The Catholic Church CONDEMNS abortion but SDA celebrates, condones and runs abortion mills:
-
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!
Walter Martin & his assessment of SDA's
- Thread starter pythons
- Start date
- Status
The Catholic Church CONDEMNS abortion but SDA celebrates, condones and runs abortion mills:
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Just read through the link Walter, as the thread was specifically created for you. It was already demonstrated how Romanism defines 'innocent' and 'truly human', and 'authentic', etc.
As for 'pro-Catholicism' Andrew, we already discussed him as well, and the emails between us. Kind of old hat now.
So because your Adventist brother exposed the stench of your abortion loving Church somehow he is pro Catholicism? What a hoot!
Well, yeah, so did the whole of the Reformation and those before them, as cited previously:
"In fact, many learned and godly men and women, from all over history, who have deeply and prayerfully studied their Bible, and even translated Bibles, wrote lexicons, dictionaries, studied many languages, disagree with you. The ones who agree with you is the Roman Catholic Church, hence the point of my previous comment on the subject of this forum.
Melito of Sardis (wrote AD 165 – AD 175, died c. AD 180 – Jesus is “among the angels, archangel”
Charles Buck (AD 1771 – AD 11 Aug 1815) Jesus is called “Angel” and “Archangel”.
John Butterworth, minister (born AD 1727- died AD 1803) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Taylor (AD 15 May 1758 – AD 1 November 1835) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Patrick Fairbairn (AD 28 January 1805 – AD 6 August 1874) – Jesus is “Michael”.
William Baxter Godbey (AD June 3, 1833 - AD September 12, 1920) cites Dr. Clarke that Jesus is “Michael”.
Matthew Pool[e] – (AD 1624 – AD 1679) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Sir William Smith (AD 20 May 1813 – AD 7 October 1893) – Jesus is “Michael” and cites others Luther, Hengstenberg, etc.
Thomas Coke (AD 9 September 1747 – AD 2 May 1814) – Jesus is “Michael”.
John Guyse (AD 1680 - AD 1761) – Jesus is “Michael”, and called “Angel”, etc
Elhanan Winchester (AD 1751 in Brookline, Massachusetts – AD April 18, 1797) – Jesus is “Michael”.
George Sale (AD 1697, Canterbury, Kent, England – AD 1736, London, England) ; George Psalmanazar (AD 1679? - AD 1763),; Archibald Bower (AD 17 January 1686 – AD 3 September 1766) ; George D. Shelvocke (baptised AD 1 April 1675 - AD 30 November 1742) ; John Campbell (AD 1708 - AD 1775); John Swinton (AD 1703 - AD 1777) – Jesus is “Michael”.
The Church of England Magazine. Under the superintendence of the clergymen of the United Church of England and Ireland. Vol. IV. No. 85; January 6, 1838. By James Burns. – Jesus is “Michael”.
Robert Hawker (AD 1753 – AD 1827) – Jesus is “Michael” and “Archangel”.
Samuel Horsley (AD 15 September 1733 – AD 4 October 1806) – Jesus is “Michael”.
The London Encyclopedia, or Universal Dictionary … 1839. – Jesus is “Michael”.
The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible; Volume 4; M-P, Revised, Full-Color Edition; - cites that many Protestants, Hengstenberg, etc that Jesus is “Michael”.
Hermann Witsius (Herman Wits or in Latin Hermannus Witsius) (AD 12 February 1636 – AD 22 October 1708) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Reinerus Vogelsangius (AD 1610 - AD 1679) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Johannes Cloppenburg (AD 1592 - AD 1652) - Jesus is Michael the “Angel of the Lord”.
Ralph Griffiths (AD c.1720 – AD September 28, 1803) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Campegius Vitringa Sr., or Kempe Vitringa[1] (born at Leeuwarden, May 16, 1659; died at Franeker, March 31, 1722) – Jesus is “Michael” the “Archangel”.
