PDA

View Full Version : Seventh Day Adventism



poochie
Aug 14th 2008, 10:18 PM
Are they saved? What do you say?

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 12:32 AM
People are saved based on whether or not they have accepted Yeshua as Lord and Savior, not based on the name of their church. ;)

MrAnteater
Aug 15th 2008, 02:57 AM
If you repented of your sin and accepted Jesus as your savior, that is the requirement from scripture.

I don't know much about them other than they seem very legalistic and want to argue about the Sabbath being on Saturday. Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Every day is a sabbath day in Jesus.

Bethany67
Aug 15th 2008, 03:19 AM
I knew a Hungarian SDA at Bible College and I would say she was saved, just bound up in some extra traditions and very legalistic. Mind you, she told us we were all going to Hell for not observing the Sabbath Saturday and that that was what Jesus meant about separating the sheep and the goats!

IMINXTC
Aug 15th 2008, 05:22 AM
Can always count on poochie to ask the easy questions;) My own ministry has often been inundated with Seventh-Day-Adventists. So many of my peers insist the 7th dayers are well within the pale of orthodoxy... very frustrating. If one sincerely believes the doctrine of the Sabbath as presented by them, and continues therein... I don't see how he or she could be saved. The contradictions between law & grace would (and often do) become too evident.

The claim made by several SDA apologists that their religion is in fact a special dispensation...a unique and separate church sent to edify the Body of Christ, echoes the similar claims of LDS among others.

Their Gospel is that of the "Seventh Day," which in their interpretation is the millenium age. Their message points to the future millennial age as man's only hope... rather than salvation by faith in the finished work of our Lord on the cross.
But many within that organization do not ascribe to or even understand this doctrine. I've seen more than a few come to Christ.

"Seventh Day Adventism" stands for the return (advent) of Christ on the seventh day, a day consisting of 1000 years.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 09:59 AM
SFASH, I am not SDA but I keep Sabbath as Yeshua did. Do you believe this one fact makes me unsaved? Why? Because I follow the Ten Commandments? I know that I am not UNDER the Law but I also know that His Law has been written in my heart. It is my DESIRE. What I do not do is lord the Sabbath over anyone else around me (children, hubby, friends). Nor am I legalistic concerning it knowing that as Yeshua clearly shows us, it IS good to do good on the Sabbath. But would you sit in judgment over me because we interpret scripture differently? If you have accepted the sacrifice (the only sacrifice) that covers the sin of the world and have put yourself under the authority of Messiah....I would count you as my brother as I would a SDA who has done the same. It would be quite a shame if you do not count me as a sister in Him simply because I remember the Sabbath day. :cry: BTW, I have met SDAs who do NOT condemn others to hell or count Sunday service as the mark of the beast, and btw faith in the finished work of Messiah is not cast aside simply because they look forward to the second advent (coming) of Christ as do MOST other believers. Thusly, I stand by my original answer that it is not the name of your church that saves you. God knows the heart, I don't. If anyone has an SDA friend they are concerned about, talk to them about their salvation to find out what they are putting their hope in. Don't just take the word of others who tell you what they think they believe.

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 15th 2008, 11:23 AM
Respose to Studyin'2Show.

I certainly do not think that one is condemned in keeping the Sabbath. Every day is Sabbath to me in Christ though there may be some who would condemn me. In my experience I have met many SDAs who were simply confused on the issue of salvation by grace because of the emphasis on law. Not all, just many. It behoves me, us, to help men and women to learn to rest (Sabbath) completely in Christ. My attitude toward them is not judgemental.

I have ran into variations in SDA doctrines, they do not all ascribe to the things which are often cited as heterodoxy by many.

Some of the things I mentioned, especially the emphasis on the millenium as the hope of mankind seem to have been pretty recent developments.
Some SDA theologians (not all) believe the church is a remnant church. They have come under fire for this, but not all SDA apologists make this claim.

I have personally seen more than a few come to a surprising realization of grace and grace alone as the means of salvation, and learn to rest in Christ by simply reading the admonitons of the New Testament.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16,17

Shalom. Lord Bless. Shabbat!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 02:26 PM
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16,17

Shalom. Lord Bless. Shabat!Yet, ironically, YOU are judging me in respect to the sabbath day. :rolleyes: That passage goes both ways. So, I will listen to the words of Paul and not allow anyone to judge me in respect to Sabbath. I'm surprised you don't see the hypocrisy. :dunno: It would probably be best if we, as disciples of Yeshua, focus on sharing the Gospel with all creatures and not on attempting to analyze the salvation of another. ;)

God Bless!

Rullion Green
Aug 15th 2008, 03:24 PM
I have heard Walter Veith say they are the remenant of the only true Church based on some obscure date wich i cant remember and also that Jesus is the Arch Angel Michael, and that if you worship on Sunday you are following the pope, wich they have a reasonable point on as it was Rome who changed the day of worship, but scripture says the Lord is our sabbath and we rest in him wich clears it all up for me.

I'm sure there are many genuine believers in a lot of diverse places and churchs that i wouldn't want to go to but thats just me. But SDA is not for me and i wouldn't advise anyone to go there.

Main point has been mentioned, has the person Repented and now lives and believes in Yeshua Hamashiac, or Jesus the Christ.

sunsetssplendor
Aug 15th 2008, 09:10 PM
My encounters with them have been... strained to say the least. I've overheard one say she could tell the SDA houses in the neighborhood b/c they were always nice and manicured?!?!?!?! They are a haughty group them.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 10:46 PM
They are a haughty group them.Oddly there are many (believers and unbelievers alike) who would make such a judgment about Christians who are not SDA. We have to be VERY careful when we start pre-judging a whole group of people. That is called prejudice. :rolleyes:

God Bless!

brakelite
Aug 17th 2008, 08:33 AM
Can always count on poochie to ask the easy questions;) My own ministry has often been inundated with Seventh-Day-Adventists. So many of my peers insist the 7th dayers are well within the pale of orthodoxy... very frustrating. If one sincerely believes the doctrine of the Sabbath as presented by them, and continues therein... I don't see how he or she could be saved. The contradictions between law & grace would (and often do) become too evident.
I am SDA. Interesting thread. It has often been claimed that Seventh Day Adventists are 'legalistic' because they promote and exalt the law of God. Here I have pasted a copy of a previous post of mine promoting the law. Your comments would interest me.

I am not a builder, but I've knocked up a few dog boxes over the years. A building inspector would not have been impressed but the dogs loved them. Set me loose on a larger project however like a house and it will soon become apparent that I am not even vaguely familiar with the laws and principles that govern design, architecture, carpentry, engineering or any other associated trade. I would be quite hamstrung by my lack of familiarity and knowledge.

A skilled tradesman however, through his knowledge, experience and obedience to the the laws that govern the building trade can erect a house that is safe and habitable, and he may also ad his own personal touches to enhance it's appearance.

The same with music. One who keeps to the laws of harrmony, rythym, and melody may add personality to the music and the result is pleasant and acceptable to the ears.

But put someone like me in charge of building a house who doesn't undersatnd and therefore cannot obey the appropriate laws and you will end up with a leaky house that will inevitably fall over in the first wind. Put me in charge of a concerto and you will finish with punk rock.

All walks of life are the same, and are governed by law. Trade, commerce, sport, entertainment, politics, society as a whole. All have laws.

Why is it then that so many Christians balk and doubt when it comes to the kingdom of God? Shall not God have laws also to govern His kingdom? Yet so many claim that Christians are exempt, or 'free' from the laws of God. Shall the Creator of the universe, who placed such awesome natural laws in place to govern the physical (eg gravity), then choose to dispense with laws to govern the spiritual? Shal the powers and rulers of this world legislate law to govern society yet the God who allows them to rule have no law?

I put it to you that God's laws are as valid and as binding ,even more so, than any other law. Even more so for the Christian who claims God as his Father. As acn be seen from the examples above, familiarity and obedience to law, enables us to express ourselves with true freedom. The more familiar and experienced we become, the better the craft we practice, the greater the skill we are able to employ. In whatever trade are hobby or pastime we apply ourselves to, if we obey the laws that govern those particular areas of our lives we can then add our own personality to them and we are then leading a more fulfilled, ordered, purposeful and complete life.

Jesus promises an abundant life to all who love and know Him. This abundancy can only be fully realised as we obey the laws of God that He has put in place for our good, and our welfare.

True freedom comes only within the confines of law, outside of law freedom becomes chaos, disorder, lawlessness, and in the spiritual realm, death.


The claim made by several SDA apologists that their religion is in fact a special dispensation...a unique and separate church sent to edify the Body of Christ, echoes the similar claims of LDS among others.
Just prior to the flood, God sent Noah to preach repentance and offer hope.
Just prior to the impending destruction of Nineveh God sent Jonah.
Just prior to to the first advent God sent John the Baptist.
Very very soon the second advent will be upon us. The climax and ultimate end to 6000 years of rebellion against the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Does it not make sense that God will send someone to warn the world of the impending destruction? Will you recognise that person when he/she comes? It was the church that crucified Jesus. Are you so sure of yourself that you might not be so self-sufficient and complacent that you may not do the same? I am not permitted to promote SDA doctrine in these forums. All I am doing here is challenging you to make sure you know what you are talking about before you publicly condemn anyone.


Their Gospel is that of the "Seventh Day," which in their interpretation is the millenium age. Their message points to the future millennial age as man's only hope... rather than salvation by faith in the finished work of our Lord on the cross.
But many within that organization do not ascribe to or even understand this doctrine. I've seen more than a few come to Christ.

"Seventh Day Adventism" stands for the return (advent) of Christ on the seventh day, a day consisting of 1000 years.

Interesting that you say the 'finished work of the cross'. That is quite typical of modern ministry - teaching only half the gospel. You neglect the resurrection, for our Lord's death may have taken our debt away, but does not complete our hope of eternity. His resurrection ensures our life.
Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Not only our eternal life, but the power of His resurrection also brings to us the changes that He makes to our lives in the here and now.
Ro 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

His resurrection enables us to receive His Spirit and be conformed into His image and character. His ministry in heaven as our intercessor and mediator before the throne of God is just as essential a part of the plan of salvation as was His sacrifice. The OT temple services were a type of the gospel. The sacrifice was just the first step.
Obedience for the Christian to the commandments of God is just as essential as obedience was for Israel. It's a complete package.

And with all due respect, I don't know where you got your teaching re the millenium from, but it sure didn't come from any official SDA teaching guide.Take care that you don't condemn an entire organisation on the basis of either rumour and second-hand opinion, nor even on a misinformed member of the church. I have written extensively in these forums over recent times, on a variety of subjects. Every one of them I write as a Seventh Day Adventist. You are welcome to read some of my contributions and tear me apart if you wish.

David Taylor
Aug 17th 2008, 12:32 PM
Just prior to the flood, God sent Noah to preach repentance and offer hope.
Just prior to the impending destruction of Nineveh God sent Jonah.
Just prior to to the first advent God sent John the Baptist.
Very very soon the second advent will be upon us. The climax and ultimate end to 6000 years of rebellion against the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Does it not make sense that God will send someone to warn the world of the impending destruction?

No, different situation now than those examples.

Now Christ has come. The time of ''new Propets" bearing warnings is over.


Hebrews 1:1 "God in the past spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son"

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John

John 14:26 the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 (The Bereans) received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

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

I Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect

2 Peter 2:1 there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies

So we can do as the Bereans, faithfully search and heed the Scriptures, learn from the Holy Spirit as our teacher, and avoiding the babblings of false teachers like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Charles Taze Russell, Arnold Murray, Bennie Hinn, and yes Ellen G. White, who the SDA wrongly esteem and elevate as a trustworthy Modern Prophet.




