Church." TIME May 20,
1991 "Five Who Could Be Vice President" Pg 40 "Power to The Pulpit"

And that while leaving out alot, doesn't even include the last 14
years...

~ Cindy

[Teresita]

In article <5bc55bb6ee213ff0...@news.teranews.com>, Truth says...

>Where is this a mandate of our faith, as it is in the Church of Rome?
>and where do we say forgive us, because that is loving, but we will not,
>and do not change? and we will just tolerate you until we don't have to,
>and then you will be exterminated? Or "resistance is futile, you will be
>assimilated"?

Actually, the strategy is to outlast the whole Protestant movement, which has
perhaps less than a century left to it. Already we see the implosion of the
Episcopal church over gay bishops.

[Lamarr Edwards]

Teresita - Come now, you know that American Episcopalians are just
Church of England, which is just a form of Catholicism, founded by ol'
Henry the eigth, whom the pope called one of Catholicisms greatest
defenders, till he wanted a divorce.

Anglicanism is not Protestantism, it is bastard Catholicism.

Many Protestant denominations are focusing on on other things, besides
their Protestant heritage and foundations, but many are not.

Real Protestantism will "protest" against Catholicism and its beliefs
till hell freezes over, then protest against Catholic theology on the
ice. LE

[Teresita]

In article <193-3F8...@storefull-2375.public.lawson.webtv.net>, Lamarr
Edwards says...
>

>Anglicanism is not Protestantism, it is bastard Catholicism.

Splendid. That means the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland is a struggle
between Catholicism and bastard Catholicism. ;-)

[Susan Williams]

The problem is that Teresita is trying to diffuse the exposed fact
that she boldly condemned all non-Catholics to torture and death,
again proving that Rome is exactly the same as always, and those who
reported these facts do not hate Catholics!

==========

Some of you may well not be convinced that Ted Seeber condemned all
non-Catholics on the newsgroups. Actually, to this day, even those on
the newsgroups who formerly denied it had to confess that Seeber did
just that, and they went into every manner of defense for Seeber. As
we expose the dialogues, we will more prove this. However, since we
started this work, another person came out more boldly and gave
approval of the deaths of millions of Christians. She posts under the
name of Teresita. When I made mention of that great Christian work
Foxe's Book of Martyrs, detailing centuries of uncountable murders of

bible-believing Christians, she referred to the work as:

"Foxe's Book of Hereticks." She therefore approved of their deaths
because they viewed religion differently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=b0165u09im%40drn.newsguy.com
1/14/2003

Naturally, we got on her case for her boldness here as we still have
the liberty to do in this free country.

Teresita in response lied to us, telling us that when she called
Foxe's Book of Martyrs "Foxe's Book of Heretics," she was only
referring to the Albigenses of the Protestant Reformation 5/29/2003
who were a minority group of Christians during that time:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb521t01pej%40drn.newsguy.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3424526807d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbb521t01pej%2540drn.newsguy.com>

How do we know she was lying? The Albigenses were hardly mentioned in
that massive work. Protestants usually have little to say about the
Albigenses BECAUSE BOTH THEMSELVES AND ALL THEIR WORKS WERE COMPLETELY
ANNIHILATED BY ROME! But more proof that she was lying comes in her

next response as she worked to divert from my advancing questions:

Teresita belied her claim that she was only refering to the Albigenses

when she condemned the Christian martyrs as "hereticks" by condemning
Tyndale, who was not one of the Albigenses:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcfbru0230p%40drn.newsguy.com>

NEXT:

When pressed further and further to reveal her beliefs she is trained
to hide on the matter of the value of human life, Teresita says the
Vatican merely carried out God's commands when they killed millions of

Christians because the Israelites did the same with their enemies.
Here she is freely admitting what all those "Anti-Catholics" and
"Catholic-haters" have been saying all along:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl270768597d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bb5kmo0vt2%40drn.newsguy.com>

Here is that dialogue below:

From: Teresita (tere...@newsguy.com)
Subject: Re: Teresita responds inappropriatly

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, tnn.religion.catholic
Date: 2003-05-29 12:05:31 PST

In article <6s6bdv0l317i6dfjs...@4ax.com>, Susan says...
>
>Like Ted Seeber, you gave approval to their deaths and then come on the forums telling me I hate people just because they disagree.
>
>We are still under Homeland Security right through to the destruction of this nation. We are asked to report all terrorist activity found
>in people who have a profound disrespect of human life!

