God expects us to live up to the light we have.

[steaver]

I would like to take up this issue with Claudia and Bob(and anyone else who cares). I have deliberated with SDA's for about 8 years now and what Claudia has said is what I have heard from many of them. That is that only those who have been "shown the light" are required to obey the light.

One question is, obey or else what? Is salvation at stake in this?

Just what constitutes "given the light"? Is it being shown the Word in scripture? Is it being shown by God through conviction?

If it is God who must convict me to believe that eating pork is forbidden for His children, then why hasn't He convicted me that it is wrong? I have read over and over again the passages about eating pork and I have been preached to over and over from SDA's that it is to be forbidden among God's children, yet as I pray and pray and study and study the text I do not get any conviction from God that what the SDA's preach about pork is truth.

Yes I am very open to God, I want to please Him in every part of my life. There are plenty of foods to consume, pork is not an addiction in anyway for me, I could take it or leave it. But I have not had any conviction from God that it is to be refused.

Same goes for Sabbath worship. Wouldn't matter at all to me if I worship on Saturday or Sunday. Yet I have heard all the preaching and have studied all of the text and I have no conviction on the matter to change my corporate worship from Sunday to Saturday(although I worship Jesus everyday and live each day as holy towards the Lord)

So just how does this "given light" thing work from the SDA perspective?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the question when the RCC says that their practice of worshipping bread as though it were God is in fact "idolatry" and worshipping a false God - IF They are wrong... we do not automatically assume that they know that they are wrong. They simply know the DEPTH of the risk if they are wrong.

But what about the case where a given RC member DOES discover that this is error and then say "oh well so what if it is idolatry -- I choose to do it anyway - I want to be with my friends".

Do you say to that person "don't be anxious - go back to sleep - you are in no danger -- God will not notice"???

Would you say that with their errors on prayers to the dead in violation of Isaiah 8:19?

Would you say that with their errors on worship of images in violation to the 10 comamndments in Ex 20?

Christ said that "He who desregards the LEAST of these commandments and so teaches others will be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven".

Just how much "peace and safety" should we preach to those who say "Oh yeah - I know it is wrong -- but I like doing it so leave me alone".

Should we say "well 4 Point Calvinist OSAS must apply here so no need to disturb that group even though they are in error and they even see their error but will not turn from it"???

What happens when it turns out SDAs are not followers of the errors in 4 point Calvinist OSAS so they do not see that as an option? Which means they will teach that error is "wrong" and "is serious" and "OSAS" is error so embracing error "as if it has no impact on salvation" would never be the teaching of a group rejecting the doctrinal falacies of OSAS.

That seems to be the crux of your question --

Or is it something else?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Same goes for Sabbath worship. Wouldn't matter at all to me if I worship on Saturday or Sunday. Yet I have heard all the preaching and have studied all of the text and I have no conviction on the matter to change my corporate worship from Sunday to Saturday(although I worship Jesus everyday and live each day as holy towards the Lord)

So just how does this "given light" thing work from the SDA perspective?

God Bless! :thumbs:

in John 16 we are told that the Holy Spirit CONVICTS the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Paul and other NT saints PREACH the Word - but the Holy Spirit convicts - not Paul convicting, and not NT saints convicting those in error -- so not SDAs convicting those who embrace doctrinal error, but the Holy Spirit. SDAs merely preach the Word and hold a true line in upholding what God has written in scripture.

It has never been the claim of any Christian to know what the level of conviction is upon another person.

I am called to report the Words of Christ when HE says "whoever ignores one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" - and I can say "we have no way to weasel out of this pre-cross statement of Christ our Creator and Savior" -- but that is as far as I go with it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

I will write more on this later probably, but to start with, there are those who just dont want to know the truth:

Jn:3:20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Jn:3:21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

...and its because they just love to sin:

2Thes:2:
10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie


IN NO WAY am I saying that you, Steaver fit under this category.

As I said, I am just starting off this thing by showing the "following the light that you have" topic, from the perspective that some just dont WANT to see the light. After so much rejecting of the Holy Spirit finally they will totally have the Spirit withdrawn and they will harden their hearts irreparably.



Then there is the persepctive that others are just shown different aspects of truth at different times. Remember what Jesus said?


Jn:16:12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Everybody has had a different education in life... and by education I dont mean in school. I mean they have had different influences, different parents, different backgrounds... and so forth...

and so naturally, God has to reach them in different ways... "the light" is shown to one person at one rate of speed as they can handle it and others in different ways...

Now back to the first point. Notice these people are completely DECEIVED. They really do think that they are serving God. But they are completely deceived:

Revelation 3:
14: And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16: So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17: Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19: As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.


Remember, Thessalonians says they loved UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

Some just do not want the light. They love sin. And what they do is convince themselves sin is ok. Satan has an entire "package" of lies prepared for people... completely turning the truth around into an opposite thing it was meant to be.

Till finally they will actually believe they are trying to serve God and living up to the light they have.

Thats because they are viewing EVERYTHING backwards now.



Jn:16:2: They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Can you imagine being so decieved that you can kill and persecute God's people and think you are doing a service for God?

HEY it happens!! You can think you are viewing things clearly but really be helping out the Devil.... warring against God's people, thinking to do God service....

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.


...and to think it all started with simply convincing yourself that its ok to eat that pork chop for supper... (only joking about that) well, sorta.


But seriously, if you reject some light, the Spirit withdraws a little, reject more, the Spirit withdraws more... till finally you are in darkness... and you will come to view things entirely opposite from how they really are.

Jn:12:35: Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

Lk:11:35: Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.



I will try and write more later on...

Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

and you know what? Hey, if you can sit there and read this outloud and then say with a straight face that God doesnt care if you keep the commandments.... maybe something is wrong with your "light" you think you have?


Read it outloud and tell us you dont need to keep the commandments... does the Holy Spirit convict you that you need to? wonder why not?

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.

(the woman means God's church)
Jer:6:2: I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.

 

[Helen]

Claudia, I think that what the SDA's and other legalistic groups are missing is that when the Holy Spirit indwells a person, then if the person is following that Spirit the person will not violate the Commandments, but keep them. The Holy Spirit would never lead otherwise.

So the idea is not to worry about keeping the law, which only the Lord really knows how to do the right way, but rather to be concerned with paying close attention to the indwelling Holy Spirit and obeying His directions for your life on a daily basis.

 

[steaver]

THanks for replying guys. I don't think that you have really answered my questions about this though. I don't want to discuss whether or not a commandment is being followed correctly or not or who has the correct interpretations.

I want to know just what I have asked above. Bob, you know me well and you always like to take a stab at interpretations about OSAS, Calvinism, RCC and others. This thread is not to discuss these. Claudia, you posted scripture that is speaking expressly about those rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord. This is not the topic. This topic is about Christians receiving light from God concerning Christian living, unless you consider those who reject your convictions as one who is rejecting Jesus Christ.

I have to run now, but please read again my OP and see if you understand what I am seeking. Please be careful not to give long post of scripture if they are not realivent to the topic because your good points will get muddled within them. I will read over you guy's post again and see if I can pick out the on topic parts and reply to those. I didn't have time to really take it all in. Please reconsider my OP and deal just with the Christians receiving light issue only.

I only want to deliberate scripture that points directly to God's children (those who have been born again already) receiving "light" (which I assume means correct interpretations of scripture) and how this light is received according to SDA teaching (which I assume is backed by scripture). Is it the hearing or reading thereof only or is it the hearing plus conviction. And of course like I said in my example, why do you think I have not received conviction when I am sure I am open to please my Lord and follow all of His precepts for my Christian life? Claudia did touch on this and you don't need to repeat yourself, I will look again at your post later.

God Bless!

 

[Claudia_T]

Helen,

I dont think that you know what the term "legalistic" truly means, as many on this board do not as well, unfortunately. You should go read what I posted on the thread about Pharisees and what they really are.

In my humble opinion, the most legalistic thing that a Christian can do is to believe that all they must do is believe and then they are legally off the hook. And they dont think it matters what you do after that. That is the modern day form of legalism that so many Christians are falling for today. Today's Pharisees who want a form of godliness without the power thereof.

We are supposed to LOVE God when we find out about Him "We love Him because He first loved us" the Bible says, and IF we love God then we will show the fruits of the Spirit and keep the Law.

I am so sorry that I keep on repeating this over and over again yet people will act as if I hadnt said it and keep accusing me of "Legalism". It is ridiculous.

A legalistic person is one who keeps the law in order to be saved OR thinks that all they must do is "believe" and then they can act however they want to. BOTH are extremely self centered. You cannot just USE God, legally and expect to be saved, I am sorry. Thats not how it works, we are to develop a love relationship with God.

You will NOT be saved because of good works but then again you wont be saved without them either. The Thief on the cross was saved but he couldnt climb down off that cross and do anything.

I stand by that no matter what, simply because the Bible says thats how it is.

God help those who dont understand the difference between that and "Legalism".

No matter WHAT anyone says, no matter HOW they try to weasel their way around it, look people, this is what the Bible says:

1Jn:3:
14: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


LOOK at the above verses, and tell me salvation has NOTHING to do with our actions? FALSE THEOLOGY!!!


and that doesnt mean just technically "murder" it means if we dont LOVE our neighbor. Romans 13:8-10 says Love is just the summary of all ten commandments. You either love your neighbor or you hate them and if you hate them you are called a "murderer" in the Bible. That is what Jesus meant when He told the Pharisees, you have heard it said Thou shalt not kill but Im telling you that if you hate your brother you are a murderer and in danger of hellfire. Understand? He said our righteousness must EXCEED that of the Pharisees. We need an inner transformation.

Romans 13:
8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.



....so this "all you have to do is believe" business is not biblical, not at all. Call it legalism if you want to, but that is a terrible error. It is Satanic.

I hate to have to be so very blunt about this but people are saying "NO, a murder or one who hates his brother and doesnt keep the Law of love CAN pass from death to life". and then they go on to accuse those who believe otherwise as being "Legalistic" and say all you have to do is "believe". This is just WRONG.


Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

Now I truly wish people would actually READ AND THINK ABOUT what I just posted, for once. And just stop the nonsense.

Claudia

 

[Helen]

Claudia, legalism means believing that trying to obey the law will save you or help you maintain your salvation. Both are wrong.

The person who is a born again Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit -- Romans 8. He is faithful to complete the work He begins in us -- Philippians 1. We still have a struggle regarding the temptations we have to deal with, but there is no temptation given to man that God has not given us also a way out of. That's also Bible.

You are concentrating on works. If you were to focus instead on the Lord Himself and follow Him, you would find He does not lead you into disobeying Him at any time! Therefore you will be following the law.

The difference between legalism and grace is that the legalist pays attention to the law and the person who is aware of God's incredible grace pays attention to HIM, our Shepherd and Redeemer.

We were called sheep in the Bible. Sheep are pretty stupid animals, actually (I highly recommend Keller's "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23"). Most sheep look to the Shepherd for guidance, and he will not guide them to break down fences that He Himself has erected for their own safety!

There are sheep, however, who are 'fence crawlers', always looking for a way out. What sort of sheep you are reflects in your relationship with the Shepherd.

 

[Eric B]

I awhile ago brought up this very point, realizing how significantit is: that man is not naturally convicted on the sabbath and dietary laws, and the the SDA's unwitting realize this in that they cannot bring themselves to condemn us as lost, as most Christians would question anyone who practiced murder or adultery and didn't think it was wrong; and instead try to throw this judgment off until a "third angel" announces that Sunday and other practices are the Mark of the Beast.
I too was given the "We accept RCC's as saved even though they violate the second commandment" response, above. But this is not a good correlation at all. For one thing, many do not agree on any RCC's being saved at all, because of issues like that. I for one do not know. I know many of them aren't, because they are only nominally receptive of Christ, and only go through the motions of Church worship, both true and false.

But if this is being used to prove that "man is not convicted not to worship idols, either, but it is still binding; so they don't have to be convicted on the sabbath and diet for them to be still binding", then that is not true. Man does know that idolatry is false. Ask any unbeliever what he thinks about the Catholics' worship, and he will tell you basically what the Bible says: that it is ridiculous for "God" to be some object man has fashioned with his own hands. Just like unbelievers know that stealing and killing are false. The problem is as we have all seen from the arguments of the Catholics and Orthodox who have argued here, that the Church so thoroughly convinces them that God really does dwell in these objects, (just like He was physically incarnated, and even in the OT healed them with a brass serpent, etc), so it is not idolatry; then the apostles handed it down orally only, so there is no hard scriptural evidence if it, but if you accept the Bible by faith, then you must accept "the historic Church" that gave it to us; and the old "it doesn't make sense to your intellect; but it is the mystery of faith" line. These are impressive, persuasive arguments (note how many here bowed out of the discussions when the RCC/EOC's were here proselytizing last year). Most people (especially the culturally religious who accept whatever they were taught, by whoever they grew up under) do not have the discernment to be able to answer this. So they just accept it. Most just take it for granted. They never even think that this idolatry, because the Church teaches it is not.

So this is strong delusion, and again; it is hard to answer about their salvation. But this still does not prove that God's universal laws do not have to be things that man is naturally convicted of. So this "whatever light they have " argument needs to be taken with caution, because one can argue then that people can be saved without Christ; "just by whatever light they have". In fact, some evangelicals have already opened this up as an alternative to all the unreached people in the world. Now, the SDA's aren't going to argue for that, are they?

 

[steaver]

Ok guys I reread over what you wrote a couple of times. Let me go over your comments one by one so I do not misuderstand you.

Bob...
Here is the question when the RCC says that their practice of worshipping bread as though it were God is in fact "idolatry" and worshipping a false God - IF They are wrong... we do not automatically assume that they know that they are wrong. They simply know the DEPTH of the risk if they are wrong.

I'm sorry, I have read this at least six times and I just ain't getting it! I didn't even know the RCC says they worship bread and agree it is idolatry. I'm just confused on this one so I cannot comment.

But what about the case where a given RC member DOES discover that this is error and then say "oh well so what if it is idolatry -- I choose to do it anyway - I want to be with my friends".

Do you say to that person "don't be anxious - go back to sleep - you are in no danger -- God will not notice"???

Would you say that with their errors on prayers to the dead in violation of Isaiah 8:19?

Would you say that with their errors on worship of images in violation to the 10 comamndments in Ex 20?

Christ said that "He who desregards the LEAST of these commandments and so teaches others will be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven".

Just how much "peace and safety" should we preach to those who say "Oh yeah - I know it is wrong -- but I like doing it so leave me alone".

Should we say "well 4 Point Calvinist OSAS must apply here so no need to disturb that group even though they are in error and they even see their error but will not turn from it"???

What happens when it turns out SDAs are not followers of the errors in 4 point Calvinist OSAS so they do not see that as an option? Which means they will teach that error is "wrong" and "is serious" and "OSAS" is error so embracing error "as if it has no impact on salvation" would never be the teaching of a group rejecting the doctrinal falacies of OSAS.

That seems to be the crux of your question --

Or is it something else?

In Christ,

I'm sorry Bob. You will have to start over, I just ain't getting your view out of this post. Something is confusing me in the opening paragraph that is hindering me from understanding the rest, sorry.

in John 16 we are told that the Holy Spirit CONVICTS the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Paul and other NT saints PREACH the Word - but the Holy Spirit convicts - not Paul convicting, and not NT saints convicting those in error -- so not SDAs convicting those who embrace doctrinal error, but the Holy Spirit. SDAs merely preach the Word and hold a true line in upholding what God has written in scripture.

OK, but the RCC makes the same claims as does the Mormons, Baptist, Methodist, ect, ect......

