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

[BobRyan]

Question for Steaver, "Steaver, do you believe that under the civil laws of a theocracy as your own "Baptist Confession of faith" admits -- someone who violates the Sabbath by gathering wood for a fire should have been stoned?"

Steaver's answer....Numbers 15:32. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Wow! A "Sola scriptura answer" Steaver - I thought you had gone to "anything BUT the bible" on this thread?
Nice come back!

Question for Steaver,, "So Steaver, you do believe that outside of a theocracy the civil laws of that theocracy should be in force anyway even though your own "Baptist Confession of Faith "says it should not -- do you believe that outside of that true theocracy a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath??."

Steaver, "What?! I never said any such thing,..., I merely quoted the actual bible,

nice going Steaver!!

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

Sadly this post is in fact a "correction" of Steaver's false presentation to make it "sola scriptura" correct and consistent with his own "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19.

Which is what must be done if someone is going to correct false teaching that is in the "anything but the Bible" form of argument.

 

[steaver]

The End, literally ...

Do you think anyone bothers to read any of your copy and pasting? You can have a debate or waste your time flooding the board with stuff nobody is going to read.

 

[steaver]

Sadly this post is in fact a "correction" of Steaver's false presentation to make it "sola scriptura" correct and consistent with his own "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19.

My post reveals exactly your SDA tactic to avoid anyone who would question your beliefs. It was spot on.

BTW, I am not a Baptist.

 

[BobRyan]

Question for Steaver, "Steaver, do you believe that under the civil laws of a theocracy as your own "Baptist Confession of faith" admits -- someone who violates the Sabbath by gathering wood for a fire should have been stoned?"

Steaver's answer....Numbers 15:32. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Wow! A "Sola scriptura answer" Steaver - I thought you had gone to "anything BUT the bible" on this thread?
Nice come back!

Question for Steaver,, "So Steaver, you do believe that outside of a theocracy the civil laws of that theocracy should be in force anyway even though your own "Baptist Confession of Faith "says it should not -- do you believe that outside of that true theocracy a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath??."

Steaver, "What?! I never said any such thing,..., I merely quoted the actual bible,

nice going Steaver!!

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

Sadly this post is in fact a "correction" of Steaver's false presentation to make it "sola scriptura" correct and consistent with his own "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19.

Which is what must be done if someone is going to correct false teaching that is in the "anything but the Bible" form of argument.

My post reveals exactly your SDA tactic to avoid anyone who would question your beliefs. It was spot on.

BTW, I am not a Baptist.

Substitute "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 if you prefer that to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19

For your quotes to have been accurate it would need to have been in the context I just gave... and we both know it.

I don't question your right to make stuff up for "you to believe" but you can't make stuff up for others to believe.

obviously

BTW - you continue to totally ignore the details in the post of my quote of scripture - which you condemn as if "I authored scripture".

That is "instructive"

 

[BobRyan]

Do you think anyone bothers to read any of your copy and pasting? You can have a debate or waste your time flooding the board with stuff nobody is going to read.

Goes triple for flooding the board with a zillion videos and insisting that people "debate my video" (or in a few cases "debate my book") as we have seen in the OP of every single ThatBrian thread here. As you and I both know.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.... I believe it was deliberately removed by people who felt that it was a thorn in their theological flesh.” Martin also added, “You have to understand that 30 years ago there was a great confusion. As a matter of fact, today is still in many areas of Adventism. They had strains of Arian Christology; there were men in positions of authority who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity. For all I know, some of them may still be there today. There were people who were absolute legalists, who believed that any person who kept Sunday - even in good conscience before God - right at that moment had the mark of the beast. And they were printing and distributing it under the official Adventist logos.”​

READ MORE HERE

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

The Sda would be in same place as the RCC, as both teach a form of the good news of Jesus, but not the full and complete true version, for they are still stuck under OC of Law, not grace!

 

[steaver]

I don't question your right to make stuff up for "you to believe" but you can't make stuff up for others to believe.

I would wager that absolutely every single reader of this thread with the exception of your own fellow SDA members (and maybe even them, but wouldn't ever admit it) can see your answers are clear on pork eating as it relates to salvation/damnation. In fact I would have no problem wagering everything I own that if this thread was presented to an unbiased group of people, having no affiliation with us or even Christianity, would see your answers on pork eating as it relates to salvation/damnation the same.

And that is what you get Bob when you play games with your answers and think you are being clever. ALL sketchy religious groups which follow modern day false prophets follow the same play book. I have seen this while debating JWs, Mormons and SDA.........'I merely quoted scripture....' Satan was good at quoting scripture also......not so good at context and how it applies to life applications, this takes an honest heart that really wants to understand and teach the truth.

 

[One Baptism]

Do you think anyone bothers to read any of your copy and pasting? You can have a debate or waste your time flooding the board with stuff nobody is going to read.

