Cults, Christian Faith and Practice

1. Adventists view all Christians in all denomionation as saints IF they have accepted the Gospel by grace through faith -- not of works. No matter WHAT day they attend church -- and that would include you sir.

2. Adventists have position on ESCATOLOGY based on Rev 14 that predicts that SOME DAY in the FUTURE major world governments will pass civil laws enforcing Sunday and prohibiting Sabbath keeping - eventually doing so on pain of death. (Rev 14 has a focus on the 4th commandment via the first angel's message and Rev 13-14 show a connection between that and the decree regarding buying or selling)

At Worst (from my POV) this is a false prediction and the event never happens.

At BEST (from my POV) people are forewarned and not caught off guard by that future event.

DHK seeks to create a false divisive environment by spinning that fact around to the point that question such as the one you have asked is to be expected and is reasonable.

However you have done the right thing sir. As I have asked, you picked something and said -- "hey what is the real deal here on this doctrine. What do you guys really say about this and why". At the end of the day you may not agree with something that Adventists say and that is to be expected but AT LEAST it should be a REAL differnce not all this fake-fluff stuff that DHK is throwing around.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Some years ago most books on cults (I am not sure if Martin's book was one of them) included the RCC as a cult, or at least as a false world religion. Nowadays you can hardly find a book on cults or world religions that would do so, and yet their religion has not changed. Why? For one, it is not politically correct to point fingers and tell the blunt truth anymore. Secondly, and far more obvious, there is great populace out there that are Roman Catholic. Why would you want to offend them when they could be the ones buying your books. Why lose money by offending people?

During those same years there has been a spirit of ecumenism in the air. The lines of the gospel have been blurred. People have become confused as to what is the gospel and what is not. Is baptism part of salvation? What about tongues? What about "Holy Spirit baptism"? etc. There is a lot of strange doctrine out there. If you watch TBN and programs with Paul and Jan Crouch, or programs such as 100 Huntley Street, you will find ecumenical programs with hosts interviewing everything from Roman Catholic bishops, Billy Graham team members, Salvation Army people, the Third Wave, and a host of other guests of varying other backgrounds. The lines of truth have been blurred. No wonder people are confused.

The fact of the matter is this. Walter Martin, in his earlier book did included the SDA's as a cult. What happened. Did this politically correct and ecumenical momement and possibly an economic factor cause him to change his mind? There was nothing inherent in the SDA movement that had changed between the two editions of the book. In the first he included it; in the second he didn't.

Years ago books included the Catholics; nowadays they don't. Interesting.

 

Wrong. The change came about when Martin FIRST came out with Kingdom of the Cults, classed Adentists as orthodox and then hammered Hoekema for "making stuff up" kinda the way you do sir.

It was not an issue of "offense" AS IF Martin and others "didn't mind offending Mormons but Catholics or SDAs now that is another story". They were willing to go after everybody.

Far worse - what about Calvinism??!!

I have his second edition "Kingdom of the Cults" and it HAS SDAs in the appendix - do you have it? Do you have any actual data supporting what you say these days??

His first edition (1965) appears to have also had this section include and the reason is that prior to that Martin published a book "The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism" 1960 where he gave his views on this topic - consistently remaining with the same view. The REASON is that he did not use the lowbrow tactics of Hoekema but rather Martin went straight to the source and asked for a detailed dialogue. In response to that dialogue in the 1950's the book "Questions on Doctrines" was published by the Adventist Church.

Martin took "official positions" actually taken by the church instead of just "making stuff up as it pleased him" (something other people appear to be married to doing).

In any case - I have always preferred fact and substance to propaganda and slander.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Sabbath commandment uses unique language found nowhere else in scripture outside of a quote of it. In Rev 14:7 Christ our Creator's Sabbath commandment is quoted and the hour of His judgment is announced. (This is found in the first angel's message). AFter that the second Angels gives his message warning about the mark of the beast (seen as being an issue about worship and also seen as being in direct response to the first Angel's messae). In Rev 13 the Mark of the Beast is said to involve restrictions on buying and selling (civil penalties).

As for the LORD's day -- in Mark 2:27-28 we are told by Christ our Creator that The Sabbath is MADE for mankind AND that it is the Lord's day... "The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" and in Isaiah 58 we are told the same thing -- that God's Sabbath is "The Holy Day of the LORD".

No other day is given that title in all of scripture so when John uses that SAME title in Rev 1 -- we have only ONE "sola-scriptura" answer for it.

In Is 66 we are told that in the NEW Heavens and NEW Earth "ALL MANKIND will come before Me to worship... from Sabbath to Sabbath".

The bottom line is that if you regard the TEN commandments the way Paul does in Eph 6:1-4 as authorotative for God's people then it is easy to find a reason to honor Christ the Creator's memorial of HIS Creative work in making life on our planet.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed? When did Eph 6 and Isaiah 66 get "removed from scripture"??

OR are you arguing that I have quoted "some other source"??

OR are you arguing that for me to state what I read in these scriptures is a violation of the doctrine "sola-scriptura"??

Please specify sir.

MORE specifically it "appears" you seek some other interpretation for Isaiah 66 --all well and good. But that is HARDLY a basis for the wild claim that this is NOT an argument being made from scripture!!

When do you actually support that claim??

IF you argue for the Hebrew understanding (context) of the term Sabbath In Isaiah 66 you can not escape Exodus 20:8-11.


Is 66
22 ""For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me,'' declares the LORD, ""So your offspring and your name will endure.
23 ""And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from Sabbath to Sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,'' says the LORD.

IF you argue that you want to ADD to Christ the Creator's Seventh-day weekly sabbath ALL THE OTHER annual holy days of Lev 23 -- then that is your battle to wage -- for I never see the ANNUAL Sabbaths being spoken of in reference to NON-Jews In ISAIAH the way ISAIAH references it for Gentiles and the WEEKLY Sabbath.

IF you want to argue that in the OT any Jew that would come before God "from Sabbath to Sabbath" to worship OR "from New Moon to New Moon" to worship COULD NOT have been working on the non-SABBATH days in between then THAT TOO is your battle to actually PROVE. I doubt you can SHOW ANY support for that interpretation in all of scripture.

But that aside - it is STILL a discussion "sola scriptura" so your claim remains totally without support.

There is EVERYTHING in the OT showing that they came to WORSHIP on THE Sabbath day -- CEASED work ON THAT day and did not START to work - START a normal work-week immediately FOLLOWING that day..

"SIX DAYS YOU SHALL LABOR and do ALL thy work"...

It is ALSO a part of THAT commandment.

You seem to be caught between your story telling and the actual DETAILS of the text in this case.

Be that as it may it is STILL a case of a sola-scriptura discussion.

Surely this blatant point is not lost on the objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I never argue that Sunday is NOT "week-day-one". in all of scripture.

#2. I never argue that if Christians want to "make stuff up" like God sovereignly chose "THE Seventh day as SABBATH" that they could not simply out of man-made-tradition SELECT week-day-one and honor it as the day Christ arose from the grave. No problem with that - but that STILL provides christians with NOTHING to negate God's Word - God's Command regarding HIS CHOICE of the day of worship. At BEST you would be keeping TWO.

We have NO EXAMPLES in ALL of the NT (no not even one) of the "DISCIPLES coming together for WORSHIP week-day-one after week-day-one".

NOT EVEN ONE example!!

How "unlikely is THAT" if it was THE NEW Seventh-day Sabbath for Jewish Christians who STARTED the Christian church!

Think about it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I fully mean "WAS MADE" for it is my position that this WAS TRUE STARTING with BOTH the MAKING of "MANKIND" and the MAKING of the Seventh-day a sanctified and holy day in Gen 1-2:3.

You have nowhere to go on that one HP.

BTW - this REMAINS a sola-scriptura point sir.

Obviously.

True - an honest slip since my position REQUIRES the HISTORIC reference going BACK to the Gen 1-2:3 MAKING of BOTH MANKIND AND the Sabbath.

EVEN the most careless and casual reader INSTANTLY NOTES that Mark 2:27-28 is CHRIST speaking Pre-Cross to HIS OWN HEbrew people about HIS OWN SABBATH that was MADE for mankind.

The notion that THE HEARERS would NOT take this as an AFFIRMATION of HIS OWN Ten Commandment statement is totally without any contextual support or logical merrit at all.

The best you can do with this is to claim something along the lines of "after the cross Mark 2:27-28 become part of the bad bible that we do not read or follow as Chritians".

If you really want to go down that blind alley - I am happy to take the negative of your proposal.

Jesus ARGUMENT in Mark 2 is NOT "I am LORD OF EVERYDAY Like Sabbath so there is nothing special about MY HOLY SABBATH DAY"!!

There is no LOGIC for that either PRE-cross OR post-cross.


RATHER Christ's argument PRE-cross is "I did NOT come to abolish the LAW of God but to fulfill" and HE condemns anyone who teaches others to ignore His Word -- His Law. So in Mark 2 it is a claim that EVEN in the case of this Holy Commandment memorial of creation HE is LORD!! It is the only day given as the LORD's day in all of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The obvious fact in this thread is:
1. There is not a single verse in the NT directed to any Gentile Christian to keep the Sabbath.
2. The Scripture in Genesis 31 specifically states that the Sabbath was to be a sign of the covenant made between Israel and Jehovah, between them and their generations forever. It was never intended for the Gentiles. Only in the Millennial Kingdom would it come into effect (Isaiah 66) which is still future.

 

Sunday -- actually Sunset Saturday evening to Sunset Sunday.

That is fine. The "issue" though is your claim that the arguments found here don't come from scripture -- but that we actually have some other source being used as the authority for whatever side of the issue you consider me to be on.

surely there is at least some level of objectivity that can be achieved to address that tiny point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BR,

I think you didn't answer my questions about Once-For-All, though I remember you properly answered the question about the salvation itself.

The questions were :

1) Do you believe that the Redemption by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ is effective Once For All?

2) What do you think can constitute the Loss of the Salvation? Could you illustrate the cases?

 

Matt 18 shows a loss of salvation for the one who experiences "forgiveness revoked".

In Romans 11 we see the case for the loss of salvation "you stand only by your faith... fear.. for if He did not spare them neither will he spare you".

These are illustrations of 2 cases one given by Christ and one by Paul.

Paul argues in Phil 3 "that I PRESS ON" to obtain that for which his salvaiton was the start --

In 1Cor 9 Paul says "I buffet my body and make it my slave lest after preaching the Gospel to OTHERS I myself will be disqualified".

[1Tim 4
14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
15 Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all.
16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for [b]as you do this you will ensure salvation[/b] both for yourself and for those who hear you.

Paul shows himself doing this very thing “in order that I may lay hold of that for which I was laid hold of by Christ”

2Peter 1:10-11
8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For [b]he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted[/b], having [b]forgotten[/b] his purification from his former sins[/b].
10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as
you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.


The issue for the loss of salvation has to do with Atonement and Free will.

In Lev 16 we SEE how God defines atonement -- which is very different from what man-made-tradition has popularized today. In GOD's model the high priestly work of Christ is PART of the ATONEMENT process. NOT just the ATONING sacrifice.

in 1John 2:2 we are told that "Christ is the ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins" at the cross - that atoning sacrifice was completed

 

I already refuted this in #75. Read here:

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.

It doesn't mean the loss of Eternal Salvation, though we may lose certain privileges.

There are 3 stages of Salvation, Being Born Again( Spirit) - Sanctification which continues until our death ( Soul) - Salvation of our Body ( Resurrection) Phil 3 is talking about the second stage. It doesn't mean that Paul was not saved.

Phil 2:12 Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Were the Overseers and Deacons and Saints of the Philippian church not saved yet? Yes! they were saved already. Paul is talking about the Sanctification. If we are sanctified, then our souls are obeying the Holy Spirit who dwels within us. What about the Robber at the Cross? Did he work out his salvation enough?

If you don't know how to distinguish these, you have a huge problem with the Soteriology.

It doesn't mean that he will go to the hell if he is disqualified, but that he lose the Reward.

Not the salvation itself, but the reward like better resurrection, or the crown of reward.

Not the Salvation itself but the loss of the Reward (e.g. Better Resurrection as Heb 11:35)

Blessings, not the salvation itself.

It seems that you don't believe the Once-For-All effect of the Redemption. Read Heb 10:10 and there are some more verses for the ONCE-FOR-ALL Effect of Redemption by Christ. Otherwise, Jesus has to come again and to suffer from the painful death at the Cross again. If you don't believe in the Once-For All Effect of Redemption by Jesus Christ, you are killing Jesus again.
This is why the belief of Once-For-All effect of Redemption is so important.

Without it, Jesus has to come again to be crucified.

Let's say that you committed an intentional and grievous sin, then you may say that you lost the Salvation, then you may still try to appeal to Jesus after the serious repentance. When you repent and return to God, you will need only the Belief of the Once-For-All Redemption by Jesus.
Then will you say that you will lose the salvation nevertheless?

If your belief is not founded upon the Once-For-All Redemption by Jesus, you may claim that the Salvation may be lost.

Once For All effect of Redemption is so important.

 

Regarding MAtt 18

That "solution" to the problem on behalf of OSAS does not work because the ARGUMENT for why the servant SHOULD have forgiven others is based solidly on the fact that the servant really WAS forgiven to start with...

IF we could spin this around to "Well I never ACTUALLY forgave you of your sins to start with -but I STILL expected you to show gratitude and forgive OTHERS UNLIKE the way I refused to forgive you" - THEN possibly we could salvage OSAS...

But doing so violates then entire CENTRAL argument in the parable and for sure denies the "conclusion" which IS accurate where Christ said "SO SHALL My Father do TO YOU if you do not forgive others" which is the literall APPLICATION. Parable APPLICATION has to be true or it is pointless.

1Cor 3 says NOTHING about any PERSON being burnt.
1Cor 3 says NOTHING about any PERSON departing from Christ.

John 15 holds out NO SALVATION apart from Christ and neither does the Gospel.

To go to those extreme views on behalf of OSAS you have to violate a lot of exegesis.

Wrong. The 1Cor 3 issue is about the TEACHING of an evangelist. The TEACHING is said to be "his work" the "material with which he BUILDS" and the more accurately it is BASED on Christ the FOUNDATION the more pure the doctrine the more pure the material. Paul argues that those who TEACH something that is not 100% correct will have the error inserted inot the building burned away over time. The SPECIFIC case is a comparison between Paul and Apollos.

But NEITHER OF THEM is being charged with "leaving Christ" or "going to purgatory and being burned when they die" or any such thing!

There is no connection between John 15 and 1Cor3 because the subjects are entirely different.

1Cor 3 is not about "awards" or "rewards" it is about the quality of the teaching of the doctrine for an EVANGELIST and how that BUILDING MATERIAL survives or does not survive based on the purity of doctrine. I.e people like Apollo vs those like Paul.

The "atoning sacrifice" was completed at the cross. Read Lev 16 to see the POINT at which the atoning sacrifice is offerred and observe that the process of atonement does not end there.

By ignoring Gods model for atonement in Lev 16 you keep insisting that the lamb must be slain again if the high priest does anything after it is slain. That makes no sense.

If your forgiveness is revoked then 'you don't have it' sir.

If you are "severed from Christ" Gal 5:4 then you are "fallen from grace" and that is not called "redemption" in scripture.

If you are "removed just as the unbelieving Jews" Romans 11 then you do not have any more redemption than they do "remaining".

In each case we find the "sacrifice" is once for all and is completed at the cross but REDEMPTION involves the entire process of atonement it can not stop in vs 11 of Lev 16.

There is no way to take doctrine beyond what the Bible will support.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Mt 18 the servant is not the type of person who is brokenhearted, seeking the forgiveness by grace, but he assured to pay back the money of 10,000 talents, and that's why he received the revokable pardon.

Yes, 1 Cor 3:15 talks about the behavior, not the person himself. The lesson from that passage is that one can still be saved despite burning of all his bnehaviors.

The Branches are burnt by men, not by God, which means that they will suffer difficulties on this world. It doesn't say that the withered branches will go to the hell.

Yes, there is the difference between 1 Cor 3 and JOhn 15, which I explained above. The Blood of Jesus at the Cross covered all the sins throughout the ages, Once For Alll.

No, Sir as I explained.

Galatians were not unsaved, they had a lot of problem with their Legalism, but it doesn't mean that they lost the salvation. They are fallen from the Grace! which means that they cannot enjoy the Grace! like you cannot!

God didn't spare the Jews, then the new branches ( Rm 11:17-23) will be cut off, which doesn't mean that the new branches will go to the hell, but just be punished and die!

If your belief on the Redemption Once-For-All is not complete or flawed, there will be a huge problem with the Salvation.
Once for All Salvation is very important. Otherwise, Jesus has to come everytime when you committed sins, and should die at the Cross again and again, because you don't believe "ONCE FOR ALL"

Galatians were fallen from the Grace because they were stuck with the legalism as many SDA's are. If you claim Galatians went to the hell, then you are insisting that SDA's are going to the hell too! sorry to say that.

This is why I asked you the question, what can constitute the Loss of the Salvation?

1) Too much grievous sins like 1 Cor 5? he was saved! though he lost many things due to the fornication.

2) Denial of Jesus Christ? Then such person was not saved from the beginning!

Redemption Once For All is very important, Sir. So, please think about it again.