• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Seventh-day Adventist Church 150 years old

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Again, you failed to answer the question, why did Ellen White never address the issue of homosexual activity,

You ask that question as if the premise is actually true. Why are you doing that? Surely you did not actual "Read" "[FONT=&quot]Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce[/FONT]", or the book "Patriarch's and Prophets" to see IF your premise was even true. Surely you are just sticking with your tried-and-true "make stuff up then use it as an accusation" - right?

(Or maybe you are about to really surprise me here.).

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You ask that question as if the premise is actually true. Why are you doing that? Surely you did not actual "Read" "[FONT=&quot]Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce[/FONT]", or the book "Patriarch's and Prophets" to see IF your premise was even true. Surely you are just sticking with your tried-and-true "make stuff up then use it as an accusation" - right?

(Or maybe you are about to really surprise me here.).

in Christ,

Bob

The Spirit of truth does not cooperate with the Spirit of error! Ellen G. White is a documented false prophetess many times over (Deut. 13:1-5). False prophets teach false doctrines (1 Tim. 4:1). False prophets originate false churches (SDA). The fruit is only as good as the tree and the tree of SDA is a false prophtess.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
As compelling as simple name calling is to those not inclined to study the subject at hand - it is not as compelling to unbiased objective observers. This is the lesson comes to us out of the dark ages - in this age of enlightenment and full access to the Bible.

More people are needed who will appreciate this not-so-subtle detail.


In the mean time it is your own "Baptist preacher" - William Miller that is so helpful in establishing the Premill Adventists and your own Seventh-day Baptist - Rachael Oaks that is so helpful in turning Adventists into "Seveth-day Adventists" and it is your own "Baptist Confession of Faith " (even as edited by C.H. Spurgeon) that is arguing the case that D.L. Moody also makes for the Ten Commandment, Moral Law of God - given to Adam in Eden and binding on the saints today - as the Commandments of God - under the New Covenant.

All the name-calling in the world is not going to erase those historic facts. And I think we both know it.


in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Who said we claim him?

OK - I guess all I am saying is that when a Baptist Church calls up one of their own and declares him to be a Baptist Preacher - it is not the same thing as an SDA church calling someone to preach.

So if you want to blame what Baptist churches do on Catholics or Methodists or Adventists - go ahead. I am just saying that it does not carry much weight with the rest of us when you try out that solution.:laugh:

While Miller was a member of a Baptist church in Low Hampton he began preaching and publishing to Baptist readers and congregations. In 1832 Miller submitted a series of sixteen articles to the Vermont Telegraph, a Baptist newspaper. The first of these was published on May 15, and Miller writes of the public's response: "I began to be flooded with letters of inquiry respecting my views; and visitors flocked to converse with me on the subject."[2]

But if you say we should give the credit to the Methodists or someone else - fine.

And I am pretty sure that Rachael Oak's views on the 4th commandment - so consistent with the Seventh-day Baptist church from which she came - are not rejected by them today.

And I guess there are still one or two Baptists who like D.L. Moody agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith - that C.H. Spurgeon was so happy about.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
OK - I guess all I am saying is that when a Baptist Church calls up one of their own and declares him to be a Baptist Preacher - it is not the same thing as an SDA church calling someone to preach.

So if you want to blame what Baptist churches do on Catholics or Methodists or Adventists - go ahead. I am just saying that it does not carry much weight with the rest of us when you try out that solution.:laugh:

How about this connection:
David Koresh
From Southern Baptist to 7th Day Adventist
From 7th Day Adventist to Branch Davidians

So you must be proud that the founder of a new religion came out of the 7DA!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
How about this connection:
David Koresh
From Southern Baptist to 7th Day Adventist
From 7th Day Adventist to Branch Davidians

Is it your claim that William Miller at some point renounced his Baptist beliefs?

If so - I never read about it.

in Christ,

Bob
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Is it your claim that William Miller at some point renounced his Baptist beliefs?

From Wiki: Shortly after his move to Poultney, Miller rejected his Baptist heritage and became a Deist. In his biography Miller records his conversion: "I became acquainted with the principal men in that village [Poultney, Vermont], who were professedly Deists; but they were good citizens, and of a moral and serious deportment. They put into my hands the works of Voltaire, [David] Hume, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and other deistical writers."[2]
from Wiki:

But my previous was not whether or not Miller denounced his Baptist heritage - but rather to counter you point.
You are trying to tell us a Baptist founded Adventest.
So, are you proud that David Koresh a 7th Day Adventist founded the Branch Davidians?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
From Wiki: Shortly after his move to Poultney, Miller rejected his Baptist heritage and became a Deist. In his biography Miller records his conversion: "I became acquainted with the principal men in that village [Poultney, Vermont], who were professedly Deists; but they were good citizens, and of a moral and serious deportment. They put into my hands the works of Voltaire, [David] Hume, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and other deistical writers."[2]
from Wiki:

From that same wiki page we have this - (just two paragraphs after the point where you stopped your quote above)

Soon after his return to Low Hampton, Miller took tentative steps towards regaining his Baptist faith. At first he attempted to combine both, publicly espousing Deism while simultaneously attending his local Baptist church. His attendance turned to participation when he was asked to read the day's sermon during one of the local minister's frequent absences. His participation changed to commitment one Sunday when he was reading a sermon on the duties of parents and became choked with emotion.[5] Miller records the experience: "Suddenly the character of a Savior was vividly impressed upon my mind. It seemed that there might be a Being so good and compassionate as to Himself atone for our transgressions, and thereby save us from suffering the penalty of sin. I immediately felt how lovely such a Being must be; and imagined that I could cast myself into the arms of, and trust in the mercy of, such an One."[6]