I answered the question, in the very first reply, the remainder is the specifics and detail of that answer. So, I gave the short and long of it. It is thorough. Irrefutable. Unanswerable. Unchangeable. For, "It is written ..."

I wrote it myself, under guidance of the Holy Spirit. That I have quick access to my own material and research means I am prepared for all.

That your present position is untenable, unpreprared, ignorant and incompetant to be able to respond to such, should tell you something about the vast difference between a real student of scripture [KJB] and mere pretenders.

Therefore, instead of actually responding to the material given and/or even humbly admitting its correctness, the opponents go off on tangents, and hand-wave and pretend blindness and deafness [just like those who stoned Stephen]. They will instead spend time responding to this, instead of to the matter itself.

If you [and such] do not read it, ask yourself, is it honest for such to ask such a question, but not bother to go through the answer to the question that was asked?

 

[steaver]

If you do not read it, ask yourself, is it honest for such to ask such a question, but not bother to go through the answer to the question that was asked?

So you think a person should read through six pages and address the 250 or so bible passages that you referenced? You think we all have time to do that? Maybe if we had spent hours upon hours preparing answers to all your post and then each time the subject comes up just go into the file and clip and paste. Is this what they teach you guys to do in the SDA? Because BobRyan is good at doing the same, although I will say that recently Bob has been actually engaging in conversation and avoiding all the copy and pasting of pre-prepared answers, which is more instructive. I'm just giving you a heads up, no one is going to take you seriously or engage with you if you cannot simply have a concise deliberation. This is a debate board where most people have busy lives and still work 40-60 hours a week and jump in with short manageable comments in order to learn and advance their understandings of issues.

Oh and p.s. condescending comments won't get you any engagement either. and it is un-Christlike. As an SDA, I would think you would be mindful of breaking God's commandment to love your neighbor seeing how you stress commandment keeping as the path to salvation.

 

[One Baptism]

So you think a person should read through six pages...

Yes. It is not that much. If you are able to read, and have even read a single chapter from the scriptures, or even Psalms 119 in a sitting, you should be able to process it.

I have faith that you are able and have the mental capacity to understand it. Go on, try it.

 

[steaver]

I have faith that you are able and have the mental capacity to understand it. Go on, try it.

Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

 

[BobRyan]

I would wager that absolutely every single reader of this thread with the exception of your own fellow SDA members (and maybe even them, but wouldn't ever admit it) can see your answers are clear on pork eating as it relates to salvation/damnation. .

.

I would wager that everyone on this board can see that I did not write the Bible and that this includes John 9 and Isaiah 66.
I would wager that everyone on this board can see that an "anything-but-the-Bible" response to texts posted is going to be "anything but the details in the texts" or even more extreme "attributing the content of the text to someone posting on the board" as if they are responsible for what is in the Bible.


And that is what you get Steaver when you play games with your answers and think you are being clever to bring up a question answered directly by scripture then complain that the scripture is being posted as if that scripture were merely someone's personal idea.

. ALL sketchy religious groups which follow modern day false doctrine follow the same play book. I have seen this while debating JWs, Mormons

 

[One Baptism]

Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

If I, personally, a learned [knowing] Seventh-day Adventist, decide to go against the plainly stated commandments of God in scripture [KJB], in regards the matter of diet, in eating and drinking presumptuously that which I am forbidden [under penalty of death, the wages for sin] to, such as eating anything of the unclean swine [pig, porcine, peccary, hog, etc], like 'pork', then I am in, or would be in, serious and immediate danger of blaspheming away the Holy Ghost/Spirit, even forever [for in reality it is self-murder to eat such, it harms the body, mind [as all sin does], it is filled with disease, worms, etc].

While it might be possible, after such, in God's grace [thus His mercy, should He so decide, but I would have spat in the face of His Justice, and trampled upon the blood of the Son of God, and accounted it an unclean thing, rather than the 'pork', for our bodies are a living temple, and only that which is clean and holy is to be placed therein], while probation still was open [for me personally and globally], to still be granted a new heart and repentance, there would be no guarantee, from God, at the moment of the presumptuous sin, and so could actually be lost forever from that moment onward, even as those were in the days of the Noah's flood, as those were in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, as in the days of King Saul himself, or in the NT days of Ananias, or as Judas was, or Lucifer [though God had pled long with him] was ... and so I choose not to risk such a thing, not only, first, out of love for what Jesus has done for me, and in me, but also out of reverence and Godly fear and awe of my Heavenly Father [for if I do not Honour His commandments, how then do I Honour Him?] ...

It is a very and eternally dangerous thing to mock God and to knowingly disobey His Commandments:

Galatians 6:7 KJB - Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Galatians 6:8 KJB - For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
​

I pray that this is helpful to you.