Martin Luther (AD 10 November 1483 – AD 18 February 1546) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Philipp Melanchthon (AD 16 February 1497 – AD 19 April 1560) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Johann Wigand (ca. AD 1523 - AD 21 October 1587) – Jesus is “Michael”.
David Chytraeus or Chyträus (26 February 1530, Ingelfingen – 25 June 1600, Rostock) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Giovanni Diodati or Deodati (AD 6 June 1576 – AD 3 October 1649) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Andrew Willet (AD 1562 – AD 4 December 1621) - Jesus is “Michael”.
William Miller (AD February 15, 1782 – AD December 20, 1849) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Carl L. Beckwith, - Jesus is “Michael”.
Robert W. Bertram (AD 27 March 1921 - AD 13 March 2003) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Dr. Frances N. Lee (AD 1934 - AD Friday 23rd December, 2011) - - Jesus is “Michael”.
David Harold Chilton (AD 1951 – AD 1997) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Milton Spenser Terry (AD 1840 - AD 1914) - Jesus is “Michael”.
George Whitefield - December 27 [O.S. December 16] 1714 – September 30, 1770) speaks by symbol, Jesus is our “Michael”.
James Petigru Boyce (AD 1827 – AD 1888) citing John Pye-Smith, Jesus is “probably” “Michael”.
The Rev Dr John Pye-Smith FRS, FGS (AD 25 May 1774 - AD 5 February 1851) - Jesus is “probably” “Michael”.
Christmas Evans (AD 25 December 1766 – AD 19 July 1838) – Jesus is “Michael”.
The Christian Gleaner and Domestic Magazine for 1825, Volume II; London; published by B. J. Holdsworth, 18, St. Paul's Churchyard. – Jesus is “Michael”.
Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (AD October 25, 1811 – AD May 7, 1887) - Jesus is “Michael”.
John Gill (AD 23 November 1697 – AD 14 October 1771) – Jesus is “Michael”.
Charles Spurgeon (AD 9 June 1834 – AD 31 January 1892) Jesus is the “True Michael”.
Matthew Henry (AD 18 October 1662 – AD 22 June 1714) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Adams (AD 1583 – AD 1653) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Heinrich [Henry] Bullinger (AD 18 July 1504 – AD 17 September 1575) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Isaac Watts (AD 17 July 1674 – AD 25 November 1748) - Jesus is “Michael”.
William Kinkade (AD 22nd Sept. 1783 - AD 20th Sept. 1832) [became Arian later; Heresy] - Jesus is “Michael”.
Jonathan Edwards (AD October 5, 1703 – AD March 22, 1758) - Jesus is “Michael”.
1560/1599 Geneva Study Bible- Jesus is “Michael”.
John [Jean] Calvin (born Jehan Cauvin: AD 10 July 1509 – AD 27 May 1564) - Jesus is “Michael” and does not disagree with others who see the same.
Francois Du Jon aka Franciscus Junius (born François du Jon, AD 1 May 1545 – AD 13 October 1602) - Jesus is “Michael”.
John Wesley (AD 28 June [O.S. 17 June] 1703 – AD 2 March 1791) - Jesus is “Michael”.
John Brown of Haddington (AD 1722 – AD 19 June 1787) - Jesus is “Michael”.
James Wood (AD 1751 – AD 1840) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Ernst Wilhelm Theodor Herrmann Hengstenberg (AD October 20, 1802, Fröndenberg – AD May 28, 1869, Berlin- Jesus is “Michael”.
Wikipedia, The Online Encyclopedia – Michael (Archangel); subsection - “Protestant Views” – cites John A. Lees, and Hengstenberg, Jesus is “Michael”.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, comment on section “Michael” by John A. Lees. - Jesus is “Michael”.
John Bunyan (AD 28 November 1628 – AD 31 August 1688) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Henry Ainsworth (AD 1571 – AD 1622) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Watson (c. AD 1620 – AD 1686) - Jesus is “Michael”.
