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

[Yeshua1]

Hint: Notice how that post ended??

"Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??"



That "ending" of my post was placed there - assuming you do not actually read the posts - and anticipating the rabbit trail that some might wish to use.

"Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it.."

"Yes, but NONE of them were agreeing with the Sda as saturday Sabbath"

It is nonsensical - to argue that

The fact that SDAs and Baptists agree that the Bible has 66 books "is not changed" by the fact that Baptist reject the Bible statement on the Sabbath being the 7th day of the week, or might wish to "edit" it to be week-day-1

SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

The fact that the Baptist Confession of Faith AGREES WITH SDAs that God's TEN Commandemnts - all TEN are binding on the saints in both NT and OT -- AND are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant is not "a problem for SDAs"... period.

It is a problem for you.

IF you read the Catholic Catechism - IT TOO - argues for ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments applicable to the saints in both OT and NT.

So also does Pope John Paul II affirms this about "the TEN Commandments" not "the NINE" but the "TEN"

SDAs do not have to "first be Catholic" to find out that the Bible affirms the TEN Commandments as included in the moral law of God.

Irrefutable.

Again, the 1689 Confession does NOT state that Saturday Sabbath is now the obligation for the Christian to observe, correct?
And far moreimportantly, it comes down to basically who do you trust? The Bible that states that we are no longer obligated to keeping the Sabbath as Israel did, or to EW herself?

 

[BobRyan]

They agreed that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God to this very day... do you agree with them?


===========================================
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.

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

Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??

Notice how that post ended??

"Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??"

That "ending" of my post was placed there - assuming you do not actually read the posts - and anticipating the rabbit trail that some might wish to use.

Yeshua1 said: ↑
Yes, but NONE of them were agreeing with the Sda as saturday Sabbath was still required to be kept!

HInt: "Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it.."

"Yes, but NONE of them were agreeing with the SDA as saturday Sabbath"

It is nonsensical - to argue that in response to the 66 books of the Bible -- or to any other topic. As we all know

The fact that SDAs and Baptists agree that the Bible has 66 books "is not changed" by the fact that Baptist reject the Bible statement on the Sabbath being the 7th day of the week, or might wish to "edit" it to be week-day-1

SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

The fact that the Baptist Confession of Faith AGREES WITH SDAs that God's TEN Commandemnts - all TEN are binding on the saints in both NT and OT -- AND are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant is not "a problem for SDAs"... period.

It is a problem for you.

IF you read the Catholic Catechism - IT TOO - argues for ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments applicable to the saints in both OT and NT.

So also does Pope John Paul II affirms this about "the TEN Commandments" not "the NINE" but the "TEN"

SDAs do not have to "first be Catholic" to find out that the Bible affirms the TEN Commandments as included in the moral law of God.

Irrefutable.

Again, the 1689 Confession does NOT state that Saturday Sabbath is now the obligation for the Christian to observe, correct?

Each time you are confronted by an irrefutable point that unravels your entire line of approach - you simply "repeat yourself"

Which basically asks that I "again" post the "irrefutable point"


SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

And far more importantly, it comes down to basically who do you trust? The Bible ...

Yes.. "The Bible.."

Each time your argument needs to leave the Bible point and start ranting against Ellen White.. you lose the point.

that states that we are no longer obligated to keeping the Sabbath

For those unfamiliar with the number TEN - and the fact that FOUR is within that range of 1 to TEN... I have another post.

 

[steaver]

The gift of being "broken off and cast away"??? -- yet "grafted in again IF" they do NOT continue in unbelief. (you know.. the actual text of scripture in the post)

So you agree the irrevocable gift spoken of in the text is eternal life through belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

The gift of being "broken off and cast away"??? -- yet "grafted in again IF" they do NOT continue in unbelief. (you know.. the actual text of scripture in the post)


Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

So you agree the irrevocable gift spoken of in the text is eternal life through belief in Jesus Christ.

only if the "broken off and cast away for unbelief" statement in Romans 11 - was your definition of "eternal life" ...

Do you actually have some text that says "broken off from the vine of Christ - for unbelief" is the definition of "eternal life"??

 

[steaver]

Do you actually have some text that says "broken off from the vine of Christ - for unbelief" is the definition of "eternal life"??

So your standard is a text must say "eternal life" in order for it to be speaking of "eternal life"?

If I recall, you have pointed to Romans 11 many times in the past as one of your reasons for believing a person can lose their salvation/eternal life.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

So your standard is a text must say "eternal life" in order for it to be speaking of "eternal life"?

If creative writing could make all those texts above mean "eternal life" -- then Is it your claim that in Romans 11 Paul is telling Christians to "fear" lest they obtain eternal life????

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

If I recall, you have pointed to Romans 11 many times in the past as one of your reasons for believing a person can lose their salvation/eternal life.