Teresita replies:
We merely carried out God's commandment in His Eternal Word:

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there is found among you, within any of your
towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what
is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his
covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or
the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have
forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall
inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an
abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth
to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you
shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

ARE YOU LISTENING HOMELAND SECURITY??? She claims the scriptures
mandated their actions IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!! Is it the New Testament
now? Do those scriptures still exist now and have weight now IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT??

LASTLY AND MOST STRONGLY:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl175085396d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bkkqlo0b0g%40drn.newsguy.com

After telling us that just to expose these facts about Rome she is now
boldly admitting is hatred, what would happen if we took a look at
what ANTI-PROTESTANTISM always was throughout the ages? When we
brought this issue about hatred up for her condemning the lives of all
non-Catholics, this is how she declared Rome didn't hate her victims
she was killing:

I wrote:
In article <3dqrmvoit629haa6l...@4ax.com>, Susan
Williams says...

>But super-terrorists--I mean SUPER-TERRORISTS, we are waiting for
>evidence. We were not born to listen to the worst killers on the
>earth who tell us what we must do, but when we expose how they are
>they tell the world we hate Catholics. They can kill all
>non-Catholics they say, BUT THEY DON'T HATE THEM!

Teresita replies:
It's nothing personal. It's just business.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita

[Alan M]

"Truth" <privacy-is...@friends-already-know-it.com> wrote in message
news:660696267436421d...@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:7axhb.144994$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Cindy,
> >
> > I agree with your qualification on the subject matter and the
> principle of
> > repentance. In taking the discussion forward, I'll offer a different
> > perspective:
> >
> > Past events can be raised whether someone repents or not. I don't
> believe
> > this is an accusation against Christ.
>
> Me neither. I realized after I wrote this post I did not express what I
> was trying to say very clearly.
> So thanks for giving me an oportunity to clarify.
> I previously posted a story on this NG which more clearly demonstrates
> what I was trying to say I will never condone. I am reposting it here,
> at the end of this post.
>
>
> If something happened, it happened.
> > The motives behind raising such events may well be mischievous, but if
> > someone has truly changed they should be able to rise above such
> tactics.
> > Generally I believe in giving people another chance. Some of my posts
> may
> > not indicate this belief but I don't claim to be perfect either. In
> your
> > case, I can remember the disagreement you had with Harold. You now say
> there
> > was misunderstanding and it's been resolved. I'll simply believe you,
> but
> > others may not. All you can do is correct them.
> >
> Thank you Alan. It has been my experience, (and learned painfully) that
> most misunderstandings arise, not because of what someone says, but
> because of how we perceive what someone says. We see them through a fog
> made up of our opinions and feelings and then we assume, and project all
> this on them.... This is not righteous judgment.

This is too true. The key is your last sentence about judgement. If this can
be deferred, every now and again something beneficial will result - a gem of
wisdom or at least something that rings a bell with your own experience.

>
> It is better to clarify things before forming a opinion which is based
> on facts, better to ask "How do you know this?", "why would you say
> this?", "What did you mean by this..?" or rephrase it, and ask "is this
> what you were saying..?"etc.. Honest people will explain their
> reasoning,with evidence or proof.
>
> However when you question someone, and they refuse to answer, then what
> are you to think?

Good question. You should try to be as charitable as possible, but I know
what you're saying. There comes a point where it's hard to maintain
charitable thoughts. OTOH it can be complicated. There are always questions
that are difficult or uncomfortable to answer.

>
> It is also my experience that those who refuse to answer are not being
> honest, either with others, or with themselves. To answer in that case
> would be an admission they are wrong, and they either can't or won't
> admit that. To my shame, I have been there myself also, pride is a
> terrible thing.

I think we've all been there Cindy. One solution to pride is to put yourself
into an environment where you're not an expert but you're surrounded by
people who are. A good dose of reality helps sort that out.

>
> As Christians we can't afford to have that kind of attitude. It really
> matters not if we "were" wrong, what matters is learning and not
> continuing to be wrong. Jesus is the only way to do this. My two cents.
> :-)
>
> ~ Cindy

[Ronald R. Walker, M.D.]

Dear Cindy:

 

You wrote --

 

Does Repentance in your understanding involve ceasing to do the sin that has been repented of?

 

Repentance, in my understanding, is a sorrow for sin and a turning away from sin, a change of heart towards sin.  This sorrow for sin is sincere, deep, heartfelt, arising not from a self-concern for how the sin might bring sorrow to the sinner, but a knowledge of how the sinner has brought sorrow to their loving Lord.

