Can anyone explain me the difference, please?

[111kg]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

 

[Darrell C]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

I would probably recommend a thread in "Other Denominations," where I am sure you will find at least one Adventist that would be glad to answer that question.


God bless.

 

[JamesL]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

That depends on what type of Baptist and what type of Adventist

I would suspect by Baptist you might mean one of the following:
Southern Baptist
Independent Fundamentalist Baptist
Bible Baptist
Free Will Baptist

All of those are different

I would suspect by Adventist you probably mean Seventh Day Adventist. But other Adventists include Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Davidians, and a few others.

All of those are different

 

[HankD]

We are experiencing an unusual form of persecution here at the BB.

Can someone do something about these awful posts.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

If you are in this forum, which is limited to Baptists only, you already know the answer to your question.

Of course, if you are not a Baptist you are here under false pretenses. Shame on you.

 

[HankD]

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "Adventists" I think of Sabbath keepers.

Sabbath keeping is fine as long as it is not a way of establishing one's own righteousness and/or a shovel to use to throw everyone else into the Lake of Fire.

In my neck of the woods there has been a surge of Messianic Christians who are "Adventists" (so-called) and Sabbath keepers.

The rest of us are ridiculed as being "lawless" because we don't keep this part of the Law of Moses (as well as being pork eaters).

So "adventism" has too wide a scope IMO to be compared to just "Baptists" alone as there are Seventh Day Baptists.

 

[TCassidy]

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "Adventists" I think of Sabbath keepers.

Not only are they Sabbath Keepers, but they believe that everyone who worships on Sunday has the "Mark of the Beast" and will have his place in the lake of fire. That's us!

But what do you expect from people who follow a woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury which left her an epileptic for the rest of her life. And instead of dealing with her epilepsy she tried to cover it up by claiming she was having "visions" and those "visions" were inspired by God and on the same level as the bible.

Dudley M. Canright, an Adventist minister who left the church, and whose criticisms are summarized in his 1919 book, Life of Mrs. E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted. Canright's criticisms include:

Mental illness. Canright claimed that she had a “complication of hysteria, epilepsy, catalepsy, and ecstasy” and stated that her “visions were merely the result of her early misfortune."

Several neurologists later commented that her early injuries caused parietal complex seizures (Parietal Lobe Epilepsy) and hallucinations.

Pediatrician Delbert H. Hodder diagnosed her with temporal lobe epilepsy. Molleurus Couperus, MD, stated "A symptom of temporal lobe epilepsy is the frequency and degree of hypergraphia." Which probably explains her so-called "inspired" writings.

Plagiarism. Critics have also accused Ellen White of plagiarism. One such was Walter T. Rea, who argued against the "original" nature of her supposed revelations in his book The White Lie. Another critic, Ronald Numbers, argues that her understanding of health reform was simply plagiarized from other health reformers and therefore did not come from divine revelation.

Not to mention denying the teaching of the Trinity. Many critics, and even some Adventists, have asserted that Ellen White did not support the teaching of the Trinity in her writings.

And of note is her vile and vicious racism. "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (White, Ellen G. (1864). Spiritual Gifts. Volume 3. Chapter 10: The Flood. p. 75. Online Edition.)

 

[Darrell C]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

Hello Matt, Other Denominations is a great place for you to start a thread about the things you find questionable in the Old Testament.

I have been looking forward to talking with you about those issues.

And it looks like you've gotten at least part of a response to the OP.

Hey Bob, where are you?


God bless.

 

[HankD]

Not only are they Sabbath Keepers, but they believe that everyone who worships on Sunday has the "Mark of the Beast" and will have his place in the lake of fire. That's us!

But what do you expect from people who follow a woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury which left her an epileptic for the rest of her life. And instead of dealing with her epilepsy she tried to cover it up by claiming she was having "visions" and those "visions" were inspired by God and on the same level as the bible.

Dudley M. Canright, an Adventist minister who left the church, and whose criticisms are summarized in his 1919 book, Life of Mrs. E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted. Canright's criticisms include:

Mental illness. Canright claimed that she had a “complication of hysteria, epilepsy, catalepsy, and ecstasy” and stated that her “visions were merely the result of her early misfortune."

Several neurologists later commented that her early injuries caused parietal complex seizures (Parietal Lobe Epilepsy) and hallucinations.

Pediatrician Delbert H. Hodder diagnosed her with temporal lobe epilepsy. Molleurus Couperus, MD, stated "A symptom of temporal lobe epilepsy is the frequency and degree of hypergraphia." Which probably explains her so-called "inspired" writings.

Plagiarism. Critics have also accused Ellen White of plagiarism. One such was Walter T. Rea, who argued against the "original" nature of her supposed revelations in his book The White Lie. Another critic, Ronald Numbers, argues that her understanding of health reform was simply plagiarized from other health reformers and therefore did not come from divine revelation.

Not to mention denying the teaching of the Trinity. Many critics, and even some Adventists, have asserted that Ellen White did not support the teaching of the Trinity in her writings.

And of note is her vile and vicious racism. "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (White, Ellen G. (1864). Spiritual Gifts. Volume 3. Chapter 10: The Flood. p. 75. Online Edition.)

Strange, seems these new messianic groups here in WA have similar doctrines - Sabbath keeping, a subtle denial of the Trinity, some even question the "traditional" deity of Christ.
Their mantra is "we keep the commandments because we are saved, we are not saved by keeping the commandments". However then they say those of us who call ourselves Christian but don't keep shabbat and are pork eaters are the "lawless" ones talked about in the scripture.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

Strange, seems these new messianic groups here in WA have similar doctrines - Sabbath keeping, a subtle denial of the Trinity, some even question the "traditional" deity of Christ.
Their mantra is "we keep the commandments because we are saved, we are not saved by keeping the commandments". However then they say those of us who call ourselves Christian but don't keep shabbat and are pork eaters are the "lawless" ones talked about in the scripture.

HankD

And what does Scripture tell us in regards to people like that?


Romans 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

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

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


Where we would divide with weaker brethren is when they impose a salvific context to the works or ceremonies they engage in. I don't have a problem with a Christian that worships on the Sabbath, though I think this is usually done for the purpose of trying to make a distinction between themselves and those who have traditionally met on the First Day. It is saying "We do it the right way, you don't," lol.

So wouldn't someone taking the opposite view be doing the same thing?

We are not to judge men concerning holy days or what they eat, unless it conflicts with a principle established.

Here are some dietary laws recommended for Gentile believers:


Acts 15:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Now we take careful note of the fact that they say, if we keep ourselves from these things, we will do well, not...we will be saved. Paul will go on to teach that we can eat meats offered to idols, but gives conditions that would, or should, prevent us from doing so:


14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.


1 Corinthians 8:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?


I think what Paul is referring to here is the fact that God can end the physical lives of believers who violate their conscience, and here Paul is saying...don't contribute to that.

Their mantra is "we keep the commandments because we are saved, we are not saved by keeping the commandments".

That is exactly what God said would happen:


Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Hebrews 8:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


If they impose a keeping of the commandments according to the Covenant of Law, then they seriously violate Christian Doctrine.

If they associate with that Covenant rather than the New Covenant...then we have grounds to question them being a Christian group at all.

However then they say those of us who call ourselves Christian but don't keep shabbat and are pork eaters are the "lawless" ones talked about in the scripture.

And we know it is an ignorant statement which actually violates Christian Doctrine.

That is where you want to challenge them, lol.


God bless.

 

[HankD]

And what does Scripture tell us in regards to people like that?


Romans 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

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

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


Where we would divide with weaker brethren is when they impose a salvific context to the works or ceremonies they engage in. I don't have a problem with a Christian that worships on the Sabbath, though I think this is usually done for the purpose of trying to make a distinction between themselves and those who have traditionally met on the First Day. It is saying "We do it the right way, you don't," lol.

So wouldn't someone taking the opposite view be doing the same thing?

We are not to judge men concerning holy days or what they eat, unless it conflicts with a principle established.

Here are some dietary laws recommended for Gentile believers:


Acts 15:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Now we take careful note of the fact that they say, if we keep ourselves from these things, we will do well, not...we will be saved. Paul will go on to teach that we can eat meats offered to idols, but gives conditions that would, or should, prevent us from doing so:


14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.


1 Corinthians 8:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?


I think what Paul is referring to here is the fact that God can end the physical lives of believers who violate their conscience, and here Paul is saying...don't contribute to that.



That is exactly what God said would happen:


Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Hebrews 8:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


If they impose a keeping of the commandments according to the Covenant of Law, then they seriously violate Christian Doctrine.

If they associate with that Covenant rather than the New Covenant...then we have grounds to question them being a Christian group at all.




And we know it is an ignorant statement which actually violates Christian Doctrine.

That is where you want to challenge them, lol.


God bless.

Whether they have weak faith or no saving faith is the ultimate question.
To deny the Trinity and/or the deity of Christ IMO shows a faith which is not Christian.

As to Sabbath keeping and dietary regulations from the Torah - No problem, however they (on Facebook and other social venues) tell those of us who are Sunday church goers and eaters of "traif" food are the "lawless" mentioned on the NT.

If they were Trinitarian then let them try to keep the mosaic law, all 613 mitvouth (which is impossible as 270 of them require an active temple and levitical priesthood in Jerusalem).

Bottom line - a doubt of the Trinity and/or the deity of Christ shows more of a problem that not keeping the Sabbath or not maintaining a kosher diet.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

Whether they have weak faith or no saving faith is the ultimate question.
To deny the Trinity and/or the deity of Christ IMO shows a faith which is not Christian.

As to Sabbath keeping and dietary regulations from the Torah - No problem, however they (on Facebook and other social venues) tell those of us who are Sunday church goers and eaters of "traif" food are the "lawless" mentioned on the NT.

If they were Trinitarian then let them try to keep the mosaic law, all 613 mitvouth (which is impossible as 270 of them require an active temple and levitical priesthood in Jerusalem).

Bottom line - a doubt of the Trinity and/or the deity of Christ shows more of a problem that not keeping the Sabbath or not maintaining a kosher diet.

HankD

I would agree with that, but I wouldn't assume someone is not saved because they are either ignorant or confused about a doctrine such as the Trinity.

I find it humorous, but also a little hypocritical (and I am not saying this about you, Hank, just making an observation in the debate between those who recognize Christ's Deity and those who don't) when some Trinitarians make statements such as "I am a firm believer in the Trinity. I don't understand it, and don't think anyone can, but...that's what the Bible teaches," then turn around and condemn others in a salvific context...for not understanding it either.

Now what should we do? Well, the obvious answer is to seek to first understand it ourselves, then...show from the Word of God why others should understand it.

Right?


God bless.

 

[HankD]

I would agree with that, but I wouldn't assume someone is not saved because they are either ignorant or confused about a doctrine such as the Trinity.

I find it humorous, but also a little hypocritical (and I am not saying this about you, Hank, just making an observation in the debate between those who recognize Christ's Deity and those who don't) when some Trinitarians make statements such as "I am a firm believer in the Trinity. I don't understand it, and don't think anyone can, but...that's what the Bible teaches," then turn around and condemn others in a salvific context...for not understanding it either.

Now what should we do? Well, the obvious answer is to seek to first understand it ourselves, then...show from the Word of God why others should understand it.

Right?


God bless.

Yes, of course.

The Trinity is three distinct persons in one divine essence.

This has been the simplistic formula of the Trinity from the council of Nicea to this present day.