James Glasgow D.D. (AD 27 May 1805 – AD 1890 ) - Jesus is “Michael”.
James Hastings (AD 1852 – AD 1922) and George Cunninghame Monteath Douglas (AD 1826 – AD 1904- Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Hobbes Scott (17 April 1783 – 1 January 1860) - Jesus may indeed be “Michael” as “many” others say.
Hezekiah Holland (born ca. AD 1617, living AD 1660) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Adam Clarke (AD 1760 or AD 1762 – AD 1832) - Jesus is “Michael”.
George Balderston Kidd (Cottingham, near Hull, AD 28 July 1794 – AD 1852) - Jesus is “Michael”.
James Durham (AD 1622 – AD 1658) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Bryce Johnston (AD 1747 - AD 1805) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Haweis (AD 1 January 1734 - AD February 11, 1820) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929; Editor, Edwin Lewis (AD 1881 – AD 1959) was an American Methodist theologian primarily associated with Drew University in New Jersey. Others involved - Frederick Carl Eiselen; David G. Downey. - Jesus is “Michael”.
Johann [John] Peter Lange (AD 10 April 1802 in Sonneborn (now a part of Wuppertal) – AD 9 July 1884), and Elijah Richard Craven (AD Mar. 28 1824, in Washington D.C. - AD Jan. 5 1908, in Philadelphia, Pa) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Thomas Robinson (AD 1813/14 - AD 1890) - Jesus is “Michael”.
Johann Friedrich Haug ((AD * 1680, AD † 18. May 1753) and The Berlenburger Bibel [aka 'Berleb. Bible', 'Berleburger Bibel', etc.] is in the years AD 1726 - AD 1742) - Jesus is “Michael”." - originally cited here - Revelation 12 - a Verse by Verse, and even phrase by phrase study
Quite a crew, but they're all wrong. SCRIPTURE says, in Hebrews 1:4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:“You are My Son,Today I have begotten You”? And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,And He shall be to Me a Son”? (Taken from Psalm 2:7)
I believe SCRIPTURE over any number of men!
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Contextually, the "angels" referred to in that verse only address the 'created' angels, see vs 7 "maketh". These are referred to as the "fellows" (in office of messenger) of the uncreated Angel of the LORD, the Son of God the Father, in Hebrews 1:1-3, who is the highest messenger of the Father:
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I'm interested in what Seventh-day Adventists believe, let's hear what they believe, rather than what you think they believe. Let's see if we can get that far.
More evidence your church is committing mass murder day in and day out. Run from HER, Alofa!
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Wow, that is just historically - all wrong, and not even a little right.
William Miller (February 15, 1782 - December 20, 1849)
Seventh-day Adventists officially formed as a body in 1863.
Have you even read Miller's 'Apology'?
pythons
Member
Alofa, You have been shown over the years that there is zero evidence to the contrary of what the SDA Church has put forth.
Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
Ellen White
To be redeemed means to cease from sin. No heart that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before all nations, tongues, and peoples.
Ellen White R&H August 13, 1895, paragraph 6
Representing the law of God in its true character arouses the enmity of Satan. Those who love God with all the heart, will love the law of his kingdom. They will not only profess to be guided by its principles, but they will actually live them out, even in a world that is no more favorable to the development of Christian principles than were the inhabitants of the world before the flood, of whom it is written that the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts were evil, and only evil continually. A similar condition of society exists in our world today, and if those who claim to be God's commandment-keeping people do not put in practice the principles of the law which Christ came to our world to vindicate, pronouncing it holy, just, and good, they misrepresent the character and mission of their professed Master
There are of course more - but you've seen these before, haven't you.
As for the creature Christ teaching you've seen that as well.
Charles S Longacre waxing eloquent on the teachings of Ellen White.
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.
IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost
It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)
Why / Where Longacre got the idea
Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.
"Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9th 1898, see also Selected Messages Book 1 page 256)
And where Ellen got the idea from.
