The Truth About Dr. Walter Martin and The Seventh-Day Adventist Church

[thatbrian]

that bit of imaginary fiction -- is not going to happen and we both know it. BTW this thread is a great example of one of the few times that you do not start off with video-babble

You are free to put me on ignore - but you are not free to force me to put you on ignore.

We call it "reality"

Common curtesy and forum rules dictate staying on topic and not derailing threads. If you choose to act like a Cretin, I can't stop you, but I'll report it to the mods.

 

[BobRyan]

Your OP posted this

The Truth About Dr. Walter Martin and The Seventh-Day Adventist Church by Justyn

A number of sincere Christians are at a lost whether to label the Seventh-day Adventist church[1] as evangelical or cult. If they are blood-washed Christians then we must extend our hand of fellowship with them. If not, then the Christian church is mandated to expose every false doctrines that come against the knowledge of truth. Some sincere Christians and even SDA people are also quoting Dr. Walter R. Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults, to justify that the SDA church is not to be labeled as cult. However, a person can start by reading Dr. Martin's book, The Rise of the Cults, because at start he exposes White’s movement as a cult. But when T.E. Unruh, who was an Adventist official that time, read his book, he contacted the author in Reading, Pennsylvania. He allowed him to conduct a comprehensive and actual research on the SDA church, with the permission of Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of Eternity magazine, in the middle of 1950’s. Because of this research, the General Conference with the help of four former SDA church officials[2] printed Dr. Martin's book Questions on Doctrine. However, according to a rare interview done by Douglas Hackleman of Currents[3] during 1983 with Dr. Martin, the latter stated, “After 150,000 copies, Questions on Doctrine was permitted to go out of print.... ​

​

Your OP was debunked here

yes you got 'old news' and it shows that you are clueless as to where QoD ALSO got printed!!

Keep repeating your mistake - if you think that will help.

Nov 18, 2003 "the book “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine” is back in print. Andrews University Press, part of the church-owned university and seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, recently released the 597-page, annotated edition of the book"

In addition I have a 1985 edition of “The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7A” containing Volumes 1-7. QoD is in Appendix A, B, C

Your reliance on shallow "rant and forget" sites .. is not serving you well.

Exposing the falsehoods in your OP is not the definition of "off topic" as we all know -- and as we all know the first rule among Calvinists is... "redefine terms"

 

[thatbrian]

Your OP posted this

​

Your OP was debunked here



Exposing the falsehoods in your OP is not the definition of "off topic" as we all know -- and as we all know the first rule among Calvinists is... "redefine terms"

Different thread, Bob.

 

[steaver]

I prefer the official statements and the Bible.

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. You yourself know this just from dealing with RCC Christians, look at Utilyan for example, he believes a person can reject Jesus Christ and still be saved by their good works, and there is not one Catholic here on this board that stepped in to correct him, even though the RCC "official" statements declare to be directly from the bible.

Take yourself for example, why don't you eat pork? You will say because God said not to eat it and quote scripture. Ok. Now tell us what would happen to YOU, not others, but YOU if YOU should decide to go ahead and eat pork from now forward? Would YOU be damned? If your answer is No, then you agree it does not matter if you eat pork or not as far as salvation goes. If you say Yes, then you believe you are saved by your ability to keep certain commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. .

I never use anecdotal story telling as it were "proof" for exposing an error in Baptist doctrine or Methodist doctrine or Lutheran and Catholic Doctrine.

I use the actual statements of the denomination itself.

"story telling" is worthless.

 

[BobRyan]

.
Take yourself for example, why don't you eat pork? You will say because God said not to eat it and quote scripture. Ok.

Yes but I would not say that the Adventist denomination teaches against eating unclean meat - because Bob does not want to eat it.

And we both know this is true.

If I want to make a statement about the Denomination itself I point to its own voted on statements of doctrine. I never argue "they believe this because Bob does" - and we both agree on that.

Now tell us what would happen to YOU, not others, but YOU if YOU should decide to go ahead and eat pork from now forward? Would YOU be damned? If your answer is No, then you agree it does not matter if you eat pork or not as far as salvation goes. If you say Yes, then you believe you are saved by your ability to keep certain commandments.

If you start taking God's name in vain every day from now on - does your salvation stay rock solid because taking God's name in vain is "ok for Christians" now that you are under the New Covenant?

What we are talking about here is the false doctrine of OSAS in that case.

 

[BobRyan]

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. You yourself know this just from dealing with RCC Christians, look at Utilyan for example, he believes a person can reject Jesus Christ and still be saved by their good works .

I would NEVER argue that the Catholic church doctrine has "some flaw" in it -- "Because Utilyan has this or that view on a given doctrine" there is NO "because Utilyan" in any of my arguments about what the Catholic church teaches. We have loads of ex-Baptists and ex-Catholics in the SDA church but I don't ever come here saying that "This or that denomination has doctrinal error because I now person-x or person-y as ex-members and they have all these bad things to say".

You have never seen me do anything like that on this board in all these years - and we both know it.

The rant vitriol and emotionalism some common for some posters - is never used by me. Good example of this ... you and I have both posted extensively on Arminian-vs-Calvinism topics and we both know that I never say "Calvinist doctrine is in error because so-and-so as an individual has some doctrinal error"

 

[utilyan]

I thought that this rang true, as well.

Justyn: Pastor, do you believe that a person will go to heaven because of his faith in Jesus alone?
SDA Pastor: Yes!
Justyn: What if a Christian who has faith in Jesus alone was eating pork and he died, will he be save?
SDA Pastor: If he is a true Christian then he will not eat pork.
Justyn: But what if he is eating pork and he died, will he be save?
SDA Pastor: If he is a true Christian then he will not eat pork.

I also ask him about Ellen G. White’s writings:

Justyn: Pastor, is the writings of Mrs. White at par or equal with the Scripture?
SDA Pastor: No, it is not.
Justyn: Then would you consider that Mrs. White’s writings contain errors?
SDA Pastor: No, because she was guided by the Holy Spirit.

REFORMER: The Truth About Dr. Walter Martin and The Seventh-Day Adventist Church by Justyn​

5 YEAR OLD: Does God love me?
SDA PASTOR: YES he loves you!


5 Year OLD: Does God love me?
CALVINIST PASTOR: :::SHRUG::: I don't know, but I do know you deserve to burn in hell.



what a tough choice for bob.

 

[thatbrian]

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. You yourself know this just from dealing with RCC Christians, look at Utilyan for example, he believes a person can reject Jesus Christ and still be saved by their good works, and there is not one Catholic here on this board that stepped in to correct him, even though the RCC "official" statements declare to be directly from the bible.

Take yourself for example, why don't you eat pork? You will say because God said not to eat it and quote scripture. Ok. Now tell us what would happen to YOU, not others, but YOU if YOU should decide to go ahead and eat pork from now forward? Would YOU be damned? If your answer is No, then you agree it does not matter if you eat pork or not as far as salvation goes. If you say Yes, then you believe you are saved by your ability to keep certain commandments.

In the SDA, Jesus isn't a Savior. He's a probation officer.

He's watching. . .

 

[BobRyan]

5 YEAR OLD: Does God love me?
SDA PASTOR: YES he loves you!


5 Year OLD: Does God love me?
CALVINIST PASTOR: :::SHRUG::: I don't know, but I do know you deserve to burn in hell.



what a tough choice for bob.

Here is another one you might like .. in the "future" scenario of Calvinist vs Arminian

Calvinist parent looking over the ramparts of heaven sees their precious daughter writhing in agony and so crying out to God the girl's father says "O Lord my God - my daughter my precious daughter... couldn't you have done SOMETHING to save her?" -- to which the Calvinist hears the much-loved and much-anticipated answer "Why of course I COULD -- if I had CARED to.. now run along and zaaaaap be happy"

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

Arminian future scenario

Arminian parent looking over the ramparts of heaven sees their precious daughter writhing in agony and so crying out to God the girl's father says "O Lord my God - my daughter my precious daughter... couldn't you have done SOMETHING to save her?" -- to which the Arminian hears the much-anticipated Arminian answer "Why of course I COULD -- and I DID! ..I died for her.. I sent my Holy Spirit to convict her daily of sin and righteousness and judgment... I DREW ALL mankind unto Me.. but in the end I had to let her go because I refused to turn her into a ROBOT, I gave her free will to choose what she wanted"

2 Cor 5 "We BEG you on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God"

 

[BobRyan]

In the SDA, Jesus isn't a Savior. He's a probation officer.

emotional arguments brought to you one burger at a time by thatbrian

 

[steaver]

"story telling" is worthless.

Except I said nothing about "story telling". Here it is again.....

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. .

 

[steaver]

If you start taking God's name in vain every day from now on - does your salvation stay rock solid

Your answer here proves my point. YOU believe if YOU eat pork you will be damned. Even though millions of Christians may eat all the pork they wish and they will not be damned. Does Jesus have a double standard? He holds pork eating as a damnable sin for a few (the ones you say have been given light) while letting the masses of His children eat all the pork they want and still be saved? Does that really make sense to you?

 

[steaver]

I would NEVER argue that the Catholic church doctrine has "some flaw" in it -- "Because Utilyan has this or that view on a given doctrine" there is NO "because Utilyan" in any of my arguments about what the Catholic church teaches.

Do you think the official Baptist or Catholic doctrinal statements are lacking in teaching on ANY biblical requirements for salvation?

 

[BobRyan]

Do you think the official Baptist or Catholic doctrinal statements are lacking in teaching on ANY biblical requirements for salvation?

I think there is some portion that is not correct in their doctrine but that does not mean I think that they do not have saved saints in their communions.

And that is not "just me" -- it is the position of the SDA denomination

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you start taking God's name in vain every day from now on - does your salvation stay rock solid

Your answer here proves my point. YOU believe

You did not answer my question.

As Christ said to the Jews - "Answer my question and I will answer yours"

 

[BobRyan]

steaver said: ↑
But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. .

I never use anecdotal story telling as it were "proof" for exposing an error in Baptist doctrine or Methodist doctrine or Lutheran and Catholic Doctrine.

I use the actual statements of the denomination itself.

"story telling" is worthless.

Except I said nothing about "story telling". Here it is again.....

But Bob, you know yourself that what a sect actually teaches and believes is found in it's congregations attitudes and practices. .

And as I said - it is nonsense to go after one disgruntled Baptist or even zealous baptist and paint the entire denomination their ad hoc views. As someone here noted - going to Westboro Baptist church and picking out one member as an "example" does not lead to "accuracy" in knowing what Baptists really believe as a group

 

[steaver]

picking out one member as an "example" does not lead to "accuracy" in knowing what Baptists really believe as a group

Ok, then you are telling me that the largest portion of SDA members don't believe there is any reflection on one's salvation with their eating pork or not. It's just your own belief and it is not advocated one way or the other in SDA preaching.

 

[steaver]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you start taking God's name in vain every day from now on - does your salvation stay rock solid

Yes, I am saved by grace through faith and this not of myself it is the gift of God. I believe you already knew my position on this.

 

[steaver]

I think there is some portion that is not correct in their doctrine but that does not mean I think that they do not have saved saints in their communions.

And that is not "just me" -- it is the position of the SDA denomination

That begs the question then......what portion is not correct on salvation? Wouldn't this be crucial? And how would a Catholic be saved in spite of this incorrect doctrine on salvation if they are practicing the very doctrines of the RCC which you believe are incorrect?