Will you recognise that person when he/she comes?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Yes, and that is exactly why Mainstream Protestantism heeds the above scriptures and why Mainstream Protestantism rejects the false teachings of SDA prophetess Ellen G. White, and others like her who come along from time to time misleading those who will give there false teachings an ear.



It was the church that crucified Jesus. Are you so sure of yourself that you might not be so self-sufficient and complacent that you may not do the same?

All humanity is to blame, luckily the church has been taught to seek repentance and to shun and avoid false prophets like Ellen G. White, who the SDA accept and embrace.

Why don't you renounce and turn from her and the false teachings that have crept into the SDA church Today?

valleybldr
Aug 17th 2008, 01:11 PM
Oddly there are many (believers and unbelievers alike) who would make such a judgment about Christians who are not SDA. We have to be VERY careful when we start pre-judging a whole group of people. That is called prejudice. :rolleyes:

God Bless! Agreed. SDA's vary greatly just like every other group. Whenever another holds to a practice that someone does not see or agree with you will often hear that someone start using the "L" word. todd

Studyin'2Show
Aug 17th 2008, 01:24 PM
Agreed. SDA's vary greatly just like every other group. Whenever another holds to a practice that someone does not see or agree with you will often hear that someone start using the "L" word. todd
Excuse my ignorance but what is the 'L' word?

Studyin'2Show
Aug 17th 2008, 01:28 PM
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Yes, and that is exactly why Mainstream Protestantism heeds the above scriptures and why Mainstream Protestantism rejects the false teachings of SDA prophetess Ellen G. White, and others like her who come along from time to time misleading those who will give there false teachings an ear.In all fairness, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I have not studied any of her teachings, but from what I've heard she does not claim to be Christ, does she? :hmm:

David Taylor
Aug 17th 2008, 01:43 PM
In all fairness, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I have not studied any of her teachings, but from what I've heard she does not claim to be Christ, does she? :hmm:
Sorry, I wasnt intending to say Ellen G. White claimed to be Christ, rather putting the focus on Christ saying many would come "in His name" and would deceive many.

False Teachers like Ellen G. White, have often come along since Christ warned us, speaking in His name, and deceiving many.

That was my intent on sharing that verse.;)

valleybldr
Aug 17th 2008, 03:09 PM
Excuse my ignorance but what is the 'L' word? .............Legalism

Studyin'2Show
Aug 17th 2008, 06:23 PM
.............Legalism Okay, thanks! :)

EaglesWINGS911
Aug 17th 2008, 09:32 PM
Ok, here's my two cents..I may not agree with everything they believe but when I or anyone else starts judging someone on whether they are saved or not, when they do believe in Jesus and profess faith in Him...we are playing God. I have a couple of good friends who are SDA and my doctor is SDA, we may not agree on everything but we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ, we talk about what the Lord does in our lives and we pray for each other. I don't see how people put SDA's and Catholics in the same catagory as a Jehovah's Witness and Mormons. It's ridiculous in my book.

brakelite
Aug 18th 2008, 07:40 AM
No, different situation now than those examples.

Now Christ has come. The time of ''new Propets" bearing warnings is over.

Ac 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.



Hebrews 1:1 "God in the past spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son"

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John

John 14:26 the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 (The Bereans) received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

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

I Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect

2 Peter 2:1 there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies

So we can do as the Bereans, faithfully search and heed the Scriptures, learn from the Holy Spirit as our teacher, and avoiding the babblings of false teachers like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Charles Taze Russell, Arnold Murray, Bennie Hinn, and yes Ellen G. White, who the SDA wrongly esteem and elevate as a trustworthy Modern Prophet.
I cannot disagree with any of the above quotes. But do they not all stress, as Jesus did, that we should beware of false prophets? None of those warnings preclude the that there could very likely be true prophets. John the Revelator for example? Agabus?




2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Yes, and that is exactly why Mainstream Protestantism heeds the above scriptures and why Mainstream Protestantism rejects the false teachings of SDA prophetess Ellen G. White, and others like her who come along from time to time misleading those who will give there false teachings an ear.




Why don't you renounce and turn from her and the false teachings that have crept into the SDA church Today?

I have no idea of course how many of my posts you have read. I do not hold to certain doctrines because they are taught by Ellen White. Nor do I hold to them because my church teaches them. I have debated on these forums on many topics, every time from a SDA viewpoint. But I have only used the Bible as my support for any of them. In fact as you are well aware, the board rules preclude me from doing otherwise.Whether the Sabbath, the millenium, eternal torment, or what some call 'soul sleep', not one of these do I use as the basis of my argument anything other than the scriptures. That is why I believe in the doctrines I do. Because I believe they are biblical.
That is why I am here. I am unafraid to debate on any issue. And my confidence comes from many years of study and prayer. Trust me, if from the scriptures you can prove me wrong, I will renounce the doctrine immediately.
When Jesus was warning His followers concerning false prophets, did He not
tell them that they were to judge them by their fruits? That if the fruit was bad, then they were clearly a false prophet? But if the fruit was good, then that prophet did certainly speak for God? That list of people you promoted. Have another look at them using the formula Jesus recommended to judge them. I'd be interested in what you come up with.

David Taylor
Aug 18th 2008, 12:14 PM
Ac 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.



None of those warnings preclude the that there could very likely be true prophets. John the Revelator for example? Agabus?

That was written 2000 years ago of Agabus and John, prior to the Bible being completed, and not in regard to Ellen G. White's false teachings from last century.




I do not hold to certain doctrines because they are taught by Ellen White. Nor do I hold to them because my church teaches them.

Which Non-Mainstream Protestant teachings of Ellen G. White do you hold?



I have debated on these forums on many topics, every time from a SDA viewpoint. But I have only used the Bible as my support for any of them. In fact as you are well aware, the board rules preclude me from doing otherwise.Whether the Sabbath, the millenium, eternal torment, or what some call 'soul sleep', not one of these do I use as the basis of my argument anything other than the scriptures. That is why I believe in the doctrines I do. Because I believe they are biblical.
That is why I am here. I am unafraid to debate on any issue. And my confidence comes from many years of study and prayer.

All people believe their own views are biblical, and have come "from many years of study and prayer", yet like Ellen G. White, many false prophets still abound, any many folks, for a variety of reasons, still follow and spread their teachings. The BibleForum, however, just isn't a platform for spreading false teachings by false prophets.




When Jesus was warning His followers concerning false prophets, did He not tell them that they were to judge them by their fruits?
That if the fruit was bad, then they were clearly a false prophet?

That list of people you promoted. Have another look at them using the formula Jesus recommended to judge them.

OK...(just a few examples per person)


Joseph Smith (polytheism,celestial progression)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Brigham Young(men live on the Moon,Adam was the Lord God)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Charles Taze Russell(Armageddon and Christ's return in 1914,denied Trinity and Jesus being YHWH)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Arnold Murray(British lsraelism,Serpent Seed)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Bennie Hinn(Jesus on stage in Kenya 2000,Fidel Castro dead in 94-95)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Ellen G. White(door of salvation shut in 1844; Jesus to return in 1844,45,46,56)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God


Jesus would have rejected them as false prophets for bearing bad fruit and deceiving tens of millions of people.

IMINXTC
Aug 18th 2008, 09:53 PM
That was written 2000 years ago of Agabus and John, prior to the Bible being completed, and not in regard to Ellen G. White's false teachings from last century.



Which Non-Mainstream Protestant teachings of Ellen G. White do you hold?


All people believe their own views are biblical, and have come "from many years of study and prayer", yet like Ellen G. White, many false prophets still abound, any many folks, for a variety of reasons, still follow and spread their teachings. The BibleForum, however, just isn't a platform for spreading false teachings by false prophets.




OK...(just a few examples per person)


Joseph Smith (polytheism,celestial progression)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Brigham Young(men live on the Moon,Adam was the Lord God)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Charles Taze Russell(Armageddon and Christ's return in 1914,denied Trinity and Jesus being YHWH)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Arnold Murray(British lsraelism,Serpent Seed)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Bennie Hinn(Jesus on stage in Kenya 2000,Fidel Castro dead in 94-95)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Ellen G. White(door of salvation shut in 1844; Jesus to return in 1844,45,46,56)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Jesus would have rejected them as false prophets for bearing bad fruit and deceiving tens of millions of people.

Wonderful refutation! I might suggest, not to embellish, that the "fruit" of the "Millerites" (1833-56) whose history is in the public domain, and who are the forerunners of the modern SDAs, continues to stand as one the most embarrassing segments of American church(?) history.

IMINXTC
Aug 18th 2008, 11:25 PM
I am SDA. Interesting thread. It has often been claimed that Seventh Day Adventists are 'legalistic' because they promote and exalt the law of God. Here I have pasted a copy of a previous post of mine promoting the law. Your comments would interest me.

I am not a builder, but I've knocked up a few dog boxes over the years. A building inspector would not have been impressed but the dogs loved them. Set me loose on a larger project however like a house and it will soon become apparent that I am not even vaguely familiar with the laws and principles that govern design, architecture, carpentry, engineering or any other associated trade. I would be quite hamstrung by my lack of familiarity and knowledge.

A skilled tradesman however, through his knowledge, experience and obedience to the the laws that govern the building trade can erect a house that is safe and habitable, and he may also ad his own personal touches to enhance it's appearance.

The same with music. One who keeps to the laws of harrmony, rythym, and melody may add personality to the music and the result is pleasant and acceptable to the ears.

But put someone like me in charge of building a house who doesn't undersatnd and therefore cannot obey the appropriate laws and you will end up with a leaky house that will inevitably fall over in the first wind. Put me in charge of a concerto and you will finish with punk rock.

All walks of life are the same, and are governed by law. Trade, commerce, sport, entertainment, politics, society as a whole. All have laws.

Why is it then that so many Christians balk and doubt when it comes to the kingdom of God? Shall not God have laws also to govern His kingdom? Yet so many claim that Christians are exempt, or 'free' from the laws of God. Shall the Creator of the universe, who placed such awesome natural laws in place to govern the physical (eg gravity), then choose to dispense with laws to govern the spiritual? Shal the powers and rulers of this world legislate law to govern society yet the God who allows them to rule have no law?

I put it to you that God's laws are as valid and as binding ,even more so, than any other law. Even more so for the Christian who claims God as his Father. As acn be seen from the examples above, familiarity and obedience to law, enables us to express ourselves with true freedom. The more familiar and experienced we become, the better the craft we practice, the greater the skill we are able to employ. In whatever trade are hobby or pastime we apply ourselves to, if we obey the laws that govern those particular areas of our lives we can then add our own personality to them and we are then leading a more fulfilled, ordered, purposeful and complete life.

Jesus promises an abundant life to all who love and know Him. This abundancy can only be fully realised as we obey the laws of God that He has put in place for our good, and our welfare.

True freedom comes only within the confines of law, outside of law freedom becomes chaos, disorder, lawlessness, and in the spiritual realm, death.

Just prior to the flood, God sent Noah to preach repentance and offer hope.
Just prior to the impending destruction of Nineveh God sent Jonah.
Just prior to to the first advent God sent John the Baptist.
Very very soon the second advent will be upon us. The climax and ultimate end to 6000 years of rebellion against the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Does it not make sense that God will send someone to warn the world of the impending destruction? Will you recognise that person when he/she comes? It was the church that crucified Jesus. Are you so sure of yourself that you might not be so self-sufficient and complacent that you may not do the same? I am not permitted to promote SDA doctrine in these forums. All I am doing here is challenging you to make sure you know what you are talking about before you publicly condemn anyone.


