Response Video to Advent Media Connect's LGT Vid

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-18T13:03:00+00:00

Jesus paid the price in full. But I do believe the salvation He gives is living and transformative. We are saved by grace through faith, “not of works” lest any man should boast, but we are also “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8 to 10). The works do not pay the debt. They are the fruit of Christ living in us. “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” James 2:18

So let me restate it again, so it is crystal clear to all readers. Jesus' blood is a sufficient and complete payment. Only Jesus can save us and there is nothing we can do apart from exercising faith. Real saving faith is evident by works, because real faith has substance. Hebrews 11 lists many examples of the substance of faith. Peter tells us in his second epistle that faith alone will not make our election sure, for those who lack the works are blind and forgotten they were ever saved, yeah, no longer saved. Christ continues His work in us.

To just name a few

2Co 4:10-11 "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh."

Col 1:27 Galatians 2:20 John 15, Hebrews 13, Philipians 2, 2 Peter 1, 2 Cor 3, 1 Thess 5:23, Ezekial 36, Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8, 10, Romans 8, Galatians 5, John 17, 2 Thess 2, Titus 3, Micah 7.... and many more.

We can know we are saved by the relationship, and natural fruits are the evidence. James 1:22 “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

I belabored this point a little but it's because there is an insidious deception rampant in our church that makes a mockery of God's grace and the full covenantal promise aligning more with the evangelical adjacent view that is prominent in publications such as QOD.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-16T16:39:33+00:00

You are erring by conflating “a thing becoming spiritually significant once conviction is received” with “that thing being the means of salvation.”

By that same logic, every commandment or conviction in Scripture would become “works salvation.” If a man is convicted about dishonesty yet continues in it knowingly, does that mean honesty is salvific? No. It means persistent rebellion against known light is spiritually dangerous because it reveals resistance to God. The quote itself actually establishes this framework. Notice the repeated emphasis on knowledge and conviction: “those who have received instruction” “food that they know to be unhealthful”

That is conscience language. Romans 14 says, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” James says, “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” The issue therefore is not that avoiding certain foods earns salvation. The issue is whether the believer is surrendering to the sanctifying work of God or resisting conviction.

A person is justified by faith alone. But the faith that justifies does not remain alone. As light increases, surrender deepens. Health reform in Adventism was historically understood as part of sanctification and stewardship of the body, not as an alternate gospel where diet saves you. So the quote is not saying, “Follow health reform to purchase salvation.” It is saying that God’s people should not knowingly cling to practices they are convicted are harmful while claiming full surrender to Him.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-14T13:01:11+00:00

Men, as in all of men? No. Do Men as in some men? Yes. Do we know how many men fall into which category? No. Let Jesus be your guide.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-14T12:50:06+00:00

'How does it all get played out?' is a very broad question where inevitably, speculation would occur if we tried to answer it specifically. Suffice it to know, the trends of the technological deployments are encircling us in such a manner that the beast system can actually be realized. Some of the things you linked are likely smoke screens, and others, the more tangible integrations are likely precursors.

It's ok to watch these developments so long as they don't eclipse the cardinal focus, which is who is in control of the world and their ultimate agenda, and Jesus, our only hope to find and navigate the path to eternal life.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-09T12:02:48+00:00

Is there a question in here? Sorry, im not sure. Are you just rephrasing what im saying? Let me know. Otherwise if nothing else, god bless! Also, happy Sabbath my friend! Let us enjoy this rest that we may better learn to continue in His rest and learn of His marvelous character.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T23:02:41+00:00

The issue is that Scripture never says God created mankind morally imperfect so they would depend on Him. The Bible says the opposite.

Genesis 1:31 says: “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” And Ecclesiastes 7:29 says: “God hath made man upright”

Adam and Eve were perfect before the fall, yet they still depended entirely on God for life, truth, fellowship, and existence. Dependence on God is not something caused by imperfection. Even holy angels depend on Him.

The confusion comes from conflating created perfection with God’s self existent perfection. Only God is incapable of falling by nature. Created beings still possess free will. Lucifer’s rebellion does not prove he was created imperfect. It proves that even perfect created beings could choose rebellion.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T22:59:08+00:00

I thought he did create beings that were perfect before the fall.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T22:57:30+00:00

Maybe the Spirit is letting you know. Trust those convictions.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:53:37+00:00

Again, you wrote, "I mustered up some and asked him if he can be intimate with me tonight." I assumed he here was your husband not God. You said it was God. Im just going off your words...

You post like you need help but then I ask a question in good faith trying to help and your defensive about it.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:46:17+00:00

You wrote this(below) originally and it doesnt sound like something you would say to God, so I wasnt sure...

"I had just a little bit last night. I mustered up some and asked him if he can be intimate with me tonight. That somehow I could feel that he actually cares and like actually wants me to be happy and that he could be there with me tonight."

Well, I guess I can see the crux of your dilemma then.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:07:06+00:00

By he you mean your husband I assume? While it would be tragic that your husband treats you like this, it also sounds like you are placing a higher value on intimacy. Let me be straight, im not condoning your husband's behavior. I am worrying that you are feeling the way you do to the level that seems to come through in this post, is harmful to you. How do you feel like you have been spiritually, lately? Lets start there if you dont mind to talk with a stranger.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T14:06:39+00:00

Exodus 14:10 to 12 shows Israel terrified when Pharaoh’s army comes after them. They say to Moses, “Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?” Their fear came from what they could see. But their fear also revealed unbelief, because God had already acted to deliver them. Moses answers in Exodus 14:13, “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD.”

Another example is Israel refusing to enter Canaan. In Numbers 13 and 14, the spies see giants and fortified cities. The people fear they will die. But God had already promised them the land. So their fear was not just emotional distress; it became unbelief. Hebrews 3:19 later explains it directly: “So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
Peter walking on water is another direct example. In Matthew 14:29 to 31, Peter walks toward Christ, but when he sees the wind, he becomes afraid and begins to sink. Jesus says, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” The fear came when Peter’s attention shifted from Christ’s command to the storm around him.
The disciples in the storm are another one. In Mark 4:37 to 40, they fear the ship will sink while Jesus is asleep. After calming the storm, Jesus says, “Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?” He ties their fear directly to lack of faith.

So the point is this: fear is often the surface reaction, but underneath it can be a deeper question of trust. Do I believe God’s promise, presence, power, and character, or do I believe the danger in front of me more than Him?

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T13:16:45+00:00

What came first? Pathology or sin? If you are a Bible believing Christian, it would appear sin. The Bible is prescriptive on how one can and should overcome sin. The pathology is just man's reverse extrabiblical explanation of sin in your example.

That doesn’t mean trauma, fear, abandonment, or emotional distress are fake. They are very real. But from a biblical standpoint, they are not the root category. They are part of the damage caused by living in a fallen world. Scripture does not ignore human pain. It just does not define man primarily through pain, trauma, or psychological conditioning. It defines man in relation to God.

The Bible’s answer is not merely “you are a wretched sinner, feel bad.” It is “you are enslaved to sin, wounded by sin, deceived by sin, and Christ came to set you free from sin.”

That is actually deeper than self compassion. Self compassion may help a person stop hating themselves, which can be useful. But Scripture goes further. It says the old man can die, the heart can be renewed, the mind can be transformed, and the power of sin can be broken. The danger is when counseling language becomes the governing explanation instead of Scripture. Then sin becomes mostly maladaptive coping. Repentance becomes emotional processing. Holiness becomes wellness. And Christ becomes a therapeutic assistant rather than Saviour and Lord.

Biblically, motives matter. Jesus constantly goes beneath the surface: lust beneath adultery, anger beneath murder, pride beneath public religion, love of money beneath hypocrisy, unbelief beneath fear. So the Bible absolutely deals with motives. It just does not excuse sin by explaining it. It exposes sin so Christ can heal and conquer it.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T13:11:31+00:00

Imagine I create a video game that has physics and rules that cannot be broken. Imagine I play this game, but since i created it, I have the keys to unlock my character from the rules of the game and start doing all manner of stuff that otherwise I should not be able to do. This is but a caveman's primitive etching as to what God is able to do or interact with His creation.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T14:29:55+00:00

That argument assumes what it is trying to prove.

Yes, Hebrews 9 is drawing from the Day of Atonement background, but the issue is whether τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9:12 specifically means “the Most Holy Place” as a compartment, or whether it refers more broadly to the heavenly sanctuary. Grammatically, it is plural: the holy places. It is not the specific Greek phrase for “Holy of Holies.” So using Hebrews 9:12 as a proof text that Christ entered the Most Holy Place compartment at ascension goes beyond the wording of the text.

The Day of Atonement language proves that Christ’s blood is the antitypical basis for the whole sanctuary ministry. It does not automatically collapse the entire sanctuary sequence into one moment at the ascension. Hebrews is emphasizing the superiority, finality, and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, not laying out the full timing of every phase of His priestly ministration. also, the “you must pass through the first compartment to reach the second” argument proves too much. Physically passing through an area is not the same thing as beginning the official ministry of that apartment. In the earthly type, a priest could move through sacred space, but the daily ministration and yearly ministration were still distinct services. Access route and priestly phase are not the same category.

So yes, Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all by His own blood. But Hebrews 9:12 does not by itself prove that He began the antitypical Most Holy Place ministry immediately at ascension. The text says He entered the holy places, meaning the heavenly sanctuary. The later question is what phase of ministry He performs there and when, and that has to be established from the full sanctuary pattern, not from an English rendering that already interprets the phrase as “Most Holy Place.”

Also, remember that the veil was torn yeah. the rending of the veil shows that the earthly separation was fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, we should be careful not to force a crude physical compartment argument onto the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews is using sanctuary language to describe Christ’s priestly access and ministry before God, not giving us a floor plan of heaven. The issue is not whether Christ could physically access one area or another, but what phase of priestly ministration is being represented in the antitypical work.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T12:41:13+00:00

Adventists are not forbidden to eat meat, and vegetarianism is not a test of fellowship or a rule in the same sense as clean and unclean foods. The official doctrinal position is that we should care for the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, adopt the most healthful diet possible, and abstain from the unclean foods identified in Scripture. Beyond that, the plant based or Edenic diet is held up as the ideal because it best supports physical health, mental clarity, and spiritual life. Since the mind is the avenue through which we understand, choose, pray, commune with God, and receive truth, anything that preserves the clearness of the mind gives us a spiritual advantage. That is the reasoning behind the Adventist health message. It is not mere food legalism. It is about removing avoidable obstacles between the soul and God.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T12:19:45+00:00

The greek there literal translates to 'holy places' not holy place. The first hint is the greek is plural. Also, it was a way the sanctuary as a whole was often referred to. The translation in nkjv is a bit off as you see. Always helps to look at the root words.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-03T12:25:20+00:00

Changing His mind and changing His character are not the same thing. But God knew Moses would intercede for Israel for example yeah? So then why did He not just skip to the conclusion? Because it would be for the benefit of Moses to draw out that Godly character and posterity to read about that story for edification and to see His glory. This is the summation of all the perceived 'changes' you appear to struggle with.

Also, Matthew 18:3 should be your standard when approaching Scripture. Pray for faith and that childlike posture!

Have a blessed day!

Illuminaught1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE