Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" declares Adventist are not a Cult and destroys Hoekema's book

You realize that you gave the 1 Cor 16 reference -- then chose not to quote the text at all... just quoted you. You knew that right?

 

BobRyan said: ↑
They gathered "every Sabbath" for worship and Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.. "They" being BOTH Jews AND Gentiles according to the text.

You "could find" a one-off gathering "ever" on week-day-1 in the Bible but that is about it.

That is the one-off I mentioned

 

Sadly your practice of "quoting you" is really getting you confused.

That quote above only comes "from you" there is no such Bible text.

How many times do we get to point out this glaring flaw in your argument?? Because seriously - I could do this all day and enjoy it each time. You for your part seem to enjoy setting me up with these soft-ball lobs ... (For reasons I can't begin to explain but certainly is fun to keep pointing out how your solution of "merely quoting you" when the Bible does not support your position - is only digging that hole deeper for you)

 

Certainly a lot of truth in your summary. But one point to consider is this "What doctrine is unbiblical" that comes right out of the Bible? For example the Baptist will say that the presbyterian, Methodist, Church of England, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of infant baptism is "unbiblical" -- and SDAs would agree.

By contrast the Arminian Baptist would say that certain Calvinist doctrines among Baptists are "unbiblical" and SDAs would agree that this is not what the Bible teaches.

Seventh-day Baptists would argue that the Sunday and anti-Sabbath teaching of fellow Baptists is - "unbiblical" and SDAs would agree that this is not what the Bible teaches.

Typically where two denominations differ on doctrine -- the one will say that the other's doctrine is not what the Bible teaches.

There is nothing "new" about that.

 

That site is pretty good.

But I would like to show you why SDAs regard the amount of borrowing that Bible writers do and the amount that Ellen White did to be on par with the figure that the Ellen White estate gives - as about 2%. And that it is done for readability not for substance or content. in this following example it is glaringly obvious that no one has ever written anything close to this - that could be copied.

From Story of Redemption - chapter one.. verbatim

LUCIFER in heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God's dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Christ, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Lucifer was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was His Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of the

Page 14

earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out His will and His purposes but would do nothing of Himself alone. The Father's will would be fulfilled in Him.

Lucifer was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ. Yet when all the angels bowed to Jesus to acknowledge His supremacy and high authority and rightful rule, he bowed with them; but his heart was filled with envy and hatred. Christ had been taken into the special counsel of God in regard to His plans, while Lucifer was unacquainted with them. He did not understand, neither was he permitted to know, the purposes of God. But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of heaven, His power and authority to be the same as that of God Himself. Lucifer thought that he was himself a favorite in heaven among the angels. He had been highly exalted, but this did not call forth from him gratitude and praise to his Creator. He aspired to the height of God Himself. He gloried in his loftiness. He knew that he was honored by the angels. He had a special mission to execute. He had been near the great Creator, and the ceaseless beams of glorious light enshrouding the eternal God had shone especially upon him. He thought how angels had obeyed his command with pleasurable alacrity. Were not his garments light and beautiful? Why should Christ thus be honored before himself?

He left the immediate presence of the Father, dissatisfied and filled with envy against Jesus Christ. Concealing his real purposes, he assembled the angelic host. He introduced his subject, which was himself. As one aggrieved, he related the preference God had given Jesus to the neglect of himself. He told them that henceforth all the sweet liberty the angels had enjoyed was at an end. For had not a ruler been appointed

Page 15

over them, to whom they from henceforth must yield servile honor? He stated to them that he had called them together to assure them that he no longer would submit to this invasion of his rights and theirs; that never would he again bow down to Christ; that he would take the honor upon himself which should have been conferred upon him, and would be the commander of all who would submit to follow him and obey his voice.

There was contention among the angels. Lucifer and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They were discontented and unhappy because they could not look into His unsearchable wisdom and ascertain His purposes in exalting His Son, and endowing Him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son.

Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Lucifer that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which He had conferred upon His Son. They clearly set forth that Christ was the Son of God, existing with Him before the angels were created; and that He had ever stood at the right hand of God, and His mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned; and that He had given no commands but what it was joy for the heavenly host to execute. They urged that Christ's receiving special honor from the Father, in the presence of the angels, did not detract from the honor that Lucifer had heretofore received. The angels wept. They anxiously sought to move him to renounce his wicked design and yield submission to their

Page 16

Creator; for all had heretofore been peace and harmony, and what could occasion this dissenting, rebellious voice?

Lucifer refused to listen. And then he turned from the loyal and true angels, denouncing them as slaves. These angels, true to God, stood in amazement as they saw that Lucifer was successful in his effort to incite rebellion. He promised them a new and better government than they then had, in which all would be freedom. Great numbers signified their purpose to accept him as their leader and chief commander. As he saw his advances were met with success, he flattered himself that he should yet have all the angels on his side, and that he would be equal with God Himself, and his voice of authority would be heard in commanding the entire host of heaven. Again the loyal angels warned him, and assured him what must be the consequences if he persisted; that He who could create the angels could by His power overturn all their authority and in some signal manner punish their audacity and terrible rebellion. To think that an angel should resist the law of God which was as sacred as Himself! They warned the rebellious to close their ears to Lucifer's deceptive reasonings, and advised him and all who had been affected by him to go to God and confess their wrong for even admitting a thought of questioning His authority.