Interesting that you say the 'finished work of the cross'. That is quite typical of modern ministry - teaching only half the gospel. You neglect the resurrection, for our Lord's death may have taken our debt away, but does not complete our hope of eternity. His resurrection ensures our life.
Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Not only our eternal life, but the power of His resurrection also brings to us the changes that He makes to our lives in the here and now.
Ro 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

His resurrection enables us to receive His Spirit and be conformed into His image and character. His ministry in heaven as our intercessor and mediator before the throne of God is just as essential a part of the plan of salvation as was His sacrifice. The OT temple services were a type of the gospel. The sacrifice was just the first step.
Obedience for the Christian to the commandments of God is just as essential as obedience was for Israel. It's a complete package.

And with all due respect, I don't know where you got your teaching re the millenium from, but it sure didn't come from any official SDA teaching guide.Take care that you don't condemn an entire organisation on the basis of either rumour and second-hand opinion, nor even on a misinformed member of the church. I have written extensively in these forums over recent times, on a variety of subjects. Every one of them I write as a Seventh Day Adventist. You are welcome to read some of my contributions and tear me apart if you wish.

"Although 'tearing apart' seems to be the flavor of the month these days, I would be better advised to establish the tried and tested truth of God's word. This thread is established on the question of whether the SDAs are saved. My point was that grace (which saves) cannot be frustrated by law (which kills).

Ga 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

As a skilled tradesman and a licensed contractor, I can only say that, having studied your parable, I have absolutely no idea of what you are saying as pertains to the Bible or salvation.

As pertaining to some of the outstanding claims I had made concerning salvation, and the SDAs, all I can say is "Thank You for making my case."

Studyin'2Show
Aug 18th 2008, 11:35 PM
"Although 'tearing apart' seems to be the flavor of the month these days, I would be better advised to establish the tried and tested truth of God's word. This thread is established on the question of whether the SDAs are saved. My point was that grace (which saves) cannot be frustrated by law (which kills).

Ga 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

As a skilled tradesman and a licensed contractor, I can only say that, having studied your parable, I have absolutely no idea of what you are saying as pertains to the Bible or salvation.

As pertaining to some of the outstanding claims I had made concerning salvation, and the SDAs, all I can say is "Thank You for making my case."So, in your view the only way to be saved is to be lawless? :hmm:

brakelite
Aug 19th 2008, 12:57 AM
That was written 2000 years ago of Agabus and John, prior to the Bible being completed, and not in regard to Ellen G. White's false teachings from last century.
1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

I am sure you wouldn't deny that apostles teachers healers helps etc are still relevant and necessary to the church,so why would you exclude prophets? If you do exclude the ministry of prophets to the church, on whose say so?

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Re 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Here is undoubted proof that the gift and spirit of prophecy belongs to God's end-time church. And why not? At this time in earth's history it would be more needed than at any other time. But like you said, and I would not disagree, it is for us to discern the true from the false. Using the scriptures as the sole basis of judgment, we must accept the true and reject the false. And God will hold us accountable for our decisions. Thus it behooves us to ensure we stand on solid ground whatever that decision may be. Are you basing your decision on rumour, second hand opinion or have you studied White's writings and compared them with scripture yourself?






Which Non-Mainstream Protestant teachings of Ellen G. White do you hold?
Read some of my posts. I have been with you over a year now, if you disagree with my doctrine, then show me the scriptures. I understand and perfectly empathize with the board's intent to minimize the impact of false doctrine. But be careful when you use the term 'mainstream'. Just because the majority holds to a particular view, does not mean that view is truth. Was the majority right in the time of Jesus? Was the majority right in the time Luther? Look at the churches today. Hundreds of different denominations all teaching a variety of teachings all founded on 'scripture'. Just take this forum as an example. More opinions on more topics than you can shake a stick at. They would all claim to be 'mainstream' so are all correct?








OK...(just a few examples per person)


Joseph Smith (polytheism,celestial progression)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Brigham Young(men live on the Moon,Adam was the Lord God)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Charles Taze Russell(Armageddon and Christ's return in 1914,denied Trinity and Jesus being YHWH)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Arnold Murray(British lsraelism,Serpent Seed)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
Bennie Hinn(Jesus on stage in Kenya 2000,Fidel Castro dead in 94-95)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God
No argument.


Ellen G. White(door of salvation shut in 1844; Jesus to return in 1844,45,46,56)-bad fruit, reject them as Prophets of God



In 1844 the SDA church didn't even exist. EG White was but 17 years old and hadn't begun her ministry.
The date settings you quote were made by off-shoots of the Millerite movement, but none of them were set by those who later established the SDA church. The 1844 date is interesting though. Have you studied why Miller taught that date as the day for the second coming? He was greatly opposed naturally by the established churches of the day, but none could refute his date. That Jesus didn't come at that time is obvious, and I am sure of great perplexity and disappointment to those involved. But the date was founded on sound biblical principles. The event was wrong, but the date itself remains solid. I am not permitted to explain here, so I suggest you study it yourself.

IMINXTC
Aug 19th 2008, 01:44 AM
So, in your view the only way to be saved is to be lawless? :hmm:

My point is that concerning the law, I have no hope and am already in eternal violation. Concerning salvation, any attempt on my part to redeem myself by appplication of the law is futile.

"He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Hb 10:28

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin the flesh." Rm 8:3

Studyin'2Show
Aug 19th 2008, 02:28 AM
My point is that concerning the law, I have no hope and am already in eternal violation. Concerning salvation, any attempt on my part to redeem myself by appplication of the law is futile.

"He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Hb 10:28

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin the flesh." Rm 8:3However, being lawful does NOT equate with believing you redeem yourself by application of the law. Of course that would be futile. Yeshua clearly says that no man comes to the Father but through Him. He did not say we come to the Father through adherence to the law. That is not the point for many who choose to walk uprightly in the law that God has written in their heart. I can only speak for myself but I have no doubt that my salvation was bought and paid for by the blood of Messiah....PERIOD! :pp

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 19th 2008, 05:50 AM
However, being lawful does NOT equate with believing you redeem yourself by application of the law. Of course that would be futile. Yeshua clearly says that no man comes to the Father but through Him. He did not say we come to the Father through adherence to the law. That is not the point for many who choose to walk uprightly in the law that God has written in their heart. I can only speak for myself but I have no doubt that my salvation was bought and paid for by the blood of Messiah....PERIOD! :pp

God Bless!

If it is your assurrance that you have been saved by grace alone, as you well stated, by the blood of Christ...PERIOD!..I rejoice with you.:pp

But certainly you agree... Considering the gaping lake of fire which awaits men and angels... We had better get it right... rather than the happy slappy 'everything goes' mentality so popular today... we need to be very careful to know and stress the need for good doctrine...and as has been well stated previously...beware of false prophets?

"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." Titus 3:10

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Ga 3:3

brakelite
Aug 19th 2008, 07:01 AM
If it is your assurrance that you have been saved by grace alone, as you well stated, by the blood of Christ...PERIOD!..I rejoice with you.:pp

But certainly you agree... Considering the gaping lake of fire which awaits men and angels... We had better get it right... rather than the happy slappy 'everything goes' mentality so popular today... we need to be very careful to know and stress the need for good doctrine...and as has been well stated previously...beware of false prophets?

"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." Titus 3:10
You seem to think that Seventh Day Adventists claim that they are saved because they keep the Sabbath and/or teach and lift up the law. Now I am sure that there very well may be some who do. Just as in every denomination
there are some who misunderstand the basics and fundamentals of faith.
However, while there are many who could rightly be termed 'legalists' in our church, I am sure there are some in many other denominations also. I would also suggest that in every denomination there are some who swing to the opposite extreme, and trumpet 'grace grace' and think that once they are saved they can do what they like.
Here is how I view the matter of law.

How was Israel saved from bondage in Egypt? By works? No. By the law? No.
They were saved by the blood of the Passover Lamb. In order to be saved by that blood they had to have faith in God's word that:
a. There was a definite threat of death.(Rom 6:23)
b. That the application of the blood of the Lamb would indeed protect them.
Now" For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:".
It was after they were saved that God showed them His law. They could not bypass Sinai. "This is how you now must live" God said. Obey Me and live, and I will lead you to the promised land. What happened to those who did not obey? They fell in the wilderness. "But they had the blood of the Lamb to cover them" some may say. That was not enough was it. Disobedience nullified the blood and they entered not into God's promises.
These things were written for our example,that we may learn from them.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Now that we are saved also by the blood of the Passover Lamb let us not bypass Sinai or think that we can ignore God's requirements. Know assuredly that those who do, though they may claim salvation, will not enter in to the promised land.

Now, are those the thoughts of a man saved , or one unsaved. They are though the thoughts of a Seventh Day Adventist.

Regards
Brakelite.

IMINXTC
Aug 19th 2008, 07:25 AM
You seem to think that Seventh Day Adventists claim that they are saved because they keep the Sabbath and/or teach and lift up the law. Now I am sure that there very well may be some who do. Just as in every denomination
there are some who misunderstand the basics and fundamentals of faith.
However, while there are many who could rightly be termed 'legalists' in our church, I am sure there are some in many other denominations also. I would also suggest that in every denomination there are some who swing to the opposite extreme, and trumpet 'grace grace' and think that once they are saved they can do what they like.
Here is how I view the matter of law.

How was Israel saved from bondage in Egypt? By works? No. By the law? No.
They were saved by the blood of the Passover Lamb. In order to be saved by that blood they had to have faith in God's word that:
a. There was a definite threat of death.(Rom 6:23)
b. That the application of the blood of the Lamb would indeed protect them.
Now" For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:".
It was after they were saved that God showed them His law. They could not bypass Sinai. "This is how you now must live" God said. Obey Me and live, and I will lead you to the promised land. What happened to those who did not obey? They fell in the wilderness. "But they had the blood of the Lamb to cover them" some may say. That was not enough was it. Disobedience nullified the blood and they entered not into God's promises.
These things were written for our example,that we may learn from them.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Now that we are saved also by the blood of the Passover Lamb let us not bypass Sinai or think that we can ignore God's requirements. Know assuredly that those who do, though they may claim salvation, will not enter in to the promised land.

Now, are those the thoughts of a man saved , or one unsaved. They are though the thoughts of a Seventh Day Adventist.

Regards
Brakelite.

"I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Your arguments are the classical, circular rationalizations of the SDA.

"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."Ga 2:19

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Ga 3:3

The letter to the Galations being a refutation and condemnation of LEGALISM.

"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Ga 2:18

brakelite
Aug 19th 2008, 07:53 AM
"I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Your arguments are the classical, circular rationalizations of the SDA.
"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."Ga 2:19

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Ga 3:3

The letter to the Galations being a refutaion and condemnation of LEGALISM.

"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Ga 2:18

The scriptures are of course correct. Righteousness does not come by the law. The Galatians were reverting back to circumcision etc making faith and the grace of God void.The law Paul is referring to here of course is the law of Moses. The lawe that pertained to the sacrificial system and the rituals and practices of the nation. He was not referring to the ten commandments.
So if righteousness doesn't come by the law, from whence does it come?

Ro 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

It is a gift. Righteousness is a gift just as salvation is a gift. Now tell me. The righteousness that comes to us as a gift. Is it in harmony with the law?

IMINXTC
Aug 19th 2008, 07:59 AM
Brakelight.