I could say that the Holy Spirit has convicted me that eating pork is just fine. You would say that the Holy Spirit has convicted you that it is wrong. Both of us would quote the Word of God to support our convictions. So then we begin deliberating "interpretations" and both say that we have come to our interpretations though our "light" convictions. Then we would attack each others claims of "light" because the Spirit would not give to different convictions. So neither of us could prove our position correct because of the "light" factor being injected into the work of interpretation of scripture.

I am called to report the Words of Christ when HE says "whoever ignores one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" - and I can say "we have no way to weasel out of this pre-cross statement of Christ our Creator and Savior" -- but that is as far as I go with it.

Actually it isn't as far as you go with it and it isn't as far as the SDA's go with it or the RCC, Baptist, and any others. We all go to the next step of "interpretation" and declare supremacy! But the SDA's,RCC and Mormon's claim Holy Spirit conviction as final authority while Baptist stop at scripture interpreting scripture as the final authority.

SO therefore the SDA's, RCC and Mormon's live a life of absolute correctness, meaning there is no way they could possibly be wrong because they have received their "light"(interpretations of scripture)directly from God Himself and therefore all the others must be wrong and either ignorant or just plain rebels.

Doesn't this "light" the SDA's speak of really mean "interpretations"? Or do you hold the position that there is no need for deliberating interpretations because a chosen sect has "light" from above which would clear all controversies between believers up? If only they would truly ask God to show them the truth!

Claudia, I reread your post and it is all about rejecting Jesus Christ. Take a stab at Christians receiving Christian living "light".

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Bob...
Here is the question when the RCC says that their practice of worshipping bread as though it were God is in fact "idolatry" and worshipping a false God - IF They are wrong... we do not automatically assume that they know that they are wrong. They simply know the DEPTH of the risk if they are wrong.

Steaver said
I'm sorry, I have read this at least six times and I just ain't getting it! I didn't even know the RCC says they worship bread and agree it is idolatry. I'm just confused on this one so I cannot comment.

I can provide the quote from the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" if you wish. But the point "again" is not that they are CLAIMING idolatry -- rather they say that IF THEY ARE WRONG about what the bread BECOMES -- then "for centures Catholics have been WORSHIPPING a piece of Bread" -- literal quoting there.

That is - they admit to the level of risk IF they are wrong - but obviously they do not go around saying "and we are wrong".

But my point was that whether person says "I know the Sabbath commandment of Christ is to be obeyed I just don't find it important to follow what God says" or one is saying "I know I should not worship this piece of bread but all my friends are doing it" -- it is still wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

But my point was that whether person says "I know the Sabbath commandment of Christ is to be obeyed I just don't find it important to follow what God says" or one is saying "I know I should not worship this piece of bread but all my friends are doing it" -- it is still wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

Thank you! I got it now! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:Bob said
in John 16 we are told that the Holy Spirit CONVICTS the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Paul and other NT saints PREACH the Word - but the Holy Spirit convicts - not Paul convicting, and not NT saints convicting those in error -- so not SDAs convicting those who embrace doctrinal error, but the Holy Spirit. SDAs merely preach the Word and hold a true line in upholding what God has written in scripture.

Steaver said
OK, but the RCC makes the same claims as does the Mormons, Baptist, Methodist, ect, ect......

I could say that the Holy Spirit has convicted me that eating pork is just fine. You would say that the Holy Spirit has convicted you that it is wrong. Both of us would quote the Word of God to support our convictions. So then we begin deliberating "interpretations" and both say that we have come to our interpretations though our "light" convictions. Then we would attack each others claims of "light" because the Spirit would not give to different convictions. So neither of us could prove our position correct because of the "light" factor being injected into the work of interpretation of scripture.

This is a good point.

1. Mormons DO come around saying "I have a burning in my bosom telling me that Joseph Smith is a real prophet of God"... in spite of the fact that "burning in the bosom" is not listed as a test of a true prophet in all of scripture.

2. And others can say "I am convicted that I should ignore God's Laws and teach others to do so" --

I don't doubt that for a second.

3. I on the other hand would say to them "I am convicted that I have to honor God's Word instead of ignoring it".

But based on John 16 "Holy Spirit CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" we KNOW that the first two claims above are NOT the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:Bob said
I am called to report the Words of Christ when HE says "whoever ignores one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" - and I can say "we have no way to weasel out of this pre-cross statement of Christ our Creator and Savior" -- but that is as far as I go with it.

Actually it isn't as far as you go with it and it isn't as far as the SDA's go with it or the RCC, Baptist, and any others. We all go to the next step of "interpretation" and declare supremacy! But the SDA's,RCC and Mormon's claim Holy Spirit conviction as final authority

That is not entirely true.

And SDA will say that a Catholic who ignores the truth of scripture and chooses to worhsip bread EVEN though they are convicted by the Holy Spirit that doing so is dead wrong -- is under conviction and is therefore committing known sin. But SDAs will NOT say that all Catholics are actually convicted that it is wrong and so all are not lost. Many will be in heaven EVEN THOUGH they mistakenly worshipped BREAD!!

We do not argue "God's Word is ONLY RIGHT when you feel convicted about it".

The RC member is WRONG to worship bread EVEN when they do not feel convicted that it is "just bread". But we do not view this as sin that is of the type "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not - to HIM it is sin".

Never do we declare a doctrine to be true "only when you are convicted about it". It is true EVEN when you are NOT claiming to be convicted about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

This is a good point.

1. Mormons DO come around saying "I have a burning in my bosom telling me that Joseph Smith is a real prophet of God"... in spite of the fact that "burning in the bosom" is not listed as a test of a true prophet in all of scripture.

2. And others can say "I am convicted that I should ignore God's Laws and teach others to do so" --

1. I never heard them say that, but they do follow Joe and Joe says that if you truly seek the Holy Spirit he will confirm that what Joe has written is Truth!

2. That is not what others say. That is what you believe about their heart because they disagree with what you believe is absolute truth and no need for debate because you have been given the "light" of these matters. Mormon's and the RCC claim the exact same thing as you, that they have received the true "light" from heaven in all matters.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver said
SO therefore the SDA's, RCC and Mormon's live a life of absolute correctness, meaning there is no way they could possibly be wrong because they have received their "light"(interpretations of scripture)directly from God Himself and therefore all the others must be wrong and either ignorant or just plain rebels.

Doesn't this "light" the SDA's speak of really mean "interpretations"? Or do you hold the position that there is no need for deliberating interpretations because a chosen sect has "light" from above which would clear all controversies between believers up? If only they would truly ask God to show them the truth!

That is not true for SDAs.

Look in the published Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs - there is no such claim as "we KNOW we are right because our infallible prophet told us so".

I don't know where you are getting that idea --

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

That is not entirely true.

And SDA will say that a Catholic who ignores the truth of scripture and chooses to worhsip bread EVEN though they are convicted by the Holy Spirit that doing so is dead wrong -- is under conviction and is therefore committing known sin. But SDAs will NOT say that all Catholics are actually convicted that it is wrong and so all are not lost. Many will be in heaven EVEN THOUGH they mistakenly worshipped BREAD!!

We do not argue "God's Word is ONLY RIGHT when you feel convicted about it".

The RC member is WRONG to worship bread EVEN when they do not feel convicted that it is "just bread". But we do not view this as sin that is of the type "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not - to HIM it is sin".

Never do we declare a doctrine to be true "only when you are convicted about it". It is true EVEN when you are NOT claiming to be convicted about it.

In Christ,

Bob

I agree, no quams about this, ....hey, I will have to talk to you tommorrow. I must get to bed...:sleeping_2:

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

1. I never heard them say that, but they do follow Joe and Joe says that if you truly seek the Holy Spirit he will confirm that what Joe has written is Truth!

2. That is not what others say. That is what you believe about their heart because they disagree with what you believe is absolute truth and no need for debate because you have been given the "light" of these matters. Mormon's and the RCC claim the exact same thing as you, that they have received the true "light" from heaven in all matters.

God Bless!

having studied with both Mormons and RC friends I can tell you that this is not true. The contrast is always as stark as night and day because the SDA view is NEVER "I got this information from heaven so trust me it is right".

In Christ,

Bob