Following his conversion, Miller was soon challenged by his Deist friends to justify his newfound faith. He did so by examining the Bible closely, declaring to one friend "If he would give me time, I would harmonize all these apparent contradictions to my own satisfaction, or I will be a Deist still."[7] Miller commenced with Genesis 1:1, studying each verse and not moving on until he felt the meaning was clear. In this way he became convinced firstly, that postmillennialism was unbiblical; and secondly, that the time of Christ's Second Coming was revealed in Bible prophecy.
But my previous was not whether or not Miller denounced his Baptist heritage - but rather to counter you point.
You are trying to tell us a Baptist founded Adventest.
If you read my posts carefully I never claim that William Miller was ever a Seventh-day Adventist. My claim was that the distinctives teaching about premillennialism and the day for year principle applied consistently from Daniel 7 straight through to Daniel 9 and the 490 years for the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 - was Miller's contribution.

However in Miller's day -- all the Millerites were called "Adventists" so you may have slipped up there.

As for your claim that David Koresh -- or more accurately - Vernon Wayne Howell, founded the Branch Davidians remains to be seen. I thought they existed long before Howell. Maybe I missed something there. If there is a single doctrine that the Branch Davidians claim they got from Wayne - I would like to know what it is.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The question is - did William Miller ever come out from the Baptist Church after his return from Deism - his return to the Baptist Church? As far as I know - he died a Baptist.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As you can see - there may be a couple of points where the debate between popular Baptist pulpits and Seventh-day Adventists go BEYOND that of in-house Baptist debates -- but not many, and very often the debates between the two circle back to the very points that are merely in-house Baptist debates.

Amazing!

What is amazing is that you dare to associate names like Moody and Spurgeon as somehow endorsing a Cult that was founded upon false revealtions of a false prophetess!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
What is amazing is that you dare to associate names like Moody and Spurgeon

What is amazing is that you think that name-calling solves the problem you have in your own contradictions of Spurgeon and D.L. Moody on those very points.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If you stick with the Bible definition of a prophet as God gives it - then it is one who God speaks to via dreams and visions Numbers 12:6. Something William Miller never claimed regarding the event that was to take place in 1844.

But if we are free to "make stuff up" then we could "make up" the idea that anyone who reads the Bible and gets the details about a future event wrong - "is a false prophet", for the sake of emotional appeal.

For those in a "make stuff up" religious system where emotional appeal trumps the Bible - that will do just fine.

But for those in an Acts 17:11 sola scriptura religious system - well then the Bible definition wins out over men just "making stuff up" about what the definition of a prophet is.

Some will accept this - some will not. All have free will.

in Christ,

Bob

the ONLY thing that happened in 1844 ios that satan got another Cult to arise from false revealtions, as he has Mormons and JW also!

FALSE prophets/Apostles all of them!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As compelling as simple name calling is to those not inclined to study the subject at hand - it is not as compelling to unbiased objective observers. This is the lesson comes to us out of the dark ages - in this age of enlightenment and full access to the Bible.

More people are needed who will appreciate this not-so-subtle detail.


In the mean time it is your own "Baptist preacher" - William Miller that is so helpful in establishing the Premill Adventists and your own Seventh-day Baptist - Rachael Oaks that is so helpful in turning Adventists into "Seveth-day Adventists" and it is your own "Baptist Confession of Faith " (even as edited by C.H. Spurgeon) that is arguing the case that D.L. Moody also makes for the Ten Commandment, Moral Law of God - given to Adam in Eden and binding on the saints today - as the Commandments of God - under the New Covenant.

All the name-calling in the world is not going to erase those historic facts. And I think we both know it.


in Christ,

Bob

you keep referring to "name calling", but the truth is Ellen White was a FASLE prophetess, and ANY who hold to her views in the SDA need to repent before God, and come out of there!
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is amazing is that you think that name-calling solves the problem you have in your own contradictions of Spurgeon and D.L. Moody on those very points.

It is a common occurrence on this board. I'm kinda used to it. :laugh:
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is amazing is that you think that name-calling solves the problem you have in your own contradictions of Spurgeon and D.L. Moody on those very points.

They BOTh held to the Gospel of Jesus, the SDA holds to the Gospel according to Ellen White!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
And then of course I recently found out from members here - about a surprising level of consistency with the Baptist Confession of Fath 1689 with it's teaching about the moral law of God being the TEN Commandments - given to mankind in Eden.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part19

And with the 1689 Confession stating that Genes 2:3 is the giving of the 4th commandment to mankind.



and with C.H Spurgeon's affirmation of it -
"This ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured."

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm


And also thanks to members here for explaining certain consistencies with the General Baptists and of course Free Will Baptists.

===============================

Which of course would just get us more rant and name-calling from Y1 -

to Y1 -- What is amazing is that you think that name-calling solves the problem you have in your own contradictions of Spurgeon and D.L. Moody on those very points.




It is a common occurrence on this board. I'm kinda used to it. :laugh:

Indeed. But I think to be fair there are really just a couple that seem to offer nothing-but-name-calling as their "contribution".

in Christ,

Bob
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Wow. Some 1850 + years late a 'church' comes from 'nowhere' and emerges and attempts to celebrate. Oh how marvelous that after such a long period this sect comes along to straighten out Christ's Bride.

Hmmmm. Then there is that universal church that has existed since the resurrection of Christ.

Wonder which is correct, the one that came about 150 years back or so, or the one that has always existed since the Cross?

My fate is in the latter.

The other? None other than a false gospel bearing sect.
 
Top