Many of Lucifer's sympathizers were inclined to heed the counsel of the loyal angels and repent of their dissatisfaction and be again received to the confidence of the Father and His dear Son. The mighty revolter then declared that he was acquainted with God's law, and if he should submit to servile obedience, his honor would be taken from him. No more would he be intrusted with his exalted mission. He told them that

Page 17

himself and they also had now gone too far to go back, and he would brave the consequences, for to bow in servile worship to the Son of God he never would; that God would not forgive, and now they must assert their liberty and gain by force the position and authority which was not willingly accorded to them. [THUS IT WAS THAT LUCIFER, "THE LIGHT-BEARER," THE SHARER OF GOD'S GLORY, THE ATTENDANT OF HIS THRONE, BY TRANSGRESSION BECAME SATAN, "THE ADVERSARY." --PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS, P. 40.]

The loyal angels hastened speedily to the Son of God and acquainted Him with what was taking place among the angels. They found the Father in conference with His beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this archdeceiver from heaven; but this was not His purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with His own Son and His loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side and be manifested to all. It would not have been safe to suffer any who united with Satan in his rebellion to continue to occupy heaven. They had learned the lesson of genuine rebellion against the unchangeable law of God, and this is incurable. If God had exercised His power to punish this chief rebel, disaffected angels would not have been manifested; hence, God took another course, for He would manifest distinctly to all the heavenly host His justice and His judgment.

 

No

We also do not teach that Catholic practice of bowing down before images means no Catholics are going to heaven.

We also do not teach that failure to have the correct form of Baptism will send all Methodists to hell.

What we "predict" is that there is a future crisis coming when the LAW of God and its requirements will be under direct attack by the government of the nations of Earth and that the Sabbath will be singled out by them - making it illegal to keep Sabbath. And that when that happens mankind will be forced to make a choice between the word of God and the Laws of man.

Many non-SDA churches would "predict" that such a future event will "never happen" -- it is a difference of what we predict and whether it will happen. Certainly it has not yet happened. we all agree on that.

 

I have never heard Doug Bachelor claim that the only people going to heaven today are those that keep Sabbath or that the only people that have died "saved" since the Adventist Church was formed - are those that kept Sabbath. In fact I think I have heard him say the opposite of that a number of times. (as in saying - that that is not true).

(Not that he is pope or head of the SDA church and not that I agree with everything he does say -- I am just saying that on this one point I am pretty sure he does not teach that)

 

Thanks for sharing that .. But you seem to be inferring that he teaches that all who do not keep the Bible Sabbath are going to hell. I know he has addressed that point explicitly stating that he does not believe it. In the link you gave he states essentially what we find in James 4 "to the one that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" in that case "willful sin".

So if a person says "I know that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to break the Ten Commandments and I know that the Bible Sabbath is one of them.. and that it is not Sunday - The bible says what I am doing is sin - but I don't care what God's Word says - I find it inconvenient to follow what the bible teaches ..." -- then that becomes a salvation issue for the one that goes to such an extreme. Which would be true no matter what we were talking about.

If I were to say "I know that not bowing down to images is what the Bible commands in the Ten Commandments - and that violating that is sin in the eyes of God -- but it is the tradition I have grown up with and I really don't care that the Bible condemns it - I will do it anyway"... well that has become a salvation issue for the one who goes to such an extreme.

I am fairly certain that most Sunday keeping Christians on this board will argue that they have not gone to any such extreme.

 

If you ignore enough details in the conversation -- you can claim anything you wish. You have free will and can choose that path .. but it is "instructive" that you resort to that sort of thing rather than pointing to any actual detail that is in error.

I pointed to obvious logic and reason ... and gave two examples of it ... you are simply responding with detail-avoiding vitriol which is not helpful in a conversation and proves no point at all.

 

I myself said that James 4 is correct .. that if you do something you know is sin and simply dismiss it as "I don't care" - you have a salvation issue no matter what the topic is. You appear to be implying that James 4:17 is only true if it is not applied to the 4th Commandment and somehow we all as Christians have "agreed" to such eisegesis.

You seem to be saying that James 4 can be allowed as long as it is not about a person noticing that the Bible Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and applies to him and then says "no matter what the Bible says.. I don't care".

As it turns out ... the "Bible condemns what I am doing but I don't care attitude" is exactly what Atheists are saying every day. How is it you don't see that kind of response to the Bible to be "a problem" no matter what the topic???

How is this not incredibly obvious?? It is a general principle that James 4 dictates for us and has nothing to do with whether you choose to apply it in the case of the Bible Sabbath or not. Honestly you should "expect" me to always be applying Bible doctrine no matter if the subject is Sabbath or not.

A hypersensitivity that says "the Bible principles can be true - as long as they don't apply to the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments" is pretty hard to defend "sola scriptura".

Honestly - you should have "expected" Christians to apply Bible teaching, Bible doctrine on what is or is not sin ... no matter if the subject is Sabbath or not. You respond to me as if "I wrote" James 4! There is no way that the outcome of discussion will be "well ok - James 4:17 is now deleted"

 

There is a rule that comes to mind at this point.

"Give me the Bible - AND the words IN the Bible"

 

It is a matter of "objectivity" showing that "even those on the opposing side" will admit to certain clearly objective facts.