How it felt when I changed Day of Worship ....

Is it your argument that SDA doctrine is comprised of everthing Ellen White says???

Is that a "doctrinal statement of the Adventist church" or are you just making stuff up??

Why not GO to the actual published doctrinal statements IF you don't like Adventist DOCTRINE???

OR are you content to CLAIM that PREDICTIONS Ellen White made about the FUTURE can be tested now since we all know that THERE IS NO MORE FUTURE!??

Which illogical wild empty claim are you selecting today??

Just so we are all clear.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree. You have to review the history of the group and if you want to make false accusations about where their doctrine comes from -- then you can.

But think about that for a minute. Let's say for the sake of argument that some doctrine I hold to DOES REQUIRE a few quotes from Ellen White to PROVE it. This is only SO MUCH THE BETTER for you when I go out on a limb and declare "I must prove all my points sola-scriptura or not at all".

In that case the obvious choice for you is to FIND A DOCTRINE that you suppose to be based on "something else" and say "hey Bob how about this doctrine - show me the sola-scriptura proof for this one"..

Basically I would be handing you a GIFT to take the position I have taken IF your accusations actually had substance sir!

Why do you complain that I HAND you the VERY thing you SHOULD be asking me for???

That's my claim!! All 66 books sir!

Time out.

Credit where credit it due.

That is EXACTLY the approach I would take on this board if I were Baptist and I had met BobRyan!!

Nice going!:applause:

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

I do believe the doctrinal statemetns of the Adventist church -- However I have not been posting the link out of respect for this board not wanting to cross any lines here. But since you are asking and since you also function as board moderator - I will post the link.

These are the actual literal 28 statements of faith voted on by the denomination.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

If you prefer a much more wordy-in-depth version where each statement is taken and elaborated upon in a way to give the skeptic plenty of ammo to us against SDAs -- then

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm

(I am trying to oblige to the max possible)

I welcome a thread on any subject of your choosing. I promise to stay focused sir.




I put your obection to the spiritual gift of prophecy on the thread that I started for that purpose (since the OP author of this thread stated that this was not to be a referendum on SDAs).

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ellen G. White wrote "The Great Controversy, and many other works, which the SDA, depend on for their doctrine. She is to the SDA's what the writings of the Charles Taze Russell and the publications of "Watchtower" are to the J.W.'s

Is what a doctrinal statement?
The Baptists believe the Bible alone is their authority.
The Mormons have another authority--The book of Mormon.
The Catholics have another authority--Oral Tradition and the Magesterium
The Jehovah Witnesses have another authority--Watchtower Publications.
The SDA's have another authority--the writings of Ellen G. White.

I don't like SDA doctrine any more than I lke J.W. doctrine. I use the same kind of source material for both.

Many of her predictions were proven false. The Bible states that if one prophecy fails the prophet is a false prophet. She had many prophecies that failed.

Is this innuendo, a false accusation, a personal attack, or what? Either way it is not necessary, as I present nothing that is either wild nor illogical. You can tone down the rhetoric.

 

IF you can show that some doctrinal statment of SDAs NEEDS a quote from the book Great Controversy to either define or sustain it -- then SHOW IT. Continually claiming that you might be able to do it if you actually tried proves nothing except - that you can make empty clams.

Adventists claim that the "Bible and the Bible alone" is the sole authority for all doctrine.

Nothing new there. It is one of the things I actually agree with in the Baptist Faith and Message.

indeed they do. They claim that the "BoM" (Samuel Spalding and edited by Joseph Smith) is even BETTER (more accurate more precise) than scripture and is ANOTHER Bible. They also claim that "Doctrine should be based on the REAL Joseph Smith books" like "Pearl of Great Price" and "Doctrines and Covenants". When I study with Mormons they invariably take me to those books to PROVE and DEFINE their REAL doctrinal positions.

I usually point out to them that doing such a thing is crazy but they seem to like doing it "anyway".

Also true - they CLAIM that tradition and papal infallability are of equal standing with scripture and the the COMBINATION of both gives them a resulting set of doctrines that are pure.

Both of these examples are NOT cases of OUR making wild claims about them -- these are THEIR OWN claims!

Not so. They do not claim that the watch tower should "define doctrine" for us. When I study with these guys they like to have us read the WT - but I can always hold their feet to the fire sola-scriptura and they bind themselves by saying "yes you are right --- the Bible and the bible only" --

They even have to admit that they can not base our study on the NWT Bible of their own choosing.

They are truly doing this fully exposed. It is a shame that more Christians are not equipped to deal with them. They WIN in most cases because they STILL know MORE about the Bible than most Christians!

No more than the NT writers had Ababus or the non-scriptural prophets of 1Cor 14.

NONE of those sources are PROOF for any doctrine!

The fact that you object to the spiritual gifts of 1Cor 12 and 14 does not invalidate them sir.

You and I differ there. I always use PRO-RCC sources when discussing with Catholics and PRO atheist-darwinist sources when debating with Darwinists and PRO-Sunday sources when debating with people who reject Christ the Creator's 4th commandment of scripture and of the New Earth.

There is a thread where you tried to make that claim with her regarding a prediction for Christ coming back in 1844. How is that working for you?

Have you been able to find ANY substance at ALL for that wild claim?

As for your "tone"?? Hmm your tone (WERE I To adopt it) would require that I accuse you of not being saved and your church of being a cult.

I sir - choose not to go there. Never have. Never will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Let’s try to be fair about this and examine your beliefs in some what like manner as i see you treating BR. Let me ask you, are you a Calvinist? Are not your roots as a denominational church firmly rooted in Augustinian Calvinism? Have you ever tried to distinguish your own beliefs from those of your fathers? What if I were to look at, say the burning of Servetus, as part of the corpus of practice of your group today, due to the fact that Baptist indeed have Calvinistic roots. What about Augustine’s diatribe and trumped up charges against Pelagius? Why would I be wrong to conclude that you as well are party to that kind of unfair, biased self-serving actions and even wickedness due to your close doctrinal affinity to Augustine, Calvin and their teachings, or do you deny any affinity to the teachings of these men?

How about infant baptism? If something is not taught or practiced in the Word of God, is it heresy to teach its necessity? If infants are born in sin as Augustine and Calvin taught, and you do not baptize infants, show me from Scripture were their sins are remitted with or without infant baptism. Is it heresy to teach that their sins are remitted when there is not a single passage of Scripture to support that notion? There is not one solitary Scripture that states that infants are born in sin. Is it heresy to teach that they are?

 

HP: I am sure you will enjoy this post then.

First, for you to say that your views are taken only from Scripture is a hoax. You have presuppositions by the truckload to prove your unscriptural dogmas. I will not call you a heretic, nor point my fingers at the SDA’s as a cult, but rather I have repeatedly pointed out your presuppositions that are in error. You define ‘destroy’ as annihilation. That is simply an unfounded presupposition that you must old to support your notion of the annihilation of the wicked. You refuse to fairly examine any texts that have been shown over and over to the contrary. Please do not give the list that song and dance of ‘only Scripture.’ It is Scripture as seen through the eyes of your presuppositions.

The notion that all have been granted the message of salvation is yet another unfounded doctrine, based again on the presupposition that if the gospel is sufficient for all, all must have received it. You falsely assume that if it is for all, all must hear and have the opportunity to respond. That is nothing short of an unfounded presupposition that is not supported be Scripture in the least.

Your denial of a literal eternal hell as the resting place of all the damned is yet another unfounded doctrine. It again is based at least in part on you presupposition that to destroy one in hell is to annihilate them. Your presuppositions have left you outside of the veil of the truth founded in the Word of God, and are the source of error that fuels the derogatory remarks often aimed at you and those you associate with. I believe that DHK and others are indeed correct in assessment of many of your doctrines as being false and unfounded by Scripture, although I still maintain that such a list as this gains nothing by mere accusations of being party to a cult and as such outside of the fellowship of the saints. It should be enough to fairly address the issues and allow room for the Holy Spirit to convict and illuminate as long as the discussion remains civil.

 

Well let's look at that closely. The Bible says "destroy by reducing the to ASHES" in 2Peter 2 and in Matt 10:28 we are told that the DESTROY that is done to BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell is comparable to the KILL that is done to the body in THIS life.

Now let's say for the sake of argument that your view is correct and there is some possible way to squeeze out of that tight spot for YOUR view. EVEN if you COULD manage such an impossible task it woudl be the hieght of incredulety to then SUPPOSE that EVERYONE would take such a non-intiutive backdoor OUT of those texts... And to insist as you appear to do in your post above that we CAN ONLY engage in the fantastic dancing and spinning that it takes to get out of that mess as you have taken -- and to admit to the level of difficulty that you go through in doing it -- is to promote a hoax... seems beyond reason sir -- EVEN if you were right and I was wrong.

How can you possibly miss that??

I provide the summary below.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In these examples the context for "destroy" is that of "reducing to ASHES" and IS in the context of ETERNAL fire of EVERLASTING fire with REAL examples so the conclusion is beyond any shadow of doubt!!.

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ argues that we should not fear first death scenarios – but rather second death. Do now fear what wicked men plan to do regarding the first death – and in fact DO – to the saints. “Kill the body” since in those things they are not able to “kill” the soul.

This is a good place to stop and admit what happens TO THE BODY in this FIRST death case of “kill body but NOT soul”. In this case the body is BOTH killed AND destroyed to the point of reducing to DUST. Christ argues that what is ONLY done to the BODY in the first death – is done to BOTH body AND SOUL in the second death!