 

The Greek NT uses two primary words for "repent/repentance" --"metamelomai" (used to describe Judas' "repentance" and describes a "repentance" for how sin might bring sorrow to the sinner) and "metanoeoo" (used for true repentance, including a change of heart, a sincere, deep, heartfelt, repentance, arising from a knowledge of how the sinner has brought sorrow to their loving Lord; the noun form is "metanoia").  True repentance is a gift of God.

 

True repentance is a change of mind and heart against sin, where we no longer desire that sin in our lives and leads to a striving to overcome that sin.  However, even if we are truly repentant for a sin and desire for that sin to longer be a part of our lives, we may still commit that sin through weakness.  Remember, sanctification is a process.

 

For example, you had previously indicated that you were an "ex-smoker".  If you are a typical "ex-smoker", you had some "relapses" while in the process of kicking that sinful habit.  Were you repentant whenever you "relapsed"?  Did you no longer desire for that sin to be a part of your life, even when you "relapsed"?  Were you truly repentant, even though you "relapsed"?  I am sure that you were.

 

You also wrote --

 

If someone say, me, apologised for something and continued to do it occasionally would that be true repentance?

 

If you truly had changed your mind/heart towards that sin and no longer desired that sin in your life and were striving to overcome, but still occasionally fell through weakness, then yes, that would be true repentance.

 

You also wrote --

 

If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him, is it possible for you to wilfully sin, as long as you are doing this?

 

To avoid confusion, I would like to clarify something about "known" sin and "willful" sin, since they are not necessarily synonymous terms.

 

If you commit a "known" sin through weakness, but with a desire to do right and a striving to overcome, then that is not "willful" sin.

 

I do not believe that we break our relationship with our Lord if we commit this type of "known" sin.

 

If you commit a "known" sin through deliberate, defiance of the will of God, without a desire to do right or overcome, then that is "willful" sin.

 

I do believe that we do break our relationship with our Lord if we commit this type of "known" sin.

 

In the case of either type of "known" sin, as I have previously shown, we can obtain forgiveness, if we confess and repent of that sin, and, in the case of "willful" sin, our relationship with our Lord is restored.

 

As for "is it possible" --

 

Is it possible for a child of God, a "man after God's own heart", to commit a "willful" sin?  The story of King David and Bathsheba shows that this is possible.  Yet the Holy Spirit continued to work on King David to convict him of his "willful" sins and even moved the prophet Nathan to confront King David with his sins.  As a result, King David repented of his sins (read Psalm 51 and feel the depths of his sorrow for his sins), and also, as a result, King David was forgiven (although he still had to face the consequences of his actions) and his relationship with the Lord restored (even in the NT he is called a man after God's own heart).

 

This quarter we are studying the Book of Jonah in our Sabbath School lessons.  Here is a prophet of God, someone moved by the Holy Spirit, who is given a simple 5-word message to deliver to Nineveh, yet the prophet Jonah deliberately and defiantly refused to deliver that message (at least initially) and goes in the opposite direction!  So, again, we have a child of God, a prophet of God, committing a "willful" sin.  Yet, again, the Holy Spirit continued to work on the prophet Jonah and even provided the storm and great fish to convict the prophet Jonah of his sin.  As a result, the prophet Jonah repented and was forgiven.

 

So, here are just two examples of children of God committing "willful" sins.  So, Cindy, according to the Scriptures, is it possible?  Did they break their relationship with the Lord by committing "willful" sin?  Yes.  Were they restored, when they repented?  Yes.

 

It has been written:

 

Now these things happened to them by way of example for our admonition ...  (1 Corinthians 10:11)

 

Cindy, you complained that I often write of God's forgiveness, but never of victory over sin, which I have shown to be untrue in another post.  However, I will take this a step further -- without the assurance of God's forgiveness, if we fall, then we cannot have true victory over sin.  So, considering all the posts that I have written regarding the forgiveness of God, I have written a great deal on victory!

 

Doulos Xristou 'Ieesou,

 

Ron R. Walker, M.D.

 

 

[Lamarr Edwards]

Teresita - No, it is actually a struggle between imported Scots
Protestants, and native Irish Catholics. LE

[Teresita]

In article <20090-3F9...@storefull-2376.public.lawson.webtv.net>, Lamarr
Edwards says...

>
>Teresita - No, it is actually a struggle between imported Scots
>Protestants, and native Irish Catholics. LE
>

Lamarr, I used to post to USENET with webtv, and I found that webtv allows you
to cut and paste the text you're replying to, as I do above, which makes it
easier to follow the thread. You use ctrl-A to highlight everything, or shift +
arrow keys to highlight selected text, then use ctrl-C to copy, and ctrl-V to
paste.

