Witnessing to 7th day adventist

The fact that they were excluded from the "commonwealth of Israel" did not mean that they were unloved, or that God was not offering them salvation. As Christ points out about the Widow that took care of Elijah - God found faith in her and not in those of Israel.

As the story of Ruth points out - a moabite becomes the ancestor of Christ.

As the story of Jonoah points out - God had mercy and concern for even the pagan city of Ninevah.

As Noah preaching before the flood points out - God has Noah "a preacher of righteousness" speaking to people before the flood.

As Isaiah points out - God is the "Savior" that "calls out to all the ends of the earth - turn to Me and be saved".

As Isaiah points out Israel was to be "My witnesses" to the world.

As David points out "God blesses us that ALL the nations may see and glorify God".

As even the story of Baalam points out - there were prophets of God among the pagan nations.

This was "God so loving the WORLD" pre-Cross.

God "Drawing ALL MANKIND UNTO HIM" for He is the God that "does not change" and is "The SAME yesterday today and forever".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Abraham also descended from Adam.

All mankind were not saved before the flood.

Abraham also descended from Noah.

All mankind were not saved after the flood.

The point remains - God was "the savior of the world" before the cross that He claims to be in Isaiah. His Word is true.

The point remains - there is only ONE Gospel in all ages and that is "Saved by grace throught faith".

Your idea is that God loved the World -- up until Abraham at which point He stopped caring about the world - and just cared about Abraham (Melchizedek, contemporary of Abraham, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God not withstanding)

As Gen 14 points out and Heb 7 points out - your story needs a little work.

Here is one that refutes yours.

Heb 7:1,

Gen 14:18

This is particularly devastating to your point since Hebrews points out that the lesser gave tithe to the greater.

Heb 7
6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.
7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.


God was working salvation and the Gospel in the world beyond the sphere of Abraham's family tree.

That is an interesting twist on my post above. If you can show that Enoch, Noah, or Melchizedek or even Baalam were worshipping idols at the time they were considered God's people/saints then your point is made.

Let me know when you find that.

This is the case in both Romans 9 AND in Romans 2.

Thought you would never ask.

Here is the point made clearly in Romans 9

Here is the point made clearly in Romans 2.

The point is that in both OT and NT God calls the lost to be saved. He calls them from rebellion to obedience. He leads them into the pre-cross new birth experience of John 3.

It is one God, one Gospel solution, calling out to ALL mankind because "God so loved the WORLD" that He gave.


BobRyan says: “ONE Gospel in ALL ages given by ONE God that ALWAYS "So loved the World" and Always had the Gospel model of "Saved by Grace through faith - and that NOT of Works lest ANY MAN should boas".”

Friend, to suppose that Adam to the time of Christ that anyone knew the truth of Eph 2:8-9 is presumptuous ( Ps 19:13 ). When David said ( Ps 32:2) remember he also said ( Ps 33:12 ), & that nation was Israel, consequently God‘s choice ( Ps 65:4 ) which ( Rom 9:13-18 ) reinforces.

If you have scripture, in context, that refutes what I earlier gave you then please cite such. You are demonstrating why there are over 500 denominations by your deliberately rejecting what God clearly told you to do Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15.

#1. There is no "Jew" until the kingdom of Judah becomes the Southern Kingdom.

#2. There is no concept of "God stops loving the world once Abraham is born" - in fact the King of Salem as the priest of God "greater than Abraham" refutes that idea entirely.

The fact that idolatry existed before the cross (as it did after the cross) did not have any impact on the fact that God loved the World and was calling all mankind to repent.

Interesting allegation. But as it is - it is not a ruse - it is fact.

The Sabbath is made directly by Christ the Creator In Gen 2 ON the 7th day of Creation week and given TO Mankind.

In Mark 2:27 Christ said that the Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND and not MANKIND MADE for the Sabbat". That is a statement clearly referencing the MAKING of BOTH.

The origin is NOT in Jews - but in Christ at creation and the "scope" is not "Jews only" - but mankind - Adam and Eve.

Gen 2:3.

You are welcome.

In Exodus 20:8-11 God says that the Gen 2:3 fact "alone" is sufficient to obligate mankind to honor the day of Christ.

In Mark 2:27 Christ says it was "made" for mankind.

In Isaiah 66 God Himself says "ALL MANKIND" will come and worship "From Sabbath to Sabbath".

