Witnessing to 7th day adventist

Bob, I don't speak from ignorance as you suppose...there's a SDA church three blocks from my home, and what I know about them comes from both their statement of "faith" and from several of the members themselves.

Biblical basis? They have none. Most of their stuff is NOT found in the Bible. Therefore I can speak on the Biblical basis that many of their doctrines ara AGAINST what's found in the Bible.

Like it or not, there are some PROVEN facts showing SDA to be a cult:

EGW was a charlatan on the order of Aimee Semple Mc Pherson, William Branham, and Jim Bakker. She made quite a few false prophecies...and you SHOULD know what Scripture says against false prophets! She was a great plagiarist, which was PROVEN by former SDA preacher Walter rea in his books, The White Lie, and Judged by the Gospel. He gives the SOURCES EGW copied.

SDA is NOT the exclusive vehicle to Jesus. This would send everyone to hell who died before 1844, INCLUDING THE APOSTLES.

And there are SDA doctrines, which I listed in a previous post, which do NOT line up with Scripture.

All SDA is, is the legacy of a cash cow created by EGW, her husband, and a few other ex-Millerites. It's as heretical as its well-known children, Jehovah false Witnesses & Cracked Branch Davidians.

Yes, I could bore the readership with a detailed history of the SDA cult, but I believe those who are interested will look for themselves.

And my arguments against the SDA cult ARE Bible-based, taking the Scriptures as literal except where they are CLEARLY symbolic. Where does the Bible say Jesus is Michael? Where does it say gehenna isn't eternal? Where does it lend exclusivity to the SDA?

Do you affirm or deny that Graybill made the statement about EGW I quoted in an earlier post, and that he later retracted it as untrue?

 

You know - the funny thing is - none of your posts "actually" reference the Bible in support or defense of ANY bible doctrine that you hold in opposition to SDAs.

Is that what you call a "Bible based debate"?

If so - I have some really helpful news for you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the specific case of the quote I gave in my post - you seem to be in the dark.

Perhaps an online review of the SDA 27 fundamental beliefs would benefit you so you could effectively oppose something that is actually taught by SDAs.

This may seem like a wild and strange idea to you at first - but I can assure you -- hitting an actual target beats "making one up" any day.

Well then the really good news is that whenver you do "start" to use the Bible in this discussion with me (an Adventist) all the cards will be in your favor and I "should not" have a leg (text) to stand on!

So instead of "Talking about" what you might be able to do should you ever start to engage an Adventist ON the basis of what the Bible actually says - feel free to go ahead and "DO" it - rather than just talking about what you would be able to do -- were you ever to attempt it.

I say - there is no time like the present to put your cards on the table and "show your work".

And hey - what better venue could you ask for? This is a non-SDA forum and I (an SDA) have just voluteered to tie-my-own hands limitting my response to "the Bible only"!!

What a great day this is for you!

You are now in a very good position to use the Bible to instruct and correct - with someone whom you claim has no recourse to scripture at all and yet has limited themself to "Scripture alone"!!

I would really love to be you in that case.

So I say "take no prisoners" -- let me have it!!

(And I mean that in a thick-skinned take-no-offense, I-will-really-enjoy-this kind of way)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmm. Is that strawman supposed to suffice instead of an actual quote from the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of Adventists??

Try using actual "quotes" instead of saying "what you hope a quote will mean and then shooting the straw man you draw up".

In the mean time...

What you say above is not taught BUT your condemnation of that straw man is valid - the strawman is truly as flawed as you say it is. (bad strawman! - bad!). In fact he is even worse because there were no SDAs until the 1860's officially and the doctrines of SDAs did not get hammered out in 1844 (when there were just Sunday keeping Millerites)

But even worse - it would mean that not only were the saints before 1860's lost but even AFTER 1860 the 1860's the majority of the saints on the planet (not being in the tiny group know as Adventists) would also be lost.

Truly a "bad, bad strawman - down boy".

(Hey! We found something to agree on!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Php 3:9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law , but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

God + works = everlasting torment in the lake of fire

Concernung verses taken out of context:

Heb6 never says anybody lost salvation!!!
Heb 6:9 ¶ But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
(KJV)

1John1:7 context is fellowship not salvation

2Pet2 A classic!!! Note the end of the chapter
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Come on, your SDA, dogs and pigs are unclean animals(UNSAVED). If your saved you're a sheep(NO NEW CREATURE IN 2Peter)This chapter makes the point!!! Got cleaned up with religion(OUTSIDE)but inside are still ravening wolves. YOU DON'T KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!!!

The ones that get cast into hell in Matt. Notice what they say???
Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

They're boasting of their wonderful works, JUST LIKE YOU ARE!!!!!Sabbath keeping, ten commandments.

 

This is the Azazel goat doctrine; which is based on the Day of Atonement ritual. I've seen this mentioned in "cult" books; but I really don't understand what the problem is. Of those I've asked; all they could say is "that makes Satan have a part in our redemption". No more than he does in that when we are redeemed by Christ; it is from under Satan's power we are rescued, AND a big part of our Christian life (as we progress toward the final stage of our redemption at Christ's return or death and resurrection) is that we have to resist him.

I've never read the SDA's arguments on this; but Armstrong laid it out in his booklet on the holy days, and while the slain goat obviously represents the slain Christ; the Azazel goat; who is assumed to be the risen Christ our High Priest by the "orthodox"; is never killed; but rather after having the sins placed on him; is sent to the wilderness. But this does not consider that the actual high priest in the ritual represented (was a type of) Christ as High Priest, and as is pointed out; "If the live goat represented the resurrected Christ, then the sins Christ bore on the cross were were placed by another, typified by the high priest, back on Christ after His resurrection! Would this make sense?" And while the risen Christ went to the right hand of God; how could this possibly represented by the wilderness? It is Satan who is cast away forever; along with sin! (Christ doesn't bring all the sins with him into the eternal Kingdom!)

The WCG, after abandoning most of Armstrong's doctrines now allows for both interpretations, or a dual role of the Azazel goat. Perhaps (though at most in a limited way); but still it looks like the Millerites have the upper hand on this one; and this should not be included in apologetic against false doctrine/movements.

 

G2G - you are making this too easy.

Fascinating truth - The Gospel change is from the INSIDE OUT - not from the OUTSIDE
in. The FRUIT (the external ACTIONS that are SEEN) are simply the RESULTS of what has ALREADY been done on the INSIDE.

Christ says "A bad tree BEARS BAD FRUIT" - believe it. First we must appeal to the creator - to CREATE in us a CLEAN HEART, a NEW HEART, a NEW CREATION so that OLD things are passed away and ALL things are become new - THEN we will see the FRUIT "Christ IN YOU" for it will then be "No longer I who LIVE (act, work) but Christ who LIVES IN ME". Gal 2:20.

Yet today many "expect" the tree to be "good" even though the fruit is bad - even though one is lost in rebellion. At other times they want the "tree to be bad" even though the fruit is "good" and the person is seen to be "putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Holy Spirit" Romans 8.

Christ rejects those ideas in this chapter.

 

Matt 18:25-end "Forgiveness revoked" -- obviously.

And as for Heb 6

Both sides agree that Paul is not writing to people that have back-slidden from Christianity and no longer read scripture etc.

Rather the READER is going to be some Christian with a copy of the letter to the Hebrews - probably one who is faithful. That is not the issue.

Not unlike the example Christ gives of the rocky ground where the seed of eternal life DOES bring forth life and for a time it grows and flourishes - life from the dead - as ONLY God can bring about. Brought "to repentance" in such a GOOD way that when one falls away we might seek to RENEW them to such a GOOD state.

But then.... it perishes.

IN the case of those WHO HAVE once BEEN enlightened! (This is the view of the lost - in darkness ACCEPTING light such that they ARE enlightened - at least at one time).

AND have tasted of the heavenly gift

Not the description of the totally depraved lost.


AND have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

This is never the description of the totally depraved lost experience.

"AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY"

clearly FALLING away from being LOST is not a bad thing - it is a GOOD thing.

In Calvinism the lost never "fall away" from being lost. ONLY THE SAINTS can "fall away" ONLY THE SAINTS fail to remain in their initial condition, it is impossible for the totally depraved LOST to “fall away” from being lost.

Paul speaks of those that THEN have FALLEN AWAY from repentance, from the Holy Spirit, from the Heavenly Gift which is in fact salvation itself given as a gift through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Notice the first state of REPENTANCE is NOT called into question –

Notice the first state of “The Heavenly gift” and “partaking of the Holy Spirit” is the state in which they are supposed to have REMAINED. They are never chastised for BEING in that state – as if that was still “the lost state”. Indeed falling away from “a lost state” could only have been a good thing.

On the other hand – if that state were merely the corrupt state of false profession and halting just outside the threshold of the kingdom- then who cares whether we can RENEW THEM AGAIN to such an indecisive, unsaved, lost and totally depraved state of corruption?

Calvinists make a mockery of this text by denying it's clear meaning regarding RENEWING people back to Godly - genuine repentance and “tasting of the REAL heavenly gift” which is salvation itself.

Eph 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Many/most calvinists would have us believe that worthless ground does NOT receive the same grace/ministry/drawing/calling as the good ground AND SO IT STAYS as worthless ground. INSTEAD of that view - scripture says they both receive the life giving ministry but the ground ITSELF is determining the response.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Glad to be of service Linscott.

And just for "clarity" - the position I posted (arguing from Rom 8:16 and 1John 5 on the witness of the Holy Spirit) is likely to be the BEST way to argue FOR assurance with your Adventist friends. Or with any truly consistent Arminian.

Since this is your stated goal - it should come in handy.

If on the other hand - you only accept assurance based on a 4point Calvinist view - then you are going to have a long way to get the SDA to FIRST be a 4-point Calvinist and THEN see light in your POV.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

this is in regard to your comment to rc3:

“Perhaps an online review of the SDA 27 fundamental beliefs would benefit you so you could effectively oppose something that is actually taught by SDAs.”

Since you didn’t post the link I’m assuming this website

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

is where one gets the “Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist” from?

If so, are you in agreement with their statement in # 19 ?

“The Sabbath: The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)”

Didn‘t God say the following only to the nation Israel, Amos 3:1-2 Gen 31:13; v 17; Deut 5:1-3, etc, which obviously means that the Gentile nations were given up, as evidence in Romans one & Ephesians 2:11-12?

Consequently, wouldn’t the verses the website quotes in respect to Matt, Mark & Luke apply only to those Gentile proselytes, Mt 23:15; Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43 that had obeyed God in regards to His covenant, Gen 17:9-14, & faithfully observing His Sabbaths, Isa 56:1-8?

Thanks, Dave

 

Hi Linscott,

The only way one can witness to a SDA or any other cultic type church is to simply present the pure Gospel to them.

I consider a church cultic in type if they persuade their members that apart from continuing in their denomination they will not make it to heaven. This is what the Catholic church has taught of themselves for centuries even though they no longer publicly press the issue and this is what the SDA has embraced within the church even if they do not post it in their statements of faith. I have spoken with many on the issue and when it comes right down to it they believe that only the Sabbath worshippers will be saved, however, they told me that those who are ignorant of this fact will be excused, but those who have been warned will be lost. I know you don't find this in any statements of faith of theirs, but it is what I was told by the ones I have engaged with in the past.

The problem lies in lack of understanding "born again". Nicodemus was set back by this statement from Jesus and so it seems many of the cultic churches are as well.

Ask this person what "born again" means. I will wager that you will get a blank stare. Then present the doctrine of born again to him as Jesus did, as well as what His disciples followed up concerning this rebirth, and maybe by the grace of God his eyes will be opened.

It is all you can do. It is a hard thing to break through doctrines of devils, but God can and will for those who are willing to be taught by His word alone.

God Bless!

 

"cultic churches"

I see the Seventh Day Adventists and the RCC put into the group called cults--what about the daughters of Rome? Would not they be "reformed" cults?

"Gotta be born again"--amen. One could join every church on the planet and still wind up in Hell.

What about the church that Jesus is building? "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I am amazed that other Christian automatically call the Seventh Day Adventist Church a "Cult" when there isnt any basis at all for that charge.

It is so easy to label a church with that name, so as not to have to answer the questions about your own church's beliefs and whether or not they are actually Biblically based.

Just because a church's beliefs are different than your own is no reason whatsoever to accuse another church of being a "cult".

There is absolutely no basis whatever to call the Seventh Day Adventist Church a cult... none whatsoever, however, it does make it easy for other denominations to put an automatic fear of our church into people's minds so that they will be scared of our church, not even bothering to look into what our beliefs really are.

For instance, many label our church a "cult" simply because we actually believe in keeping the commandments as the Bible says to do... people just jump to that conclusion even though it is very unjust. It would be about as stupid as labeling the Baptist or Methodist Church a "cult" because a Jim Jones came along and led some people astray. I wouldnt do that because it is unfair.

I really believe if the disciples of Jesus were here today, they'd be labeled as "cult followers" and Jesus as a "cult leader"... Jesus and His followers taught that we should keep the commandments, and not to keep man-made commandments such as the Sunday Sabbath, created by the Roman Catholic Church... but most "Christian" Churches care not what the Bible says and automatically labels the Seventh Day Adventist church for just saying the same thing Jesus and His followers said.

It just seems to me like a very easy way out from having to actually answer for why you do what the Catholic Church says, while claiming to be "Protestants" instead of what the Bible says. Its so easy instead to just label our church as a "cult" to put an automatic distrust into people's minds about us.

Mt:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mt:15:9: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mt:22:40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mk:7:7: Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mk:10:19: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Lk:1:6: And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Lk:18:20: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jn:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1Cor:7:19: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Col:2:22: Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

1Jn:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn:3:22: And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1Jn:3:24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jn:5:2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1Jn:5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2Jn:1:6: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Rv: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.

Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I tell you what, if Jesus, John the Revelator or the other disciples were here today, such as James who said faith without works is dead... so many Christians would label them as "Pharisees" "Cult Leaders" and "Legalists"... its just so sad, really

I mean, do you know how many Baptists are members of the Freemasonry? so am I going to label the Baptist Church as a "cult"?

[ March 05, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Go to http://www.seventh-day.org click on the link called "Rome's Challenge" and honestly ask yourself this question: "If we Baptists call the Roman Catholic Church a "cult" and we ourselves bow down to the Pope by keeping the Sunday Sabbath, that isnt even in the Bible but was instituted by the Catholic Church, are we ourselves then a "cult" follower?

Also, go read this: http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/antichrist1.htm

and ask yourselves the same question.

also go to my site http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org and click on the Masonic Lodge button and read the information and ask yourselves if so many Baptists are Freemasons then are they cult members for associating themselves with the Freemasonry?

In other words, maybe you need to look at yourselves a little bit before accusing some other denomination of being a "Cult".


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

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org

 

Claudia_T

Thanks for the links, will check them out as time & my nasty head cold permits.

I take your point about Masonic Baptists. When a pulpit committee got a Masonic pastor for our assembly I gave him a book by a former Masonic Baptist pastor on why he left the Masonic Lodge. When he started to object to that former Mason’s remarks I asked him if he would like to read my copy of Albert Pikes "Morales & Dogma.” Seeing he had stepped in it he rejected my offer & a couple of years later was dead, at a far younger age then I am now.

As for the word “cult” do you accept Webster’s definition of the word?

As a former Catholic, who was raised in their school system, I was taught that if a Catholic leaves the “Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith” & becomes a protestant, they have no hope of salvation. The RCC teach that if protestants sincerely believe they can be saved. I know, that doesn’t make sense but when you’re a kid & this is taught by people that have dedicated their lives to God, by giving up the normal human privileges, you accept it. Consequently such teaching makes the RCC half a cult since it tends to keep folks in the RCC religion.

The older I get the more it seems that there are believers in every denomination, yes, even Catholics. The problem is believers are not shown the errors in their religion. And, yes, there are errors in Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the discussions on this website.

So in obedience to Eph 4:13, & the fact that Islam religion is here & needs to be dealt with, would you be so kind as to answer my questions to BobRyan on this board?

Thanks, Dave

 

Suppose I were a non-believer and confronted by two 'teachers' from the Christian Faith with their sets of values to choose between, A quoting the Scriptures only, and B calling A 'cult', basing his entire 'judgement' of A on hear-say, comparing him with the RCC, caricaturing him as stupid, with blank staring lack of understanding, and accusing him of doctrines of devils, who would you think I'll listen to? Whom would I find convincing; whom would I judge more in line with his Great Teacher?