Agreed. I think that is accurate

 

[steaver]

steaver said: ↑
If I recall, you have pointed to Romans 11 many times in the past as one of your reasons for believing a person can lose their salvation/eternal life.
Bob said:
Agreed. I think that is accurate

Excellent! , now that the deflecting and stalling is done, back to my original point.

We agree that the gift spoken of in Romans 11 is salvation/eternal life. So why would Paul say the gift of salvation/eternal life is irrevocable?

 

[Yeshua1]

Notice how that post ended??

"Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??"

That "ending" of my post was placed there - assuming you do not actually read the posts - and anticipating the rabbit trail that some might wish to use.



HInt: "Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it.."

"Yes, but NONE of them were agreeing with the SDA as saturday Sabbath"

It is nonsensical - to argue that in response to the 66 books of the Bible -- or to any other topic. As we all know

The fact that SDAs and Baptists agree that the Bible has 66 books "is not changed" by the fact that Baptist reject the Bible statement on the Sabbath being the 7th day of the week, or might wish to "edit" it to be week-day-1

SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God

The fact that the Baptist Confession of Faith AGREES WITH SDAs that God's TEN Commandemnts - all TEN are binding on the saints in both NT and OT -- AND are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant is not "a problem for SDAs"... period.

It is a problem for you.

IF you read the Catholic Catechism - IT TOO - argues for ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments applicable to the saints in both OT and NT.

So also does Pope John Paul II affirms this about "the TEN Commandments" not "the NINE" but the "TEN"

SDAs do not have to "first be Catholic" to find out that the Bible affirms the TEN Commandments as included in the moral law of God.

Irrefutable.



Each time you are confronted by an irrefutable point that unravels your entire line of approach - you simply "repeat yourself"

Which basically asks that I "again" post the "irrefutable point"


SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Bible as 66 books in it.
SDAs do not have to "first be Baptist" to find out that the Ten Commandments are in the moral law of God





Yes.. "The Bible.."

Each time your argument needs to leave the Bible point and start ranting against Ellen White.. you lose the point.



For those unfamiliar with the number TEN - and the fact that FOUR is within that range of 1 to TEN... I have another post.

The 10 Commandments are indeed the revealed moral code of God unto us, but we are saved by Grace alone thru faith alone, and once saved , God expects us to obey Him, after salvation though, not as a means to keep it or merit it!
God wants His people to observe still a day odf rest, either sat or Sun fine to Him!

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Mattnew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

1 Thess 2
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.[

steaver said: ↑
So your standard is a text must say "eternal life" in order for it to be speaking of "eternal life"?

If creative writing could make all those texts above mean "eternal life" -- then Is it your claim that in Romans 11 Paul is telling Christians to "fear" lest they obtain eternal life????

Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

steaver said: ↑
If I recall, you have pointed to Romans 11 many times in the past as one of your reasons for believing a person can lose their salvation/eternal life.

Agreed. I think that is accurate

I like it when I say "A" and you say "you just said A, but I prefer B" -- At least the gap is real. And not games in that scenario.

Excellent! , now that the deflecting and stalling is done,

Nice - I was beginning to wonder when you would be done with that.

back to my original point.

We agree that the gift spoken of in Romans 11 is salvation/eternal life.

No we did not.

So why would Paul say the gift of salvation/eternal life is irrevocable?

Because it is. Read the text that keeps getting posted and deal with the details in the scripture of Romans 11 and Matthew 23 (And Matthew 18)

 

[BobRyan]

The 10 Commandments are indeed the revealed moral code of God unto us, but we are saved by Grace

True -- and the Gospel solution to sin "writes the LAW of God on the heart and mind"

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith admits this.


So then saints do not "take God's name in vain -- all the way to the kingdom" because as Paul notes in 1 Cor 6 "Be not deceived" into thinking that will work.

Christ makes the same point in Matthew 18 for those "fully forgiven all" and in John 15 for 'every branch IN ME" and in Matthew 7 "by their fruits you shall know them".

 

[steaver]

Do you actually have some text that says "broken off from the vine of Christ - for unbelief" is the definition of "eternal life"??

So your standard is a text must say "eternal life" in order for it to be speaking of "eternal life"?

If I recall, you have pointed to Romans 11 many times in the past as one of your reasons for believing a person can lose their salvation/eternal life.

Agreed. I think that is accurate

Excellent! , now that the deflecting and stalling is done, back to my original point.

We agree that the gift spoken of in Romans 11 is salvation/eternal life.

No we did not.

So why would Paul say the gift of salvation/eternal life is irrevocable?

Because it is.

And this is why you have been here for years and have not persuaded even one person to believe or even respect your pov. You are always changing your answers, could be you just make it up as you go along, anything to defend the indoctrinated pov rather than letting the Word shape and correct your beliefs, or you are simply confused and do not realize your own inconsistencies.