[Harold Kupp]

"Ronald R. Walker, M.D."

> Dear Cindy:
>
> You wrote --
>
> Does Repentance in your understanding involve ceasing to do the sin that
> has been repented of?

(snip)>
Ronald to Cindy

> True repentance is a change of mind and heart against sin, where we no
> longer desire that sin in our lives and leads to a striving to overcome
> that sin. However, even if we are truly repentant for a sin and desire
> for that sin to longer be a part of our lives, we may still commit that
> sin through weakness. Remember, sanctification is a process.

Kupp-
Interpretation:

Repentence is to change your mind about sin but not really...

We may have a change of heart about committing murder, no longer
desire to murder - and still murder occassionally through
weakness.

Ronald to Cindy:

> You also wrote --
>
> If someone say, me, apologised for something and continued to do it
> occasionally would that be true repentance?

Ronald:

> If you truly had changed your mind/heart towards that sin and no longer
> desired that sin in your life and were striving to overcome, but still
> occasionally fell through weakness, then yes, that would be true
> repentance.
>

Kupp-
Interpretation:

If one had changed one's mind toward committing adultery, no
longer desired adultery in your life and were striving to overcome
adultery - but still committed adultery "occasionally" through
weakness - that would be true repentence.

I can just picture the panting adulterer saying to Jesus...
"Lord I really have changed my mind and I no longer desire to
fornicate with this person and honest - I am really striving
to overcome this "occasional but not habitual" sin - but
I am going to do it anyway through weakness. Lord forgive me
for what I am about to do again... Ronald says you will!

Ronald to Cindy:
> You also wrote --

> If someone say, you, abides in Christ and submits your will to him, is
> it possible for you to wilfully sin, as long as you are doing this?
>

Ronald:

>
> If you commit a "known" sin through weakness, but with a desire to do
> right and a striving to overcome, then that is not "willful" sin.
>
> I do not believe that we break our relationship with our Lord if we
> commit this type of "known" sin.

Kupp-
Interpretation:

If we know that it is wrong to commit murder and adultery -
and we have a desire to do right - then it does not count
when we commit murder or adultery.

Ronald to Cindy:

> If you commit a "known" sin through deliberate, defiance of the will of
> God, without a desire to do right or overcome, then that is "willful"
> sin.
>
> I do believe that we do break our relationship with our Lord if we
> commit this type of "known" sin.
>

Kupp-
Interpretation:
If one deliberately commits murder or adultery (knowing that
it is sin) and you do not have a desire to do right then it
is willful sin and we break our relationship with the Lord -BUT
either way you will not be lost.

Ronald:

> In the case of either type of "known" sin, as I have previously shown,
> we can obtain forgiveness, if we confess and repent of that sin, and, in
> the case of "willful" sin, our relationship with our Lord is restored.

Kupp-
Interpretation:

Don't worry about a thing folks... no matter what, you can
always have your relationship with the Lord restored after you
commit murder or adultery as long as you did not mean to do it.
(or even if you did)

(snip)
Ronald to Cindy:

> Cindy, you complained that I often write of God's forgiveness, but never
> of victory over sin, which I have shown to be untrue in another post.
> However, I will take this a step further -- without the assurance of
> God's forgiveness, if we fall, then we cannot have true victory over
> sin.

Kupp-
Interpretation

We cannot have true victory over sin unless we can be certain
we will be forgiven when we are defeated. In order to be
victorious we must snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Only the defeated are victorious!

The logic of Wonderland is amazing for its flexibility.

HK

For those who are interested - compare Ronald's drivel
to the plain teaching's of EGW which expose Ronald as
a false teacher who rejects the teachings of Mrs. White.

To be **redeemed means to cease from sin. ** No heart
that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union
with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before
all nations, tongues, and peoples. {SW, April 23, 1907 par. 2}

"Whoso abideth in him sinneth not," that is, does *NOT* wilfully
transgress the law of God; for "sin is the transgression of the
law." .... God has placed the transgressor of the law in the
ranks of the powers of darkness, in the company of the first
great apostate. {ST, April 30, 1896 par. 4}

[Truth]

Hmmm... You answered that pretty well Harold.

I only have one added question for you Ronald, it is actually the same
one I asked Russell, right before he disappeared..

If we strive and fail, Is this because Jesus is not all powerful, or due
to a lack of faith on
our part?

You said sin because of our weakness, but under the new covenant it's
different...