Just one question if I might ask: What happens to you, according to SDA teaching... when you fail to keep Sabbath? What has happened to your relationship with Jehovah God? Supposing you were to die in the midst of that failure, where would you go? According to SDA teaching?

And why do you make a distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments? And, if you would, where in the 2nd an 3d chaps of Galations does Paul make that distinction.?

OK, MORE THAN JUST ONE QUESTION.

brakelite
Aug 19th 2008, 09:54 PM
Brakelight.

Just one question if I might ask: What happens to you, according to SDA teaching... when you fail to keep Sabbath?
When anyone fails to do that which the Lord requires,whatever that may be, it is because the flesh has risen up and the person is no longer walking in the Spirit. By the way, that is my personal view. The SDA view I am not permitted to speak of.


What has happened to your relationship with Jehovah God?
Nothing. If I made a practice of it however that would be a different matter. "For him who knoweth to do good but doeth it not, for him it is sin."



[Supposing you were to die in the midst of that failure, where would you go? According to SDA teaching?
The grave. Like everyone else.

[
And why do you make a distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments?

Because God did. One He wrote Himself. He told Moses to put that in the ark. In the most holy place upon the planet at that time. The other, Moses wrote himself, and God told him to put that beside the ark. Paul says in Coll that the ordinances were nailed to the cross. To claim that that law was the law of God (the ten commandments) is to distort and do damage to other scriptures which clearly indicate that the ten commandments are always valid and will never be done away with.

[ And, if you would, where in the 2nd an 3d chaps of Galations does Paul make that distinction.?



When he refers to circumcision. That was not a part of the ten commandment law of God.
Let me further explain. Verse 19 in C3 says the law was added because of transgression. If this refers to the law of God, it makes no sense at all. Sin is the transgression of the law. (1 Jn 3:4) The law therefore must predate sin. So how can the law be added because of sin?

DeafPosttrib
Aug 19th 2008, 10:05 PM
brakelite,

You say,


The grave. Like everyone else.


Do you believe in hell?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

IMINXTC
Aug 20th 2008, 02:23 AM
Dear Brakelite,

I was wondering: If, when you break the Sabbath, and nothing happens to you, why then, do you call it LAW.

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Rm 415

"He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses." He 10:28

"For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression
and disobediance recieved a just recompence of reward; He 2:2

And since we're here: Do you believe that I am under the same LAW concerning the keeping of Sabbath, as you are?

I mean, thus far, it has been, described as LAW. THE SABBATH LAW.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 20th 2008, 10:12 AM
If it is your assurrance that you have been saved by grace alone, as you well stated, by the blood of Christ...PERIOD!..I rejoice with you.:pp

But certainly you agree... Considering the gaping lake of fire which awaits men and angels... We had better get it right... rather than the happy slappy 'everything goes' mentality so popular today... we need to be very careful to know and stress the need for good doctrine...and as has been well stated previously...beware of false prophets?This is exactly the point! I have received the free gift of righteousness. It is now my desire (law written on the heart) to walk circumspectly in the righteousness I have been given. HOW can walking righteously be considered heretic? :hmm:

IMINXTC
Aug 20th 2008, 12:02 PM
This is exactly the point! I have received the free gift of righteousness. It is now my desire (law written on the heart) to walk circumspectly in the righteousness I have been given. HOW can walking righteously be considered heretic? :hmm:

Well, Studyin'2Show

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rm 14:5

You, In your walk with the Lord, consider a particular day (Sabbath) to be above another. You have my blessing.
I consider all days alike. In light of scripture, do I have your blessing?

Are you constrained by LAW to put one day above another? And if it is LAW, why would that LAW not apply to me?

We are speaking in this thread, of the LAW OF SABBATH as taught by the SDA, and how these things relate to salvation.
I am a gentile, but have very many close brethren who are Jews. Many of these brethren keep Sabbath on the seventh day...but never by constraint of the LAW. And they fully bless my appreciation of every day as being equal. Because it has NOTHING to do with the observance of days. There are no such ordinances in the New Testament...I am free of ordinances. (other than those of Baptism and the Lord's supper, both commanded by Christ, but not essential to salvation. Oh, oh, another thread!)

As pertaining to salvation, it's either by LAW or GRACE. If I keep returning to issues of the LAW, equating these articles of the LAW as my' righteousness'... then I am confused on the subject of salvation by grace, and therefore, under the SDA teaching of salvation, I am frustrated.

"For Christ is the END OF THE LAW for 'righteousness' to every one that believeth." Rm 10:4

"And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Rm 11:6

FREE, FREE AT LAST!!!

David Taylor
Aug 20th 2008, 12:50 PM
As pertaining to salvation, it's either by LAW or GRACE.

I thought she said Salvation was by grace and faith alone a couple of posts back? That keeping the Law, so to speak, for her, was not to merit salvation; (which it cannot do), but to pretty much use as a reminder to abstain from sinning. Jesus said, 'Go and sin no more', after he forgave someone of their sins when they stepped out in faith and repented; and He gave them that wonderful saving Grace. I think from what I have read of her replies, that is what she is saying....just happens to use the word 'Law' which usually sends of bells and red-flags...especially when talking about SDA doctrines.

I didn't read from her replies however, that she is supporting or advancing SDA....or works salvation. Maybe ask her what she believes, instead of telling her what you think she believes, and posting law-ish scriptures that give the appearance that she is hoping for the Law to save her (which I don't think she is).

IMINXTC
Aug 20th 2008, 01:04 PM
I thought she said Salvation was by grace and faith alone a couple of posts back? That keeping the Law, so to speak, for her, was not to merit salvation; (which it cannot do), but to pretty much use as a reminder to abstain from sinning. Jesus said, 'Go and sin no more', after he forgave someone of their sins when they stepped out in faith and repented; and He gave them that wonderful saving Grace. I think from what I have read of her replies, that is what she is saying....just happens to use the word 'Law' which usually sends of bells and red-flags...especially when talking about SDA doctrines.

I didn't read from her replies however, that she is supporting or advancing SDA....or works salvation. Maybe ask her what she believes, instead of telling her what you think she believes, and posting law-ish scriptures that give the appearance that she is hoping for the Law to save her (which I don't think she is).

I think you are absolutely right. And further back on the thread she stated that she was not SDA. I agree also, that she is speaking of the law
'Written in our hearts" very rightly as the desire to please God, using the law as an example and as a guide.

I should have been clearer on that, and more encouraging to her in those things where in the application of our faith, she was and is right!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 20th 2008, 03:01 PM
Well, Studyin'2Show

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rm 14:5

You, In your walk with the Lord, consider a particular day (Sabbath) to be above another. You have my blessing.
I consider all days alike. In light of scripture, do I have your blessing?

We are speaking in this thread, of the LAW OF SABBATH as taught by the SDA, and how these things relate to salvation.
I am a gentile, but have very many close brethren who are Jews. Many of these brethren keep Sabbath on the seventh day...but never by constraint of the LAW. And they fully bless my appreciation of every day as being equal. Because it has NOTHING to do with the observance of days. There are no such ordinances in the New Testament...I am free of ordinances. (other than those of Baptism and the Lord's supper, both commanded by Christ, but not essential to salvation. Oh, oh, another thread!)

As pertaining to salvation, it's either by LAW or GRACE. If I keep returning to issues of the LAW, equating these articles of the LAW as my' righteousness'... then I am confused on the subject of salvation by grace, and therefore, under the SDA teaching of salvation, I am frustrated.

"For Christ is the END OF THE LAW for 'righteousness' to every one that believeth." Rm 10:4

"And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Rm 11:6

FREE, FREE AT LAST!!!Thanks for clarifying what you meant in your last post. I did want to address a couple of things from this post. :) First, I have absolutely no trouble with you esteeming every day alike. My blessing, however, should not be what you seek. ;) The Sabbath is not an inherently better 24 hour period. We are not to be inherently better during that 24 hours. The commandment simply says to 'remember' the Sabbath and in doing so remember creation. It says that God is the One who set it apart.

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I have not set the Sabbath apart for myself. He has set it apart FOR me! Yeshua tells us the that the Sabbath was made FOR man. It was not meant to be against us. So, no, I do not hold it AGAINST you.

Next, you say that we are speaking in this thread about the law of Sabbath as taught by SDA and its relation to salvation. I would have to say no. That is not the topic as laid out by the OP who simply asks if SDAs are saved, to which my answer remains the same. If they are trusting in the blood of Yeshua for their salvation then they are. If they are trusting in their keeping of Sabbath or the other commandments or in the teaching of a prophetess, then they have missed the mark. Ironically, there are plenty of Baptists, and Lutherans, and Methodist, and others who call themselves by the name of Christ who I believe miss the mark for the same reason. We can not attempt to judge the salvation of another based on the name of the fellowship they attend.

And finally, I am indeed FREE AT LAST, since accepting Messiah. I am free from SIN! Free from the curse that comes from sin. Free from the bondage of sin. Unfortunately, many believe that they are free TO sin! I believe that is a perversion of good doctrine. The blood of Yeshua should not be thought of as merely carte blanche to disregard doing what is right. Yeshua said that if we love Him we WILL do what He says, not that because He loves us we can do whatever we feel like doing. So, if you are indeed free at last, from the bondage of sin, I rejoice with you! :pp However, if you believe (mistakenly so imo) that you are now free at last to sin whenever you want, I will pray for you. :pray:

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 20th 2008, 04:50 PM
Yep. All the makins of a spiritual battle. The way I see it, when the battle rages, it means the devil has something to lose. Otherwise, its simply tat for tat.

It behoves us as God's people to do our best to storm strongholds with the word of God, because these strongholds become places where men can lose their souls in the good name of Christ.

That is why certain philosophies and doctrines are placed into the category of Heterodoxy and Heresy. Because, though they appear to be in ageement with the Bible, and salvation is often assumed, (and Heaven forbid you challenge that assumption), they bend (wrest) the Word of God just enough to give men and women false hope. SDA is no different.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 20th 2008, 05:23 PM
Yep. All the makins of a spiritual battle. The way I see it, when the battle rages, it means the devil has something to lose. Otherwise, its simply tat for tat.

It behoves us as God's people to do our best to storm strongholds with the word of God, because these strongholds become places where men can lose their souls in the good name of Christ.

That is why certain philosophies and doctrines are placed into the category of Heterodoxy and Heresy. Because, though they appear to be in ageement with the Bible, and salvation is often assumed, (and Heaven forbid you challenge that assumption), they bend (wrest) the Word of God just enough to give men and women false hope. SDA is no different.I'm sorry, is this a response to post #41? :confused

IMINXTC
Aug 20th 2008, 11:31 PM
Thanks for clarifying what you meant in your last post. I did want to address a couple of things from this post. :) First, I have absolutely no trouble with you esteeming every day alike. My blessing, however, should not be what you seek. ;) The Sabbath is not an inherently better 24 hour period. We are not to be inherently better during that 24 hours. The commandment simply says to 'remember' the Sabbath and in doing so remember creation. It says that God is the One who set it apart.

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I have not set the Sabbath apart for myself. He has set it apart FOR me! Yeshua tells us the that the Sabbath was made FOR man. It was not
meant to be against us. So, no, I do not hold it AGAINST you.

Boy! You sure are right about this horrible reality of grace becoming Next, you say that we are speaking in this thread about the law of Sabbath as taught by SDA and its relation to salvation. I would have to say no. That is not the topic as laid out by the OP who simply asks if SDAs are saved, to which my answer remains the same. If they are trusting in the blood of Yeshua for their salvation then they are. If they are trusting in their keeping of Sabbath or the other commandments or in the teaching of a prophetess, then they have missed the mark. Ironically, there are plenty of Baptists, and Lutherans, and Methodist, and others who call themselves by the name of Christ who I believe miss the mark for the same reason. We can not attempt to judge the salvation of another based on the name of the fellowship they attend.

