O/T law & sexual deviants

I cant imagine what would happen if I kept calling the Baptist Church a Cult. I just wouldnt do that.

 

No you couldn't. The Baptist churches believe in Biblical orthodox doctrine which can be traced by Bible-believing churches down throughout the ages to the Apostles. It is orthodox in its belief.
However because of the unorthodox doctrines of the SDA, they are included in almost every major book on cults that I own. They take their side right by the J.W.'s. That is not just opinion; it is fact. It is a religion that cannot trace its roots back to Biblical times or even to the Bible, but rather to a woman--Ellen G. White. Thus the label of a cult.

 

Apparently - You must not be reading much from Walter Martin. But I have to agree with Claudia on this - your use of pejorative terms is not as useful as you have made it appear when trying to sustain your arguments. your insistance that SDAs prove doctrine WITHOUT using Scripture of the OT is far more informative and revealing about the Bible-based stability of your position than your occassional use of a pejorative term against SDAs.

 

So which group would Walter Martin fall under in Jesus' day, those under verse 20 or under verse 21? Because thats about all it amounts to. Somebody's opinion.


John
17: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
19: There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20: And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

21: Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?



Luke 7:
33: For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34: The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!


Mt:10:25: It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?


Lk:6:26: Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.


Frankly I would be worried if there were not the continual harrassment by others of my Church.


Isa:30:
8: Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
9: That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits



Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rv:19:10: And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

#1. God's Word is not heresy -- and that includes Lev 16 where HE authors the text teaching the doctrine on Atonement in the ALL SCRIPTURE that is inspired by God.

#2. Your complaints above are not even remotely in the form of a bible based argument OR exegesis of any kind!!

#3 your complainst above provide NO BASIS AT ALL for your claim that we should be proving doctrine WITHOUT the scripture of the OT -- the "ALL scripture" that is inspired by God.

#4. your grossly conflicted position that we should be trying to provide doctrine WITHOUT using the portion of ALL SCRIPTURE known as the OT - the 39 books comprising MOST of scripture is not helped at all by your wild complaints above which offer no substance at all to indicate that you claims are valid or that ANY exegetical error was contained in anything I have posted.

Basically you are not actually substantively providing an argument for your views other than the extremely absurd argument above of the form "If can ignore Hosea then why not ignore ALL of the OT"

 

The bottom line is that I repeatedly accuse DHK of posting this statement --

The SDA's are so stuck to the law of the OT that given the opportunity they could not prove their doctrine using only the NT.

Yet the gospel is a NT message. The church began at Pentecost. It is called the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a NT message not found in the OT. In Hebrews it tells us ..."having not yet received the promise..." The gospel is a NT message.
Can the SDA's demonstrate their doctrine without the OT. Le't see what happens.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=118

And he repeatedly calls it slander as in this quote.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to SEE if the statement above is in conflict with the "ALL SCRIPTURE is INSPIRED by God and to be used for DOCTRINE" argument of Paul in 2Tim 3:15-17.

This just isn't that hard to get.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is not the substance of my argument, and you know it.
Like the Oneness Pentecostal you have to confine yourself to a book, that you cannot do without in order to "prove" your doctrine. Salvation is not restricted to the Book of Leviticus, but you have thus restricted it. That is a cultish view, and I am not ashamed to say it. Like the Oneness they cannot do without the Book of Acts, you cannot do without the Book of Leviticus. Tell me then: What is the difference? Why should one be considered a cult and not the other when they both have the same characteristics?

The plan of salvation, and in particular the atoning work of Christ is not an OT message. John pointed to Jesus and said:
"Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world."
All the lambs of the OT were simply pictures of Jesus Christ the One great sacrificial lamb that John pointed to. The message is an NT message. It was one that the OT provided clues to. It foreshadowed it. It pictured it. It gave some indications of a suffering saviour to come. But it never spelled out the gospel to the OT saints.
Hindsight is always better than foresight. There is no possible way that the OT saints could know what we know today of the gospel, contrary to what you claim.

 

and this idea you keep putting forth that our church cannot trace its roots to the Bible, its like you think if you just keep on saying that, it makes it true. Well it doesnt. We prove every one of our doctrines from the Bible, you just refuse to listen.

 

DHK uses this to prop up his former post that looks like this

Now suppose we COULD twist the Bible as DHK suggests to use an example in Hos 1 to justify the direction DHK gives above for "prove your doctrine WITHOUT using the 39 books of SCRITPURE found in OT"

Why THEN we could ALSO go to a book like Philemon and observe the instrcution for the slave to return to his master -- not wanting to apply that to everyone in its strictest sense we could THEN follow the DHK-model and say "NOW since you dont apply that across the board - prove all your doctrine without using the 27 books of the NT as well as not using the 39 from the OT"

Basically this DHK-model for when NOT to use scripture when proving doctrine is hopelessly collapsed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong. Again.

Heb 4 says "the Gospel was preached TO US JUST as it was to them" and you simply deny EVEN THIS NT text time after time after time.

How sad.

Indeed and Christ Himself PROVES this pre-cross OT messag IS the evangelistic message of the NT saints --

But Christ said -

O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

But Christ said -
O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

And Peter confirms this in 1Peter 1 speaking of the salvation doctrine SHOWN to the OT prophets for as Paul says "THE GOSPEL was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7

DHK - you are constantly spinning stories instead of going to God's word as you CLAIM that scripture in the OT was insuffient to proclaim the Gospel God SAYS it proclaimed!! As long as you keep doing that - I will be able to keep exposing the flaws in that non-Bible argument via scripture after scripture after scripture that states the facts to the contrary of your wild speculations.

26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures

in Christ,

Bob

 

Now remember when reading this --

26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures

This vs 27 is a Narrative comment being made by LUKE many decades AFTER the cross!

 

This is a very good answer Amy.

 

DHK is right on the money. Bob is stuck in the Kingdom gospel, as are most Christians today. Christ came to minister to Israel, and Israel alone. Due to Israel's rejection of their Messiah, a new era, hidden in the Father, was commissioned and Saul of Tarsus, (known to us as Paul) was appointed to deliver this new "Age of Grace" gospel.

The SDA is one cult that seeks, as do most, to drag us "sinners saved by grace" back into or under the OT law, where we do not belong. But having been enticed there, we are put under some of the OT rules and rituals. The SDA's insist on (I think) no meat and Sat. Sabbath, for instance. The Baptists insist on Baptizing us, whether dunking, sprinkling, squirting, or whatever, paying no mind to the fact that Jesus Christ did away with that ritual on the Cross.

 

Skimming past your nice and sometimes innacurate remarks about SDAs, do you think maybe the Baptists think you ought to be baptised because it says so in so many places of your Bible?

Acts:22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Rom:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

The Acts:22 verse was a requirement under their salvation package, but not ours. The Romans baptism is of the Holy Spirit, under which all of us today are Baptized.
Baptism was intended for Kingdom Gospel, and not for those of us in the age of Grace, other than that Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

This is what I've seen in reading the SDA posts. I never knew what SDA's believed until I started coming to the BB, so I had no preconceived notions.