Review and Herald November 14, 1854
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that ho alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to havo life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) jusl the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life ? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life
Scripture is crystal clear - Jesus was ETERNALLY The Christ - Christ is Eternal God and about the clearest thing in the whole of the Bible is God never & I mean ever FAILS. This possibility may have been built into SDA theology but it doesn't exist in Baptist Theology OR Catholic Theology.
Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
Ellen White
To be redeemed means to cease from sin. No heart that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before all nations, tongues, and peoples.
Ellen White R&H August 13, 1895, paragraph 6
Representing the law of God in its true character arouses the enmity of Satan. Those who love God with all the heart, will love the law of his kingdom. They will not only profess to be guided by its principles, but they will actually live them out, even in a world that is no more favorable to the development of Christian principles than were the inhabitants of the world before the flood, of whom it is written that the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts were evil, and only evil continually. A similar condition of society exists in our world today, and if those who claim to be God's commandment-keeping people do not put in practice the principles of the law which Christ came to our world to vindicate, pronouncing it holy, just, and good, they misrepresent the character and mission of their professed Master
There are of course more - but you've seen these before, haven't you.
As for the creature Christ teaching you've seen that as well.
Charles S Longacre waxing eloquent on the teachings of Ellen White.
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.
IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost
It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)
Why / Where Longacre got the idea
Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.
"Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9th 1898, see also Selected Messages Book 1 page 256)
And where Ellen got the idea from.
Review and Herald November 14, 1854
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that ho alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to havo life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) jusl the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life ? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life
Scripture is crystal clear - Jesus was ETERNALLY The Christ - Christ is Eternal God and about the clearest thing in the whole of the Bible is God never & I mean ever FAILS. This possibility may have been built into SDA theology but it doesn't exist in Baptist Theology OR Catholic Theology.
Jesus is very God , so can God ever sin?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
That Jesus chose not to sin, is not saying He did not have the choice to sin. Roman Catholicism dogmas of 'original sin', 'immaculate conception', 'impeccability', 'unfallen flesh', are all anathema to the real and everlasting Gospel, and is actually the teaching of the Pharisees in John 9:34. Jesus Christ is the free will offering, choosing the good, in spite of the offers of evil. The spotless Lamb in fallen flesh.
Isa_7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Did the Son take upon himself fallen flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh, yes or no?
Matthew 1:1-25; Luke 3:23-38.
Jesus Christ, while as a man on earth did not rely upon His Divinity (Php 2), but relied upon His Father through the Holy Ghost (John 6), so that He would be our example (1 Peter 2).
1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1Pe_2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Joh_7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Rom_1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
2Ti_2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Rom_8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Mat_4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Luk_4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Mat_16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat_19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat_22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Mar_8:11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.
Mar_10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Luk_4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
1Co_10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Jas_1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Joh_16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Luk_11:16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Luk_22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
2Pe_2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
1Pe_4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Joh_8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat_26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Luk_22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Rom_6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Joh_8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh_8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I agree with the statement, as seen here - Walter Martin & his assessment of SDA's
There is nothing in the statement that is contrary to scripture, though it be contrary to the dogmas of Romanism.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I agree with the statement, since that is what scripture teaches:
Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Psa_85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Not "was".
1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I agree with the statement, since that is what Scripture teaches, see previous post - Walter Martin & his assessment of SDA's
Mat_24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I agree with the statements made by White that you have quoted so far. What I have seen is that you simply disagree with scripture, and use White as the excuse.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Who? This person is not even listed among the Advent pioneers on the EGW White CD ROM, or website. This person is not the body of Seventh-day Adventist meeting in General Conference, nor does he have the spirit of prophecy, nor is he scripture itself, and thus holds 0 weight whatsoever doctrinally, whatever he personally and individually believed.
Why would you think that a personal commentary on something White said would be doctrinally valid among an entire body?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
I agree with this statement, since that is what scripture teaches, as noted already - Walter Martin & his assessment of SDA's
- Status