And finally, I am indeed FREE AT LAST, since accepting Messiah. I am free from SIN! Free from the curse that comes from sin. Free from the bondage of sin. Unfortunately, many believe that they are free TO sin! I believe that is a perversion of good doctrine. The blood of Yeshua should not be thought of as merely carte blanche to disregard doing what is right. Yeshua said that if we love Him we WILL do what He says, not that because He loves us we can do whatever we feel like doing. So, if you are indeed free at last, from the bondage of sin, I rejoice with you! :pp However, if you believe (mistakenly so imo) that you are now free at last to sin whenever you want, I will pray for you. :pray:

God Bless!

Wow! You sure right about the horrible mistake millions have made in assuming that grace = the freedom to sin, and I would grieve if I ever thought someone had interpreted my words to mean that. Fortunately,
in light of the New Tetamnent, Christ is my Sabbath and I rest completely in Him. To not rest in Him is to place my soul in eternal danger.

"Let us therefor fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should come short of it." He 4:1

Speaking of REST, I'd better get myself to WORK! Catch you later! Love, Steve. :)

brakelite
Aug 21st 2008, 01:25 AM
brakelite,





Do you believe in hell?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

I believe that the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire just as the scriptures show. The many parables re dead branches etc confirm this. But the timing of this event is where I differ from most. I believe that no-one enters heaven or the lake of fire until after the resurrection. The first resurrection is at the second coming, and is for the righteous.
The second resurrection is at the end of the 1000 years, and is for the wicked. Until the resurrection, all remain in the grave, which the word 'hell' means.

brakelite
Aug 21st 2008, 02:00 AM
Okay, allow me to clear a few things up. I am not allowed to advance SDA doctrine on this forum, so I have to be careful in my selection of wording. Please bear with me..
That there is a strong perception within the Christian world that the SDA church teaches that by the keeping of the 'law', one can be saved, there can be no doubt.Whether this is because of members ignorant of the truth, or because of poor PR I do not know. Not only do I disagree that we can be justified by keeping the law, but to my understanding of SDA teaching, they do not teach that either.
What I do believe however is this.
I am justified by faith in the shed blood of Jesus. His death paid in full the price I owed God for my sin. His resurrection ensured that I may have hope of eternal life when He returns and I am raised to meet the Lord in the air and so shall I ever be with Him.

In the meantime, I have a battle to fight. It is against the flesh and carnal nature with which I was born. Christ's death and resurrection however gives me huge advantage in this battle, because God included me in the death of His Son. A wonderful transaction has occured. His life for mine. His righteousness for my sinfulness. Not only is my name now recorded in the books of heaven, but God has sent me His Holy Spirit that my life in the here and now may be so drastically changed, that is is actually transformed into the very image of the character of my Saviour's.
This takes time however. Some changes came overnight, (like the drugs and alcohol) but other things have taken somewhat longer. After 30 years a Christian (12 as an SDA) the battle is still being fought. But praise God, He is winning.
This new character, or new birth, is a daily fight. I must daily subm,it my self to the cross and die. To surrender daily is my only hope of continuing to overcome sin in all it's hideous and myriad forms.
The new character that is being formed within, being the very character of Christ's, is in harmony with the law. If it is not in harmony with God's commandments, then the flesh or carnal nature is gaining ground, and I must once again humble myself and allow God to get me back on track. Because if I persist in allowing the carnal nature to overcome the work God has done, sooner or later all will be lost.
This is not a works based salvation, all is of faith. I can of myself do nothing. It is all Christ formed within. By His grace, His power, His Spirit. I cannot any more keep the 6th or 7th commandment by my own strength than I can the 4th.
But I have seen, in my years of study and prayer, any reason why the 4th commandment should be excluded from the 10.
It is not the ten commandment law that was nailed to the cross on calvary.
It was me. The law still lives, in all it's entirety.
Romans 7 shows this. The husband represents the flesh. He died. The law that the wife was bound to because she was bound to her husband, still lives. She is free however from the condemnation of that law, but because she is married to another (Christ) , and He now gives us the grace and power to overcome sin, and walk as He walked, in harmony with the law.
As a child now of the Father, I delight to obey Him. And allow Him to mould me into the person He needs me to be in order to advance His kingdom. and glorify Him.
The question, are SDA's saved? Yes. If they trust in the shed blood of Christ, and not in their keeping of the law.

IMINXTC
Aug 21st 2008, 04:12 AM
Dear Brakelite,

Man, when you speak of the struggles of our temporal circumstances, and the wrestling of the flesh... you're talking about me, for sure. I get so frustrated with me sometimes. But my Savior keeps me and restores me, and gives me peace at all times... its an amazing love! Thank you for elaborating on a subject very close to my heart. Christ loves me even though he knows me, (I heard a younger person say that on these forums).

I take it, from your post, that you do not believe in the standard SDA doctrine of annihilationism; you do believe in an eternal lake of fire, involving eternal suffering? Not just in the 'snuffing-out' of the soul at the time of judgment.. the soul, in effect, ceasing to exist? Standard SDA.

I'm 'obviously' not very good at this debating stuff, brakelite. In fact, I'm very reluctant. And I just can't stand the "tearing to shreds" stuff that goes on everywhere today. I'm not entirely sure I even belong in a debate setting...not entirely decided. I'm an old-school preacher who loves the straight-forward rightfully dividing of God's Word... without a lot of human difficulties read into it.... as much as possible. I don't like to complicate it with a lot of theology. Theologians disagree more than they agree, so... theology can't be the answer.

You seem like a smart guy, brakelite, capable of great service to God, obviously. I hope that you heed the warnings and get out of that heterodoxy, freeing yourself of the controversy and the scorn which you will face constantly in the Church... sure we have disagreements enough there but you are clinging to a system of human interpretation which separates itself, even segregates itself from Protestant testimony. I'm always convicted and painfully aware of the time which is slipping away. Contrary to popular sentiment, there is nothing wrong with challenging salvation... but there is extreme wrong in assuming salvation. :)

brakelite
Aug 21st 2008, 08:08 AM
Dear Brakelite,

Man, when you speak of the struggles of our temporal circumstances, and the wrestling of the flesh... you're talking about me, for sure. I get so frustrated with me sometimes. But my Savior keeps me and restores me, and gives me peace at all times... its an amazing love! Thank you for elaborating on a subject very close to my heart. Christ loves me even though he knows me, (I heard a younger person say that on these forums).

I take it, from your post, that you do not believe in the standard SDA doctrine of annihilationism; you do believe in an eternal lake of fire, involving eternal suffering? Not just in the 'snuffing-out' of the soul at the time of judgment.. the soul, in effect, ceasing to exist? Standard SDA.

I'm 'obviously' not very good at this debating stuff, brakelite. In fact, I'm very reluctant. And I just can't stand the "tearing to shreds" stuff that goes on everywhere today. I'm not entirely sure I even belong in a debate setting...not entirely decided. I'm an old-school preacher who loves the straight-forward rightfully dividing of God's Word... without a lot of human difficulties read into it.... as much as possible. I don't like to complicate it with a lot of theology. Theologians disagree more than they agree, so... theology can't be the answer.

You seem like a smart guy, brakelite, capable of great service to God, obviously. I hope that you heed the warnings and get out of that heterodoxy, freeing yourself of the controversy and the scorn which you will face constantly in the Church... sure we have disagreements enough there but you are clinging to a system of human interpretation which separates itself, even segregates itself from Protestant testimony. I'm always convicted and painfully aware of the time which is slipping away. Contrary to popular sentiment, there is nothing wrong with challenging salvation... but there is extreme wrong in assuming salvation. :)

Actually my friend, I do believe in annhialation. And though it is indeed a fundamental teaching of the church, it is not because the church teaches it that I accept it. I have been into the reasons for my stance on that issue many times in these forums, as I am sure you can understand;), so I will not digress from the OP here. However, I will say that throughout my many years in the AOG, I struggled with the idea that the God I loved sought such retribution as eternal torment for the few years of transgression that man's life is. It seemed to me to be grossly unjust, and did not answer to the scriptural wages of sin being death. Enough said.

Further to my previous thoughts on the gospel and to answer more fully an earlier question, I would like to address what I understand to be the circumstances around the Christian who sins.
I said previously that nothing would happen should I 'forget' to honor the Sabbath. The same could be said should I lie, curse, or cheat on my tax return. Nothing that is, to my status as a child of God. However, my relationship with my Father will indeed change. A new dimension would be added, the dimension of a loving Father reproving, rebuking, and convicting His cherished child of his disobedience. I would be called to repent. God may accomplish this in whatever way He finds most effective. The last thing God desires is that His children err, either in relation to the law, or in relation to truth. So He may send friends, loved ones, or our brothers and sisters in Christ to correct, censure or 'tell off': of course the Holy Spirit will all along be convicting and convincing of the truth of the censure either by inner conviction or through the Word.
If however, we choose to resist said conviction, the Lord may bring upon us more convincing arguments. For Israel it often came down to war and captivity before they began to listen. With me, I hope it will never go that far.:pray:
If however we continue to refuse to repent, after what God deems an appropriat time, He may well withdraw His Holy Spirit and we are then left to the choices we have made. And I belive it is all downhill from there brother. Then, and only after numerous opportunities to repent and stubborn refusal on our part, will God blot our names out of the book of life. Just as the many parables show how branches that bear no fruit are cast off and burnt. Just as Israel stubbornly resisted the Holy Spirit, killed the prophets, and finally killed their Messiah.
We a God's house. Whilst He abides in us we are His temple. Jesus came to the temple twice and cleansed 'His Father's house'. At the end of His ministry however he declared to the rulers of Israel, your house is left to you desolate.

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Just one sin brought a litany of woe and desolation upon the earth.
Just one act of disobedience turned this planet into the universe's only graveyard.
Just one act of disobedience caused the death of the Son of God. Shall we tread under foot the blood of the covenant and treat the sacrifice with disdain? It is not legalism to desire for all God's creatures to uphold the law and live in the righteousness that God offers us as a gift. It is a loving response to a gracious and merciful God who sent His only Son to die for us. Anything less than complete surrender and obedience is unbefitting a child of God.
Regards Brakelite.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 21st 2008, 10:09 AM
Contrary to popular sentiment, there is nothing wrong with challenging salvation... but there is extreme wrong in assuming salvation. :)Most certainly challenge! :yes: Ask the tough questions that cause people to search themselves out, absolutely no problem there. Assume salvation? Never! Sitting in a church sure doesn't save you. But to assume lack of salvation :o Do you or I know the heart? Not a chance! That is a job for the One who will judge His own servants.

Romans 14:4 - Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

God Bless! :)

IMINXTC
Aug 21st 2008, 11:00 AM
Most certainly challenge! :yes: Ask the tough questions that cause people to search themselves out, absolutely no problem there. Assume salvation? Never! Sitting in a church sure doesn't save you. But to assume lack of salvation :o Do you or I know the heart? Not a chance! That is a job for the One who will judge His own servants.

Romans 14:4 - Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

God Bless! :)

Quite a difference there Sis! Thanks and Lord Bless!:)

IMINXTC
Aug 21st 2008, 11:50 AM
Dear Brakelite,

Thank you for your complete answer to every issue covered on this thread.:)

Heresy 101: To question the nature of God, whether His infinite goodness or His infinite holiness or his infinite wisdom.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.! Gen 3:4,5

In this lying scenario, God becomes less than perfect, after-all. His word is not to be taken literally (v3), it is subject to interpretation, and it is blatantly suggested that man may move beyond his well stated limitations, and may determine for himself what is right. Further, man can achieve, through a casting off of God's commandments, a Godlike status which in turn becomes a threat to God. (all lies)

There are many theologies based upon men's struggle to reinterpret or even to understand His infinite character. But from a simple Bible perspective, Adam's sin becomes exceedingly repugnant and rests squarely and wholly upon Adam, and can never, even slightly be associated with God. God is sinless in every possible, conceivable dimension. And Adam's punishment is an infinitely 'perfect act of justice, without even a tinge, even a slight possibility of error. This includes the lake of fire (men and angels will share this fate, though it has been created for Satan and his minions). To partake in the devils lie, is to partake in the devil's fate.

But God's mercy is based upon God's character (infinite) at all times, rather than upon man's supposed disadvantage (basis for heresy). Foreseeing Adam's sin, our Father sends Jesus before even the foundation of the Earth to pay for man's exceedingly repugnant sin. Our Lord is infinite love, and infinite mercy. But He is infinitely Holy. His infinite Holiness and His infinite Love are completely and wholly satisfied on the cross.

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said 'It is finished:'
and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Jn19:30

Studyin'2Show
Aug 21st 2008, 12:16 PM
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.! Gen 3:4,5

In this lying scenario, God becomes less than perfect, after-all. His word is not to be taken literally (v3), it is subject to interpretation, and it is blatantly suggested that man may move beyond his well stated limitations, and may determine for himself what is right. Further, man can achieve, through a casting off of God's commandments, a Godlike status which in turn becomes a threat to God. (all lies)I know this was directed to brakelite but curiously, who has stated that God's word is not to be taken literally? Who has cast off any or all of God's commandments to determine for themselves what is right? :hmm:

IMINXTC
Aug 21st 2008, 11:38 PM
Seventh Day Adventism

Studyin'2Show
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:06 AM
Seventh Day AdventismIt seems that they take God's word completely literally. They don't seem to have cast off any of God's commandments. :hmm: So, how do you put them in the category of casting off commandments to reinterpret what is right? :confused

IMINXTC
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:52 AM
It seems that they take God's word completely literally. They don't seem to have cast off any of God's commandments. :hmm: So, how do you put them in the category of casting off commandments to reinterpret what is right? :confused

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb.." Rev 14:10 (those who receive the mark).

No annihilation here.

"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Mt 13:50

No annihilation here, from a 'literal' standpoint.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:22 AM
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb.." Rev 14:10 (those who receive the mark).

No annihilation here.

"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Mt 13:50

No annihilation here, from a 'literal' standpoint.I will have to let someone who is SDA address this in more detail, but I don't believe they deny that 'those who receive the mark' will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb. :hmm: It is merely the 'forever' that is not present in the text that they question. Nor do I believe they question that 'those' shall be cast into the furnace of fire and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is a timeframe issue. I've had discussion with brakelite on this before and we disagree, but I haven't seen that he questions what scripture says....only how man interprets. ;) But being that he is in New Zealand, he should be able to answer for himself soon.

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 22nd 2008, 03:38 AM
I will have to let someone who is SDA address this in more detail, but I don't believe they deny that 'those who receive the mark' will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb. :hmm: It is merely the 'forever' that is not present in the text that they question. Nor do I believe they question that 'those' shall be cast into the furnace of fire and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is a timeframe issue. I've had discussion with brakelite on this before and we disagree, but I haven't seen that he questions what scripture says....only how man interprets. ;) But being that he is in New Zealand, he should be able to answer for himself soon.

God Bless!

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev 14:11

Studyin'2Show
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:35 AM
"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev 14:11Have you missed the point that I don't agree with the position? :confused I'm not going to debate in favor of annihilation. :rolleyes: Besides, I know from previous discussions with SDAs on this subject that they don't deny the scripture but have a different interpretation. But this is NOT a salvific issue. As are topics like the rapture or pre or post trib or literal or figurative millinnium, which are interesting for theological discussion but one's salvation does not hang on one's viewpoint of such things. The OP of this thread is asking whether they are saved. My position remains that they are if they are trusting in the blood of Yeshua...Period! :)

God Bless!

brakelite
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:43 PM
"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev 14:11

Greetings on this blessed Sabbath day!!!!!!:D
I am going to address the eternal torment issue on another thread.
In the meantime I would like to add just one more thought to complete my previous posts. Satan would like nothing more than to hasten or precipitate the untimely demise of one of God's children moments after he has sinned.
However, the Lord delights in mercy, and will use all His power to ensure that does not happen. Not one hair of our head falls without His knowledge. Death will not come to any child of His until such time as he has had opportunity to repent. This is purely my personal view based on my assessment on the character and nature of God as revealed in His word.

So, after reading my contributions is it still your assessment that SDA's are not saved, considering that my theology in as much as the gospel is concerned, conservative adventist thought?
And if so, please explain from the scriptures where that teaching or theology is flawed that causes me to miss the mark?

brakelite
Aug 23rd 2008, 01:34 AM
Dear Brakelite,

Thank you for your complete answer to every issue covered on this thread.:)

Heresy 101: To question the nature of God, whether His infinite goodness or His infinite holiness or his infinite wisdom.
I would not question the nature of God. But I strongly question man's warped understanding of the nature of God as taught in the doctrine of eternal torment.


"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.! Gen 3:4,5

In this lying scenario, God becomes less than perfect, after-all. His word is not to be taken literally (v3), it is subject to interpretation, and it is blatantly suggested that man may move beyond his well stated limitations, and may determine for himself what is right. Further, man can achieve, through a casting off of God's commandments, a Godlike status which in turn becomes a threat to God. (all lies)
Not only so, but he repeats Satan's lie from almost every pulpit in the world by teaching that the wicked 'shall not surely die' but have immortality bestowed upon them also as a gift from God for the sole purpose of torturing them forever. Is that the character of God that we should not question?:hmm:


There are many theologies based upon men's struggle to reinterpret or even to understand His infinite character. But from a simple Bible perspective, Adam's sin becomes exceedingly repugnant and rests squarely and wholly upon Adam, and can never, even slightly be associated with God. God is sinless in every possible, conceivable dimension. And Adam's punishment is an infinitely 'perfect act of justice, without even a tinge, even a slight possibility of error. This includes the lake of fire (men and angels will share this fate, though it has been created for Satan and his minions). To partake in the devils lie, is to partake in the devil's fate.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. It is what happens in that lake of fire which is questionable. Throughout scripture the parables and allegories and doctrines all clearly teach that the branches or whatever are burnt up! They perish utterly. They are destroyed.


But God's mercy is based upon God's character (infinite) at all times, rather than upon man's supposed disadvantage (basis for heresy). Foreseeing Adam's sin, our Father sends Jesus before even the foundation of the Earth to pay for man's exceedingly repugnant sin. Our Lord is infinite love, and infinite mercy. But He is infinitely Holy. His infinite Holiness and His infinite Love are completely and wholly satisfied on the cross.

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said 'It is finished:'
and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Jn19:30
Yes, He died. He did not suffer for all eternity. The wages of sin is death. Not eternal torment. And death cannot in any reasonable understanding of the term be translated as 'immortality at an alternative address'.
A more full coverage of this topic I have posted in controversial issues.

Regards Brakelite.

IMINXTC
Aug 23rd 2008, 04:36 AM
Brakelite says, post #46
on The question, are SDA's saved? Yes. If they trust in the shed blood of Christ, and not in their keeping of the law.[/quote]



Yes, if on the way to the cross they do not fall prey to the "frustration" of the legalism of SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM.

brakelite
Aug 23rd 2008, 12:19 PM
Brakelite says, post #46
on The question, are SDA's saved? Yes. If they trust in the shed blood of Christ, and not in their keeping of the law.



Yes, if on the way to the cross they do not fall prey to the "frustration" of the legalism of SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM.[/quote]

The question on the inter-relationship between grace and law came up on another board recently. The query came from, of all people, a law enforcement officer. Below was my tongue -in-cheek reply.

If I speed past you doing 185mph and you pull me over after chasing me for 120 miles; discover when questioning me that I am stoned, I have a loaded rifle on the seat next to me, and my pitbull leaps out of the car and takes a piece out of your leg, I think I'd be in trouble.
But you, being the kind guy you are and feeling sorry for me because my favourite second cousin twice removed died just recently 9 years ago and because I am still grieving, decide to let me off. That's grace. Lotssa grace.
I then let out a whoop, shout "praise cops everywhere" , proclaim my freedom from the law, take off in a hail of metal and smoke, do 3 360's in the middle of the freeway in celebration and accelerate to 250 mph while continuing to proclaim my freedom from being under the law because I am now under grace.

The point being that we are saved by the grace of God through the most precious blood of Jesus. What next? Celebrate and care not for obedience? Proclaim the law a bad thing (as many do) and celebrate my freedom? Or obey the law of God out of a grateful heart by His grace and power and be called a 'legalist' by those who who don't seem to understand.

Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When Jesus said "If ye love Me, keep My commandments" I don't recall anyone complaining because they might be branded a 'legalist'.

IMINXTC
Aug 23rd 2008, 02:36 PM
No need to dredge up my driving history, those days are long over; my 70 Magnum Challenger has gone to the muscle-car cemetery. I, by virtue of my new life, and the law of God written in my heart, have no desire to return to that wreck-less abandon. My tickets have been paid.

Concerning that Law of the Sabbath, scripture teaches oh-so-plainly, Christ is the body (Co 2:17), Christ is my Sabbath, I rest completely in him, lest I frustrate salvation by grace. The Law of Sabbath has been perfectly fulfilled on my behalf by my Lord. Though I should consider one day above another day, or all days alike....this has no bearing on my obedience, I have no ordinances concerning holy days or sabbath days (Co 2;16)

Niether do I allow any man judge me in any of these things. (C0 2:16)

Lord Bless!

diffangle
Aug 23rd 2008, 06:05 PM
No need to dredge up my driving history, those days are long over; my 70 Magnum Challenger has gone to the muscle-car cemetery. I, by virtue of my new life, and the law of God written in my heart, have no desire to return to that wreck-less abandon. My tickets have been paid.

Concerning that Law of the Sabbath, scripture teaches oh-so-plainly, Christ is the body (Co 2:17), Christ is my Sabbath, I rest completely in him, lest I frustrate salvation by grace. The Law of Sabbath has been perfectly fulfilled on my behalf by my Lord. Though I should consider one day above another day, or all days alike....this has no bearing on my obedience, I have no ordinances concerning holy days or sabbath days (Co 2;16)

Niether do I allow any man judge me in any of these things. (C0 2:16)

Lord Bless!
What do you think of Isaiah 66 where it's talking about the Sabbath still being observed in the future?

Isa 66:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=66&v=23&t=KJV#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.

IMINXTC
Aug 23rd 2008, 11:42 PM
What do you think of Isaiah 66 where it's talking about the Sabbath still being observed in the future?

