Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" declares Adventist are not a Cult and destroys Hoekema's book

[BobRyan]

thatbrian said: ↑
Anthony Hoekema said that the SDA is a cult and belongs grouped with JW's, Mormons, and Christian Science. I think he makes a valid argument.

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.

thatbrian said: ↑
The SDA isn't a Christian denomination, firstly. Some might argue that it's a sect, at best, but I again would agree with Hoekema's assessment of it.
.

So then "reading" is not your strong suit??

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.

Includeing:
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]

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]

Including this on the thread because Walter Martin's approach is to discuss the Bible basis for accepting doctrine and to argue that while he does not agree with every single doctrine of all Christian denominations - he can still determine if the stated doctrine of the group - is within the bounds of Christianity.

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

Well Bob, I believe JWs, Mormons, Baptist, SDAs will all tell you they accept the Bible's answers

They may - but in real life how good is their "bible avoidance" ?? is it as good as yours when your point has run aground?

I say your belief is wrong according to the Bible. You say your belief is right according to the Bible. So what is your suggestion for us all to come to an agreement on the answer the Bible gives?

You claim to be someone who has at least some value for "sola scriptura testing" -- at least on other threads you do that.

In the dark ages - all through the protestant reformation your argument above was precisely the argument made against the way that "sola scriptura" was being promoted as a judge as a test as a rule for testing established church doctrine.

Are you opposing the "sola scriptura" method OR are you now proposing to allow yourself to actually "practice" the sola scriptura testing model in this example of Isaiah 66 and John 9???

 

[One Baptism]

Repeat since this is a new thread:

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

 

[One Baptism]

Repeat continued ...

"... continued ...

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.

The event in Hebrews 9:12, took place in AD 31, at Christ's Ascension from the Mount of Olives, which parallels Psalms 24:1-10, 133:1-3; Revelation 5:5,6, etc. We do however teach, that the text of Daniel 7:13, and the events therein, took place in AD 1844, based upon the ending of the 2,300 prophecy of Daniel 8:13,14,26, 9:24-27, 11:31-33,40, 12:7-13; Revelation 9:13-15; 10:1-11, etc.

The Great Controversy 1888 & 1911, page 421 -

"... Thither the faith of Christ's disciples followed him as he ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, “which hope we have,” said Paul, “as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever.” “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 6:19, 20; 9:12.]

For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed, there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of his solemn work,—to cleanse the sanctuary. ..." - The Great Controversy, Page 421 -- Ellen G. White Writings​

The Desire of Ages, page 166 -

"... The sacrificial service that had pointed to Christ passed away; but the eyes of men were turned to the true sacrifice for the sins of the world. The earthly priesthood ceased; but we look to Jesus, the minister of the new covenant, and “to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” “The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: ... but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, ... by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 12:24; 9:8-12. ..." - The Desire of Ages, Page 166 -- Ellen G. White Writings​

Walter Martin [and assoc., including John Ankerberg] was/and still are dead wrong, on both counts, and even the (so-called) LXX in Exodus 26:33 disagrees with him [them].

Exodus 26:33 KJB - And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

Exodus 26:33 (so-called) LXX - καὶ θήσεις τὸ καταπέτασμα ἐπὶ τοὺς στύλους καὶ εἰσοίσεις ἐκεῖ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου· καὶ διοριεῖ τὸ καταπέτασμα ὑμῖν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων.
​

The "holy place" [τοῦ ἁγίου] is separate [by a second "vail" [καταπέτασμα]] from and not the same as the "most holy" [τοῦ ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων]." - The Truth About Dr. Walter Martin and The Seventh-Day Adventist Church

 

[BobRyan]

Martin never claimed to be SDA or to believe all SDA doctrine nor did he claim that only churches/denominations that believed just as he believed could be considered Christians. In fact he hammered Hoekema for basically taking the position "if you are not as Calvinist as I am - then you are not a Christian". That was one of his primary exposed-flaws in Hoekema's book.

Thus it is not entirely necessary to "argue with Martin" over each SDA doctrine that he might wish to tweak so as to bring it over to his POV.

 

[BobRyan]

Repeat since this is a new thread:

"... 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].

BTW - thanks for posting that.

Also notice the NASB for Hebrews 9:3

 

[steaver]

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.​

And there it is again. Statements and publications are the mask. What really matters is what do the members believe. For what they believe is what they have been taught by the SDA church leaders.

We see here on this board two SDA members who believe eating pork would damn them to hell. That is not salvation ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[steaver]

Are you opposing the "sola scriptura" method OR are you now proposing to allow yourself to actually "practice" the sola scriptura testing model in this example of Isaiah 66 and John 9???

Sadly, you are stuck. You cannot practice sola scriptura. Once a person buys into another person outside of the bible being an Apostle or a Prophet, sola scriptura ceases as your final authority. There is absolutely ZERO chance you could ponder or reason with a sola scriptura argument. You MUST view the interpretations and applications of Scripture as EGW says you must.

JWs must believe as the Watch Tower tells them they must believe. Mormons must believe as Joe Smith and all the declared Mormon prophets afterwards tells them they must believe. SDAs must believe as EGW tells them they must believe. Catholics must believe as the Catechism tells them they must believe. All of these CANNOT follow sola scriptura, there is no place for this for sola scriptura must allow for the chance of error in belief.

Contrary to these religions, Baptist have NO PERSON outside of the Apostles and Prophets of the Holy Bible which they must believe. My denomination has NO PERSON outside of the Apostles and Prophets of the Holy Bible which we must believe. We practice sola scriptura, SDAs cannot.

You could prove me wrong on this. All you have to do is tell me which doctrines did EGW promote which you found her to be in error after testing them with sola scriptura?

 

[BobRyan]

And there it is again. Statements and publications are the mask.

Sadly they are the irrefutable details you can not "spin"

What really matters is what do the members believe.

[/quote]

I keep saying that " I BELIEVE" the Bible should be read - and believed and you keep saying "that makes my point!"

So "odd" that you find a way to "spin" all of this into a much-imagined negative.

We see here on this board two SDA members who believe eating pork...

On the contrary - we see to SDA members who do not mention pork at all on this thread (though you wish to "spin" it to "pork").

And as you were told dozens of times before .. we see affirmation of John 9:41 and Isaiah 66 by these same members on other threads.. at the exact point that you wanted to declare that "reading the Bible" and "believinig it" would be a "bad thing" if it was not in harmony with your "preferences".

Didn't we have enough of that sort of "teaching" in the dark ages Steaver?

Wouldn't you like to join the side of ?sola scriptura testing" where the Bible is not at war with faith in Christ?

These little bible-avoidance games you seem to enjoy are not helping you make a strong case for your preferences.

 

[BobRyan]

Sadly, you are stuck. You cannot practice sola scriptura.

Sadly for you -- I am in the one repeatedly quoting the Bible and you are the one admitting that when I quote the Bible and say I believe the Bible - that this "makes your case" because you have re-imagined that reading and believing the Bible is 'a bad thing' whenever your own preferences don't fit what you find in the text.

How sad Steaver.

Once a person buys into another person outside of the bible being an Apostle or a Prophet, sola scriptura ceases as your final authority. There is absolutely ZERO chance you could ponder or reason with a sola scriptura argument.

Steaver you are extending your Bible-denying doctrine to brand new areas. You have now much-imagined for us that all the NT saints could not be "sola scriptura" Christians if they accepted Agabus, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters and all those in the church of Corinth who claimed to have "a revelation" as prophets because they already had "scripture" -- what is mere in the false teaching you have written via creative writing - you make even the Apostles of the NT to be a cause for NT saints to deny "sola scirptura" testing since they themselves were prophets outside of what the NT saints had in their hands as "scripture".

How sad Steaver that your "spin game" is now getting you to utter teaching that condemns the NT saints -- just because 1 Cor 12 "existed" and just because the saints in 1 Corinth 14 "existed"!!

Come back to the Bible Steaver. come back to reason and to sound doctrine. I have not seen you go this far off the narrow path of pure doctrine in a long time.

 

[BobRyan]

You could prove me wrong on this. All you have to do is tell me which doctrines did EGW promote which you found her to be in error after testing them with sola scriptura?

This substitution of darkness placed in for light is extreme Steaver. Do we ever argue that only if Agabus is found to be a teacher of false doctrine in the NT are the NT saints allowed to be "sola scriptura" testing saints?

Do we ever argue that "only if John is found to be a teacher of false doctrine" can NT saints be using "sola scriptura"?

what utter nonsense.

what "spin"

What "gaming"

There are actual doctrinal differences that we have that could be discussed - but this extreme creative writing, spin, and false teaching that you are inventing on the spot - would not pass muster even among Baptist theologians like Spurgeon. And we both know it.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - I think Martin new that SDAs do not declare the "Bible to be in error in Isaiah 66" and still found the Adventist church to not be a cult.

Here then Steaver is a detail your spin doctoring does not appear to " survive "

 

[steaver]

I am in the one repeatedly quoting the Bible and you are the one admitting that when I quote the Bible and say I believe the Bible.......

It's the same mask, saying you believe the bible means nothing. JWs say they believe the bible, Mormons say they believe the bible. It's ALL about how one interprets, rightly divides what the bible says. You believe only EGW's interpretations of what the bible says and you must believe what she says the Bible says. This is very evident by your misapplication of Is 66, believing that it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell. Do Baptist believe Is 66 is about Christians eating pork being damned to hell? Do Catholics believe it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell? Is there ANY other Christian denomination besides SDAs who believe it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell?

...you have re-imagined that reading and believing the Bible is 'a bad thing' whenever your own preferences don't fit what you find in the text.

Sola Scriptura is allowing the scriptures to interpret the scriptures. When you read the Scriptures with a bias from an outside source (i.e. believing God raised up another Prophet or Apostle in addition to the scriptures, and that you must accept what they say the scripture says) you cannot possibly rightly divide the word of Truth sola scriptura. So the only one having their own preferences is EGW and accordingly everyone who has bought into the lie that she is a prophet of God. You have boxed yourself in. You cannot possibly study the scripture without EGW bias.