It is my belief that if we fail it is because we have put ourselves
right back under that old covenant and are trying to do it by ourselves.
Of course that leads to failure.

~ Cindy

"Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:e537bda4.03101...@posting.google.com...

[Harold Kupp]

"Truth"

> Hmmm... You answered that pretty well Harold.
>
> I only have one added question for you Ronald, it is actually the same
> one I asked Russell, right before he disappeared..
>
> If we strive and fail, Is this because Jesus is not all powerful, or due
> to a lack of faith on
> our part?
>
> You said sin because of our weakness, but under the new covenant it's
> different...
>
> It is my belief that if we fail it is because we have put ourselves
> right back under that old covenant and are trying to do it by ourselves.
> Of course that leads to failure.
>
>
> ~ Cindy
>
>

Cindy, as you know I am not Ronald but I think the answer
to your question is - a lack of faith - though I would not
express it in the same terms.

Ronald and those who have not been able to cease from willful
sin must defend their inability to obey by implying that
Jesus is NOT all powerful - and their proof is that Jesus
is not able to deliver them from the power of sin.

"The power of sin is the law" however those who are
born of God are "not under the law but under grace"
Those who continue to commit willful sin are under
the law - those who are under grace do not commit sin.

The point people like Ronald either do not understand
or have not experienced is that that one who is born of
God cannot commit sin through weakness - for God will not
us be tempted beyond our strength.

1 Cor 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man.
And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond
what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also
provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
(NIV)

Thus all willful sin is deliberate rebellion and punished
by expulsion from the Kingdom of God. This is the simple
truth so obvious to those who have received the knowledge of
the truth and invisible to those who have not.

Perhaps they, like Paul described in Romans 7, came to
the understanding that wages of sin is death and they must
cease from willful sin. Then like Paul they also discovered
that they were under the power of sin and could not cease
from doing what they knew was wrong.

All who are called by God and choose to follow after come
to that spiritual crossroad where they know they cannot
stop committing sin. And Satan waits at the crossroad...
Through his unwitting servants he tells them they do not
have the power to cease from willful sin.

Those whose faith in the power of God is weak will seek
another path which will allow them to believe they have
salvation despite their willful sin. Jesus called this
the "broad way that leads to destruction".

On the other hand, the narrow way that leads to life is
to trust commpletely in the Power of Jesus to deliver
us and choose "the narrow path that leads to life" -
knowing that to turn back to willful sin is to be like
the sow that was washed but returned to the mire.

That is the experience Paul was talking about in Romans
7...

This passage speaks of the experience of all who would follow
God and keep his commandments. When we first commit to obey
God (Repent) we say that the law is "just and holy and good".

But when we try to obey it we find ourselves at war with our own
flesh. To
our dismay we do the very things we would not. What are we to do??
Like
Paul we have learned that "the wages of sin is death". Yet we cannot
cease
from sin!

It is at this point that we also cry out to God, just as Paul did:

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?"

The answer is found in the next line:

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord"

It is Jesus who will deliver us from the power of sin. Through the
power
of the Holy Spirit we are able to cease from sin and quit "living
after the
flesh". Not only able, but we must! That is why Paul carefully
warned
the Roman Christians...

12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh,
to live according to the flesh--
13 for if you live according to the flesh *you will die,*
but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the
body
* you will live.*

As you can see in the above verses, in Romans 7 & 8, Paul was
speaking of the transition from helpless sinner who lived after the
flesh to victorious son of God who was led by the Spirit.

Those who knowingly commit sin do not submit to God's law. They
are not led by the Spirit of God, they are led by the flesh.

The problem I see is that if a person is taught that he (or she)
cannot cease from sin, they will never come to the point where they
cry out with Paul for deliverance. I know that I personally went
through a similar experience, where I wanted to obey God's law, but I
could not. In helpless desperation, I cried out to God for help. I
knew that if He wanted me to obey His commandments, He would have to
make it possible.

Soon after, I found in me the grace to obey. I was now able to resist
the power of the flesh, where before I could not.

It makes sense that God works in this way. If
we were able to cease from sin without first having
come to the point of total helplessness, we would
probably take credit for being able to cease from sin.

I know that I will never take pride in being able to obey
God's law, becauseI to was forced to cry out with Paul,
"who will deliver me from this body of this death."

And I to, with everlasting thankfulness am able to say:

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord"

I will continue to pray with you that those who continue
on the broad path towards destruction will be granted repentence by
God and tht He will open the eyes of their understanding.

HK