There is no single specific scripture that defines the Trinity.
There is one scripture that comes close:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

However this verse only exists in 6 late dated Greek minuscule mss, a few Latin texts along with a plethora of Latin Fathers citing it as scripture. I accept it as part of the inspired text but many scholars of renown do not.

As a teacher and witness for the Lord I use the acceptance or denial of the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ as a guide to how I deal with individuals who are doing the denial.

If Christ is not God come in the flesh then His blood will not atone for sin

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

There's a fairly good discussion going on in Other Denominations, by the way.

There are times when another's salvation is highly questionable, but I have tried for some time not to question anyone's salvation publicly. If you embarrass or enrage someone it will likely close that door of opportunity to do the one thing we are told to do...convey the Gospel. Had numerous occasions where I did that, and a few times when the doctrine presented was simply blasphemous, and I became pretty irate. And it really didn't accomplish anything.

There are numerous passages which make it clear that Christ is God manifest in the flesh. I think if we can establish the Deity of Christ the Trinity is going to be easier for people to understand.

Here's a quick example:


John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 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.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Here Christ teaches of the coming of the Comforter, and we see that the Father sends the Spirit, and that equates to the Spirit, the Father, and the Son...indwelling the believer.


John 14:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Can anyone explain me the difference between baptists and adventists, please? How to the baptist people view the adventists?

I have a post here on this thread for that.
#1 BobRyan, Saturday at 8:40 AM

 

[BobRyan]

That depends on what type of Baptist and what type of Adventist

I would suspect by Baptist you might mean one of the following:
Southern Baptist
Independent Fundamentalist Baptist
Bible Baptist
Free Will Baptist

All of those are different

I would suspect by Adventist you probably mean Seventh Day Adventist. But other Adventists include Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Davidians, and a few others.

All of those are different

That is true - but Seventh-day Adventists are the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world according to the Jan 2015 Christianity Today article at this BB thread.
#1 BobRyan, Saturday at 8:40 AM
And as far as I know - the only ones going by the name "Adventist" other than possibly those shepherds'-Rod -- turned - Davidian -- turned Branch Davidian groups ... small and almost unknown.

This site has an interesting non-SDA summary of SDAs.

http://www.getreligion.org/getrelig...or-godbeat-pros-what-is-seventh-day-adventism

 

[BobRyan]

Whether they have weak faith or no saving faith is the ultimate question.
To deny the Trinity and/or the deity of Christ IMO shows a faith which is not Christian.

As to Sabbath keeping and dietary regulations from the Torah - No problem,

Well we are trinitarian just as the Seventh-day Baptists are Trinitarian and keep the Bible Sabbath.

If the argument is "if you honor your parents then you must sacrifice animals" (which is to say that if you choose to obey one of the Ten Commandments then all the ceremonial laws outside the Ten Commandments must be kept by you) --

or "If you keep the 4th commandment you must sacrifice animals" then I suggest a "close reading" of section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and also Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

 

[HankD]

Well we are trinitarian just as the Seventh-day Baptists are Trinitarian and keep the Bible Sabbath.

If the argument is "if you honor your parents then you must sacrifice animals"
or "If you keep the 4th commandment you must sacrifice animals" then I suggest a "close reading" of section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and also Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Bob, I have no idea what you are asking of me.Are you looking for a response from me?

Can you frame your post above in the form of a question?

Thanks
HankD

 

[BobRyan]

I simply picked one of the Ten Commandments and show how it is not reasonable to claim that those who honor God by keeping that commandment - must then be sinless or that they must keep all the ceremonial laws outside of the Ten Commandments as well..

I thought the point was obvious - did I miss something?

 

[HankD]

I simply picked one of the Ten Commandments and show how it is not reasonable to claim that those who honor God by keeping that commandment - must then be sinless.

I thought the point was obvious - did I miss something?

Oh, OK, - Yes that is a common sense conclusion.
It's my problem, senility maybe.

HankD