Rather fear what God plans to do – and in fact WILL do in the fiery hell to come – to “destroy BOTH body AND soul” IN fiery hell -- doing that which sinful men CAN NOT do to their fellow man. He does not merely say – “fear Him who could choose to destroy BOTH body and soul if he should ever be inclined to do such a thing” – rather He states it in the affirmative saying WHERE and when he will do it “IN fiery hell”

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )


They are “destroyed” – reduced to ashes by that “eternal fire” from God. Just as God said that “BOTH body AND soul are DESTROYED” in fiery hell Matt 10:28 – so we see that the everlasting fire – the eternal fire of Jude “destroyed” the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Don’t miss the fact that eternal fire is explicitly said to have already fallen on earth. We have a clear and literal example of eternal fire in history according to the Word of God.

This is the same “everlasting fire” that we see Christ speaking of in Matt 25


Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


But even if we COULD construe some way out of this iron clad case -- willing to bend scripture to such an extreme in service for those who prefer to think of their loved ones in torment for eternity, STILL it would be hard to ALSO accuse anyone of being dishonest who is simply ACCEPTING these texts for what they so clealry appear to say!.

In fact the MOST we could say in that case is something like "Well yes these texts DO appear to make your case in triplicate - but if you will kindly pay less attention to THESE and more attention to some OTHERS that put an entirely DIFFERENT slant on the subject we would be happier with you"

 

HP: First, the spiritual world is the spiritual world and the physical is the physical world. One is eternal and the other is temporal. Any comparisons between the two are only comparable ‘in a sense.’ For instance, when it speaks of the soul being destroyed, it also speak of the soul as eternally living on in either eternal flames or with the Lord. I believe that the balance to this is that the soul will be destroyed in the following sense. In this world the soul can enjoy and take pleasure in seeing its desires fulfilled. Scripture tells us that the ‘way of the ungodly’ shall perish.
Ps 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the 'way' of the ungodly shall perish.

I take this to mean that the soul in hell will cease to be able to see fulfillment to it’s desires. In this sense the soul will indeed be destroyed. The ability it once could see to fruition will perish, even as the body is destroyed. In that sense the soul will see the occasion of its desires annihilated.

 

I am not arguing that you can not insist on something other than what the text says as you are doing... my main point is that ALLOWING the text ITSELF to speak we see in it NOTHING about "fear him who is able to make BOTH the body AND the soul be LESS FULFILLED in fiery hell the way people in this life make the BODY less fulfilled when they kill you".

Certainly you are free to imagine such a thing -- but MY POINT is that when you find someone who DOES NOT engage in that bit of eisegetical imagining when they come to Matt 10:28 can you REALLY charge them with heresy or dishonesty JUST because they are taking the more OBVIOUS path???

In other words - FORGET changing views -- just look at the facts on the table - why accuse those who TAKE the text for what it says to be the ones that are doctoring the text when in fact it is THEY that are admitting to the Bible fact of "destroy BY reducing them to ASHES" when it comes BIBLE EXAMPLES of eternal fire???

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

Granted that with "some effort" you might find a story to tell so as to get around this -- but why condemn those who do simply accept the texts at face value given that what you really have to do when YOU get to these texts is totally foreign to the texts themselves?? Why not RATHER admit honestly "Well I see why you are taking that path given these texts - they certainly DO point to DESTROY BY REDUCING TO ASHES when it comes to ETERNAL fire examples all sola-scriptura"??

Why charge that taking the more obvious road is " a hoax"???

I "suppose" you can edit "destroy by reducing them to ashes" to something like "Made them less fulfilled by reducing them to ashes" but that takes more imagination eisegesis and work than I am willing to put into any doctrinal position that I hold to --

 

That one is more based on the Romans 10 argument that Paul makes for the univeral reach of the Gospel than "Gospel for all must mean all received".

In fact that point is far less Adventist and far more Arminian in general.

in Christ

Bob

 

Bob, I also apologize for not being clear on what I was meaning.

David

 

Well now - see! One good thing has come of this. GE has finally stepped out of the closet!

I applaud your resolve and decision GE to at least be a bit more consistent and clear in your position!

 

GE it is a pleasure to see that you still "make stuff up" as freely as you did before. Nice to have you at least being consistent sir. No need to mix "fact" into your posts at this point.

Please continue to "spin". But I suppose there COULD come a point where you do post actdual fact with an actual quote or reference that holds water.

I can wait... I am patient.

 

That was a good one sir. I tried to give both the SHORT summary list of doctrines for quick reference and ALSO the long wordy link for those looking for some good ammo to use against SDAs -- you know "ACTUAL quotes" not just "making stuff up post after post after post".

Think about it for a minute! Try it!!

Even in a case like yours where you seek only to attack what God has established -- it can only help your argument to at least be more factual.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: I have been around Arminian churches all my life, have listened to hundreds of sermons and read many doctrinal and other works by Arminians and have never once heard one proclaim or suggest from the pulpit or in writing that 'all have received the gospel,' period. What are you speaking of?