Cults, Christian Faith and Practice

In the same passage we read:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

It seems that you believe only those Scriptures which are convenient to your cult. Why not believe them all?

 

When my computer crashes, or my website editor crashes, it reboots and a little box says "Recovering Lost Files". I'd like to see that on the BB, especially for this thread. You can imagine why. :laugh: I'm too tired from working in the yard the past couple of days to reconstruct what would have been THE definitive post, the Gold Standard, the piece de resistance!

Later.........

 

Salvation is by faith alone. Let me give you one example how they negate this one biblical truth.
If one neglects the Sabbath Day, and worships on the Sunday they have the mark of the beast and are doomed. To have salvation one must keep the sabbath. That is works, and is a works based salvation. Keeping that in mind, salvation is not by grace through faith.

 

You focused on two main points so far --

#1. you can not be saved if you allow women to speak in church.
#2. you can not be saved if you fail to reject 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14.

Let's start a thread -- totally dedicated to your teaching in this regard to see how long it can hold water sir!

BTW - at this point I feel a certain sense of pride in saying of your tactics so far -- "it is THAT kind of thinking that then tries to call SDAs a cult".

I am sure that you too are very happy with your own tactics here -- so I suppose that on THIS point point we can BOTH agree!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

I can't really answer that for every single person. The leaders who build the doctrine, and thus deceive others with it, knowing what they are doing, yes. Those deceived, and yet think it is really the truth of Jesus, I'm not sure.
I would agree that we should be exercising more care in judging others over the Trinity, because as such a specific formula, it was not fully developed until the 4th century and later. The fathers before then expressed it somewhat differently, and apologists and historians often read the later formula back into their statements, but if their whole views were judged by the Nicene and later standard, they would be considered heretical as well. (like they saw one God the Father, who manifested as Son and Spirit, rather than "three equals"). But most of the "alternatives" to the Trinity offered today (JW's spin on Arianism, Mormon mythology, etc) are clearly heretical to the point of rendering it a false god that cannot save.

No, they invent new interpretations, and then accuse those who don't buy them of slicing and dicing the Bible.

 

hmmm -- good thing we don't let DHK write doctrine for us - aint it!!??:laugh:


When all else fails DHK - "quote yourself" when making up false accusations about other Christians.:tonofbricks:

While it is true that Adventist do NOT DOWNSIZE Christ the Creator's TEN commandments to NINE - as DHK does it is ALSO true that when we observe Christians in violation of The Ten Commandments (for example the RCC on the commandment against idol worship) we have always stated that this alone does not determine that all Catholics can not be saved. Rather "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not to him it is sin". I have consistently maintained on this board that there are many saved saints among our Catholic brethren but I STILL regard idolatry as sin whether it is in the form of worshipping a piece of bread or of praying to images.

The wild an empty-accusation that "this is works" if you ADMIT that breaking the Ten Commandments is sin - does NOT hold up to scripture AND DHK knows it -- but he tries to tell his stories "anyway" hoping that the reader will not look to closely at the details.

The wild and empty-accusation that Adventist doctrine teaches that Christians today who keep Sunday instead of Christ the Creator's Sabbath -- have the mark of the beast is also dead wrong. But I am not sure how much DHK actually knows in that regard since he is pretty consistent about quoting himself to make those false accusations. For all I know he actually believes what he posts. Kinda hard to say with DHK.

I understand that that is the way he has to play the game since the facts just are not with him on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Recall that John's disciples said to Paul "we have not even heard that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit".

How does the statement of John's disciples differ from the JW's sir?

So every time I see YOU with an interpretation of scripture that differs from someone else -- then YOU are declaring yourself to be a member of a cult??

Fascinating!

I did not know you viewed it that way sir!

I learn something every day on this board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BR,

Would you simply say Yes or No about this question:

Do you believe in the Once-For-All redemption by the Grace of God without need of any works, by believing in the Blood of Jesus and His Death at the Cross?

Do you have to work very hard keeping the Law to maintain the Salvation until the death?

What is the requirements for the Salvation? Tell me simply and shortly.

 

By GRACE you are saved through faith and that NOT of works lest anyone should boast.

ALL are sinners ALL are condemned by the Law of God so that no one can recommend themselvs for salvation on any basis at all but the blood of Christ. NO ammount of works EARNS salvation - not by Paul, not by Peter not by you and not by me.

BUT you CAN lose salvation JUST as the Bible says AND on the BASIS that the Bible says you can lose it.

Matt 18 - Forgiveness revoked.
John 15 - those REMOVED from Christ, branches that dry up and are burned to ashes do NOT reattach themselves later to the vine.
Romans 11 like the unbelieving Jews REMOVED from Christ

That is the long and short of it sir.

DHK has argued in effect that if we do not reject the spiritual gifts teaching of 1Cor 12 and 1cor 14 we can not be saved.
He argues in this case that if we do not reject the teaching of Matt 18, and John 15 and Romans 11 regarding the loss of salvation for the saved Christian then we can not be saved.

The bottom line is - I differ with DHK in his reading and rejection of those scriptures.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
Since you missed it earlier, here it is again:
As for John the Baptist or any other Old Testament Saint, James 2:23 says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (NKJV) I believe the same would be true for John the Baptist. Since he did not have the full revelation of God that we have in the Bible, then it was enough that He, too, "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

Now as for the Trinity issue that you are having trouble with, I was saved by faith in the God of the Bible. Now, I will admit that I did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity at salvation. But I did believe that Jesus is God, that God the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit of God is God - not three different Gods, but one God.

Now I'm not saying that someone must confess a complete understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. But they MUST believe that Jesus is God - not another god, or a man who became a god - but God. And that there is no other way to the Father - no other way of Salvation - but by Jesus, God the Son.

OK, go ahead. Fire away!

 

So then you ARE happy with saints SAVED via believe in the ONE UNCHANGING God of the Bible.

One that we today to be the TRIUNE God and they may not have fully understood it as we do BUT THEY worshipped the ONE true God anyway.

I have no problem with it -- I just don't see any way to hold others accountable to it IF we do not hold Bible saints accountable.

Then your view at the start DID NOT match John the baptizer's view OR that if his disciples according to the NT.

I am open to the view that the OT saints would have known that the Messiah was in fact God. But the fact that even Christ's disciples were a little suprised by it - indicates that this knowledge may not have been as common as we would like to think.

Let me be clear. I am not objecting to your doctrinal statements since I too agree to them and this is in fact the teaching of the Adventist church.

What I am trying to get at is the line that we use when judging others that DON't have that understanding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't want to comment the other parts of your post.

But simply I can say your confession is OK for the matter of salvation.

I have several friends of Wesleyan which teaches One can lose the salvation, but surely have the conviction of the salvation.

As for your Bible quotes, I would comment as follows:

Matt 18 : the servant was wrong from the beginning and misunderstood the forgiveness from the beginning: Read verse 26 : I will pay thee all !
Can anyone pay all for their sins? It is a parable and doesn't disprove OSAS! If he believed that his debt was forgiven by Grace, he wouldn't have been so much cruel against his fellow servants !

John 15 : If anyone is born again, he or she abides in Jesus all the time, but any activities departing from the Lord Jesus will be burnt as we read 1 Cor 3:10-15. Read verse 15 - If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
So, what they lose is not the salvation, but the reward for their works.

Again I don't judge the salvation of the people by a few differences in the doctrines, and you may misunderstand many things though you may have the clear and good conviction of Salvation by the Blood of Jesus Christ Once For All. But my conviction is that no one can lose the salvation once the person was accepted by God thru Jesus Christ.

This is how I try to avoid the Friendly Fires which may occur often in the Chrisitan world.

 

Again; they are simply confessing that they do not know everything about God; that they had not heard of it. Everything had not yet been revealed yet anyway.
The JW's claim thir view is the absolute truth, and this AFTER the revelation of statements like John 1:1. They then try to manipulate Greek grammar to change that verse. Is this ANYTHING like what John's disciples said? One is teachable, the other is not, but it strying to teach others something wrong.

It's not a matter of simply "differing from someone else". It depends on what the doctrine is, what the person's alternative to it is, and the difference between confessing ignorance like John's disciples, and deliberately manipulating scripture to teach something it does not really teach. Why can't you see the difference between that and John's disciples?

 

Let me put it another way -- the false dealing with scripture and denying the plain truth of the Bible is EXACTLY what Arminians show Calvinists to be doing and it is EXACTLY what Calvinists claim that Arminians do.

But neither group can really seriously use that reasoning to call the other group "a cult" or to charge "they are not saved".

While I agree with you that the JWs are bending scripture I ALSO say that is true of Calvinists -- and Calvinists say that is true of Arminians.

The Point remains sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree completely that John's disciples while not believing in or teaching the doctrine of the Trinity - were not familiar with it and did not actively reject it. You make a good point there.

But the methods you accuse the JW's of using to REJECT the trinity are the SAME methods Calvinist use to reject the Arminian truth in scripture regarding God Loving the World and sending His son to be "the savior of the WORLD" 1John 4. So it is the SAME methods - but a different doctrine that is attacked using those SAME methods.

Is your argument that their METHODS are the problem or is your argument that they used Calvinist methods on Doctrines that the disciples of John believed and THAT is what makes the JW's "a cult"??

Basically I am looking for some level of objectivity when using that kind of subjective term.

in Christ,

Bob

 

What is it Bob? You deny your own doctrine? Don't believe it? Or ashamed to admit it?

1. http://www.bible.ca/7-mark-beast.htm

Bob I am not making up YOUR doctrine. There is no need for such false accusations.

 

#1. I always look for an ACTUAL quote of it -- but it is usually just you quoting you. Walter Martin did a pretty good job of condemning those tactics though you seem to cling to them "anyway".

#2. As I track your specific false accusations - and show how even your OWN data is not backing you up - you simply abandon one false accusation and flee to another.


I know some groups that are pretty much famous for doing what you are doing here sir.

Hint: Pick SOMETHING that will hold water - and make your stand on THAT -- instead. I am patient ... I can wait for you to go through a litany of non-SDA literature looking for something that is "real".

in Christ,

Bob