SDA Doctrine RE Satan

Show me where I typed anything about me embracing any other gospel than the Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself. I did not even once ever say anything closely resembling that.

James, Pastor Larry, DHK, myself, and many others have continually refuted the SDA errors biblically, and all SDA doctrine borrowed from bad orthodoxy. Shiloh is commendable in his zeal to expose such error, but there was nothing profitable about the way he did it.

My original intent was to not take any position on thread, but to comment on the fact that the same kind of language and behavior that got Joseph banned was going on rampently with no one being suspended or banned. That is partiality, and is wrong, no matter what issue is being debated. His attitude and his Calvinism were big reasons, probably more the former than the latter. But even so, there are Arminians, (you for example) who stoop to the same level when trying to prove YOUR position and refute the other.

My main question is, if Joseph isn't posting anymore, then why are you and Shiloh still posting? You two, no matter who I do or don't agree with in the matter, are doing EXACTLY what he did, yet are not being banned.

THAT WAS MY ISSUE, your bad doctrine, and my denial of it, were a mere side note, a given that I intended not to bring up. But now I do have to bring it up, because it's really the root of all this anyway.

To put it very plainly, you profess Christ alone, but then you say all who worship God on Sunday will not be saved. You say, grace alone through faith alone, yet the adherence to the Saturday Sabbath, and not the grace of God, determine your eternal state. You profess sola scriptura, but you've become a master of twisting the Scripture to suit your bad doctrine. I'm not even going to start with the historical doctrinal positions and origins of the SDA church, because there's not enough time to thoroughly go through all of it. I ask you this Bob, is it Christ alone that saves, or is it Christ plus the Saturday Sabbath, plus your free will, plus your perseverance, plus whatever that saves? I say Christ and Christ alone saves, and deny any other work or practice that man adds to Him.

The problem is, you say Christ alone justifies, but practically, it's Christ and your actions that justify, whether those actions are keeping the Saturday Sabbath or whatever else, it's Christ PLUS you. I say (and so does the Bible) Christ alone, and I mean Christ alone. I say (and so does the Bible) grace alone through faith alone, and I mean it. Nothing else but that can save. There is no other way, there is nothing you can do, not one thing. If you just don't understand that, then I pray that God might help you to. If you DO understand, and are content to have one foot in orthodoxy and one in another gospel, then that's another matter altogether, and I pray that God will show you the truth. Any gospel other than THE Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot and does not save.

I don't know if this post is going to go over well, frankly, I don't really care. What needs to be said, I can never fully articulate to you, only God can do that and I pray that He might for His Glory and His names sake. My intent is that this, by the grace of God, might turn you from where are are, and by the grace of God and for HIS Glory alone, cause you to embrace that which is true. As much as I can't seem to get along with you, I care what happens to you. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

In all love and humility,
Dustin

 

well I dont really care either so that makes two of us.

 

I ask you , HP, is what I stated true or not? It's a very serious thing. Very many things can be debated, but the truth of the Gospel can't be, because nothing else but that truth is acceptable, else we entertain and believe a lie. I can stand very many things but a different gospel is NOT one of them. DHK doesn't, I don't and you shouldn't either. I won't bend on this one.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: I care.

God’s mercy is indeed the grounds of our salvation, and NOTHING we do is in any way meritorious in achieving salvation, but Scripture informs us that neither will we be saved apart from our agreement and obedience in fulfilling the commands God has stated without which no man can or will be saved.

Repentance and faith are things we are called upon to exercise. God will not do them for us. God calls on men everywhere to repent and believe. It is our personal responsibility to do them, without which no man shall see the Lord. That is NOT a works salvation Dustin, that is biblical salvation. That is not grace plus our works, it is by grace alone, yet not apart from our commanded obedience.

Just as a pardon is granted by the grace of a governor, it will not (or should not and will not if the governor is just) be accomplished apart from repentance on the part of the prisoner. We do NOT merit a pardon on the account of our works, but neither will we be granted a pardon without our repentance and faith. Our repentance and faith are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’ To state that we must repent and believe, and to say that those are actions that we must perform voluntarily without force or coercion in NO way implies salvation by works, or salvation by ‘grace plus something on our part.’

 

HP: If you desire total honesty, I do not believe you stated the truth as it is. I do not agree with BR and some others in all points either, but neither do I agree with your approach to salvation.

Some things are just best unsaid on a debate forum such as this. I may feel that you preach another gospel, but it would not be the time or the place to phrase it in such a way. It would not facilitate kind, reasonable, debate and discussion.

I am not above reproach either. I have said things I should not have, and hope that I am learning as we go along. I have stood to be corrected and have been rightfully so on occasion. I have been wrongly accused by some at other times. None the less, I purpose to listen carefully to all that might criticize my approach or comments to others and will try my best to adjust my comments in a way pleasing to the Lord and in line with an open debate forum such as we are all very blessed to have.

Can we reason together?

 

We agree on most of this HP, but I think that grace leads to faith and repentence. They are things that we do,I agree with that, but they cannot be done without God granting us to do so. Unmerited favor is the basis for salvation, and of course you can't truly repent if you don't have faith that the Gospel is true. Alot of the confusion with irresistable grace is not hard to clear up. God doesn't force you to believe and repent, but you only will to do so, because God has granted you the will to do so. If he didn't then none would will to be reconciled with Him.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

That really is a shame Claudia. The only reason people respond to your posts is because they care. And you don't.

 

thats true, I dont. Dustin said he didnt care either, so you shouldve said the same thing to him as well. I was just saying I dont care either.

But you are just trying to make me look bad because Im an SDA. I cant find a sticking out my tongue smiley icon.

 

Yes, we can, and I want to. Where do you disagree with my approach?

 

God ENABLES all to act for "God DRAWS ALL mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and Calvinists are very clear in John 6 that the DRAWING of God ENABLES the choice that depravity disables.

Further - God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and juddgment John 16:8-12 and so ALL are drawn and ALL are convicted - but not all choose God when enabled to do so for the same reason that not ALL the sinless angels chose to remain faithful..

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe that most people on this board whether Calvinist or Arminian accept the Gospel of Christ "Saved by grace through faith" and that includes you.

But do they also agree that ALL saints were saved under that ONE Gospel systems - including those saints we find listed in Heb 11 who read and followed the SCRIPTURES as we read them today in the OT. Do they allow the Bible texts on perseverance to be fully accepted - or do they water them down, downsizing scripture and turning a blind eye to texts that do not conform to their man-made traditions? To see the answer to that one - we can not simply "assert" to good practice when it comes to scripture - we must SEE it in the details of the discussion.

Some have argued that another system/mechanism/method was used in the OT to achieve salvation.

Perhaps you would like to make your views known here on that point.

I have refuted your dotrinal errors from the Bible but as in the case of many who refuse to hear the clear teaching of scripture when it comes against man made traditions you have been reluctant to embrace the text.

That is an interesting accusation - do you have a quote from me showing it?

My pointing out your bad doctrine for example is merely a statement of fact as I detail those areas of scripture where your view is not supported. I do not mean that as a dismissive term against you personnally - I am just pointing to flaws in your doctrinal positions.

Is this some kind of quote from me??? If so please provide the link.

Is that a quote from me or just an unproven accusation? If you believe it is a quote - please provide the link where I actually say such a thing.

The fact that I can easily point out where scripture debunks man-made traditions that you happen to favor -- is not actually a problem in exegesis for me... it is in fact a problem for you until you can show some kind of Bible proof for your speculations.

Christ -- "By grace are you saved through faith not of works lest anyone should boast" and yet we must not deny the text of vs 10 in Eph 2 while accepting vs 8-9.

Many seek to avoid vs 10 at all costs. SDAs embrace the text by contrast.

I do not hold to the doctrinal errors of 4 point Calvinists if that is what you are asking. Rather I accept the bible truth of 1John 2:3-8 those who CLAIM to know Christ will WALK as Christ walked -- if they do not ... they are lying.

And do you also choose to deny scripture in taking that stand on the things you choose to deny?

The Gospel of Christ requires that we ACCEPT the Word of God. Turning a blind eye to some parts that do not please man made traditions built up around 4-point Calvinism is not really accepting all the Words that Christ has given mankind.

I think that "getting along" is signifcantly improved by providing quotes when you make accusations so that they are shown to have substance. We can all get along and we can all learn as long as we do not take things personnally and we try to stick to the truth - the facts of what has actually been posted or what is actually in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Thanks Dustin. I desire to reason with you and others on this list as well.

You made the following statement:

HP: Fully realizing that there is a Scripture that states that God grants repentance, I do not believe that it can be taken to mean that God must do something to or for us in order to make it possible to repent. I believe that God grants to everyman the abilities to repent as a natural part of being created and classified as a moral agent. When it states that God grants to man repentance, I believe it is communicating the idea that God judges our repentance as to it’s veracity, and either accepts it as true repentance or clearly recognizes it for being false, feigned, and as such not acceptable.

Either God is the author of repentance or man is. If God is the author of repentance, and repentance is required for salvation, if man repents he must do so of necessity. If necessity rules in salvation, in that God determines those that will be saved, you cannot escape the logical conclusion that God of necessity damns those He fails to necessitate repentance in. Even Calvin clearly admitted that double predestination was an inescapable position of Augustinian thought, and accepted it.

I reject double predestination and the idea that God alone determines who will be saved, for God is Just, no respecter of persons. How could He will the salvation of all as Scripture clearly states He does, if in fact it is by His design and acts that only some be given the necessary means by which to repent? How could he punish a man for failure to do that which only God could do? Is God going to punish a man in hell for failing to overcome necessitated fate that God alone controls? Even God cannot overcome necessitated fate. Is man greater than God, and possess abilities beyond that of God Himself?

The clear notion that God punishes man for failure to repent, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is the responsible party in the exercising of repentance.

Repentance is none other than man choosing of his own free will to not only see his sins from God’s perspective, but to show remorse for past actions and purpose in ones heart to have a change of intents. Sure God promises to man the power to first forgive ones sin debt, and also promises to governmentally treat us as if though we have never sinned upon our fulfilling of the commands to repent and to trust in His atoning work by faith, and the power to be the overcomers he desires of us, but that does not equate to necessitating repentance as Calvinistic thought proposes.

If man, such as you and I, could not have helped but sin, and that by necessity, remorse for past sins would be impossible, and true repentance a chimera.

To sum it up, when we start our salvation off by making man a sinner apart from any choice of his own, and progress to a salvation accomplished apart from any and all intents of man, and then assume that because we could not help but be the sinners we are, and could not avoid being granted the salvation we say we know we have received, and progress to believing that we cannot lose it, we have arrived at a position of necessitated fatalism that is contrary to Scripture, reason and experience.

 

If God supernaturally enables all to repent by drawing all - and placing emnity between mankind and Satan's kingdom - and motivates them to repent by convicting the world of sin and righteousness and judgment -- how does that differ materially from what you are proposing above?

Isn't it the same outcome?

 

GE:
Certainly --- and equally horrific.

 

HP: The difference is between having the gospel presented to them and just being convicted of their sin. All moral agents have a conscience, and all, to one degree or another, understand at least elements of moral law, but that is just part of what needs to be understood to find salvation. Salvation is more than conviction of sin, remorse or even repentance.

In order to be saved, one must hear the gospel message presented to them and respond to that message. Although conviction is indeed a drawing by God, it is NOT in and of itself a drawing to salvation per say, but is in fact an essential element of the salvation process. You can have conviction and a drawing of the Holy Spirit, yet not have the least understanding of the completed process necessary to be saved. You must hear the gospel, have the gospel presented to you in order to accept the gospel.

The reason why there is so much despair in the heathen world, is that sure they have enough light to be convicted, but they remain without hope unless the gospel is preached to them.

In summary, being drawn by the Holy Spirit via ones conscience, is NOT synonymous with hearing or being drawn to salvation. All have been drawn by conscience to conviction over sin to some degree, which is in fact a necessary precursor to salvation, but not all have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to the offer of salvation.

 

BR:
"The Gospel of Christ requires that we ACCEPT the Word of God."

GE:
Show me the Calvinist who knows what he's talking that denies this!
Show me the Arminian who knows what he's talking that accepts this!

 

Heavenly Pilgrim:
"... understanding of the completed process necessary to be saved ..."

GE:
What bull!

 

A man is saved by grace alone; a man shall be saved by grace through faith alone. There's nothing else, and nothing more to it.