The SDA Church!

Already answered here - explicitly

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/4.html#000050

" No more than everyone is going to hell who does not keep Sabbath or who worships with idols as does the RCC.

The SDA position has never been that all who commit some sin must go to hell - because we believe that the Gospel applies to all "Whosoever will" may come. "

Now please answer my question to you - if you accept that the Isaiah 66 text is pointing to the Rev 20 event - how do you find a way to ignore it?

 

Steaver since we are on a new page and we seem to have agreement on the points listed below - I thought it would be good to repost for reference on this page - as you look for an answer to my question above.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

The Lord comes "in fire" as we see in Rev 19-20 (as we see in 2Thess 1, 2 Peter 3)

#1. Future judgment as we see in Rev 20.
#2. Rendered by fire as we see in REv 20.
#3. Rendered on ALL flesh - ALL mankind as we see in Rev 20. "All nations"
#4. ALL nations gathered before God for judgment as we see in Jude and in Rev 20.

Why read this if you are simply going to turn a blind eye to it?

Do you consider it "wrong" for a Christian to refuse to ignore this text of scripture?

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Great! Then I need not worry about eating pork.

I don't ignore it. I accept it.

God Bless!

 

I guess I should take that as a "yes" to my question then rather than have you repeat yourself.

You prove my point about not all that is "official" reveals the full view of the church.

It is obvious that you believe that all pork eaters will go to hell regardless of any faith in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.

God Bless!

 

What a great way to "not read the posts"

Here is the answer ALREADY pointing you back to "the answer"

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/5.html#000060

But when sifting through answers and ignoring what does not please -- I guess you can overlook these oft repeated points while also ignoring my questions to you Steaver.

So here they come "again" -- and still waiting for some kind of repsonse from you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Steaver maybe now is a good time to actually answer this from the previous page.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

The Lord comes "in fire" as we see in Rev 19-20 (as we see in 2Thess 1, 2 Peter 3)

#1. Future judgment as we see in Rev 20.
#2. Rendered by fire as we see in REv 20.
#3. Rendered on ALL flesh - ALL mankind as we see in Rev 20. "All nations"
#4. ALL nations gathered before God for judgment as we see in Jude and in Rev 20.

Why read this if you are simply going to turn a blind eye to it?

Do you consider it "wrong" for a Christian to refuse to ignore this text of scripture?

</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Since you "claim" to accept these 4+1 points showing us that the Isaiah 66 statement above is a reference to the predicted Rev 20 lake of fire and Judgment event -- please explain HOW each statement in Isaiah 66:15-18 is to be fulfilled in Rev 20 -- IN YOUR view.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already answered here - explicitly

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/4.html#000050

" No more than everyone is going to hell who does not keep Sabbath or who worships with idols as does the RCC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wonderful! Please show where that statment on idol worship and pork is justified in your claimed "full acceptance" of Is 66:15-18!

(Watching you dodge this text forever should be "fun")

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already answered here - explicitly

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/4.html#000050

" No more than everyone is going to hell who does not keep Sabbath or who worships with idols as does the RCC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the link above we see that God is opposed to munching on "dogs cats rats and bats" but Steaver clings to "I don't care what the text says" in his ---


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steaver said
Great! Then I need not worry about eating pork.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As much as it may please the heart of man to ignore the Isaiah 66 warning regarding "rats cats bears and bats" the text does not "go away" simply becuase you find a rats tail for chewing Steaver.

In the end if you "read the link" and accept "what you claimed to accept" you would have to show in the Isaiah 66 text how it is that chewing on rats is really "just fine".

Note that in that link I never allow for your option of "ignore the text anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess I should take that as a "yes" to my question then rather than have you repeat yourself.

You prove my point about not all that is "official" reveals the full view of the church.

It is obvious that you believe that all pork eaters will go to hell regardless of any faith in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Only if somebody is aware and convicted on that point of eating pork and they dont repent and stop doing it.

 

Steve,

I dont have a clue what you are talking about on either of those two satements:


I guess I should take that as a "yes" to my question then rather than have you repeat yourself.

You prove my point about not all that is "official" reveals the full view of the church.

..but Ive been going back and forth to the doctors the last few weeks or so, and so I probably missed the question. By the way, I am having this current problem right now medically because I was stupid 20 years ago and drank alcohol and danced all night and messed up my foot. Thats a testimony to the fact that if we dont do what God says when it comes to dietary habits we will suffer later. Hopefully I will end up getting rid of this problem but it shows God tells us not to do things because He LOVES US.

You need to get out of this legalistic view of things and realiuze God's love for us. He made His laws because Hes our creator and knows what is best for us

seriously Steve... its like when Jesus said you could pick up snakes and scorpions and not get hurt... but He also said dont tempt the Lord your God and dont jump off a building... thats what many Christians do, thinking God will just miraculously save them even when they disregard His health laws..

claudia

 

Steve,

I noticed you make an awful lot of assumptions about me and what I believe instead of just asking first.


God is willing to forgive ANY sin if we genuinely repent and stop doing it.

but yes if someone is willfully in rebellion against God then they cannot receive forgivness. I DO believe that completely. Jesus' righteousness is not to cover unconfessed and unrepented of sin.

 

Claudia, Bob, any other SDA-ers if there are any,

I'm not sure I understand why you still hold to the dietary laws in light of Jesus' statements in Mark 7:19 declaring all foods clean, Paul's stament in Romans 14:14 that nothing is unclean of itself, and God's command to Peter to "slay and eat" previously-unclean animals in Acts 10 (surely God wouldn't command Peter to do what is sinful!).

It would seem that the New Testament repeats several times that we are not bound by the dietary customs of the Old.

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

Click here and it will explain for you. Watching the "TV" is the best one to choose...just click the little television icon.

Click the study guide called "Ten Times Wiser"
Ten Times Wiser

Then...

Click the study guide called "God's Free Health Plan"
God's Free Health Plan

[ April 27, 2006, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

DHK:

Martin Luther believed in soul sleep, right? so it isnt from Ellen White

The Great Controversy, page 549
Chapter Title: The First Great Deception
The theory of the immortality of the soul was one of those false doctrines that Rome, borrowing from paganism, incorporated into the religion of Christendom. Martin Luther classed it with the "monstrous fables that form part of the Roman dunghill of decretals."--E. Petavel, The Problem of Immortality, page 255. Commenting on the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, that the dead know not anything, the Reformer says: "Another place proving that the dead have no . . . feeling. There is, saith he, no duty, no science, no knowledge, no wisdom there. Solomon judgeth that the dead are asleep, and feel nothing at all. For the dead lie there, accounting neither days nor years, but when they are awaked, they shall seem to have slept scarce one minute."-- Martin Luther, Exposition of Solomon's Booke Called Ecclesiastes, page 152.

 

Claudia, thanks for those links. I still don't agree, but I understand your perspective much better now. My biggest issue is not the soundness of his health advice, but the building of doctrine out of it, considering the New Testament passages I cited declaring those foods clean. He mentioned one I didn't cite, but didn't even bother to exegete it and tell us why it doesn't say what it seems to say (although, with as much ground as he covered, I can't really blame him). Also, he cited the parallel passage in Matthew for the verse I referenced in Mark and said that it was only about ceremonial washings. In the Mark passage, Jesus specifically said that all meats (or foods) are purged.

Again, thanks for sharing those links!

Michael

 

Hi Michael

Well you are very welcome.

Let's try looking at the same passage but only from Matthew 15 this time:


Matthew 15

15: Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16: And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17: Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18: But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The key I think is in the last verse...They thought that if you eat with your hands unwashed then you were defiled.
They would do all kinds of these outward rituals and think they were holy, while allowing the inside of their hearts to be full of sin.

The passage wasnt really about food and dietary concerns.

Because surely you dont think Jesus was suddenly getting rid of the idea of not eating swines flesh do you?

Jesus was saying that washing your hands and eating foods, etc... are just outward things that dont make any difference in the doing if you are going to leave the inside of yourself full of sin. Kind of like when Jesus said wash the inside of the cup and not just the outside or else it doesnt do any good.

Because Michael, think about thisfor a minute... if we are told that God wishes we be in good health:
3Jn:1:2: Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Well how could we be in good health if we eat swines flesh? God made the rules about what to eat because He knew some animals were scavengers and unhealthy to eat.

and just because Jesus died for us on the cross, that doesnt make these foods any less healthy, right?

Temperance has to do with being careful what you eat and drink... so it isnt as if God doesnt care anymore if we destroy our bodies...

2Pt:1:6: And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness

Claudia

[ April 27, 2006, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

#1. If God's Word can be reduced to "ethnic customs" then you would be right - "customs change" and so would His Word.

#2. Some have argued that God's Word was nailed to the cross so we need not be concerned with it -- your reference to Mark 7 is a reference to an incident BEFORE the cross - BEFORE ANYTHING even COULD be nailed to the cross -- is it your claim that apart from the cross and BEFORE the cross - God's Word was abolished??

#3. In Mark 7 the "issue" was NOT the eating of rats, or cats, or bats, or dogs, or horses ...etc. The issue was the eating of bread - in this case of wheat - with hands that were not "ceremonially clean".

That ceremonial cleansing was "a man made tradition" according to Christ in Mark 7. That man-made tradition stated that food was "unclean" by virtue of "sin" sticking to the hands - touching food contaminating it with "sin" and then when eaten - resulting in "sin in you".

The issue was ceremonial cleansing from sin - before eating "food" (wheat in this case).

THEY were NOT arguing over the right to eat cats and rats. By taking the Mark 7 "context" (wheat in this case) into view we avoid the problem of "cats-for-breakfast" eisegesis in this case.

Christ was "changing nothing" in terms of God's Word (just as He claims in Matt 6). He was abolishing "man-made tradition" that said that sin was "getting on food" by hands that were not ceremonially clean! Christ's point was the abolishing of man-made doctrine regarding sin and unclean food. The correction of a jewish abuse "pre-cross" can not be used as an excuse to nullify "make void" some offending part of the Word of God!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Claudia has it nailed down. This is what those SDA preachers said as well. And once you have been shown the scripture....well...repent or go to hell!

So it is as I said from the begining. Not all "official" statements declare the full teaching of the church. The SDA church teaches the false doctrine that eating pork is a sin(first mistake) and then that this sin(once aware of it according to the deceased pope Ellen White definition)and any other unrepented of sin will send the born again child of God trusting in Jesus Christ to hell.

This is why the SDA church should be rejected as biblical Christianity for they preach "another gospel".

Out of one side of the mouth you here ALL faith in Jesus Christ that saves. Out of the other side comes REPENT of every sin(and this includes whatever our pope has interpreted for us to be sin) or burn REGARDLESS of faith in Jesus Christ!

That is double talk. That is unstable, shakey and plainly false doctrine. It is another gospel.

I know I sound offensive, but...

Jam 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

...I must confront any false teachings.


God Bless!

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3814/6.html#000076

"THEY were NOT arguing over the right to eat cats and rats. By taking the Mark 7 "context" (wheat in this case) into view we avoid the problem of "cats-for-breakfast" eisegesis in this case.
"

That is true for Mark 7 -- but in Steaver's case - he actually IS ON topic talking about "cats for breakfast" in Isaiah 66.

Odd that he wants to defend that practice "no matter what he reads" in Isaiah 66!

 

Steaver since we are on a new page and we seem to have agreement on the points listed below - I thought it would be good to repost for reference on this page - as you look for an answer to my question above.

Please note the "inconvenient details"

The Lord comes "in fire" as we see in Rev 19-20 (as we see in 2Thess 1, 2 Peter 3)

#1. Future judgment as we see in Rev 20.
#2. Rendered by fire as we see in REv 20.
#3. Rendered on ALL flesh - ALL mankind as we see in Rev 20. "All nations"
#4. ALL nations gathered before God for judgment as we see in Jude and in Rev 20.

Why read this if you are simply going to turn a blind eye to it?

Do you consider it "wrong" for a Christian to refuse to ignore this text of scripture?

</font>[/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]