One positive thing you have done here on BB Bob (even though inadvertently) you have educated us all on the flawed expository teaching imposed on SDA members. This has been a valuable resource while teaching my students on how to avoid false teachings.

So I clearly showed you your flaw and tried to lead you into truth, but you resist and double speak. For one who keeps touting "details matter" and being "instructive" you certainly do not practice either.

 

[BobRyan]

And this is why you have been here for years and have not persuaded even one person to believe or even respect your pov. .

In fact I have received many affirmations of respect and even adoption of my POV on BB in IM.

But the statement you make above is a great example of you "making stuff up" - engaged in "creative writing" when it is very obvious you have no basis at all for you wild assertions other than your own confidence that whatever you make up must be true.

That is why we have difficulty discussing a point - -because I find it hard at times to get you to "admit to the obvious".

Which usually is fine with me - since the "obvious" is in fact so clear that each time you post "creative writing" and I contrast it to the reality of what the Bible actually says -- it is merely "you" (and possibly 1 or two others) that has to pretend "not to notice" the details in the text. Not the rest of us.

 

[BobRyan]

You are always changing your answers, could be you just make it up as you go along, anything to defend the indoctrinated pov

wrong - that is what you are doing.

What I do is give the answer
Then you pretend not to read the details and spin it
Then I REPOST the same answer again with the "detail" you missed highlighted.

You call that "making stuff up" -- only because of your "practice" of keeping a distance from the "details" in the posts as your way of promoting your argument "despite the reality of the details".

Obvious to the rest of us -- why is this not obvious to you??

 

[BobRyan]

you just make it up as you go along, anything to defend the indoctrinated pov rather than letting the Word shape and correct your beliefs, or you are simply confused and do not realize your own inconsistencies.

A good summary of how I find your posts constantly seeking to ignore almost every detail in scripture on a given point. Romans 11 a great example - you have on tiny half-sentence you want to "snip" out to bend to fit your view - while ignoring every detail in the entire chapter EVEN though I highlight them "for you".

I have a discussion for your tiny-half-snip that you will "Allow" yourself to read in Romans 11.. but I am so stuck on your willingness to avoid entire paragraphs in the chapter that I cannot help reminding you of them.

One positive thing you have done here on BB Bob (even though inadvertently) you have educated us all on the flawed expository teaching imposed on SDA members.

When I point to scripture and the details in scripture you spin it as "flaw".

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Could not ask for a more clear statement and contrast.

This has been a valuable resource while teaching my students on how to avoid false teachings.

So I clearly showed you your flaw and tried to lead you into truth

No .. you did not.

What you did was ignore almost every detail in Romans 11 that does not fit your bias - and point out that you "need" to only talk about one-snip-half-sentence because it lends itself to bend-and-wrench.

, but you resist and double speak. For one who keeps touting "details matter" and being "instructive" you certainly do not practice either.

Were that actually true - you would be in a great position to "point out all the details" in the texts I keep quoting for you from the very chapter YOU bring up. Sadly that is not what you do at all.

Consistently your "solution" is to "ignore every detail" in the actual text - and then "pretend" that only an SDA would "notice the detail" that I keep posting.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Now you insist you are "happy" with that contrast.

And frankly - so am I -- which is why I keep this up. I just can't figure out why you see it as a positive.

The puzzling part -- is that you seem to know "not" to do what you are doing on these threads with me -- when you were debating with Calvinists.. Then it was "you" that was pointing out every detail in the chapter quoted.. how is it you can switch to "avoid the chapter at all costs except for one half-sentence" mode on these threads?

And how is it that you think we cannot all see this??

 

[steaver]

Obvious to the rest of us -- why is this not obvious to you??

Who are the "us" you speak of? SDAs? All the "us" on this board reject your "forgiveness revoked" false teaching. So all you are accomplishing here is your own undoing, peeling back of the SDA onion and revealing your boxed in beliefs which are contrary to Sola Scriptura. You are forced to believe as EGW/SDA tells you to believe, there is no room for SS.

Tell "us" why "we" reject "your" bible study on "forgiveness revoked"? Can you give an answer why ONLY SDA, after centuries of Christian preachers/teachers, now teach/preach "forgiveness revoked"?

 

[BobRyan]

Who are the "us" you speak of? SDAs? All the "us" on this board reject your "forgiveness revoked" false teaching.

Another great example of paying almost no attention at all to the "details" in the post you are responding to. I did not claim "the rest of us" all agree with whatever doctrine I happen to be posting .

What I said was "the rest of us" can see that you are avoiding the details in the post, details in the text... selecting out a tiny half-snip and relying on ignoring every highlighted quote of the text you are supposedly responding to.

That is not a compelling form of response and we both know it .. no way to blame that poor strategy "on Ellen White" or "on SDAs" -- though I am sure you will give it shot. (which by the way - is another "new trick" for you.. you did not in the past resort to quickly to vitriol and acrimony instead of actual substance in your posts. There are only 2 or 3 other posters on this board that I know of doing such things)

So all you are accomplishing here is your own undoing, peeling back of the SDA onion and revealing your boxed in beliefs which are contrary to Sola Scriptura. You are forced to believe as EGW/SDA tells you

Simply going on a creative-writing rant proves nothing. I prefer the actual truth on that detail.
Your method of ignoring the doctrinal statements of a given denomination to then accuse them of whatever comes to your mind -- was already debunked.

Tell "us" why "we" reject "your" bible study on "forgiveness revoked"? Can you give an answer why ONLY SDA, after centuries of Christian preachers/teachers, now teach/preach "forgiveness revoked"?

I take it that this is where you explain that "Methodists do not exist" and that the NT text "does not exist"

Or maybe you would relent and begin to Welcome "Arminian doctrine"

 

[steaver]

Your method of ignoring the doctrinal statements of a given denomination to then accuse them of whatever comes to your mind -- was already debunked.

So you are saying "forgiveness revoked" is not an SDA held belief?

I take it that this is where you explain that "Methodists do not exist" and that the NT text "does not exist"

Give me one example, just one, of any denomination or sect preaching "forgiveness revoked" and we will take it from there.

 

[One Baptism]

The 10 Commandments are indeed the revealed moral code of God unto us, but we are saved by Grace alone thru faith alone, and once saved , God expects us to obey Him...

True. As for the latter matter, keeping/guarding [etc] is not earning, it is retaining that which is given freely.

God wants His people to observe still a day odf rest, either sat or Sun fine to Him!

Scripture [KJB]? Will you quote Romans 14 KJB, and abuse it, since it speaks of what "one man esteemeth" among men? It is dealing with days of fasting/feasting [eating and not eating days], and not to judge one another over which day was better to do those things as the Jews did [Luke 18:12 KJB].

Luke 16:15 KJB - And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.​

God esteems His Holy 7th Day the Sabbath, which is His rest:

Job 23:12 KJB - Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Psalms 119:126 KJB - It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

Psalms 119:127 KJB - Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

Psalms 119:128 KJB - Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.​

As for the 66 books, this too, is found in scripture itself [KJB], as it is in the sanctuary, 6 loaves on the left, 6 loaves on the right, 66 [bread and the word, linked], also see the Candlestick itself, count the flowers, knops, etc, and it comes to 66, for the Word is a Lamp unto my feet. The OT, is also 39, which is the standard of judgment, 40-1 [forty stripes save 1].

 

[BobRyan]

So you are saying "forgiveness revoked" is not an SDA held belief?

I am saying that we like Methodists -- are Arminian, we believe in "free will" even AFTER one gets saved. So by definition as a denomination we fully accept the teaching of Christ in Matthew 18 on "forgiveness revokes" as well as the teaching of Paul in Romans 11 on salvation revoked and also found in Hebrews 6 and in Ezek 18 and in Christ's statement in John 15 and in Paul's teaching in 1Cor 6 etc.

You know "the Bible" -- which as we all know "cannot be blamed on SDAs". just because someone "needs" to ignore the details in those texts - does not mean that they can claim all Methodists are actually "SDAs" since only "SDAs notice those Bible details" .

I take it that this is where you explain that "Methodists do not exist" and that the NT text "does not exist"

Or maybe you would relent and begin to Welcome "Arminian doctrine"

To which inexplicably we get this following response

Give me one example, just one, of any denomination or sect preaching "forgiveness revoked" and we will take it from there.

How is it that the "detail" that I keep mentioning Methodists still does not look to you like "another denomination" besides SDA??

(of course United Methodists, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all allow for the Bible texts on "forgiveness revoked" so maybe 1.3 billion Christians) -- and also "Assemblies of God" , (And I think also the Church of England).

There is a Feb 2015 Article in Christianity Today on Ben Carson and Seventh-day Adventists - that says the SDA denomination is the 5th Largest Christian denomination in the world. So the "Short Answer" to your Question is that the SDA denomination AND all denominations in that list LARGER than the SDA denomination -- accept Matthew 18 doctrine on forgiveness revoked instead of turning a blind eye to it.

(Yet another weak point in the OSAS camp - not sure why you even bring it up)


... but I was hoping you would tolerate having an actual Bible discussion on this doctrine.

-- are you familiar with "free will" and the Arminian teaching on that point??

Are we even getting "close' to the point where you can look at the details in your own Romans 11 chapter that you brought into this???

 

[BobRyan]

So you are saying "forgiveness revoked" is not an SDA held belief?.

We both know that I never say that in my constant affirmations of Christ's Matthew 18 doctrine on forgiveness revoked.

Why even go there?