Featured per the bible, was Ellen White a False prophetess or Not?

Whether or not the time period is in the Tribulation or not doesn't matter.
The fact is that she equates all those that worship on Sunday as having the Mark of the Beast. Even if it is in the Tribulation Period, that interpretation is absurd. To say that those who worship on Sunday have the mark of the beast is just totally absurd.
This is one of those doctrines that have marked the SDA as a cult and have distanced it from mainline evangelical religions. Others do not like to be identified as having the mark of the beast. Remember that not every evangelical Christian is pre-trib. Many, many here are mid-trib and even post-trib. And you are labelling all of them as having the mark of the beast. Very condescending and cultish.

 

"then the line of distinction will be drawn" - sounds like a future event. A prediction about something that will happen in the future. funny thing is - Rev 13 and 14 also read that way - talking about things that will happen in the future.

That was my point. In your statement you claimed that the SDA church taught that this was already the case at some time in the past - but in fact the SDA denomination never claims that.


Andy Stanley, and D.L. Moody both have sermons available online where they explain the serious nature of accepting all ten of the ten commandments. D.L. Moody, R.C. Sproul, The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and C.H. Spurgeon all agree that the Ten Commandments were moral law given in Eden and continue for the saints today.

We happen to agree with them on those key points - the Ten Commandments are the moral law given in Eden, they still apply to the saints today - and it is a serious matter to decide to break them.

How that plays out in the future in terms of Rev 13, and Rev 14 is where we differ.

The simple fact is that we predict that the future events of Rev 13 and 14 will go down a certain way - and apparently you predict that in the future that will not happen.

Time will tell who is correct.

That not-so-subtle detail matters a lot since - obviously - if it is in the past it can be evaluated as to whether it happened or not. On the other hand if it is claimed that it has not yet happened - then you will need to key to the future to disprove it before it does or does not happen. In any case you present your arguments not based on a discussion of Rev 13 and 14 where the subject is actually discussed in the Bible - but rather on the harrumph factor alone. Not as compelling as it could be for the unbiased objective readers.

Not true since if it is in the future tribulation and you don't know about it - it simply is one more thing about the future that you don't know.

As for why it makes sense - well for that an actual Bible study of Rev 13 and 14 would be needed. We cannot settle the details based on the harrumph factor alone.

At least not in this age of enlightenment.

This is one of those doctrines that was already well established when Walter Martin did his own review of the Seventh-day Adventist church and determined that while some doctrines are different (than Baptists) - that is not what determines if a group is a cult or not.

I thought that conclusion on his part was pretty interesting.

in Christ,

Bob

 

None of those men believe in Sabbath-keeping as defined by the SDA's, so your statement is as a tale-bearer.
For example, even Moody used the word Sabbath to refer to Sunday. So did most others of his time. The Sabbath or the Christian Sabbath as it was understood at that time was indeed Sunday, the Christian day of rest. To take these Godly mens' statements out of context like that is wrong. Spurgeon definitely worshiped on Sundays. It is irrelevant what he called it. The day was Sunday, whether or not he calls it the Sabbath. Your testimony concerning these men is wrong.

In essence the time doesn't matter.
It is a matter of name-calling. She calls all those who worship on Sunday followers of the anti-christ, having the mark of the beast.
That is the ungodly spirit that EGW showed in her writings about others. It is the spirit that only the SDA's are right and all others are wrong. The coming of Christ is imminent. He could come at anytime.
As I mentioned, there is not complete agreement, even among Baptists in areas of eschatology. Not everyone is premillennial, or pretribulation. If you consider the position of the preterist (and there are some here), they believe that the Tribulation has already taken place. Christ came back. Accordingly you are calling them followers of Satan, and they must have the mark of the beast. You must look at it from their point of view.
That is "Here is what I believe, so what is EGW, saying about me?"

 

Obviously that idea of "ignore the time as stated in the Bible" since in the bible all the lost end up in the lake of fire and at that point are beyond salvation by the Gospel. We do not say to the lost today "you are beyond the possibility of salvation because one day in the future that will be the case for the lost -- and time does not matter we are just name-calling".

