Seventh-day Adventists

[robycop3]

less ad hominem nonsense - more Bible please.

Matthew Henry's Commentary - Lev 16
As he (Jesus) is the high priest, so he is the sacrifice with which atonement is made; for he is all in all in our reconciliation to God. Thus he was prefigured by the two goats, which both made one offering: the slain goat was a type of Christ dying for our sins, "

You have chosen to ignore Bible typology that is so glaringly obvious Matthew Henry easily gets the point. You can't blame everything Matthew Henry wrote - on Ellen White.

Obviously.

Please be serious for at least a minute. Ad hominem vitriol is not the solution to every topic.

You post "as if" factless emotionalism is "all sufficient" for Baptists - and I think that does them disservice.

You just can't get past what EGW wrote. SHE, not Henry, wrote that Satan will be a scapegoat.

And Henry wrote BEFORE EGW did. And he suggested that Jesus was both the sin offering and the scape "goat" who bore the penalty for OUR sins

 

[BobRyan]

robycop3 said: ↑
Jesus is not a goat! Nor is Satan!

However, EGW DID write ...

less ad hominem nonsense - more Bible please.

Matthew Henry's Commentary - Lev 16
As he (Jesus) is the high priest, so he is the sacrifice with which atonement is made; for he is all in all in our reconciliation to God. Thus he was prefigured by the two goats, which both made one offering: the slain goat was a type of Christ dying for our sins, "

You have chosen to ignore Bible typology that is so glaringly obvious Matthew Henry easily gets the point. You can't blame everything Matthew Henry wrote - on Ellen White.

Obviously.

Please be serious for at least a minute. Ad hominem vitriol is not the solution to every topic.

You post "as if" factless emotionalism is "all sufficient" for Baptists - and I think that does them disservice.

You just can't get past what EGW wrote.

Please follow the text in the post.

You said "Jesus is not a goat! Nor is Satan"

Taking the nonsensical position that the typology in Lev 16 cannot possible be applied.

I should you "the SIMPLE EXAMPLE" where Matthew Henry does admit to the very typology you ignore in your unorthodox post that rejects the obvious typology in Lev 16.

Matthew Henry's Commentary - Lev 16
As he (Jesus) is the high priest, so he is the sacrifice with which atonement is made; for he is all in all in our reconciliation to God. Thus he was prefigured by the two goats, which both made one offering: the slain goat was a type of Christ dying for our sins, "

Is this the part where you admit to your error???


Or do you simply blindly continue to insist that Ellen White is the only one who admits to the typology in Lev 16?????

did. And he suggested that Jesus was both the sin offering

Which totally refutes your earlier statement - about Lev 16

robycop3 said: ↑
Jesus is not a goat! Nor is Satan!

However, EGW DID write ...

It is possible that you will choose to not respond to the obvious point being made here - which might require that I "post it again" to make sure you have seen it. I would prefer not to have to do that.

 

[BobRyan]

You just can't get past what EGW wrote. SHE, not Henry, wrote that Satan will be a scapegoat.

Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

For example - I do not believe that Catholics are all lost because they all bow down before images and promise to serve those they represent even though this clearly violates the Commandments of God. (As I have said in the past) -- "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4:17

so then your "non essential for salvation" could be worked into a lot of scenarios trying to get all of scripture to be "non essential".

I also believe that Romans 2:13-16 - says that gentiles with no access to scripture at all - are in some cases saved because they experience the New Birth - via the Holy Spirit.

This does not mean that as Christians we should ignore the Bible or should bow down before images or should not know who Christ is... Or should view all of that as "not important" for Christians.

all of your games aside "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

the text remains true no matter how many "yes no" games you would like to engage in as we probably both agree

I just gave the example above of Catholics bowing down before images and promising to serve those that they represent. You read that right?


By contrast Romans 1:18-32 is about pagans who have no access to the Bible at all - their only access to truth - is nature itself.

Romans 1:18–32
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions... [32] Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.[/QUOTE]

steaver said: ↑
So you are saying these Catholics are bowing down to graven images and they don't know that is sin?

Incredibly obvious.
Or do you find a lot of Catholics saying "We are guilty of sin in our worship services -- hope God will ignore it"???

They have some degree of truth and conviction of sin even while not aware of that specific sin as Romans 2 points out in general.

James 4:17 remains true -- even if you object to the Catholic example of not knowing that bowing down to their images is wrong. catholics have a long list of sins (some real and some imagined) that they believe are a sin and that they believe they have committed -- hence their various confession sacrament rituals seeking some method of absolution. I don' t know of any Catholic claiming that they have never sinned. You and I both know this is true... I am only stating the obvious.

As already stated above

They have some degree of truth and conviction of sin even while not aware of that specific sin as Romans 2 points out in general.

James 4:17 remains true -- even if you object to the Catholic example of not knowing that bowing down to their images is wrong. catholics have a long list of sins (some real and some imagined) that they believe are a sin and that they believe they have committed -- hence their various confession sacrament rituals seeking some method of absolution. I don' t know of any Catholic claiming that they have never sinned. You and I both know this is true... I am only stating the obvious.


James 4:17 states they are accountable for what they do know to be sin -- not for what they do not know to be sin.

The problem is, you cite James 4:17 as your support for the Catholic NOT knowing what is right when James is speaking about the one who DOES know to do right.... "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4:17

At this point it is hard to tell if you are simply gaming or are in the least bit serious about this point

A word from God that your Catholic scenario would fit into would be..."There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 16:25). This would mean that ignorance only leads to one being lost, not an excuse for avoiding damnation.

Your attempt to BEND Proverbs 16 so as to directly contradict James 4:17 "noted". But it fails. James is dealing with the real issue of those who know certain things to be true - but do not know "all truth" and thus are not accountable on certain points.

John 9:41 -- Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains".

think about it. Simply "gaming" each of these Bible teachings... in the end ... will get you nowhere for "God is not mocked" Gal 6:7

You are playing around with a life-or-death topic that applies to you and me just as much as to Catholics - as if it were a mere toy to be bent to any gaming idea that comes to mind.

 

[robycop3]

Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?

The point is, EGW was WRONG in calling Satan a scapegoat. Our sins were laid on JESUS, who had no sins of His own. Satan is the CREATOR of sin. While we often blame him for this n that (De debble made me do it), JESUS bore our sins for us. But Satan will receive his well-deserved punishment for all the sins ever committed when he's cast into the lake of fire forever.

Your attempts to defend the many goofs EGW made are useless. She's dead, & her writings, frozen in time, speak for themselves. They are what they are.

 

[robycop3]

Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?

I know a scapegoat isn't a sin offering. But I know Satan is not a scapegoat - he's the SOURCE OF SIN.

 

[BobRyan]

robycop3 said: ↑
You just can't get past what EGW wrote. SHE, not Henry, wrote that Satan will be a scapegoat.
Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?

I know a scapegoat isn't a sin offering. .

Sin offerings pay the debt of sin... they are substitutionary atoning sacrifices. "Without the shedding of blood - no forgiveness of sins". Heb 9

Once selected only one goat is the "sin offering" and that same goat is the only one termed as "the Lord's goat". Period.

The atoning blood is taken into the sanctuary to pay the debt of sin -- for others.

That is the role of Christ. Period.

Guilt then comes out of the sanctuary - unpaid for guilt - the guilt of the wicked for which no payment will be applied since they reject the gospel. And are guilty not only of their own sins but also the sins that they make/entice others to commit. That is what is coming out of the sanctuary because that is the only sin "left" after all payment by Christ has been applied. It is the guilt of the wicked -- that "remains"

The wicked do not die or suffer "for others" --- nothing at all substitutionary about that. They merely receive the just guilt and death of their own sins... no one else's

But still the resolution for all sin is then "accounted for" - either paid for by Christ or it returns to the heads of the wicked who have rejected that Gospel provision.

 

[robycop3]

robycop3 said: ↑
You just can't get past what EGW wrote. SHE, not Henry, wrote that Satan will be a scapegoat.
Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?



Sin offerings pay the debt of sin... they are substitutionary atoning sacrifices. "Without the shedding of blood - no forgiveness of sins". Heb 9

Once selected only one goat is the "sin offering" and that same goat is the only one termed as "the Lord's goat". Period.

The atoning blood is taken into the sanctuary to pay the debt of sin -- for others.

That is the role of Christ. Period.

Guilt then comes out of the sanctuary - unpaid for guilt - the guilt of the wicked for which no payment will be applied since they reject the gospel. And are guilty not only of their own sins but also the sins that they make/entice others to commit. That is what is coming out of the sanctuary because that is the only sin "left" after all payment by Christ has been applied. It is the guilt of the wicked -- that "remains"

The wicked do not die or suffer "for others" --- nothing at all substitutionary about that. They merely receive the just guilt and death of their own sins... no one else's

But still the resolution for all sin is then "accounted for" - either paid for by Christ or it returns to the heads of the wicked who have rejected that Gospel provision.

You, and your SDA doctrine, are wrong on several points. First, ALL JUDGMENT for sin is in Jesus' hands, & that includes His authority to forgive sin. And judging goes on during everyone's lives. Upon death, one's soul immediately goes to hades temporarily, either to paradise or to 'torments'. The actual judgment is over! All that remains is the formalrites of the Great White Throne judgment, where the souls of the wicked have been brought from hades to appear before Jesus, to be cast into the lake of fire forever. (The saints will already have been removed to heaven.)

Satan will also then be cast into the LOF.

There are no more sin offerings. JESUS made the once-for-all sin offering, fulfilling the sacrificial requirements of God's law completely. While those laws are still "on the boox', they're completely satisfied by Jesus. But WE must accept that FACT & act accordingly, spreading that Gospel & fighting false religious doctrines.

Yes, the sugar-coated SDA has a rotten core. it's one of the "whitewashed tombs" Scripture warns us against.

 

[Rebel1]

You, and your SDA doctrine, are wrong on several points. First, ALL JUDGMENT for sin is in Jesus' hands, & that includes His authority to forgive sin. And judging goes on during everyone's lives. Upon death, one's soul immediately goes to hades temporarily, either to paradise or to 'torments'. The actual judgment is over! All that remains is the formalrites of the Great White Throne judgment, where the souls of the wicked have been brought from hades to appear before Jesus, to be cast into the lake of fire forever. (The saints will already have been removed to heaven.)

Satan will also then be cast into the LOF.

There are no more sin offerings. JESUS made the once-for-all sin offering, fulfilling the sacrificial requirements of God's law completely. While those laws are still "on the boox', they're completely satisfied by Jesus. But WE must accept that FACT & act accordingly, spreading that Gospel & fighting false religious doctrines.

Yes, the sugar-coated SDA has a rotten core. it's one of the "whitewashed tombs" Scripture warns us against.

I want to say this: Bob Ryan has treated me much better than some so-called orthodox believers here.

 

[steaver]

Your attempt to BEND Proverbs 16 so as to directly contradict James 4:17 "noted".

Scripture never contradicts Scripture. James speaks of those who know what is right and do not do it. Proverbs speaks of those who think they are doing right but are wrong and are lost.

John 9:41 -- Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains".

A perfect example of James 4:17. Has nothing to do with your example of the Catholic doing something out of ignorance. Just stating the obvious to most.

think about it. Simply "gaming" each of these Bible teachings... in the end ... will get you nowhere for "God is not mocked" Gal 6:7

My break down of each passage is spot on. So who here would be gaming or mocking God?

You are playing around with a life-or-death topic that applies to you and me just as much as to Catholics - as if it were a mere toy to be bent to any gaming idea that comes to mind.

I do not play around with salvation. This is why i stand up and point out Scripture abuse by false teachers. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death".

Your SDA religion is no different than Catholicism. Each one enslaves the sheep with works, must dos for salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Each of these religions declare that faith in Jesus Christ is not even necessary for salvation, for a person can simply be living in ignorance, even if they have read the Word of God or have heard it, they may still be excused for their ignorance.

Before you declare I am wrong, tell me, what would happen to you Bob if you decided to stop keeping the SDA Sabbath and began attending Baptist or Catholic services on Sunday? Would you still be saved?

 

[BobRyan]

A perfect example of James 4:17. Has nothing to do with your example of the Catholic doing something out of ignorance.

It does when you read the actual text

Just stating the obvious to most.

For example - I do not believe that Catholics are all lost because they all bow down before images and promise to serve those they represent even though this clearly violates the Commandments of God. (As I have said in the past) -- "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4:17

so then your "non essential for salvation" could be worked into a lot of scenarios trying to get all of scripture to be "non essential".

I also believe that Romans 2:13-16 - says that gentiles with no access to scripture at all - are in some cases saved because they experience the New Birth - via the Holy Spirit.

This does not mean that as Christians we should ignore the Bible or should bow down before images or should not know who Christ is... Or should view all of that as "not important" for Christians.

all of your games aside "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

the text remains true no matter how many "yes no" games you would like to engage in as we probably both agree

I just gave the example above of Catholics bowing down before images and promising to serve those that they represent. You read that right?


By contrast Romans 1:18-32 is about pagans who have no access to the Bible at all - their only access to truth - is nature itself.

Romans 1:18–32
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions... [32] Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

As already stated above

They have some degree of truth and conviction of sin even while not aware of that specific sin as Romans 2 points out in general.

James 4:17 remains true -- even if you object to the Catholic example of not knowing that bowing down to their images is wrong. catholics have a long list of sins (some real and some imagined) that they believe are a sin and that they believe they have committed -- hence their various confession sacrament rituals seeking some method of absolution. I don' t know of any Catholic claiming that they have never sinned. You and I both know this is true... I am only stating the obvious.

James 4:17 states they are accountable for what they do know to be sin -- not for what they do not know to be sin.

At this point it is hard to tell if you are simply gaming or are in the least bit serious about this point

Your attempt to BEND Proverbs 16 so as to directly contradict James 4:17 "noted". But it fails. James is dealing with the real issue of those who know certain things to be true - but do not know "all truth" and thus are not accountable on certain points.

John 9:41 -- Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains".

My break down of each passage is spot on. So who here would be gaming or mocking God?

As already shown James 4:17 perfectly fits the case given.



I do not play around with salvation. This is why i stand up and point out Scripture abuse by false teachers. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death".

Your gaming is no different than Catholicism.

 

[BobRyan]

robycop3 said: ↑
You just can't get past what EGW wrote. SHE, not Henry, wrote that Satan will be a scapegoat.

Before I post the Bible answer --

Out of curiosity -- Do you expect me to "quote Ellen White" to prove my point that the scapegoat is not a sin offering? (Since you claim that only Ellen White knew it and is the source of that detail)

Or do you in fact know already that the Bible itself makes that point and that your appeal to emotionalism would fail the test of scripture?

robycop3 said: ↑
I know a scapegoat isn't a sin offering. .

Sin offerings pay the debt of sin... they are substitutionary atoning sacrifices. "Without the shedding of blood - no forgiveness of sins". Heb 9

Once selected only one goat is the "sin offering" and that same goat is the only one termed as "the Lord's goat". Period.

The atoning blood is taken into the sanctuary to pay the debt of sin -- for others.

That is the role of Christ. Period.

Guilt then comes out of the sanctuary - unpaid for guilt - the guilt of the wicked for which no payment will be applied since they reject the gospel. And are guilty not only of their own sins but also the sins that they make/entice others to commit. That is what is coming out of the sanctuary because that is the only sin "left" after all payment by Christ has been applied. It is the guilt of the wicked -- that "remains"

The wicked do not die or suffer "for others" --- nothing at all substitutionary about that. They merely receive the just guilt and death of their own sins... no one else's

But still the resolution for all sin is then "accounted for" - either paid for by Christ or it returns to the heads of the wicked who have rejected that Gospel provision.

You, and your SDA doctrine, are wrong on several points. First, ALL JUDGMENT for sin is in Jesus' hands

Your habit of "simply quoting you" is not working "again" -- nothing in my post above says that Jesus is not the judge or does not pay the debt of sin for the saved.

The wicked reject the payment made for their sin and thus go to hell.

this is irrefutable.

judging goes on during everyone's lives. Upon death, one's soul immediately goes to hades temporarily, either to paradise or to 'torments'.

ok so you once again show that you can "Quote you" -- but I never challenged your ability in that regard.

The actual judgment is over! All that remains is the formalrites of the Great White Throne judgment, where the souls of the wicked have been brought from hades to appear before Jesus, to be cast into the lake of fire forever.

It is nonesensical to claim that souls are punished... then judged. You knew that right?

There are no more sin offerings. JESUS made the once-for-all sin offering, fulfilling the sacrificial requirements of God's law completely.

True - but it amazes me that you get something right when you keep insisting on "only quoting you" as your "text".

why keep doing that??

As from your vitriol and invectives you seem to rely heavily on simply "quoting you".

Why keep doing that.

I think that the dark ages devoted all the time necessary to such methods - and the time for that sort of thing is long past. It is 2018... you can do better.

 

[BobRyan]

Before you declare I am wrong, tell me, what would happen to you Bob if you decided to stop keeping the SDA Sabbath and began attending Baptist or Catholic services on Sunday? Would you still be saved?

Knowing that "sin IS transgression of the LAW" ? 1 John 3:4
Knowing that "rebellion is not LOVE for God" since 1 John 5:2-3 says that "3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome."
Knowing that "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19??
Knowing that "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before me to worship" Isaiah 66:23
Knowing that "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is SIN" James 4:17?
Knowing that Jesus is "LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:27?

So you are saying if I were to reject all of scripture and become a Catholic "would I still be saved"???

Are you even serious??

Of course that would not be the path of salvation - that would be rejecting the Word of God.

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith admits that the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

You knew that right?

Is this all "news to you" after having posted on it 20,000 times?

you seem to be "stuck" on the idea that if I don't condemn every single Catholic on planet earth to hell - that this shows the one big problem in the SDA set of doctrines. Is that "seriously" the hill you want to die on - as they say... given that you have the glaring problem of leaving it "to me" to defend section 19 of your "Baptist Confession of Faith" ??? You seem to have much bigger issues to deal with than this "condemn every Catholic --- or else" idea.

 

[BobRyan]

I want to say this: Bob Ryan has treated me much better than some so-called orthodox believers here.

thanks.

Ad hominem, vitriol , occassional invectives for those that differ -- are not the "grand solution" to every discussion that some have imagined.

I differ with people on this board -- on different topics .. but we should all be able to be Christian about and use Christian methods. "Name calling" is not the "grand Christian method" that some have imagined.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you keep posting fiction .. will have to focus on other posts ... than yours.

Do you deny that Ellen White was a false prophetess, that the SDA requires the Sabbath to be kept, and that your church is the real true one left in world?

 

[Yeshua1]

Incredibly obvious.

Or do you find a lot of Catholics saying "We are guilty of sin in our worship services -- hope God will ignore it"???

They have some degree of truth and conviction of sin even while not aware of that specific sin as Romans 2 points out in general.

James 4:17 remains true -- even if you object to the Catholic example of not knowing that bowing down to their images is wrong. catholics have a long list of sins (some real and some imagined) that they believe are a sin and that they believe they have committed -- hence their various confession sacrament rituals seeking some method of absolution. I don' t know of any Catholic claiming that they have never sinned. You and I both know this is true... I am only stating the obvious.

Sda bows before a false prophetess, elevate her teachings equal to the bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

thanks.

Ad hominem, vitriol , occassional invectives for those that differ -- are not the "grand solution" to every discussion that some have imagined.

I differ with people on this board -- on different topics .. but we should all be able to be Christian about and use Christian methods. "Name calling" is not the "grand Christian method" that some have imagined.

The big problem though is that you will not be honest and admit what the SDA really holds with!

 

[steaver]

As already shown James 4:17 perfectly fits the case given.

In your own mind. This shows even though you are clearly proven wrong on a point you opt to cling to your example rather than humble yourself and try again with something that would actually make sense. But I am sure you searched and searched for a scenario that would work and this was the best you could find.

So you are saying if I were to reject all of scripture and become a Catholic "would I still be saved"???

Are you even serious??

Of course that would not be the path of salvation - that would be rejecting the Word of God.

Where did I say "all of Scripture"? Nice try to deflect.

Here it is again....

Before you declare I am wrong, tell me, what would happen to you Bob if you decided to stop keeping the SDA Sabbath and began attending Baptist or Catholic services on Sunday? Would you still be saved?

Do you see how I did not say "All of Scripture"? You would still believe and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, correct? A yes or no would prove your point or prove mine. Go ahead and answer my specific question concerning the SDA Sabbath keeping.....

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith admits that the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

You knew that right?

The Baptist also define Sabbath keeping differently than the SDA. That the Sabbath is in Christ as Scripture declares, not in a day of the week. You knew that right?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.

 

[Jerome]

I just have to chuckle at some Reformed/Baptists being oh so appalled at SDA yet they'll sure use their facilities for worship:

Founders Ministries - On Church Planting

You will need a regular meeting place....This may mean that you use a...Seventh Day Adventist Church to get started.

St. John's Vancouver, pastored by David Short of The Gospel Coalition council

For the past five years, we have been meeting in the Oakridge Adventist Church