This is actually "impossible to miss" if one is concerned at all with the text of scripture.

No it does not.

The only place we see the New Heavens and New Earth mentioned is in Isaiah 66 and Rev 21.


It is clear and "blatantly obvious" what is referred to - AND the fact that this is AFTER the cross AND the fact that the "scope" of the command applied to "ALL MANKIND" AND the fact that the "meaning" the CONTEXT gives to the word Sabbath is the "meaning" of Isaiah's day!!

This is iron clad.

Impossible to miss.

Incredibly obvious if one is concerned at all with context and the statement of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. "All mankind" in Isaiah 66 includes "Gentiles".

#2. In Isaiah 56 the point is made "explicitly" to "Foreigners" that honor Christ the Creator's Sabbath and then extends it to "EVERYONE".

So you have had "MANKIND" and "ALL MANKIND" and "EVERYONE" as the group to whom this applies. How many "more ways" did you need it - before it includes you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all - I am not the author of Isaiah 45. That was God speaking - not me.

Secondly - Gentiles were never commanded to be circumcised in either OT or NT.

Just as is the case today - Gentiles were called to obey God's Word. But God's Word never commands gentiles to be circumcised.

See?

One Gospel in ALL AGES.

"By grace through faith - not of works lest any man should boast" -

Get it?

That is why Paul can spend so much time in Gal 3 quoting the OLD testament and arguing that "The Gospel was preached to Abrham".

That is why Paul says in Heb 4 "THE Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM AS WELL".

Rom 28?

In Isaiah 49:6 we see this statement about the World Wide scope of the evangelistic mission of Israel in the OT

For today "The Gospel has been preached TO US JUST as it was to THEM also".

Paul then uses this point to argue with the Jews - showing that the Gospel IS to be preached to them "first" BUT according to the OT NOT to THEM ALONE!

In fact he argues that in preaching the gospel to the gentiles he is OBEYING the command of God in the OT - given to Israel.

Impossible to miss.

There we see the OT fact that God explicitly commanded that HIS salvation be proclaimed to the world --
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

You have just conceded the point.

The only way God could be using Israel to be a light to the nations - is if God cared about the nations - to send them the Gospel JUST as He said. Once that is true - your point fails.

Next.

Jonah's error does not reflect upon God.

You are charging this to God's account.

My point remains. God has always "so loved the World" and The Gospel has ALWAYS been the same.

Furthermore - in God's OT proclaimation about the good news going to the gentiles He never stated that the Gentiles had to move to Israel, or become Jews to be saved.

They DID have to worship the ONE true God and keep His commandments.

For as Christ said "IF you love Me - KEEP My commandments".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I want to get back to this one point.

Check that 27 FB link for SDAs again - we are premill, post-trib literal return of Christ, literal rapture -- Christians.

That means that this IS SDA doctrine. If you object to it - you might as well state your case.

Beyond that - it is abundantly clear - the Isaiah 66 reference to the NEW heaven and New Earth is the one John is using in Rev 21 post-millenium.

We agree with John. He was right to do that.

And that is event is "AFTER the cross"

And as Isaiah 66 points out - the scope is "ALL MANKIND".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Disobedience is its own reward. Don't ask me to explain why people sin.

I have lived in the New Mexico desert long enough to know what I am talking about in the summer.

Also recall - that gathering wood on Friday afternoon was not the problem.

So as much as you "might" want to paint God as unreasonable and arbitrary - it just is not the case.

Is it your position that God thinks whatever the Jews of today think?

The point remains.

"Again" my response points out that this is not an "exegetical argument" from the text of scripture about why it is ok to break the Sabbath.

Your attempt to drag Jewish custom in here - is not serving to make a Bible based exegeticallyl sound argument against Christ the Creator's memorial of His creative act in making this world - literaly in 6 days and then resting on the Sabbath.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "ALL MANKIND" scope of Isaiah 66...

The "MADE FOR MANKIND" Statement of Christ in Mark 2:27

The fact that IN GEN 2:3 it is MADE A HOLY DAY with only Adam and Eve to observe it -

The fact that God HIMSELF argues that the Gen 2:3 "fact ALONE" is sufficient to make Christ the Creator's Holy day binding on mankind..

All of this "would need some kind of response" to justify the way you need to ignore it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dave, so far you have been unnable to formulate a response to the obvious point above.

The point remains.

Your "remark" is that you would prefer not to discuss it - since it also may contradict/refute your ideas on the millenium.

A "fascinating" way to respond to a devastating point against your POV - in my opinion.

Then you "admit" that The Sabbath IS for ALL MANKIND AFTER THE CROSS?

You just seek to deny that it applies AFTER the CROSS AND BEDFORE the Millenium?

Is that really your position?


In Christ,

Bob

 

ICU2YB said: “Since all religion is established on something, shouldn’t the
correct one be in accordance with God’s instruction (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), precept upon precept…”

BobRyan answers: “True enough. I am not suggesting that the "basis" for doctrine be anything other than the Bible "alone". My comment above was directed to those who sought to "make up beliefs for SDAs to adopt" as if the idea of just "making stuff up for me" would be a "sufficient proof" that SDAs actually believe it.”

Excellent!

ICU2YB said: “Since all religion is established on something, shouldn’t the correct one be in accordance with God’s instruction in context …”

BobRyan answers: “Yes! Exegetically established IN CONTEXT. Not just taking Greek texts and trying to get a Webster-English "rewrite" of what they are saying, but actually looking at the context.”

Excellent!

ICU2YB said: “There are over 500 “Christian” denominations all claiming they are being obedient to what God said. Since it‘s obvious they all can‘t be right, then it is also obvious all but one are wrong, if not all, is it not?

BobRyan answers: “(Absolutely correct. (An argument I often make myself in these cases). The "BEST" scenario is that ONE is right - the worst is that all are wrong with some being "less wrong than others."

Excellent!

Sir, we’re in agreement.

 

Yes I believe we are on that point. I was actually quite happy to see you post that position as I have often made the same observation myself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hence the obvious problem that "statistically" we must all admit that we are "likely" to be in one of the wrong groups. The odds are that something we believe is wrong.

So the bottom line is - what open-minded, objective, exegetical practices do you have today that would tend to drive you into more truth and not simply blindly defending "What you have always been told"?

What practice do you have today that would have led you to see in the carpenter from Nazareth (condemned by your accepted religious teachers of the day) -- the true faith?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, we agree on how God's precepts are to be correctly ascertained (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) yet it seems to me you ignore what I give you. Since you know the “Adventist” position, & least I misrepresent it, let us start at the beginning & deal with one subject at a time. Remember, its book, chapter & verse in response to the questions asked.

1) By who’s calendar & time schedule, Hebrew or Roman, do Adventists observe the Sabbath?

2) Where did God tell Adam, Seth, Enos etc, from Genesis 2:1-3 through Exodus 2:22, to observe the Sabbath?

3) Was the Sabbath observance in Gen 2:3 the same given to Moses with its restrictions & penalties (Ex 16:29; 20:8-11; 31:13-17; 35:1-3; Numb 15:32-36 )?

4) If not, how do you know?

5) If yes, & since Adventists insist Sabbath observance is still required, why don’t Adventists enforce the penalties? Did Christ tell His disciples to pray that their trip was not on the Sabbath? Since He did, doesn't that imply it’s observance was still in effect (Mt 24:20; Josh 3:4; Acts 1:12)?

Thanks, Dave

 

Bob, if you read my response to the Adventist position on “tithing” you’ve know I acknowledge when a person’s interpretation is correct.

By Wallace’s correct exegesis on tithing he destroys the a-mill position of the CoC, which you & I know is wrong.

Since “Christianity” is so fractured it is obvious that potentates in the various sects are the reason why. Thus it remains for those who wish to obey God (Eph 4:14) to iron out the doctrinal differences that divide believers.

The only way I know to do this is eliminate the precepts that divide.

When the CoC potentate I was engaged with saw Wallace's exegesis destroyed CoC doctrine he dropped our discussion. He rather teach Isa 11:6 as being allegorical or figurative, i.e. that black & white now get along in the church, rather that continue to study pre-mil doctrine.

So if potentates won’t accept doctrine based on Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15 then 1 Cor 14:38 applies & they answer to God for their refusal.

Since the average believer remains in the assembly saved in, or introduced to, because making a living consumes their time, they trust their potentate to teach them, which as you can see from the above, seperates believers & invites indoctrination.

Cordially, Dave

 

Jews, Adventists and all other Christians observe the "Same" weekly cycle when they all say that the first day of the week is Sunday and the Seventh day is Saturday. (Friday evening to Saturday evening).

The "debate" is not about "What day is 1 or what day is 7".

Gen 2:3 says God "MADE the 7th day A HOLY DAY" actually IN the text.

Exodus 20:8-11 says that - that reason "ALONE" was sufficient to establish it as binding.

Mark 2:27 Christ said that it was "MADE" for mankind when it was MADE and that mankind was not MADE for the Sabbath when mankind was MADE. (Speaking of the making of BOTH). So it is clear that the reason for a SEVEN day creation week instead of SIX - is ONLY due to the day MADE for MANKIND when MANKIND was MADE.

(This is obvious I know - but some people in the past have had difficulty so I add bold type for emphasis not volume).

Along those same lines - God does not tell Cain "MURDER IS SIN" but says "SIN is at your door - you must master it". Using a "wooden structure" to argue that Cain did not know murder was wrong yet - does not work for that commandment any more than it works to escape the 4th commandment.

In Gen 7 Noah has the clean animals come in by 7's but we do not find out what "clean" IS until Lev 11.

The principle is clear. MOSES WROTE BOTH Genesis AND Exodus, GENESIS AND LEVITICUS. This means that his readers had access to BOTH and the book of Genesis is written in such a way (as in the case of clean/unclean animal) where the reader would NEED TO READ both to get the meaning.

Again - this is obvious I knokw - but some have had difficulty with the simple part in the past so I am adding it here just by way of reminder.

I know you are already aware of it.

IT is the SAME as in Exodus 20:8-11 with all of ITS restrictions and penalities "As spoken by God Himself". Read those verses and "See".

Basically it is a day of rest and worship.

Since Adam and Eve spend their first "full day" as the Seventh-day Holy Day - (Christ the Creator's Holy Day made Holy "sanctified" and "blessed" as THE 7th day EVENT of creation week and made FOR mankind..) - we see ALL MANKIND resting and worshipping on that day (just as we find in Isaiah 66 when God once again has ALL MANKIND fully in harmony with God).

This has already been answered. The system of penalties only applies under a theocracy.

No question - it was still in effect.

The Theocracy ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

It had partially ended when the Foreign nations began to rule over Israel - but it was obliterated with Hadrian as he made it "illegal" for a Jew to even LIVE in the land of Israel.

As Christ said in Matt 23 "Behold your house is left unto you desolate".

In Christ,

Bob

 

As fascinating as that is -- it misses the entire context for tithing and for the message to the church at Corinth.

Tithe CAN NOT BE USED for the purpose of supplying funds for another church that has poor members - or members in need of food/clothing etc.

Tithe was to be used ONLY for the support of the ministry, priests, etc. In Acts 13 and 17 we see Paul meeting on Sabbath in the synagogue with God's people. The same is said of the gentiles in Acts 15. They may well have been giving "tithe" to the priests.

Paul had to "Argue for" the establishment of a new order of "priests" that are not called priests - but evangelists and preachers.

That did not exist in the OT model.

The over simplification above -- intended to get out of that part of the Word of God that gives instruction about tithe is "fascinating", but hardly a compelling or exegetically sound argument from scripture.

It relies on the reader not knowing the background of tithing or of the alms (gifts) being solicited from Corinth on behalf of the Jerusalem church members in general.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To go back to this idea of other Christians calling the Seventh Day Adventist Church a "cult" I have a few more things to say about that. I was a little upset about it the other day but am not so much now.

What the majority believe actually has nothing to do with WHAT IS TRUTH.
I feel that many people in Christ's day worried so much about "who said it" instead of "is it true?" An inspired Christian writer put it this way:

"Those to whom the message of truth is spoken seldom ask, "Is it true?" but, "By whom is it advocated?" Multitudes estimate it by the numbers who accept it; and the question is still asked, "Have any of the learned men or religious leaders believed?" Men are no more favorable to real godliness now than in the days of Christ. They are just as intently seeking earthly good, to the neglect of eternal riches; and it is not an argument against the truth, that large numbers are not ready to accept it, or that it is not received by the world's great men, or even by the religious leaders."


For instance, as an example of the false things attributed by some to our chuch.... the Seventh Day Adventist Church teaches that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. And automatically, other Christians assume all sorts of things because of that, such as that we must think Jesus was a created being, which is absolutely not true at all. Just take the time to go and read what WE teach about this, and not what someone assumes we teach or what someone tells you we teach:

http://www.biblelight.net/michael.htm

http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=525

Some claim that Ellen White, an inspired messenger for our church said this and that thing, when if really investigated, you would find it isnt true at all. Go read what WE say about it, and what SHE actually said... IN CONTEXT.