 

[BobRyan]

steaver said: ↑
Does Jesus have a double standard? He holds pork eating as a damnable sin

Isaiah 66 says someone is going to burn in hell for eating mice... you knew that right?

“But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol.
As they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,
4 So I will choose their punishments
And will bring on them what they dread.
Because I called, but no one answered;
I spoke, but they did not listen.
And they did evil in My sight
And chose that in which I did not delight.”
...
15 For behold, the Lord will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the Lord will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the Lord will be many.
.
17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens,
Following one in the center,
Who eat swine’s flesh, detestable things and mice,
Will come to an end altogether,” declares the Lord

John 9
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

In fact at this rate I am wondering if you ever debate on the side of "sola scriptura" any more these days.

 

[BobRyan]

So you think a person should read through six pages and address the 250 or so bible passages that you referenced? You think we all have time to do that? .

How much time do you have to go around "debating videos" or "debating books"?

Wouldn't that number be "zero" for pretty much everyone on the entire board?

 

[BobRyan]

Question for Steaver, "Steaver, do you believe that under the civil laws of a theocracy as your own "Baptist Confession of faith" admits (And so also the "Westminster Confession of Faith") -- someone who violates the Sabbath by gathering wood for a fire should have been stoned?"

steaver said: ↑
Steaver's answer....Numbers 15:32. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Wow! A "Sola scriptura answer" Steaver - I thought you had gone to "anything BUT the bible" on this thread?
Nice come back!

Question for Steaver,, "So Steaver, you do believe that outside of a theocracy the civil laws of that theocracy should be in force anyway even though your own "Baptist Confession of Faith "says it should not -- do you believe that outside of that true theocracy a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath??."

Steaver, "What?! I never said any such thing,..., I merely quoted the actual bible,

nice going Steaver!!

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

Sadly this post is in fact a "correction" of Steaver's false presentation to make it "sola scriptura" correct and consistent with his own "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19.

Which is what must be done if someone is going to correct false teaching that is in the "anything but the Bible" form of argument.

 

[Yeshua1]

.

I would wager that everyone on this board can see that I did not write the Bible and that this includes John 9 and Isaiah 66.
I would wager that everyone on this board can see that an "anything-but-the-Bible" response to texts posted is going to be "anything but the details in the texts" or even more extreme "attributing the content of the text to someone posting on the board" as if they are responsible for what is in the Bible.


And that is what you get Steaver when you play games with your answers and think you are being clever to bring up a question answered directly by scripture then complain that the scripture is being posted as if that scripture were merely someone's personal idea.

. ALL sketchy religious groups which follow modern day false doctrine follow the same play book. I have seen this while debating JWs, Mormons

Many of us here are having exact same problem debating Sda and RC!

 

[Yeshua1]

Question for Steaver, "Steaver, do you believe that under the civil laws of a theocracy as your own "Baptist Confession of faith" admits (And so also the "Westminster Confession of Faith") -- someone who violates the Sabbath by gathering wood for a fire should have been stoned?"



Wow! A "Sola scriptura answer" Steaver - I thought you had gone to "anything BUT the bible" on this thread?
Nice come back!

Question for Steaver,, "So Steaver, you do believe that outside of a theocracy the civil laws of that theocracy should be in force anyway even though your own "Baptist Confession of Faith "says it should not -- do you believe that outside of that true theocracy a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath??."



nice going Steaver!!

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

Sadly this post is in fact a "correction" of Steaver's false presentation to make it "sola scriptura" correct and consistent with his own "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19.

Which is what must be done if someone is going to correct false teaching that is in the "anything but the Bible" form of argument.

When did paul state that eating pork or Sunday worship makes one to lose salvation and eternal life now in Christ?

 

[thatbrian]

Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

How many posts have asked him that same question, yet no answer.

 

[BobRyan]

I would wager that absolutely every single reader of this thread with the exception of your own fellow SDA members (and maybe even them, but wouldn't ever admit it) can see your answers are clear on pork eating as it relates to salvation/damnation. .

.

I would wager that everyone on this board can see that I did not write the Bible and that this includes John 9 and Isaiah 66.

I would wager that everyone on this board can see that an "anything-but-the-Bible" response to texts posted is going to be "anything but the details in the texts" or even more extreme "attributing the content of the text to someone posting on the board" as if they are responsible for what is in the Bible.


And that is what you get Steaver when you play games with your answers and think you are being clever to bring up a question answered directly by scripture then complain that the scripture is being posted as if that scripture were merely someone's personal idea.

. ALL sketchy religious groups which follow modern day false doctrine follow the same play book. I have seen this while debating JWs, Mormons

Many of us here are having exact same problem debating Sda and RC!

You mean you are struggling to understand that I did not write the Bible??

Seriously??