Clearly there is no Bible doctrine that could work under such conditions.

We need to pay attention to the bible details about what has not yet happened -- those details are too important to simply toss them out the window.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Your conclusion is not supported by the facts.

The point of debate on this board is the VERY points where the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and C.H. Spurgeon, and D.L. Moody are in agreement with my claim that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are valid - are the moral law of God, are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant, were given to Adam in Eden, are still binding on the saints today, and that it is a serious matter to break even one of them and so teach others.

In fact these authors such a D.L. Moody, and R.C. Sproul and others specifically deal with the subject of those who go around saying that one or the other commandment does not matter any more.

This in-house-debate inside the Baptist church is precisely where many on this board place themselves in opposition to the historic Baptist Confession of Faith.

Thus it is fine to differ with me - in my affirmation of those specific points - but hardly valid to claim that all the Baptists are joining you in opposing your own Baptist Confession of Faith.

Thus the debate is stuck at the in-house-level never able to get passed that point to the area where I actually do differ with that historic position.

As a matter of fact you may be interested to recall that Moody stated in his sermon that he kept Saturday as Sabbath. And all them admit that the Sabbath given in Eden was the one that Moses kept. I think we both know that. They differ with the Bible only in that they want to get that day changed via tradition. I do not believe their belief in the commandment-edit is correct and that is where I differ with them.

All the sources listed freely admit that Saturday was the day that God selected in the TEN Commandments. None of them were arguing that Adam, Moses, Christ were keeping Sunday and calling it Sabbath. They believe that the "seventh-day" is the Sabbath - Saturday as given in the TEN Commandments - and that Christ was raised from the dead on the "first day" - which is Sunday which by man's tradition the 4th commandment is bent to say "remember the first day to keep it holy" in their thinking.

I think we both know that.

Where I differ with them - and where I would differ with a Baptist on this board should they ever agree to take the position of their own Baptist Confession of Faith (And currently that is a hard thing to find around here) - is in Christ's teaching in Mark 7 where Christ said that the Ten Commandments can not be edited by man-made tradition even if it comes from the highest levels of the church.

Your accusation is wrong - because the point where the Baptists here are in opposition to their own Baptist Confession of Faith is not over Saturday-Sunday it is the ENTIRE claim that the TEN Commandments are the Moral Law of God - that ALL TEN were given in Eden that ALL TEN are to be written on the heart today under the NEW covenant and that it is a serious matter to discount any ONE of the TEN.

We never even get to the subject of "which day is the Sabbath of the 4th commandment" in their objections because they object to the entire statement that would even make the 4th commandment a thing to think about.

In fact many here will probably admit that in their "toss out the 4th commandment" NINE-Commandment solution (if that) - that it is in fact Saturday as given in the TEN commandments and that it cannot be edited! (I suspect you yourself may be in that group. Am I right?)

Thus again - it appears you have an in-house debate issue.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bottom line is that "which day is the seventh-day Sabbath" of the Ten Commandments - and can you get by with editing it - is a debate topic I would love to have on this board - but we cannot get passed the point where the Baptist here are in opposition to their own Baptist Confession of Faith - that upholds all TEN of the TEN commandments so we can have a foundation for having the debate over the right way for the saints to keep commandment #4 - the debate that I would really like to have.

The one where I actually differ with the Baptist Confession of Faith - since obviously I am not a Baptist.

The problem is - I stuck having to defend the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 - because the discussion does not get passed first base - until the Bible readers are at least in agreement with their own Confession of Faith.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The irony in all of this is that if you combine your position that the Commandments of God cannot be edited - with the Baptist Confession of Faith - you end up with MY position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I end up with Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul were so". That same sola-scriptura model is the one I continue with - following the model they give us in the Bible.

Even though they did not have all of the NT.

Even though they themselves were not even Christian - but Jews and Gentiles who had access to scripture.

Even though they had no concept of "scripture is not yet complete".

Even though they were not inclined to simply resort to name-calling as a way to solve doctrinal discussions.

in Christ,

Bob