...you make even the Apostles of the NT to be a cause for NT saints to deny "sola scirptura" testing since they themselves were prophets outside of what the NT saints had in their hands as "scripture".

Well Bob, we are far removed from what has been accepted and confirmed by Christians as to who's writings have been penned by the Holy Spirit Himself. And then we have latter day "Prophets and Apostles" come along some 1800 years afterwards and claim God has revealed to them the "true" bible interpretations and applications, telling us that God has allowed you to believe pork eating is ok for the past 1800 years, but NOW God is giving us new "Light" and if you eat pork you will be damned! (The "Light" clause is a nice touch, it has worked on millions, and growing I believe you tout )

Come back to the Bible Steaver. come back to reason and to sound doctrine.

Isn't this ironic? Read what you wrote and meditate on it awhile......... Your telling me to come back to the bible? When did you leave the bible Bob and place your future and faith in EGW? Think about that..........After 1800 years, God raised up a new prophet to tell His children, "Hey, they have had it all wrong", but He is going to excuse them of course, because He did not give them the "Light" on what salvation really is. Figured after 1800 years it was time to get them to stop the pork eating or else.

And this actually makes a lot of sense to you Bob?

 

[Yeshua1]

BTW - I think Martin new that SDAs do not declare the "Bible to be in error in Isaiah 66" and still found the Adventist church to not be a cult.

Here then Steaver is a detail your spin doctoring does not appear to " survive "

The Sda still has that heresy of the Investigative Judgement, still accept EW as being an inspired prophetess, still have binding obligations regarding foods and the Sabbath...
STILL a cult!
Not per Walter Martin, but per the scriptures themselves!

 

[BobRyan]

It's the same mask, saying you believe the bible means nothing.

I agree that for "some folks" that concept means nothing.

But that is why I like posting actual scripture so people can "demonstrate" their "need" to avoid the details in the actual text and then go around "blaming the text on others" as if in their mind that sort of "gaming" is a compelling form of discussion.

Everyone has free will - let them demonstrate their embrace or rejection of "Bible details" as they will.

 

[BobRyan]

The Sda still has that heresy of the Investigative Judgement, !

Pontifical ruling on your part?
creative writing?
wishful thinking?

In the mean time - we all have Daniel 7 and Romans 2 "in our actual Bibles" instead of having to rely on this pontifical rulings from you... as we call can see.

 

[BobRyan]

It's the same mask, saying you believe the bible means nothing. JWs say they believe the bible, Mormons say they believe the bible. It's ALL about how one interprets, rightly divides what the bible says. You believe only EGW's interpretations of what the bible says and you must believe what she says the Bible says. This is very evident by your misapplication of Is 66, believing that it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell. Do Baptist believe Is 66 is about Christians eating pork being damned to hell? Do Catholics believe it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell? Is there ANY other Christian denomination besides SDAs who believe it is about Christians eating pork and being damned to hell?



Sola Scriptura is allowing the scriptures to interpret the scriptures. When you read the Scriptures with a bias from an outside source (i.e. believing God raised up another Prophet or Apostle in addition to the scriptures, and that you must accept what they say the scripture says) you cannot possibly rightly divide the word of Truth sola scriptura. So the only one having their own preferences is EGW and accordingly everyone who has bought into the lie that she is a prophet of God. You have boxed yourself in. You cannot possibly study the scripture without EGW bias.



Well Bob, we are far removed from what has been accepted and confirmed by Christians as to who's writings have been penned by the Holy Spirit Himself. And then we have latter day "Prophets and Apostles" come along some 1800 years afterwards and claim God has revealed to them the "true" bible interpretations and applications, telling us that God has allowed you to believe pork eating is ok for the past 1800 years, but NOW God is giving us new "Light" and if you eat pork you will be damned! (The "Light" clause is a nice touch, it has worked on millions, and growing I believe you tout )



Isn't this ironic? Read what you wrote and meditate on it awhile......... Your telling me to come back to the bible? When did you leave the bible Bob and place your future and faith in EGW? Think about that..........After 1800 years, God raised up a new prophet to tell His children, "Hey, they have had it all wrong", but He is going to excuse them of course, because He did not give them the "Light" on what salvation really is. Figured after 1800 years it was time to get them to stop the pork eating or else.

And this actually makes a lot of sense to you Bob?

After that extensive "quoting you" and empty false accusation... is this the point where you would be willing to "look" at scripture or do you need to engage in more "creative writing" first?

Will you be troubled if a quote texts that refute your wild speculation in that post?

Have you imagined to yourself that Walter Martin thought the SDAs are "ignoring all the texts you need to ignore" and it is only because of this that he said they are not a cult? How exactly does that story telling go??

 

[BobRyan]

When you read the Scriptures with a bias from an outside source (i.e. believing God raised up another Prophet or Apostle in addition to the scriptures

Is this "you" condemning every saint in the NT who accepted that 1Cor 14 statement about church members having a revelation from God??

Are you "reading" the Bible or just engaged in creative writing???