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/

http://www.seventh-day.org/Prophecy.htm

I have no problem with someone actually knowing the TRUTH about something we believe and teach and then disagreeing with that. But its when all sorts of falsehoods are attributed to us, that I have a problem with it then.

Because of the fact that our church points out many errors in the Roman Catholic church, we have unfortunately become a target for some groups... and things are started up and passed on about us that have no truth in it at all, or else things believe are twisted into something that isnt true. I have seen websites, etc that claim we teach and believe this and that thing, when I know for a fact it isnt true. All I ask is that people be fair and honest and not automatically label churches as a "cult". Go see for yourself what they teach.

Thanks.

----------

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

Finally, As far as Ellen White goes, God gave her light to point us to the Scriptures:


Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, page 198,
"I took the precious Bible, and surrounded it with the several "Testimonies for the Church," given for the people of God. "Here," said I, "the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept. But there are not many of you that really know what is contained in the Testimonies. You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God's word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God's inspired book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion your lives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings.

"The Lord deigns to warn you, to reprove, to counsel, through the testimonies given, and to impress your minds with the importance of the truth of His word. The written Testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. Man's duty to God and to his fellow man has been distinctly specified in God's word; yet but few of you are obedient to the light given. Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given, and in His own chosen way brought them before the people, to awaken and impress the mind with them, that all may be left without excuse."

Go take time to actually READ what she taught about salvation and faith. Read her little book called Steps to Christ:

http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/readbooks.html

Read what she said about Jesus Christ, in her book called Desire of Ages, and finally, read about what actually HAPPENED to bring our church into existence in the book Great Controversy.

Then, if you have something to say about what we actually believe and teach, thats just fine with me.

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

"Steps to Christ" and "Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings" are excellent books - but the first issue is 1Cor 12 - many people reject the idea that the scrpture in 1Cor 12 regarding gifts is "valid" today. That would put a stop to the claims of Ellen White right there - and would not be overcome just by reading Steps to Christ.

The second problem with Ellen White on this board is Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the Testimony" -- you and I would argue based on our doctrinal foundation - that Ellen White does measure up to that test. However if I were of some other Christian denomination there is no way I would see her writing to in harmony with "all" my traditions and doctrinal positions.

Some of them would differ and so there again - that would put a stop to any claim to being inspired which would have a lot of negative implications for me until those doctrinal areas of conflict were fully worked out.

Basically you can't short cut the process. The whole thing has to be shown "sola scriptura" and if you get stuck on one of those areas - jumping ahead to Ellen White and just evaluating her on the basis of the great themes in Steps to Christ would not be sufficient.

It is like arguing for the inspired nature of Paul without first accepting that Jesus is the Messiah - God the Son incarnate who died for our sins. If someone rejects Jesus as the true Messiah they have no hope of going for Paul.

(Hence the problem that our Islamic friends have with Paul)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Claudia,

I have no problem with a person founding a denomination. I have a problem with declaring a person's writings as authoritive as the Bible. The RCC does this with their catechism. Mormons do it with the Book of Mormon and the JW's do it with the Watch Tower and their own convienently written New World Translation.

Hundreds of thousands of God's children are given light to point others to the Scriptures. So I don't see where this is any proof of Inspiration on the level given EGW.

Let's cut through the chase. Tell me why I should believe that Ellen's writings are from God Himself?

If you say because she gets doctrine right, well so does thousands of other book writers. So why should I give her that level of "Inspired of God" to write authoritive documents for Christians to follow and fear?

No web sites please, just what you have personally found in her which brought you to the conclusion that God had given her new revelation for Christians to follow.

I always tell everyone, If you believe something you ought to be able to explain why you believe what you believe. So why Ellen? What convinced you?

ps. yes I have read many of her writings and much of what I read lines up with Scripture, but I haven't read anything which would have me place her in the "Prophet" category. Knowing much sound doctrine does not give one such a title.

God Bless!

 

Her first book - (Spiritual Gifts Vol 1) "Early Writings" clearly shows where she relates information that she claims to have come from inspiration (i.e. a vision).

That is not a reason to believe she is inspired - but it is a reason to believe that she claimed to have visions.

BTW - in this case the content of the visions were not simply a paraphrase of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob