Walter Martin points out that the Adventist denomination is not a cult. Continued

[BobRyan]

Since my earlier thread is about to close in a few minutes...

========================================================
Kingdom of the Cults: appendix

On p. 551 from the section: Adventist Theology and Classical Orthodoxy, Martin writes,

It is unnecessary to document at great length the fact that Seventh-day Adventists adheres tenaciously to the foundational doctrines of Christian theology as these have been held by the Christian church down through the centuries. Dr. Anthony Hoekema, who believes that Seventh-day Adventism is a non-Christian cult, makes this interesting admission, and since Dr. Hoekema is no friend of Adventism, his testimony on this point could hardly be called prejudiced:

“I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. . . . It is recognised with gratitude that there are certain soundly scriptural emphases in the teaching of Seventh-day-Adventism. We are thankful for the Adventists’ affirmation of the infallibility of the Bible, of the Trinity and of the full deity of Jesus Christ. We gratefully acknowledge their teachings on creation and providence, on the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, on the absolute necessity for regeneration, on sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and on Christ’s literal return.”​

Says Martin,

“It is puzzling to me, as a student of non-Christian cult systems, how any group can hold the above doctrines in their proper biblical context, which Dr. Hoekema admits the Adventists do, and still be a non-Christian cult. However we shall deal with this aspect of the critics of Adventism at the end of the chapter; therefore, suffice it to say that the Adventists do have a clean bill of health where the major doctrines of Christian theology are concerned.”
​

p.561. We earlier mentioned Dr. Anthony Hoekema’s book, The Four Major Cults, in which he classifies Seventh-day Adventism as a non-Christian cult system. It is necessary for me to take exception with Dr Hoekema in this area because, in my opinion, the reasons that Dr. Hoekema gives cannot be justified by the Word of God, historical theology, or present-day practices in denominational Christianity as a whole. To illustrate this point, Dr. Hoekema stated, “I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. In support of this evaluation I propose to show that the traits we have found to be distinctive of the cults do apply to this movement.” (389).

Martin writes -

It is Dr. Hoekema’s contention that Ellen White is an extrabiblical authority in that her counsels are taken to be manifestations of the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12). But granting that the Adventists are entitled to believe that this gift was manifested in White as evidence of the charismata (a fact that Dr. Hoekema could hardly honestly challenge, since the gifts of the Spirit have been and are still manifested in the Christian church), why does he not take into consideration the repeated emphasis of Adventist writers concerning their official pronouncement – Questions on Doctrine – to the effect that they do not consider White to be an extrabiblical authority, but that her writings are only authoritative in those areas where they are in agreement with the Word of God, which is the final standard for judging all the gifts of the Spirit?
​

 

[BobRyan]

]Martin writes;

It is a serious charge to maintain that any professing Christian group denies justification by grace alone as the basis of eternal salvation; and, if the Adventists were guilty of this, surely there would be ground for considering them as a cultic system. However, literally scores of times in their book Questions on Doctrines, and in various other publications, the Adventists affirm that salvation only come by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

Why is it necessary again for Dr. Hoekema to question the sincerity of the Adventists in this area and yet accept at face value their other statements concerning their faith in the Scriptures, the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ, the absolute necessity of regeneration, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s literal return, is a puzzling inconsistency in his presentation, (See The Four Major Cults, 403).

Dr. Hoekema insists that the investigative judgment and the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath are part of the reasons why he classifies Seventh-day Adventists as cultists, but, in doing this, he makes his Calvinistic interpretation of theology the criterion, while ignoring the claims of the Arminian school and of the semi-Arminian and semi-Calvinistic theologians, many of whom take strong exception to Dr. Hoekema’s pronounced Calvinism.

On the basis that Dr. Hoekema would call Adventists a cult, the same charge could be leveled at all devoted Calvinists who consider the Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin’s Commentaries every bit as much illumination and guides in the study of Scriptures as the Adventists do where White’s writings are concerned. In addition to this, the Seventh-day Baptists are Arminian in their theology, and keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Are they too a non-Christian cult? They certainly meet some of Dr. Hoekema’s qualifications.​

 

[BobRyan]

Hoekema's argument was totally destroyed by Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" where Martin placed the SDA Christian denomination in the appendix giving it a huge amount of space for discussion and totally annihilated Hoekema's shallow arguments addressing Hoekema's book specifically - explicitly.

Martin was no SDA at all - but he knew a bogus argument when he saw it. Martin pointed out that half the time Hoekema was not even using the SDA published statements of belief for his straw-man arguments!! How sad that anyone could be snookered by Hoekema.


As Christianity Today pointed out in 2015 - the SDA denomination is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world and fastest growing (incidentally it is now over 25 million in attendance each Sabbath world wide.)

Martin's book based on dialogue with SDA leaders and actually "reading" SDA statement of faith. That dialogue was published in the book "Question on Doctrine" in the 1950's.

And a number of editions since that time.

Including:
1985 edition of “The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7A” containing Volumes 1-7. QoD is in Appendix A, B, C

Nov 18, 2003 "the book “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine” - new print edition. 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"

 

[BobRyan]

1. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Ex 20:10
2. The Seventh day Sabbath is "a day of holy convocation" Leviticus 23:2
3. "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down" Isaiah 66:23
4. Jesus was resurrected on week-day-1 Sunday... which means everyone knows what day is the 7th
5. Exodus 16:23 "tomorrow is the Sabbath"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabbath is rest not worship.

The bible says it is both - as the post you just quoted proves.

--
These rules were given to Israel--not applicable to Gentiles

Until you read the actual Bible.

3. "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down" Isaiah 66:23

Isaiah 56:6-8
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was made for MANKIND"

. No one has ever kept them all, except Jesus, nailing them to His Cross

Not an argument for "taking God's name in vain" or committing any sin against the LAW of God. The LAW written on the heart under the NEW Covenant - includes the TEN Commandments as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" freely admits.
.

What is the difference between a Sunday Christian and a Saturday Christian?

One "notices the details" in the Commandment of God regarding the sanctified blessed weekly holy day (the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God).. the other ignores it.

One can defend their practice "sola scriptura" the other can't.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

posted by One Baptism

"... Since this thread is about [the now deceased] "Walter Martin", let me show a few errors he made about what he stated, on tv, [John Ankerberg "show"], in regards Hebrews 9:12, in the Koine Greek:

[John Ankerberg Show, with Walter Martin and William Johnsson [Review and Herald], time index 00:33:16-00:33:57] -

"... [George E. Canon reading Heb. 9:12 GNT into English] that Jesus Christ entered once into the holiest of all with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ...", and I [Walter Martin] asked the question, and 'Canon' did too, "Did this [event of Hebrews 9:12] take place, as [O.R.L.] Crosier said, as Mrs. [Ellen G.] White said, as the early Adventists taught? Did it take place in [AD] 1844, or did it take place at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31]?" [Walter Martin continues] The [Koine] Greek text says, at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31]. Once into the holiest of all - the Most Holy Place! ..."

Text:

Hebrews 9:12 KJB - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:12 GNT TR - ουδε δι αιματος τραγων και μοσχων δια δε του ιδιου αιματος εισηλθεν εφαπαξ εις τα αγια αιωνιαν λυτρωσιν ευραμενος

There is not a single extant mss, codici or papyrii, [etc] written in Koine Greek [or any language] that reads "αγια αγιων" [the Most Holy Place, see Hebrews 9:3 KJB, GNT TR] here in Hebrews 9:12, but plainly reads in all known extant mss, etc in any language, "τα αγια" [the sanctuary, ie first apartment, the holy place].

Latin [Jerome's Vulgate]: "in sancta",
German Luther Bibel 1545: "das Heilige",
Wycliffe: "the holy",
Stephanus 1550: "τα αγια",
Scrivener's 1894: "τα αγια",
Westcott's and Hort's 1881: "τα αγια".
UBS 5th: "τὰ ἅγια",
Novum Testamentum Graece 28th [Eberhard Nestle's / Kurt Aland's, etc]: "τὰ ἅγια"
without a single footnote in either 'scholars' work indicating any deviation
Consider:

Hebrews 8:2 KJB - A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews 8:2 GNT TR - των αγιων λειτουργος και της σκηνης της αληθινης ην επηξεν ο κυριος και ουκ ανθρωπος

Hebrews 9:1 KJB - Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:1 GNT TR - ειχεν μεν ουν και η πρωτη δικαιωματα λατρειας το τε αγιον κοσμικον

Hebrews 9:2 KJB - For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:2 GNT TR - σκηνη γαρ κατεσκευασθη η πρωτη εν η η τε λυχνια και η τραπεζα και η προθεσις των αρτων ητις λεγεται αγια

Hebrews 9:3 KJB - And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Hebrews 9:3 GNT TR - μετα δε το δευτερον καταπετασμα σκηνη η λεγομενη αγια αγιων

Hebrews 9:7 KJB - But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Hebrews 9:7 GNT TR - εις δε την δευτεραν απαξ του ενιαυτου μονος ο αρχιερευς ου χωρις αιματος ο προσφερει υπερ εαυτου και των του λαου αγνοηματων

Hebrews 9:8 KJB - The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Hebrews 9:8 GNT TR - τουτο δηλουντος του πνευματος του αγιου μηπω πεφανερωσθαι την των αγιων οδον ετι της πρωτης σκηνης εχουσης στασιν

Hebrews 13:11 KJB - For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

Hebrews 13:11 GNT TR - ων γαρ εισφερεται ζωων το αιμα περι αμαρτιας εις τα αγια δια του αρχιερεως τουτων τα σωματα κατακαιεται εξω της παρεμβολης

Revelation 15:5 KJB - And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

Revelation 15:5 GNT TR - και μετα ταυτα ειδον και ιδου ηνοιγη ο ναος της σκηνης του μαρτυριου εν τω ουρανω

... to be continued ..."

One Baptism then added this

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

Seventh-day Adventists, including O.R.L. Crosier [Day Star Extra, February 7th, 1846, you may read in full here - The Sanctuary, Table of Contents -- Ellen G. White Writings ], and especially sister Ellen G. White, do/did not teach, and have never taught, that Hebrews 9:12 happened in AD 1844.

 

[BobRyan]

"8. For about a hundred years—1840s to 1950s—many evangelical denominations considered SDA to be a non-Christian cult (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses). But dialogue with SDA scholars and apologists in the 1950s led to a reconsideration of that position by some evangelicals. As Kenneth R. Samples says, the dialogue convinced many that “SDA was not an anti-Christian cult, but rather a somewhat heterodox (i.e., departing from accepted doctrine) Christian denomination.” The Christian Research Institute provides a key example of the rationale for this view:

Since SDA does accept the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity (the Trinity, Christ’s true deity, his bodily resurrection, etc.) we do not believe that it should be classified as a non-Christian cult. It is our conviction that one cannot be a true Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc., and be a practicing Christian in the biblical sense of the word; but it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and a true follower of Jesus, despite certain distinctive Adventist doctrines which we consider to be unbiblical.

Although few evangelicals today consider SDA a non-Christian cult, many still caution against embracing the denomination as an acceptable branch of Protestantism. As Nathan Busenitz says, “In spite of the ecumenical spirit that has pervaded evangelicalism over the last few decades, there are still major deficiencies within official SDA theology that ought to give evangelical Christians serious pause.”

9 Things You Should Know About Seventh-day Adventism

Interesting link in that post that says this

1. Seventh-day Adventists compose one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. adult population, and 1.2 million people in the North America belong to the denomination. But around the world there are 18.1 million SDAs, making them a larger global presence than the Southern Baptist Convention (15.5 million), the United Methodist Church (12.8 million), or Mormonism (15.3 million).

In fact Christianity Today reported this in 2015

Adventists: Can Ben Carson's Church Stay Separatist?

In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God.

In fact that "more than 1 million per year" number reported in 2014 was "For the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people joined the church — 1,091,222 to be exact"

Which is almost "exactly" 3000 people a day average.

Pentecost - Acts 2
Acts 2: 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Happens every day - world wide in the Adventist denomination

So then "vitriol and acrimony" is not the way to reach the "unreached" and spread the Gospel - rather sharing the truth in love - is the way to do it.

 

[BobRyan]

loDebar said: ↑
I perceive that not doing things is very important to SDA's

Notice what the "Baptist Confession of Faith" says in section 19


19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

 

[BobRyan]

Some things in the Bible so obvious -- even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" freely admits to them

 

[steaver]

So if a person says "I know that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to break the Ten Commandments and I know that the Bible Sabbath is one of them.. and that it is not Sunday - The bible says what I am doing is sin - but I don't care what God's Word says - I find it inconvenient to follow what the bible teaches ..." -- then that becomes a salvation issue for the one that goes to such an extreme. Which would be true no matter what we were talking about.

This is the real difference between these two distinct teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christian teaching throughout the centuries declares Jesus Christ paid the price for ALL sin. Past, present and future. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of yourselves.

EGW comes along some 1800 years later and declares Jesus Christ paid the price for PAST sins only. Any sin committed after trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior can only be atoned for by the person "of themselves". If the person repents sometime before their physical death. Otherwise, they will go to hell.

There can only be ONE Gospel which is true. Someone is preaching a false Gospel. So which Gospel is true? The one preached for 2000 years? Or the one that came along 1800 years later?

Of yourselves? Or, not of yourselves. Two different Gospels.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some things in the Bible so obvious -- even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" freely admits to them

Yes, just not in the way though that your Sda sees them!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Some things in the Bible so obvious -- even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" freely admits to them

Yes, just not in the way though that your Sda sees them!

Your post deletes every word from the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and only quotes my words... is this because you reject the confession at the very point I accept what it says as accurately stating Bible facts?

OR are you actually trying to tell us in a very backhanded way that you would wish to agree with section 19 of that confession?

 

[BobRyan]

This is the real difference between these two distinct teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Did I miss something or does the reference link to the post of mine you quoted - really not work??

