Walter Martin points out that the Adventist denomination is not a cult. Continued

Notice how that post ended??

"Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??"

That "ending" of my post was placed there - assuming you do not actually read the posts - and anticipating the rabbit trail that some might wish to use.

HInt: "Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it.."

"Yes, but NONE of them were agreeing with the SDA as saturday Sabbath"

It is nonsensical - to argue that in response to the 66 books of the Bible -- or to any other topic. As we all know

The fact that SDAs and Baptists agree that the Bible has 66 books "is not changed" by the fact that Baptist reject the Bible statement on the Sabbath being the 7th day of the week, or might wish to "edit" it to be week-day-1

SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

The fact that the Baptist Confession of Faith AGREES WITH SDAs that God's TEN Commandemnts - all TEN are binding on the saints in both NT and OT -- AND are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant is not "a problem for SDAs"... period.

It is a problem for you.

IF you read the Catholic Catechism - IT TOO - argues for ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments applicable to the saints in both OT and NT.

So also does Pope John Paul II affirms this about "the TEN Commandments" not "the NINE" but the "TEN"

SDAs do not have to "first be Catholic" to find out that the Bible affirms the TEN Commandments as included in the moral law of God.

Irrefutable.

Each time you are confronted by an irrefutable point that unravels your entire line of approach - you simply "repeat yourself"

Which basically asks that I "again" post the "irrefutable point"


SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

Yes.. "The Bible.."

Each time your argument needs to leave the Bible point and start ranting against Ellen White.. you lose the point.

For those unfamiliar with the number TEN - and the fact that FOUR is within that range of 1 to TEN... I have another post.

 

The gift of being "broken off and cast away"??? -- yet "grafted in again IF" they do NOT continue in unbelief. (you know.. the actual text of scripture in the post)


Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

only if the "broken off and cast away for unbelief" statement in Romans 11 - was your definition of "eternal life" ...

Do you actually have some text that says "broken off from the vine of Christ - for unbelief" is the definition of "eternal life"??

 

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

If creative writing could make all those texts above mean "eternal life" -- then Is it your claim that in Romans 11 Paul is telling Christians to "fear" lest they obtain eternal life????

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Agreed. I think that is accurate

 

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

If creative writing could make all those texts above mean "eternal life" -- then Is it your claim that in Romans 11 Paul is telling Christians to "fear" lest they obtain eternal life????

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Agreed. I think that is accurate

I like it when I say "A" and you say "you just said A, but I prefer B" -- At least the gap is real. And not games in that scenario.

Nice - I was beginning to wonder when you would be done with that.

No we did not.

Because it is. Read the text that keeps getting posted and deal with the details in the scripture of Romans 11 and Matthew 23 (And Matthew 18)

 

True -- and the Gospel solution to sin "writes the LAW of God on the heart and mind"

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith admits this.


So then saints do not "take God's name in vain -- all the way to the kingdom" because as Paul notes in 1 Cor 6 "Be not deceived" into thinking that will work.

Christ makes the same point in Matthew 18 for those "fully forgiven all" and in John 15 for 'every branch IN ME" and in Matthew 7 "by their fruits you shall know them".

 

In fact I have received many affirmations of respect and even adoption of my POV on BB in IM.

But the statement you make above is a great example of you "making stuff up" - engaged in "creative writing" when it is very obvious you have no basis at all for you wild assertions other than your own confidence that whatever you make up must be true.

That is why we have difficulty discussing a point - -because I find it hard at times to get you to "admit to the obvious".

Which usually is fine with me - since the "obvious" is in fact so clear that each time you post "creative writing" and I contrast it to the reality of what the Bible actually says -- it is merely "you" (and possibly 1 or two others) that has to pretend "not to notice" the details in the text. Not the rest of us.

 

wrong - that is what you are doing.

What I do is give the answer
Then you pretend not to read the details and spin it
Then I REPOST the same answer again with the "detail" you missed highlighted.

You call that "making stuff up" -- only because of your "practice" of keeping a distance from the "details" in the posts as your way of promoting your argument "despite the reality of the details".

Obvious to the rest of us -- why is this not obvious to you??

 

A good summary of how I find your posts constantly seeking to ignore almost every detail in scripture on a given point. Romans 11 a great example - you have on tiny half-sentence you want to "snip" out to bend to fit your view - while ignoring every detail in the entire chapter EVEN though I highlight them "for you".

I have a discussion for your tiny-half-snip that you will "Allow" yourself to read in Romans 11.. but I am so stuck on your willingness to avoid entire paragraphs in the chapter that I cannot help reminding you of them.

When I point to scripture and the details in scripture you spin it as "flaw".

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Could not ask for a more clear statement and contrast.

This has been a valuable resource while teaching my students on how to avoid false teachings.

No .. you did not.

What you did was ignore almost every detail in Romans 11 that does not fit your bias - and point out that you "need" to only talk about one-snip-half-sentence because it lends itself to bend-and-wrench.

Were that actually true - you would be in a great position to "point out all the details" in the texts I keep quoting for you from the very chapter YOU bring up. Sadly that is not what you do at all.

Consistently your "solution" is to "ignore every detail" in the actual text - and then "pretend" that only an SDA would "notice the detail" that I keep posting.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Now you insist you are "happy" with that contrast.

And frankly - so am I -- which is why I keep this up. I just can't figure out why you see it as a positive.

The puzzling part -- is that you seem to know "not" to do what you are doing on these threads with me -- when you were debating with Calvinists.. Then it was "you" that was pointing out every detail in the chapter quoted.. how is it you can switch to "avoid the chapter at all costs except for one half-sentence" mode on these threads?

And how is it that you think we cannot all see this??

 

Another great example of paying almost no attention at all to the "details" in the post you are responding to. I did not claim "the rest of us" all agree with whatever doctrine I happen to be posting .

What I said was "the rest of us" can see that you are avoiding the details in the post, details in the text... selecting out a tiny half-snip and relying on ignoring every highlighted quote of the text you are supposedly responding to.

That is not a compelling form of response and we both know it .. no way to blame that poor strategy "on Ellen White" or "on SDAs" -- though I am sure you will give it shot. (which by the way - is another "new trick" for you.. you did not in the past resort to quickly to vitriol and acrimony instead of actual substance in your posts. There are only 2 or 3 other posters on this board that I know of doing such things)

Simply going on a creative-writing rant proves nothing. I prefer the actual truth on that detail.
Your method of ignoring the doctrinal statements of a given denomination to then accuse them of whatever comes to your mind -- was already debunked.

I take it that this is where you explain that "Methodists do not exist" and that the NT text "does not exist"

Or maybe you would relent and begin to Welcome "Arminian doctrine"

 

I am saying that we like Methodists -- are Arminian, we believe in "free will" even AFTER one gets saved. So by definition as a denomination we fully accept the teaching of Christ in Matthew 18 on "forgiveness revokes" as well as the teaching of Paul in Romans 11 on salvation revoked and also found in Hebrews 6 and in Ezek 18 and in Christ's statement in John 15 and in Paul's teaching in 1Cor 6 etc.

You know "the Bible" -- which as we all know "cannot be blamed on SDAs". just because someone "needs" to ignore the details in those texts - does not mean that they can claim all Methodists are actually "SDAs" since only "SDAs notice those Bible details" .

To which inexplicably we get this following response

How is it that the "detail" that I keep mentioning Methodists still does not look to you like "another denomination" besides SDA??

(of course United Methodists, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all allow for the Bible texts on "forgiveness revoked" so maybe 1.3 billion Christians) -- and also "Assemblies of God" , (And I think also the Church of England).

There is a Feb 2015 Article in Christianity Today on Ben Carson and Seventh-day Adventists - that says the SDA denomination is the 5th Largest Christian denomination in the world. So the "Short Answer" to your Question is that the SDA denomination AND all denominations in that list LARGER than the SDA denomination -- accept Matthew 18 doctrine on forgiveness revoked instead of turning a blind eye to it.

(Yet another weak point in the OSAS camp - not sure why you even bring it up)


... but I was hoping you would tolerate having an actual Bible discussion on this doctrine.

-- are you familiar with "free will" and the Arminian teaching on that point??

Are we even getting "close' to the point where you can look at the details in your own Romans 11 chapter that you brought into this???

 

We both know that I never say that in my constant affirmations of Christ's Matthew 18 doctrine on forgiveness revoked.

Why even go there?