Isa 66:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=66&v=23&t=KJV#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.
Hi diffangle. Yeah, is Isaiah speaking of the millenium (oh, oh, new thread) during which time Christ will reign in Jeruselum and all the nations (gentiles) on Earth will observe the Law? Not the church age (as you already know). Many, of course, believe that the prophecy refers to the time after the new heavens and new earth are created (v32) (another discussion, for sure). But not the church age.

addendum: My thoughts? This period spoken of by Isaiah and others is a completely different dispensation than that of the age of grace. Rather than pointing forward to the ministry of Christ, as in the Old Testament, it is a celebration of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Christ. Christ will reign on Earth. Salvation by grace (rather than by sight) has been accomplished. Now men will be tested upon what they witness, and will be destroyed by disobediance.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 24th 2008, 01:45 AM
Hi diffangle. Yeah, is Isaiah speaking of the millenium (oh, oh, new thread) during which time Christ will reign in Jeruselum and all the nations (gentiles) on Earth will observe the Law? Not the church age (as you already know). Many, of course, believe that the prophecy refers to the time after the new heavens and new earth are created (v32) (another discussion, for sure). But not the church age.

Blessings!Okay, let me get this straight :hmm: the Sabbath applied before Yeshua and during His earthly ministry, AND it will apply after He returns, it just doesn't apply now? :rolleyes: Do you not see the oddity in that? If Yeshua is your Sabbath, why would He not be the Sabbath for those in the millennium? :confused

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 03:45 AM
For tons of good info on SDA check out this link

http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspx

IMINXTC
Aug 24th 2008, 03:57 AM
Hi, Studyin2Show! (You certainly are)!

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill." Mt 5:17

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Ga 3:24,25

"But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Ga 4:9-11

Regardless of one's opinion concerning this age following the great tribulation (nother thread), it is an entirely different day from what man has yet known... Christ reigns on Earth, in Jerusalem. Every aspect of worship and ordinance (including Sabbath) during this age will serve to glorify Christ and His finished work.

IMINXTC
Aug 24th 2008, 04:02 AM
For tons of good info on SDA check out this link

http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspx


One of the best links I've seen in awhile. Nobody tells it like an EX.

If a man or woman in the SDA is saved, it had NOTHING to do with the SDA, because they preach a very subtle gospel of grace plus works. Saved people get in there by accident, or by simply not heeding SDA doctrine. That spells DANGER to me!

Thanks! Truthinlove

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 04:08 AM
True, true

You are welcome

Studyin'2Show
Aug 24th 2008, 01:09 PM
For tons of good info on SDA check out this link

http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspxThe link is not working for me. :confused I keep getting an 'Unhandled Error'. Since SFASH seems to think it's the best thing since sliced bread, I'd like to see what this ex-adventist has to say. :) Although there are some that are ex-Baptist, and ex-Lutherans, and ex-Methodist etc. because whilst they were simply following tradition and ritual of religion they were not saved. But now they consider themselves merely disciples of Messiah or non-denominational and are now saved, because they have put their trust in Messiah. I don't think that would be an indictment against all Baptist, or Lutherans, or Methodists or whatever. Whenever someone believes that it is their denomination or religion that saves them, they are truly lost. It MUST be the blood of Yeshua which saves.

God Bless!

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 01:17 PM
Not working for you? Bummer!

Well, it is long, but I will post the stuff I really liked on here. Hope you enjoy!

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 01:19 PM
Hmmmmm

Well, appears their site is down. :( Maybe because it is Sunday am and I know you can listen to his sermons live on their...could be swamped...?

Try later and let me know if it still doesn't work for you.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 24th 2008, 01:21 PM
Not working for you? Bummer!

Well, it is long, but I will post the stuff I really liked on here. Hope you enjoy!When you click the link here http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspx (not using your bookmarks or whatever) is it working? :confused I don't have any filters on my browser or anything. The link just isn't working. I even went tried to just type in exadventist.com and got the same error. Maybe their server is down. :dunno: I'll try again later.

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 01:25 PM
Yea, it's not working on here or in my favorites so it is down. Sorry, it should be working later. ;)

Truthinlove
Aug 24th 2008, 03:12 PM
Link is working, page is back up!! :pp :D

Studyin'2Show
Aug 24th 2008, 08:39 PM
Link is working, page is back up!! :pp :DYes, I read the link. I must say, most of it was interpretational. Nothing that shows that those who are trusting in the blood of Yeshua are not saved simply because of the church they attend which has been my position from the beginning. The one thing that was not was that Michael the archangel is said to be Jesus. However, I didn't see a reference for it as with the other information. :hmm: I'd like to see the scriptural backing they might have for that because I don't see anything in scripture to imply that. But I'd rather hear someone who is SDA explain what they believe than someone whose not or who is is an ex. Only because I know that for me, I've had many people explain what those who, like me, keep Sabbath believe...and be COMPLETELY wrong about what I believe. :D

In my discussions with SDAs, I have found many areas where we disagree but none of those things have been salvific as long as they are trusting in the blood of Jesus. :dunno:

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 25th 2008, 04:55 AM
Hi Studyin2Show!

I hope no one ever attempts to condemn or criticize you for keeping Sabbath. And as clearly stated quite a while back, I certainly don't.

Likewise, you would not condemn me for not keeping holy days, or new moons or sabbaths?...Co.2 (Christ being my Sabbath).

Nobody will question an SDA member's salvation based upon his or her keeping of Sabbath. But under the SDA doctrine of Sabbath it takes on an heretical emphasis of the law. (already covered)

It's true, saved people end up in all kinds of churches, heterodoxies and even cults. I have loved one's who belong to church of Mary, and who do not even speak of things pertaining to salvation, as if its not even as issue to them. But they speak fluently of good works as if good works were the issue, as if their soul depended upon their good works.

Are they saved? Hope so! But the possibility that their understanding of salvation may have been poisened by the dogma of their false church, is so great, that if they are saved it is in spite of their church, at best.

Saved people end up in these religions, no doubt, but usually by accident
or (as previously stated) by not heeding the false doctrine presented there.

Should I just be quiet and polite and assume that eveything is ok, or should I raise a big fuss, lest my loved-ones lose their souls in the good name of religon? On that day, I suspect they will be asking the same thing.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 25th 2008, 10:24 AM
It's true, saved people end up in all kinds of churches, heterodoxies and even cults. I have loved one's who belong to church of Mary, and who do not even speak of things pertaining to salvation, as if its not even as issue to them. But they speak fluently of good works as if good works were the issue, as if their soul depended upon their good works.

Are they saved? Hope so! But the possibility that their understanding of salvation may have been poisened by the dogma of their false church, is so great, that if they are saved it is in spite of their church, at best.

Saved people end up in these religions, no doubt, but usually by accident
or (as previously) stated by not heeding the false doctrine presented there.

Should I just be quiet and polite and assume that eveything is ok, or should I raise a big fuss, lest my loved-ones lose their souls in the good name of religon? On that day, I suspect they will be asking the same thing.We are not called to be quite and polite. We are called to be salt and salt is irritating. It is not my point that we should be PC. My point is that if someone claims to be saved solely by the blood of Yeshua, should we beat them over the head with our interpretation because it doesn't line up with theirs? There are plenty of 'traditional Protestants' who believe that though saved by faith through grace, there should be evidence of that faith in what you do (works). Yeshua tells us that we should store up our treasures in heaven. Will there not be a time when the sheep will go before the throne where their works will be clearly seen by all and based on what they have done they will be given the appropriate treasures? How people explain such things is based on interpretation and can be easily twisted to sound horrible when it's not.

As I said, the one thing I would like to have explained by an SDA is whether they believe Jesus is Michael and why. :dunno: Thanks for the dialog. :)

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 25th 2008, 11:09 AM
We are not called to be quite and polite. We are called to be salt and salt is irritating. It is not my point that we should be PC. My point is that if someone claims to be saved solely by the blood of Yeshua, should we beat them over the head with our interpretation because it doesn't line up with theirs? There are plenty of 'traditional Protestants' who believe that though saved by faith through grace, there should be evidence of that faith in what you do (works). Yeshua tells us that we should store up our treasures in heaven. Will there not be a time when the sheep will go before the throne where their works will be clearly seen by all and based on what they have done they will be given the appropriate treasures? How people explain such things is based on interpretation and can be easily twisted to sound horrible when it's not.

As I said, the one thing I would like to have explained by an SDA is whether they believe Jesus is Michael and why. :dunno: Thanks for the dialog. :)

God Bless!

Yeah, that's got me on a hunt also. When I find suitable info on this Michael thing, you'll be the first to know, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. :)

David Taylor
Aug 25th 2008, 08:52 PM
SDA Prophetess, as well as the 1958 SDA Bible Commentary, both taught that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. (of which their "cousin-religion", JWs, for lack of a better, clearer word); also still strongly hold to.

http://www.exadventist.com/ is a good resource on what SDA teaches, from the inside perspective of ex-SDA's who've come out of that religion; and into Mainstream Christianity.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 25th 2008, 10:15 PM
SDA Prophetess, as well as the 1958 SDA Bible Commentary, both taught that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. (of which their "cousin-religion", JWs, for lack of a better, clearer word); also still strongly hold to.

http://www.exadventist.com/ is a good resource on what SDA teaches, from the inside perspective of ex-SDA's who've come out of that religion; and into Mainstream Christianity.The original link was from that website. I'm interested in what scriptural reasoning they have for believing that. Not simply what but why. ;) I'm patient so I can wait for an adventist to explain.

God Bless!

IPet2_9
Aug 26th 2008, 12:00 AM
I'm interested in what scriptural reasoning they have for believing that.

Not just SDA's believe that. The reasoning is in the name Michael: "mi-cha-El", which in Hebrew is, "Who is like God?" Jesus is the only one who is like God. Therefore, Michael=Jesus.

I, personally, don't believe that. If we follow that reasoning, then the prophet Micah is also Jesus. Micah is "Mi-cha-yah", or "Who is like Yahweh?" Conclusion: Jesus wrote the book of Micah!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 26th 2008, 12:22 AM
Not just SDA's believe that. The reasoning is in the name Michael: "mi-cha-El", which in Hebrew is, "Who is like God?" Jesus is the only one who is like God. Therefore, Michael=Jesus.

I, personally, don't believe that. If we follow that reasoning, then the prophet Micah is also Jesus. Micah is "Mi-cha-yah", or "Who is like Yahweh?" Conclusion: Jesus wrote the book of Micah!Thanks! I appreciate the reference. I like to know where people are coming from. :) And no, I don't agree with it either. ;)

IMINXTC
Aug 27th 2008, 06:28 AM
Hi Studyin2show,


I found a very exaustive link, explaining at length SDA doctrine, including that of Michael. But having carefully studied the entire site, I found a sentence suggesting that Christ was created (Pro 8) before the founding of the earth. It did not agree with the rest of the text, and may have been accidental. It contradicted their earlier statements about Christs eternal existence.

But I can't go posting a link like that, with such a big boo-boo. Still working.:) I might just get a set of SDA books.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 27th 2008, 10:28 AM
Hi Studyin2show,


I found a very exaustive link, explaining at length SDA doctrine, including that of Michael. But having carefully studied the entire site, I found a sentence suggesting that Christ was created (Pro 8) before the founding of the earth. It did not agree with the rest of the text, and may have been accidental. It contradicted their earlier statements about Christs eternal existence.

But I can't go posting a link like that, with such a big boo-boo. Still working.:) I might just get a set of SDA books.No, I wouldn't want you to post a questionable link. IPet2_9 really gave me what I was looking for. I've seen the ex-adventist position on the Michael thing, I was hoping to hear the current adventist position from someone who is still a part of that fellowship. ;)

BTW, I don't/didn't always agree with the doctrinal positions held my my mother, my hubby, my father who has passed away, as well as many other people that I highly respect. This does not change the fact that I expect to see them in glory because they had accepted Yeshua as Lord and Savior! :)

My position still has not changed. One's salvation or condemnation is not based on the name of the church where they fellowship but rather in whose name they have their hope. If it is in their own ability, they are lost. If it is in the blood of Messiah, they are saved.

God Bless!

IMINXTC
Aug 27th 2008, 12:07 PM
Gotcha Studyin2show, Lord Bless! Out. :)

brakelite
Aug 29th 2008, 05:28 AM
Don't get hung up about Michael 'must be an angel' therefore Jesus cannot be. Archangel as a term merely means 'chief of the angels'. It does not mean 'one of the angels'. Just as your president is Commander in chief of the armed forces, this does not mean he needs to be a soldier.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 10:26 AM
Don't get hung up about Michael 'must be an angel' therefore Jesus cannot be. Archangel as a term merely means 'chief of the angels'. It does not mean 'one of the angels'. Just as your president is Commander in chief of the armed forces, this does not mean he needs to be a soldier.I was actually hoping for your personal explanation. Ironically, I believe that 'the Angel of the LORD' spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures is the preincarnation of Yeshua, though I'm not dogmatic about it. He speaks as if he is, but it's not something I'd be willing to argue over. :dunno: As for that equating to Michael, I don't see that connection beyond conjecture based on a couple of circumstantial points. In my study of scripture I've found that when God wants to make a point, He makes it repeatedly clear. I just don't see that clarity with this.

God Bless!

brakelite
Aug 31st 2008, 05:10 AM
I was actually hoping for your personal explanation. Ironically, I believe that 'the Angel of the LORD' spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures is the preincarnation of Yeshua, though I'm not dogmatic about it. He speaks as if he is, but it's not something I'd be willing to argue over. :dunno: As for that equating to Michael, I don't see that connection beyond conjecture based on a couple of circumstantial points. In my study of scripture I've found that when God wants to make a point, He makes it repeatedly clear. I just don't see that clarity with this.

God Bless!

You may be interested to know that Jewish tradition and writings recognise Michael as the advocate of Israel who mediated in many ways.
He prevented Isaac's sacrifice (Yalkut Reubeni; Wayera); wrestled with Jacob (Targun Gen 32:25); was advocate when Israel deserved death at the red sea (Exodus Rabbah 18:5); led Israel during the 40 years in the wilderness (Abravanel to Exodus 23:20); gave Moses the tables of stone (Apoc.Moses 1); instructed Moses at Sinai (Bk Jubilees i. 27, ii 1); destroyed the army of Sennacherib (midr. Exod. 185); was one of the angels who visited Abraham (Yoma 37, Shebu'oth35b footnote); was Israel's guardian angel (Yoma 77); and ministers in the heavenly sanctuary. (Menahoth 110).

For me though the most compelling evidence is that of the testimony of Paul when he said quote: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise...."
I am sure we all know that no mere angel can raise the dead with his voice. It is Christ Himself Who speaks the word of life to the dead. Who calls the dead to life when He comes.

And to confirm this John said in John 5 quoting Jesus: " Verily verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live...". and a little further on, "Marvel niot at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth...."

As you say, God does not make a huge point of this equating Michael with Jesus. No reason why He should. It is no big deal. It takes nothing away from Christ's divinity (so long as you are not JW) and doesn't raise a mere angel to divine status. Michael is simply the OT name of the Angel of the Presence that guided Israel. We know Him as Jesus. Personally, I don't see the fuss. It is not a big issue within Adventism, it is simply one of those minor beliefs that after some deeper Bible study one comes up with. It is not salvational and has no bearing upon one's destiny either way.
God Bless.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 31st 2008, 11:31 AM
See, I preferred your personal explanation than that link. :) But I still haven't seen anything that would make me say that Michael IS the pre-incarnation of Yeshua. Now at least I understand your thought process, though I don't agree with it. :D

brakelite
Sep 1st 2008, 12:46 AM
My position still has not changed. One's salvation or condemnation is not based on the name of the church where they fellowship but rather in whose name they have their hope. If it is in their own ability, they are lost. If it is in the blood of Messiah, they are saved.

God Bless!
God bless you for your unbigoted approach to this controversial subject.
I think you know that I was a Christian a long time before I accepted the Sabbath as being relevant to me. And it was a long time before I joined the SDA church even though I kept the Sabbath. I did not join the church blindfolded. I was fully aware by that time of all their beliefs, but one thing I was quite unaware of. And that was the deep seated suspicion and unfounded bias against the church among so many of what I considered my brothers and sisters. Their judgmental attitude on the basis of misinformation and lack of understanding and knowledge of SDA teachings leaves me wondering at the danger of judging without investigation.
Sure, there are many within our denomination who leave a lot to be desired by way of maturity and wisdom in the ways of God. But is that unique to SDA circles? And is that reason to condemn an entire denomination?

I was raised a Roman Catholic. When a young person I was aware of the angst between Catholics and Protestants; it was much more heated in the 1950's and 60's than it is now. I did not understand why though. I was only taught one side of the argument. And we were threatened with hellfire and excommunication if we didn't believe. (I'm not sure what I thought was worse. Hell or excommunication:(). But after having left that system after receiving Christ and embraced protestantism, I now fully understand the issues and understand why the difference. Today though those issues are glossed over, forgotten, and minimized to the point that protestantism is now in danger of returning to mother. As you are aware I have no time for Catholic teachings.
But I dare not judge individual members of that communion. I am sure that within it there are many genuine Christians. I do however judge the system, but based on experience and investigation and comparison with scriptural truth.
I cannot say the same for many who decry SDA's. They have, as I was when I was young, only heard one side of the story. Just as JW's are only permitted to hear their side of the story being not allowed to accept tracts and papers from other denominations so they remain ignorant of truth and judge accordingly. And are bound in error as a result. Many protestants claim to be Bereans. But when it comes to SDA they turn into Thessalonians and turf us out of town and refuse to hear our side of the story. :hmm:

IMINXTC
Sep 1st 2008, 03:40 AM
"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." Col 2:18

brakelite
Sep 1st 2008, 09:27 PM
"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." Col 2:18
:confusedWould you care to elucidate? Is that a reply to my last post or one previous? I don't see the connection, or relevance.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 1st 2008, 10:09 PM
:confusedWould you care to elucidate? Is that a reply to my last post or one previous? I don't see the connection, or relevance.I think he's saying that if Jesus is an archangel we'd be worshiping an angel. :hmm:

brakelite
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:09 AM
I think he's saying that if Jesus is an archangel we'd be worshiping an angel. :hmm:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah:idea: We would have to know then that an archangel is actually an angel though wouldn't we. The Greek word merely means one who rules over the angels. As I said previously, the president of your fair country is commander in cheif of the armed forces is he not? Does that make him a soldier?

Studyin'2Show
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:35 AM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah:idea: We would have to know then that an archangel is actually an angel though wouldn't we. The Greek word merely means one who rules over the angels. As I said previously, the president of your fair country is commander in cheif of the armed forces is he not? Does that make him a soldier?So, it's your view that an archangel is not necessarily an angel. :hmm: However, for an archangel to not be an angel but divine there could be no other archangels, right. There is only one American president, correct? However, Daniel mentions him as merely 'one of' the chief princes (angels).

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.

If there were only one archangel or chief of the angels or ruler over the angels, why would Daniel not have simply called him THE chief prince?

brakelite
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:10 PM
So, it's your view that an archangel is not necessarily an angel. :hmm: However, for an archangel to not be an angel but divine there could be no other archangels, right. There is only one American president, correct? However, Daniel mentions him as merely 'one of' the chief princes (angels).

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.

If there were only one archangel or chief of the angels or ruler over the angels, why would Daniel not have simply called him THE chief prince?
That is a good question, and stumped me for a while. But I found that
the term, “one of the chief princes” in Daniel 10:13 is translated badly. It makes it appear as if He is merely “one” of the princes, when in fact He is the Chief Prince. The word “one” in this passage comes from the Hebrew word “echad” which also means “first” as in “first day” in Genesis 1:5. When you translate the verse correctly it states that Michael is the first, or highest of the chief princes.

I was thinking about this at work this morning. (Just got home for breakfast;)) And was considering why should Michael be called a prince? Now a prince brings to mind 2 things. One , he is a child of a king, and 2. he is the heir to the throne of that king. Now the scriptures say that we, as adopted children, are amazingly heirs to the throne. We share that throne with Jesus thus we are described as Kings and priests and co-heirs with Christ. But a mere angel? Since when does an angel, of any sort, become an heir to the throne of God? Satan thought he had that right and still seeks it, but got turfed out of heaven for his trouble.The only conclusion I can come to is that Michael, if a prince and an heir, is therefore not a mere angel but indeed the Son of God, Jesus.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:23 PM
I guess this is just one of those points to which we will have to disagree. :)

brakelite
Sep 3rd 2008, 12:29 AM
I guess this is just one of those points to which we will have to disagree. :)
Heh heh. We live half a world apart, I stand upside down and the water goes down the plughole in the opposite direction. How can we agree on everything when one of us is an alien?:rofl:

Studyin'2Show
Sep 3rd 2008, 12:42 AM
Heh heh. We live half a world apart, I stand upside down and the water goes down the plughole in the opposite direction. How can we agree on everything when one of us is an alien?:rofl:I'm not the alien! :o

bennie
Sep 3rd 2008, 04:39 PM
God bless you for your unbigoted approach to this controversial subject.
I think you know that I was a Christian a long time before I accepted the Sabbath as being relevant to me. And it was a long time before I joined the SDA church even though I kept the Sabbath. I did not join the church blindfolded. I was fully aware by that time of all their beliefs, but one thing I was quite unaware of. And that was the deep seated suspicion and unfounded bias against the church among so many of what I considered my brothers and sisters. Their judgmental attitude on the basis of misinformation and lack of understanding and knowledge of SDA teachings leaves me wondering at the danger of judging without investigation.
Sure, there are many within our denomination who leave a lot to be desired by way of maturity and wisdom in the ways of God. But is that unique to SDA circles? And is that reason to condemn an entire denomination?

I was raised a Roman Catholic. When a young person I was aware of the angst between Catholics and Protestants; it was much more heated in the 1950's and 60's than it is now. I did not understand why though. I was only taught one side of the argument. And we were threatened with hellfire and excommunication if we didn't believe. (I'm not sure what I thought was worse. Hell or excommunication:(). But after having left that system after receiving Christ and embraced protestantism, I now fully understand the issues and understand why the difference. Today though those issues are glossed over, forgotten, and minimized to the point that protestantism is now in danger of returning to mother. As you are aware I have no time for Catholic teachings.
But I dare not judge individual members of that communion. I am sure that within it there are many genuine Christians. I do however judge the system, but based on experience and investigation and comparison with scriptural truth.
I cannot say the same for many who decry SDA's. They have, as I was when I was young, only heard one side of the story. Just as JW's are only permitted to hear their side of the story being not allowed to accept tracts and papers from other denominations so they remain ignorant of truth and judge accordingly. And are bound in error as a result. Many protestants claim to be Bereans. But when it comes to SDA they turn into Thessalonians and turf us out of town and refuse to hear our side of the story. :hmm:


hi

study has brought me to the same conclusion. Consider this for a moment:
Almighty Jesus created all things. He always wanted to live among his creation. when he was in heaven he lived among the angels. He "took" on there appearence if you will. When He came to earth he was born as a man. Imagine he came as 14 foot angel. :D Or this magnivesant radiant light. Instead He came as one of us, a man.
I am not a SDA. I did not even knew that this is one of there main doctrines or believes. Like somebody els said, it has nothing to do with your salvation.

bennie