 

[BobRyan]

This is the real difference between these two distinct teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christian teaching throughout the centuries declares Jesus Christ paid the price for ALL sin. Past, present and future. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of yourselves. .

True .. and still Matthew 18 Jesus Himself teaches "forgiveness revoked".

So ... "the point remains"

Also Paul makes the same case in Romans 11... where once again - OSAS does not survive the test of "Sola Scriptura"

 

[BobRyan]

I claim to be a New Covenant Christian.. do you?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Romans 2
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



============================================
Matthew 18 is specifically about forgiveness revoked.

32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Indeed -- Christ shows us the "fully forgiven" about whom it is said "I forgave you ALL" and yet due to subsequent actions of the "fully forgiven" -- they experience forgiveness revoked. until he should pay all that was due

Question for the reader -- In your POV is there such a thing as "Salvation where you pay your own debt of sin" -- having been "forgiven all" he then had to "repay all".. OR is Christ simply mistaken in your POV?

OSAS does not survive the sola-scriptura test in Matthew 18 nor in Romans 11 nor in Ezekiel 18 (nor even Matthew 6)

 

[Yeshua1]

Your post deletes every word from the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and only quotes my words... is this because you reject the confession at the very point I accept what it says as accurately stating Bible facts?

OR are you actually trying to tell us in a very backhanded way that you would wish to agree with section 19 of that confession?

Would you agree with the writers of that Confession that Sunday is now the acceptable day or worship unto the Lord then?

 

[steaver]

True .. and still Matthew 18 Jesus Himself teaches "forgiveness revoked".

As I said, two Gospels preached. One must choose between the 2000 year one or the EGW one some 1800 years afterwards. One must believe all the Christians missed it for 1800 years and then God sent EGW finally to straighten us all out.

 

[Yeshua1]

As I said, two Gospels preached. One must choose between the 2000 year one or the EGW one some 1800 years afterwards. One must believe all the Christians missed it for 1800 years and then God sent EGW finally to straighten us all out.

I prefer to stick with what the Son of God had to say!

 

[BobRyan]

I prefer to stick with what the Son of God had to say!

So then no more "quoting you" as the source and proof of your suggestions???

 

[BobRyan]

steaver said: ↑
This is the real difference between these two distinct teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christian teaching throughout the centuries declares Jesus Christ paid the price for ALL sin. Past, present and future. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of yourselves.

True .. and still Matthew 18 Jesus Himself teaches "forgiveness revoked".

So ... "the point remains"

Also Paul makes the same case in Romans 11... where once again - OSAS does not survive the test of "Sola Scriptura"

As I said, two Gospels preached.

True - one ignores every detail in scripture on the topic - while the other avoids scripture every chance it gets.

One must choose between the 2000 year one or the EGW one some 1800 years afterwards. One must believe all the Christians missed it for 1800 years and then God sent EGW finally to straighten us all out.

Pure emotionalism -- choose the Bible instead.

When confronted with actual "scripture" --


============================================
Matthew 18 is specifically about forgiveness revoked.

32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Indeed -- Christ shows us the "fully forgiven" about whom it is said "I forgave you ALL" and yet due to subsequent actions of the "fully forgiven" -- they experience forgiveness revoked. until he should pay all that was due

Question for the reader -- In your POV is there such a thing as "Salvation where you pay your own debt of sin" -- having been "forgiven all" he then had to "repay all".. OR is Christ simply mistaken in your POV?

OSAS does not survive the sola-scriptura test in Matthew 18 nor in Romans 11 nor in Ezekiel 18 (nor even Matthew 6)

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

What we get in response is "yes...but..err..umm... yes but what about I-don't-like Ellen White?"

That sort of nonsense - will never make a compelling sola-scriptura position on anything. And we all know it.

 

[BobRyan]

I claim to be a New Covenant Christian.. do you?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Romans 2
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



============================================
Matthew 18 is specifically about forgiveness revoked.

32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Indeed -- Christ shows us the "fully forgiven" about whom it is said "I forgave you ALL" and yet due to subsequent actions of the "fully forgiven" -- they experience forgiveness revoked. until he should pay all that was due

Question for the reader -- In your POV is there such a thing as "Salvation where you pay your own debt of sin" -- having been "forgiven all" he then had to "repay all".. OR is Christ simply mistaken in your POV?

OSAS does not survive the sola-scriptura test in Matthew 18 nor in Romans 11 nor in Ezekiel 18 (nor even Matthew 6)

Notice what the "Baptist Confession of Faith" says in section 19


19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

Notice how "section 19" above has to be "totally ignored" by the one responding??

Would you agree with the writers of that Confession that Sunday is now the acceptable day or worship unto the Lord then?

Amazing you could not bring yourself to affirm even one point in the actual text of section 19.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader