The Ten Commandments & The Sabbath, the Seal of God
ahoe...@my-deja.com
and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will,
and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding
upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God's
covenant with his people and the standard in God's judgement. Throught
the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of
need for a Savior. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its
fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience developes
Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an
evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men.
The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform
lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness (Ex.20:1-17; Ps.
40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 8:8-10;
John 16:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14).
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the
seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of
Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the
observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and
ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord
of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God
and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of
our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our
future in God's kigdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His
eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this
holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration
of God's creative and redemptive acts (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke
4:16; Isa. 56: 5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31: 13-17; Eze.
20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32).
I accept the Ten commandments as a transcript of the character of God
and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment,
which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ernli...@my-deja.com
ahoe...@my-deja.com wrote:
SNIPPED a lot......
> I accept the Ten commandments as a transcript of the character of God
> and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
> indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment,
> which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
> Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
>
Your long posting is like one of about 10 million I've read here, and I
have no problem with its essense. However, I sense a brutal agenda on
your part, perhaps that you are offended by other Christians who
celebrate the "seventh day" on a Sunday. If so, just say as much.
Then we can discuss what really irks you -- as in, since Monday is
considered by the world in general to be the start of the "work" week
while Sunday is the seventh day thereafter, and considered the day of
rest.
EW
gai-jin-san
be of the world or of God not both. Choose you this day whom will serve but
as for me and my house... I think you get the idea.
<ernli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bjbd3$br3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
pto...@attglobal.net
those who do not keep it in fact reject God and will be lost?
Just a clarifying question.
ahoessli wrote:
I accept the Ten commandments as a transcript of the character of God
and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment,
which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
ahoe...@my-deja.com
the Sabbath that I sent. Some people have some misconceptions about the
doctrines of the Adventist faith and wonder where we get our beliefs
and where in the Bible we solidify our doctrine. I supplied the
listeners with both, along with a personal testimony on my behalf and
an offer for others to make the same kind of profession.
The doctrine that I wrote was quoted directly from the doctrines of the
Adventist faith. It was not made up. I left quoted the doctrine on the
Ten Commandments and the doctrine on the Sabbath along with Bible
references behind each to show where in the Bible we found our official
beliefs.
Now concerning my feelings about the day others worship on, I don't
judge anyone in regard to those things. God is the only one who
determines a persons salvation. I do know that what I have presented is
in fact the plain truth taught by the Bible. "Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy...the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God".
This command remains consistant through all of the Bible, even the new
testament. because of enforced laws in the dark ages and traditions
developed from those laws even in a free country, Christians now
worship on Sunday. And because of pride and lack of a willingness to
accept the truth and correct their wrong doing, they have twisted the
scriptures to mean what they want to justify sin.
Like I said before, I cannot judge. I only tell the truth and the Holy
Spirit convicts the heart. I don't believe God will judge a person
according to what a man doesn't know and don't do. I think a man will
be judged according to the knowledge of the truth that they obtain and
what they do with it. If they learn something and discard it by
hardening their heart, thus not applying it to their own life, theirs
is the greater condemnation. "If you love me, keep my commandments".
Christ is the way to eternal life, but an expression of that love
toward Christ is obedience to whatever God commands, including and most
especially the 10 commandments which contain the command concerning the
Sabbath (Ex.20:8-11).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <8bjbd3$br3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ernli...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8bheft$e8o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ahoe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> SNIPPED a lot......
>
> > I accept the Ten commandments as a transcript of the character of
God
> > and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
> > indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth
commandment,
> > which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
> > Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
> >
>
> Your long posting is like one of about 10 million I've read here, and
I
> have no problem with its essense. However, I sense a brutal agenda on
> your part, perhaps that you are offended by other Christians who
> celebrate the "seventh day" on a Sunday. If so, just say as much.
> Then we can discuss what really irks you -- as in, since Monday is
> considered by the world in general to be the start of the "work" week
> while Sunday is the seventh day thereafter, and considered the day of
> rest.
>
> EW
>
Dolf Boek
capacity do you think that you are capable of speaking for Adventists
individually and institutionally?
- dolf boek
alt.religion.christian.adventist
<ahoe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bk22i$35n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Just to let you know, I was critisizing no one with the post concerning the
Sabbath that I sent. Some people have some misconceptions about the
doctrines of the Adventist faith and wonder where we get our beliefs and
where in the Bible we solidify our doctrine. I supplied the listeners with
both, along with a personal testimony on my behalf and an offer for others
to make the same kind of profession.
[snipped for context]
doctor...@my-deja.com
"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> My concern though is whether you are specifically an Adventist and in
what
> capacity do you think that you are capable of speaking for Adventists
> individually and institutionally?
>
> - dolf boek
> alt.religion.christian.adventist
Since I personaly know this individual. I was present at his baptism,
nominated him for several local church offices and look forward to
listening to a sermon from him in the near future. So in answer to
your question, "Yes", he is a Seventh-day Adventist. To answer the
other part of your question, he can speak on the subject of Adventist
beliefs with the same "authority" as any other Seventh-day Adventist
church member can.
Now by what authority to YOU question him?
DW4
doctor...@my-deja.com
"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> The user has not answered the question for themselves and thus far
have
> simply proffered quoted material on what Adventist's believe. How
brotherly
> of you that you were able to be 'present at his baptism, nominated
him for
> several local church offices and look forward to listening to a
sermon from
> <doctor...@my-deja.com>
You have stated what you question, yet you did not answer the question
I posed to you. By what authority do you question him?
You wish him to provide you with an answer by what authority he speaks,
I simply want to know by what authority you question? Are you
questioning as a Seventh-day Adventist member or a Seventh-day
Adventist official?
Dolf Boek
simply proffered quoted material on what Adventist's believe. How brotherly
of you that you were able to be 'present at his baptism, nominated him for
several local church offices and look forward to listening to a sermon from
him in the near future.' [Internet personality known as 'DW4'
<doctor...@my-deja.com>
However ahoe...@yahoo.com claims a special affinity on the fundamental
question of Christian unity and asserts as propaganda in a thread titled
'The Unity of the Body of Christ', that they:
"...have been doing a study on the doctrines of the Adventist faith to
better impress my mind with the teachings that I know to be true. One of the
official doctrines is titled 'The Unity of the Body of Christ'
... [partial snip]
The reason that I felt that I should share this with you is to help to
refresh your minds. How many of us practice this really? And though we may
practice it, it should be our goal to lead the example to others. We are all
one in Christ. All churches, besides Adventists, are part of the body of
Christ, too. We all have one thing in common. Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
the Son of man. He is the head and the chief cornerstone of the body of
Christ. Yes, it is true that we are Adventist. Yes, it is true that we are
the remnant Church of Bible prophecy. But it is our duty as individuals and
as a body to proclaim the gospel of remission and salvation from sins
through the shed blood of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. And while we as
Adventists share the body and blood of Christ with others in unity with the
body of Christ, we should proclaim the special message that God has given to
the remnant to proclaim to the world." [Personality known as
'ahoe...@yahoo.com' <ahoe...@yahoo.com>' on
alt.religion.christian.adventist 21 March 2000]
Consequently I both commended and sought clarification from
ahoe...@yahoo.com on their considerations of Adventists as the 'remnant
Church of Bible prophecy'. And hence their primary role in effecting
religious unity as they 'share the body and blood of Christ with others in
unity with the body of Christ, we should proclaim the special message that
God has given to the remnant to proclaim to the world.'
I said, "Well spoken, but what of its substance concerning homogeneity?
I've heard that the following: http://www.premier1.net/~fpsda/leo.htm is a
very good site as an example of a Seventh-day Adventist allegorical
(exoteric) depiction of the Hebraic/Christian wisdom/prophetic canonical
model. ie. A Skin Job."
The term homogeneity according to the Macquarie Australian English
dictionary means: composition from like parts; congruity of constitution.
Homogeneous: adj. 1. composed of parts all of the same kind; not
heterogeneous. 2. Of the same kind or nature; essentially alike. 3. Maths.
a) having a common property. b) denoting a sum of terms all of the same
degree. [ML homogeneus, from Gk homogenes of the same kind.
The homogeneity within the body of Christ occurs because the different parts
possess the same mind of Christ. The substance of this differs from the
contrivance of institutional religion known as superficiality -
[http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/superficial.html] which is
born out of dynamic similarity -
[http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/dynamics.html].
Fundamental to understanding ahoe...@yahoo.com's perspective on Christian
unity in which they see Adventists as an active part, is the consideration
as to whether they are in reality a Seventh-day Adventist and in what
capacity do that they think that they are capable of speaking for Adventists
individually and institutionally?
- dolf boek
alt.religion.christian.adventist
<doctor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Since I personaly know this individual. I was present at his baptism,
nominated him for several local church offices and look forward to listening
ahoe...@my-deja.com
intentions were not to confuse, for my God is not the author of
confusion. First off, the post that I gave concerning the unity of the
Body of Christ wasn't necessarily directed toward those of the
Adventist faith, though I have seen a large number of Adventists become
wavering in their faith and not upholding the doctrines of the Bible as
taught by the Seventh-day Adventist faith. I wasn't even attempting to
rebuke those who are outside of the adventist faith. I see the
fellowship inside and outside of the Adventist faith as not holding to
the unity of the brethren as they should. I see people disputing and
arguing about this thing or that thing. I was simply attempting to draw
the line of fire off each other and back to the Word of God and to the
doctrines that were the foundation from the beginning. Again I say, the
God that I know, the God of the Bible, is not the author of confusion.
He is perfect and orderly in all his ways. I was trying to trigger a
sense of self-evaluation. We all need to look at ourselves at times and
see if we are where we need to be in Christ. I see too much arguing and
disputing among the brethren. What kind of example is that to the
unbelieving world? Do you think that the glory of God is being shined
through us through our arguing and bickering? I don't think so. That's
all my intentions were.
As for your other question regarding your doubts as to whether I am an
adventist speaking on the behalf of adventists or individuality...I am
a Seventh-day Adventist and I speak on behalf of the Lord God Almighty
and on behalf of any who choose righteousness to be their way of life
through the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I was speaking to
everyone who is humble and willing to listen and to open their heart.
Anyway, my intent while in here is not to stir up arguement or dispute,
but to discuss and reason. I am a fellow brethren as you are with the
same purpose that the Body of Christ should have in taking the message
to individuals who are without Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <XKvD4.42128$oD3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Stephen Grove
Have a very nice day, Steve...
ahoe...@my-deja.com
keeping of the commandments (namely the Sabbath command), will by any
means save anybody. The 10 commandments show us where we fall short and
lead us to realize our need for a Savior. Keeping the commandments will
not save you. Only faith in Jesus saves. However, Jesus commanded, "If
you love me, you will keep my commandments." The fruit of our salvation
and the expression of our love to Christ is in keeping his
commandments, including the 4th commandment. If we fail to do those
things that he has commanded us, though we profess to be Christians,
our salvation can be demanded from us unless we otherwise repent and
correct. God does not judge a man according as he don't know, either.
If you don't know, God takes that into account. What God reveals to
you, you will be held accountable for. If God reveals something to us
and we refuse to listen and instead harden our hearts and go about our
own ways as they were done before, you will be held accountable, for
the Spirit of God is slowly grieved away. If you no longer are able to
hear the Spirit of God because you tell Him no over and over, how will
you be directed by a voice that you cannot hear. And God's spirit is
the one whom God has given us in this life to direct us in His ways as
a seal for salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <38dd5...@news1.prserv.net>,
> I accept the Ten commandments as a transcript of the character of God
> and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
> indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the fourth commandment,
> which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
> Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
>
DaMao
Christ is the end of the law- Romans 10:4
Righteousness apart from the law-Romans 3:21
No longer under the supervision of the law-Gal 3:25 (with faith, no longer
under the law!)
If led by the Spirit, not under the law-Gal 5:18
Christ abolishes the law if we accept Him.-Ephesians 2:15
Discharged from the law by Faith Romans 7:5
"Christ is the END OF THE LAW, that everyone who has faith may be
justified" Romans 10:44
ahoe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments
doctor...@my-deja.com
of Theology Andrews University and Author of From Sabbath To Sunday and
other books.
"Romans 6:14: "Not Under Law but Under Grace"
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Prof. of Theology, Andrews University
A Personal Note: Romans 6:14 is perhaps the most frequently quoted
Pauline text to prove that Christians have been released from the
observance of the Law. The text reads: "For sin will have no dominion
over you, since you are not under Law but under grace." The common
interpretation of this text is that Christians are no longer under the
Mosaic Law as a rule of conduct because their moral values derive from
the principle of love revealed by Christ.
I have examined this and other four major texts in chapter 5 of
my latest book THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE which came off the press few
weeks ago. This research has gained national attention as it was
referred to in numerous newspapers across the country, including
Washington Post. Here I am posting a brief excerpt. Feel free to
contact me for the whole chapter entitled "Paul and the Law." I would
be glad to email it to you.
The popular interpretation of Romans 6:14 represents a serious
misreading of the passage because there is nothing in the immediate
context to suggest that Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law. In the
immediate and larger context of the whole chapter, Paul contrasts the
dominion of sin with the power of Christ's grace. The antithesis
indicates that "under Law" simply means that Christians are no
longer "under the dominion of sin" and, consequently, "under the
condemnation of the Law" because the grace of Christ has liberated them
from both of them.
To interpret the phrase "under Law" to mean "under the economy
of the Mosaic Law" would imply that believers who were under the Mosaic
economy were not the recipients of grace. Such an idea is altogether
absurd. Furthermore, as John Murray perceptively observes, "Relief from
the Mosaic Law as an economy does not of itself place persons in the
category of being under grace."20
"The 'dominion of Law' from which believers have
been 'released' is forthrightly explained by Paul to be the condition
of being 'in sinful nature,' being 'controlled' by 'sinful
passions . . . so that we bore fruit for death'
(Rom 7:1-6). From this spiritual bondage and impotence, the marvellous
grace of God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has
set believers free; but it has not set them free to sin against God's
moral principles."21
Since "under grace" means under God's undeserved favor, the
contrast with "under Law" presupposes the idea of being under God's
disfavor or condemnation pronounced by the Law. Thus, in Romans 6:14
Paul teaches that believers should not be controlled by sin (cf. Rom
6:1-2, 6, 11-13) because God's grace has liberated them from the
dominion of sin and the condemnation of the Law.
In this passage, as John Murray brings out, "there is an
absolute antithesis between the potency and provision of the Law and
the potency and provision of grace. Grace is the sovereign will and
power of God coming to expression for the deliverance of men from the
servitude of sin. Because this is so, to be 'under grace' is the
guarantee that sin will not exercise the dominion-'sin will not lord it
over you, for ye are not under Law but under grace.'"22
Not Under the Condemnation of the Law. Paul expresses the same
thought in Romans 7 where he says: "Brethren, you have died to the Law
through the body of Christ . . . . Now we are discharged from the Law,
dead to that which held us captive" (Rom 7:4, 6). The meaning here is
that through Christ's death, Christians have been discharged from the
condemnation of the Law and from all the legalistic misunderstanding
and misuse of the Law. To put it differently, Christians have died to
the Law and have been discharged from it insofar as it condemns them
and holds them in bondage as a result of its unlawful, legalistic use.
But they are still "under the Law" insofar as the Law reveals to them
the moral principles by which to live.
This interpretation is supported by the immediate context where
Paul affirms that "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and
just and good" (Rom 7:12). Again he says: "We know that the Law is
spiritual" (Rom 7:14). And again, "So then, I of myself serve the Law
of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the Law of sin" (Rom
7:25). These statements clearly indicate that for Paul the Law is and
remains the Law of God, which reveals the moral standard of Christian
conduct.
Surprisingly, even Rudolf Bultmann, known for his radical
rejection of the cardinal doctrines of the New Testament, reaches the
same conclusion. "Though the Christian in a certain sense is no
longer 'under Law' (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14), that does not mean that the
demands of the Law are no longer valid for him; for the agape [love]
demanded of him is nothing else than the fulfillment of the Law (Rom
13:8-10; Gal 5:14)."23 The point is well made, because we find that in
Romans 13:8-13 Paul explains how love fulfills the Law by citing four
specific commandments and by including "any other commandment."
In the light of these considerations, we conclude that far from
dismissing the authority of the Law, Paul teaches that believers should
not transgress the Law simply because God's grace has "set [them] free
from sin" (Rom 6:18). It is only the sinful mind that "does not submit
to God's Law" (Rom 8:7). But Christians have the mind of the Spirit who
enables them to fulfill "the just requirements of the Law" (Rom 8:4).
Thus, Christians are no longer "under the Law," in the sense that
God's grace has released them from the dominion of sin and the
condemnation of the Law, but they are still "under Law" in the sense
that they are bound to govern their lives by its moral principles.
Thanks to God's grace, believers have "become obedient from the
heart to the standard of teachings" (Rom 6:17) and moral principles
contained in God's Law."
DW4
In article <38E077C8...@yahoo.com>,
pto...@attglobal.net
before giving it up, but it would be for its Author and not for the day. I
can't begin to tell you how much God has blessed me through this Holy day.
I do feel that every man must be convinced in his own mind and that many
will pass on to Glory who have never kept it. As the time of the end comes
closer those will be fewer and fewer because God is bringing His Holy law
more and more to the forefront. I believe the time will come when to reject
His law will be to reject His Grace.
Sincerely,
Paul
Dolf Boek
- dolf boek
alt.religion.christian.adventist
DaMao
I strongly suggest this book for you.
The Sabbath and The Lord's Day
By H. M. Riggle,
1928
The
Sabbath and the Lord's Day
doctor...@my-deja.com
jtre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> --------------2A820ADC93BAC5B36C942BB5
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Doc WHO..
>
> I strongly suggest this book for you.
> The Sabbath and The Lord's Day
>
> By H. M. Riggle,
> 1928
>
> The Sabbath and the Lord's Day
>
I suggest you read Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book
"From Sabbath To Sunday"
1975
as well as his book "Divine Rest for Human Restlessness"
1988
Both are available through Amazon.com or through Dr. B's website.
DW4
doctor...@my-deja.com
to invest in and that is "The Sabbath in the New Testiment answers to
questions"
DW4
DaMao
Here Doc,
To read
an in-depth study of the Ten Commandments,
While your at it..how about this one..
White-Washed,
Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White.
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
Sorry I forgot one other book that Dr. Bacchiocchi wrote that you need
to invest in and that is "The Sabbath in the New Testiment answers to
questions"
DW4
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ahoe...@my-deja.com
so let me clarify one thing before I break anything down for you. I
have repeatedly, as others have, tried to tell you this the whole time.
You have a misconception about the Adventist faith. This is a mutual
faith in which the adventists share with the Body of Christ.
I believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of
three co-eternal Persons.
I accept the death of Jesus Christ on Cavalry as the atoning sacrifice
for my sins and believe that through faith in His shed blood I am saved
from sin and it's penalty.
I renounce the world and its sinful ways, and have accepted Jesus
Christ as my personal Savior believing that God, for Christ's sake, has
forgiven my sins and given me a new heart.
I accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, my Intercessor in the
heavenly sanctuary, and accept His promise of transforming grace and
power to live a loving, Christ-centered life in my home and before the
world.
------
Damao, I want you to know that I don't believe that any man can be
saved by keeping the Law. Salvation ONLY comes by faith in the atoning
sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of cavalry. Only faith in Jesus saves
man. I don't believe that God has given us the right to do anything
that we want to because of salvation and grace. Do you really think
that because I am a Christian now I am allowed to murder man? What
about steal from him? What about bowing down to idols or taking the
name of the Lord God in vain? I don't think that God would appreciate
that. I am trying to glorify God. If what I do is wrong and the world
sees it, what different is God to the unbelieving world than the
unbelieving world. You listed some passages that the devil has twisted
up in your mind to give you a license to sin. I will explain as you
have asked the passages you have mentioned, but I'm warning you. It
seems to me that you have already hardened your heart to the Lord. A
true Christ-like character is open and willing to learn, but you are
already hard in the heart and unwilling to reason. Here is an
explaination of those passages.
You mentioned Romans 10:4...did you read 10:5 too? Paul was
illustrating that righteousness doesn't come from the Law. Those who do
the commandments to obtain righteousness must live by the commandments.
We all know that righteousness only comes by faith. We do not keep the
commandments for righteousness. We do not keep the commandments for our
own merits toward favor with God or to obtain salvation. Salvation is a
gift, but the fruitage of salvation is keeping the commandments. Read
Romans 10:4 again. It says that Christ is the end of the Law FOR
RIGHTEOUSNESS. We need Christ for righteousness. We don't need the Law
for rightousness...we need Christ.
Romans 3:21--Again this passage illustrates the same point as I
mentioned above. We don't obtain righteousness by keeping the Law or
through the Law. We keep the commandments because we love Jesus not to
obtain favor with God. We don't continue doing what Christ died for
after receiving grace in His sight and salvation from those things that
Christ died for. Christ died to save us from sin and the penalty for
sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law. If Christ saved us from
transgressing the Law, the do we continue to commit adultery or steal
or kill or bow down to idols? I think not.
Galatians 3:25--The Law was a school master to bring us to Christ. If
we transgress the law then we are sinning. If we look at the Law and
see that we have transgressed the law, we see that we have sinned and
deserve death. Our penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). We have to
pay the price for our own sins without a savior. So we conclude that in
order to be saved from the penalty and the transgression, we need a
Savior. All because the Law showed us we fall short of the glory of
God. Noone, without Christ, can keep the Law perfectly without sin. So
if we fall short, we need a savior to save us from sin and death. The
Law taught us that we cannot keep it without sinning and thus brought
us to our savior who is Jesus Christ.
Galatians 5:18--If we are born of the Spirit then we are lead by the
Spirit. In order to be born of the Spirit we must be born again. We are
born again by a saving relationship with the risen Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. If you look at the context, you can see that it is
contrasting the difference between trying to obtain righteousness by
the natural man who has a natural tendency to sin who would easily
transgress the law...and obtaining righteousness by Christ through the
Spirit who can enable us to live a righteous life. A person is not
under the Law to obtain righteousness. A person gets righteousness as a
gift of God through his grace through the Spirit who is sent when we
accept Jesus Christ into our life. If we are lead by the Spirit, then
righteousness comes by Christ. The Law is not needed to give us
righteousness.
Ephesians 2:15--If you read the passage, it is referring to the
handwritten law of ordinences that was established by Moses, not to be
mistaken with the Law of God that was written by His own finger on
tablets of stone. Let me show you what ordinences...do you remember the
ark of the covenant in the old testament? In Exodus 25:21, Moses was
commanded to put the 10 commandments inside the ark of the covenant and
the mercy seat was to be placed over the ark to cover it. The container
that kept the commandments was so holy that anyone who touched the
container would be killed on the spot. And if you rememebr correctly,
the mercy seat was a model of the throne room in heaven. God's glory in
the middle and the covering cheribs on the sides. The ten commandments
were under the mercy seat in the ark as a symbol. It symbolized that
the ten commandments were a foundation for God's government in heaven.
Now the handwritten law of moses which were also called ordinences was
set on the side of the ark (Deut. 31:26). Those writings of moses were
not holy and written by the finger of God. They were done away with at
the cross, but the Holy Law of God that was the foundation of God's
government remained established. To do away with the Law, you are doing
away with the chacter of God and the foundation of His government.
Romans 7:5--When we were in the flesh, our sinful nature without the
Spirit and not born again, cannot obtain favor with God through keeping
the Law. If we have the Spirit, we obtain righteousness through Christ,
and not of the Law. We still keep the Law after we have been saved as
fruitage of your salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tmac...@my-deja.com
jtre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> --------------A290D5DF2E2E11C731A54822
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> [The EYE of Adventism]
>
> Here Doc,
>
> To read an in-depth study of the Ten Commandments,
>
> While your at it..how about this one..
>
> White-Washed, Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White.
>
How about uncovering the myths of the Jesuit techniques of DaMao and
every other antichrist person who tells us first that we have to have
respectful discussion and cannot lord our opinions above anyone else's!
Ellen White is dead now, but how can any of you be made to be ashamed by
people who historically, as well as today and forever, never had any?
DaMao is quite proud of his inconsistencies in spreading the myth that
he respects differing opinions. Why then is he telling us he is
"spreading Christ" which made him what he is, by pointing out his
imagined inconsistencies of another?
Salvation is through Christ--NOT through railing against DaMao's
girlfriend and his only reward in eternity: a view of Ellen White with
her star-loaded crown.
Ted
tmac...@my-deja.com
There is yet a strange aura about people who would look at sabbatarians
and conclude that they are either hostile, or are working to take away
the rights of Christians to keep Sunday. Such can never see the fact
that there are organizations today established to force the United
States to keep Sunday, even if you are an atheist. The Lord Day
Alliance is just one of them. Such people cannot find a single
organization established to force anyone to keep Saturday, yet such
people can never acquire any shame.
The next reasonable thing that such people typically do, is to go on
forums and tell the world they are here to preach Christ, and then make
a barrage of posts to uncover what they claim are the deceptions and
inconsistencies of their salvation: Ellen White.
Just a short time more, and the Lord will deal with the evil deceivers
who will get worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
tmac...@my-deja.com
jtre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I wonder how you and other Sabbatarians deal with such verses as...
>
> Christ is the end of the law- Romans 10:4
>
> Righteousness apart from the law-Romans 3:21
>
> No longer under the supervision of the law-Gal 3:25 (with faith, no
longer
> under the law!)
>
> If led by the Spirit, not under the law-Gal 5:18
>
> Christ abolishes the law if we accept Him.-Ephesians 2:15
>
> Discharged from the law by Faith Romans 7:5
>
> "Christ is the END OF THE LAW, that everyone who has faith may be
> justified" Romans 10:44
>
Why lie to us DaMao? Can't you forego your training just for once?
You mean to tell us you never studied our Revelation seminars nor our
doctrines to be even posting your constant focus on this forum? You
don't know how Adventists have dealt with all those scriptures coming
from Paul which sound like they contradict the words of Christ? Why did
you lie? You did not witness Net NY 99 nor any other program of
Adventists? If you know so much more about Ellen White than Christ to
make even just about all your posts centered upon attacking her, how is
it that you state that you "wonder" how the Adventist Church or
Sabbatarians deal with the scriptures you mentioned?
Check out our website just in case you are unsure of the truth through
the messages of the servants of the Antichrist:
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
DaMao
not against Christ, so your statement(s)
as usual are UNTRUE, and you are even violate one of the BIG TEN, Do not
bear false witness against another. As you have in your statement(s) about
me, to me, they are all false accusations.
I have asked you to LEAVE MY NAME OUT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS. Thank you.
Have you heard the song, "Hey you, I'm into Jesus"? That is one of my
fav's...so again, I tell you, do not associate me with
your words, "Jesuits" or "anti-Christ" ever again.
Do you really equate evangelism with "Jesuit technic's"?
Your false accusations, against me, are uncalled for, and I would repent of
your folly quickly if I was you.
My "girlfriend" became my wife, many years ago..so what's your beef about
her anyways? Do you always bring innocent people into your false
accusations?
Speaking of imagined incosistancy's..how are your's doing lately? Mine? I
have NONE!
And how do you know Ellen has or will have a star-loaded crown Anyways?
I guess it's because you ahve imaginged incosistany's...
Again, I have nothing against anyone, I have against a false ANTI-CHRIST
SYSTEM that the majority here adhere to.
It's your doctrines, that has built a wall between us., Remember, the
commandments? Love the Lord, Love your fellow man kind! I love the Lord, and
I love you in the Lord..
So please, I ask you this..
please don't slam me for your belief. I didn't force you into this cult your
in, but perhaps with the Holy Spirit of God, maybe by chance, He will lead
you to better waters. Unless you have something pleasant to say to me, we
have no further words to say to each other. My final word to you, is BELIEVE
IN THE NAME OF JESUS!
God Bless you, if he hasn't already!
Standing on Christ, and not on Moses!
In His Name,
Jtree
tmac...@my-deja.com wrote:
DaMao
I have read and uderstand one of the commandments, "Thou shalt not lie"....
And if I do, God forgives. But since I am a New Testiment Christian, I do not lie, so your statement, is false, bearing false witness against your fellow man (me).
Who is "us"? I have been to a Revelation seminar, I have heard also a 16 tape set back in the 80's of the same subject.
Please don't tell me what I have done, and what I haven't done in Adventism.
I do know how Adventist deal with Scripture, they twist it to thier
liking.
Speaking of attacking, when I post about a false prophet, you seem to get upset, and defend her falseness. With false accusations, against me, or any other who is against false doctrine, by defending your false views.
tmac...@my-deja.com wrote:
In article <38E077C8...@yahoo.com>,
jtre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I wonder how you and other Sabbatarians deal with such verses as...
>
> Christ is the end of the law- Romans 10:4
>
> Righteousness apart from the law-Romans 3:21
>
> No longer under the supervision of the law-Gal 3:25 (with faith, no
longer
> under the law!)
>
> If led by the Spirit, not under the law-Gal 5:18
>
> Christ abolishes the law if we accept Him.-Ephesians 2:15
>
> Discharged from the law by Faith Romans 7:5
>
> "Christ is the END OF THE LAW, that everyone who has faith may be
> justified" Romans 10:44
>Why lie to us DaMao? Can't you forego your training just for once?
You mean to tell us you never studied our Revelation seminars nor our
doctrines to be even posting your constant focus on this forum? You
don't know how Adventists have dealt with all those scriptures coming
from Paul which sound like they contradict the words of Christ? Why did
you lie? You did not witness Net NY 99 nor any other program of
Adventists? If you know so much more about Ellen White than Christ to
make even just about all your posts centered upon attacking her, how is
it that you state that you "wonder" how the Adventist Church or
Sabbatarians deal with the scriptures you mentioned?
You sure know how to even twist words of people, I said, "I wonder
how you (singular, and not PLURAL) and other Sabbatarians deal with
such verses as.."
I don't see the word "Adventist church" in my writing to the person
that your responding with the message here? do you?
Those were added words by YOU!
Check out our website just in case you are unsure of the truth through
the messages of the servants of the Antichrist:
Nice Link here...
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo.html
DaMao
tmac...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38E30E7D...@yahoo.com>,
> jtre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > --------------A290D5DF2E2E11C731A54822
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > [Image]
> >
> > [The EYE of Adventism]
> >
> > Here Doc,
> >
> > To read an in-depth study of the Ten Commandments,
> >
> > While your at it..how about this one..
> >
> > White-Washed, Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White.
> >
How about you just go to the links listed..if you don't agree with them.
That is fine, if you agree with them, then that is finer. No one is twisting
your arm Tmac.
But again, please, I ask you kindly, leave MY NAME out of your post, if you
have nothing good to say about me, then don't say anything at all.
>
> How about uncovering the myths of the Jesuit techniques of DaMao and
> every other antichrist person who tells us first that we have to have
> respectful discussion and cannot lord our opinions above anyone else's!
>
> Ellen White is dead now, but how can any of you be made to be ashamed by
> people who historically, as well as today and forever, never had any?
> DaMao is quite proud of his inconsistencies in spreading the myth that
> he respects differing opinions. Why then is he telling us he is
> "spreading Christ" which made him what he is, by pointing out his
> imagined inconsistencies of another?
>
> Salvation is through Christ--NOT through railing against DaMao's
> girlfriend and his only reward in eternity: a view of Ellen White with
> her star-loaded crown.
>
> Ted
>
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------0F78EEAD9230B5CFF09578EA
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I do know how Adventist deal with Scripture, they twist it to thier
liking.
You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles
broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source for
their theology for sunday worship?
You told me in another thread that you had studied with the adventist
longer than I had after I told you I searched and studied for a long
while before becoming an Adventist. You stated that you studied with
Adventist pastors for two years while you wife went to a Korean
Adventist church "(If you call what they do worship)" that quote was
from your post. Well you were wrong about me. I studied with the
Adventist for over 20 years along with other denoiminations. I
attended a Catholic University for 2 years taking their mandatory
philosophy and theology classes, I studied with the Mormons several
times a week for about 3 years, the Church of Christ, United Church of
Christ, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and numerous others
including some who called themselves "new testament christians". But
kept returning to the Adventists. Of all of the denominations I
stuided, I found the Adventist are the only group who do not base their
theology on one or two lines of scripture. The are the only ones who
take bible references in context not only to other bible scripture but
to the times they were written as well. They were the only ones who
proved their day of worship based upon bibe text and not some twisted
logic.
If anyone twists scripture to meet their needs it is those who attempt
to justify their sunday worship for which there is NO biblical
support. There is no commandment stated or implied to change the day
of worship to sunday. Not to mention other doctrines.
If anyone here has not completely studied the Adventist beliefs and
their interpretation of the scriptures it is you. It also appears to
me based on your posts you went into the study with the Adventist with
preconceived notions and maybe even an agenda of your own instead of an
honest desire for knowledge. You apparently did not listen or study
with an open heart or mind. It appears you gained enough knowledge to
twist and turn what adventist believe into something they do not
believe.
Your understanding of why Adventist worship on the Sabbath is one of
those that you twist and turn to meet your needs placing just enough
Adventist belief in your statement to make it appear to be true. No
matter how many Adventist tell you that we do not believe that our
salvation is based soley upon worshiping on the Sabbath, that we do it
out of love for our Savior and the only thing that saves any of is us
our belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior you insist on spreading
falsehoods about our belifes.
Well, Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve. He sprinkled
just enough truth to make the lie seem reasonable and true when it was
still a lie. Am I saying you are Satan? No my friend I am not, I am
saying you are misguided in your attacks on the Adventists and their
beliefs. Your statements have some truth in them but just enough to
make them reasonable and decieve those who may be less grounded in the
Faith. It will be unfortunate if some believe your half truths and are
mislead, not only for them but for you as well.
I am sure I'll get a few flames from you on this and I fully expect
them but I don't know how else to tell you that you are wrong about us
and our beliefs.
Have a blessed Sabbath.
DW4
DaMao
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38E5342D...@yahoo.com>,
> DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --------------0F78EEAD9230B5CFF09578EA
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> >
> > I do know how Adventist deal with Scripture, they twist it to thier
> liking.
>
> You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles
> broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source for
> their theology for sunday worship?
Facts of history record
90AD "...every Lord's day, hold your solemn
assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who
fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the
resurrection..." (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 449)
110AD "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in
the observance of the Lord's Day" (IGNATIUS Epistle
to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1,
pg. 62-63.)
They Do so to the Lord.
>
>
>
> You told me in another thread that you had studied with the adventist
> longer than I had after I told you I searched and studied for a long
> while before becoming an Adventist. You stated that you studied with
> Adventist pastors for two years while you wife went to a Korean
> Adventist church "(If you call what they do worship)" that quote was
> from your post. Well you were wrong about me. I studied with the
> Adventist for over 20 years along with other denoiminations. I
> attended a Catholic University for 2 years taking their mandatory
> philosophy and theology classes, I studied with the Mormons several
> times a week for about 3 years, the Church of Christ, United Church of
> Christ, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and numerous others
> including some who called themselves "new testament christians". But
> kept returning to the Adventists. Of all of the denominations I
> stuided, I found the Adventist are the only group who do not base their
> theology on one or two lines of scripture. The are the only ones who
> take bible references in context not only to other bible scripture but
> to the times they were written as well. They were the only ones who
> proved their day of worship based upon bibe text and not some twisted
> logic.
>
Adventism is a cultic teaching, with very little truth in it.
>
> If anyone twists scripture to meet their needs it is those who attempt
> to justify their sunday worship for which there is NO biblical
> support. There is no commandment stated or implied to change the day
> of worship to sunday. Not to mention other doctrines.
>
> If anyone here has not completely studied the Adventist beliefs and
> their interpretation of the scriptures it is you. It also appears to
> me based on your posts you went into the study with the Adventist with
> preconceived notions and maybe even an agenda of your own instead of an
> honest desire for knowledge. You apparently did not listen or study
> with an open heart or mind. It appears you gained enough knowledge to
> twist and turn what adventist believe into something they do not
> believe.
Preconcieved? Not at all, just by studying with them, what they said, and
what the Bible says, contradicted each other. So I go with the Bible, and
toss out what people say.
>
>
> Your understanding of why Adventist worship on the Sabbath is one of
> those that you twist and turn to meet your needs placing just enough
> Adventist belief in your statement to make it appear to be true. No
> matter how many Adventist tell you that we do not believe that our
> salvation is based soley upon worshiping on the Sabbath, that we do it
> out of love for our Savior and the only thing that saves any of is us
> our belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior you insist on spreading
> falsehoods about our belifes.
>
If you love love the Lord, and call yourself a Christian, I'll see ya on
Resurrection Day celebration.
>
> Well, Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve. He sprinkled
> just enough truth to make the lie seem reasonable and true when it was
> still a lie. Am I saying you are Satan? No my friend I am not, I am
> saying you are misguided in your attacks on the Adventists and their
> beliefs. Your statements have some truth in them but just enough to
> make them reasonable and decieve those who may be less grounded in the
> Faith. It will be unfortunate if some believe your half truths and are
> mislead, not only for them but for you as well.
Sounds like Mindless Advenstism...
There is no truth in half truth so one must give FULL TRUTH.
>
>
> I am sure I'll get a few flames from you on this and I fully expect
> them but I don't know how else to tell you that you are wrong about us
> and our beliefs.
No flame dude....I just hope you can get to the truth..
1877EGW-MYTH..call me...please do.
>
>
> Have a blessed Sabbath.
>
Jesus is the Sabbath, so He is Blessed..and blesses.
I have Jesus already, He gives REST!
> DW4
DaMao
joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose
again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8).
90 AD The Didache "But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves
together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after
having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
But let no one that is at variance with his fellow
come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice
may not be profaned" (Didache 14).
90AD DIDACHE: ...every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and
rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on
the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection... (Constitutions of
the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg.
449)
takes pains about temporary things night
and day, but takes no care of things eternal? Who takes care of
washings and temporary food every day, but does not
take care of those that endure forever? How can such a one even now
avoid hearing that word of the Lord, "The
Gentiles are justified more than you" as He says, by way of reproach,
to Jerusalem, "Sodom is justified rather than thou."
For if the Gentiles every day, when they arise from sleep, run to
their idols to worship them, and before all their work
and all their labors do first of all pray to them, and in their feasts
and in their solemnities do not keep away, but attend
upon them; and not only those upon the place, but those living far
distant do the same; and in their public shows all come
together, as into a synagogue: in the same manner those which are
vainly called Jews, when they have worked six days,
on the seventh day rest, and come together in their synagogue, never
leaving or neglecting either rest from labor or
assembling together... If, therefore, those who are not saved
frequently assemble together for such purposes as do not
profit them, what apology wilt thou make to the Lord God who forsakes
his Church, not imitating so much as the
heathen, but by such, thy absence grows slothful, or turns apostate.
or acts wickedness? To whom the Lord says to
Jeremiah, "Ye have not kept My ordinances; nay, you have not walked
according to the ordinance of the heathen and
you have in a manner exceeded them... How, therefore, will any one
make his apology who has despised or absented
himself from the church of God? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
100's AD? [date uncertain], Ante-Nicene Fathers ,
Vol. 7, page 423)
90AD DIDACHE: And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the
Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending
praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and
condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him
from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not
assemble on that day to hear the saving
word concerning the resurrection...? (Constitutions of the Holy
Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 423)
90AD DIDACHE: But every Lord's day, do ye gather yourselves together,
and break bread, and give thanksgiving after
having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
But let no one that is at variance with his fellow
come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice
may not be profaned. For this is that which was
spoken by the Lord... [Matt. 5:23-24] (The Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, , Chap. 14:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.
7, page 381)
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38E5342D...@yahoo.com>,
> DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --------------0F78EEAD9230B5CFF09578EA
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> >
> > I do know how Adventist deal with Scripture, they twist it to thier
> liking.
>
> You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles
> broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source for
> their theology for sunday worship?
>
> You told me in another thread that you had studied with the adventist
> longer than I had after I told you I searched and studied for a long
> while before becoming an Adventist. You stated that you studied with
> Adventist pastors for two years while you wife went to a Korean
> Adventist church "(If you call what they do worship)" that quote was
> from your post. Well you were wrong about me. I studied with the
> Adventist for over 20 years along with other denoiminations. I
> attended a Catholic University for 2 years taking their mandatory
> philosophy and theology classes, I studied with the Mormons several
> times a week for about 3 years, the Church of Christ, United Church of
> Christ, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and numerous others
> including some who called themselves "new testament christians". But
> kept returning to the Adventists. Of all of the denominations I
> stuided, I found the Adventist are the only group who do not base their
> theology on one or two lines of scripture. The are the only ones who
> take bible references in context not only to other bible scripture but
> to the times they were written as well. They were the only ones who
> proved their day of worship based upon bibe text and not some twisted
> logic.
>
> If anyone twists scripture to meet their needs it is those who attempt
> to justify their sunday worship for which there is NO biblical
> support. There is no commandment stated or implied to change the day
> of worship to sunday. Not to mention other doctrines.
>
> If anyone here has not completely studied the Adventist beliefs and
> their interpretation of the scriptures it is you. It also appears to
> me based on your posts you went into the study with the Adventist with
> preconceived notions and maybe even an agenda of your own instead of an
> honest desire for knowledge. You apparently did not listen or study
> with an open heart or mind. It appears you gained enough knowledge to
> twist and turn what adventist believe into something they do not
> believe.
>
> Your understanding of why Adventist worship on the Sabbath is one of
> those that you twist and turn to meet your needs placing just enough
> Adventist belief in your statement to make it appear to be true. No
> matter how many Adventist tell you that we do not believe that our
> salvation is based soley upon worshiping on the Sabbath, that we do it
> out of love for our Savior and the only thing that saves any of is us
> our belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior you insist on spreading
> falsehoods about our belifes.
>
> Well, Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve. He sprinkled
> just enough truth to make the lie seem reasonable and true when it was
> still a lie. Am I saying you are Satan? No my friend I am not, I am
> saying you are misguided in your attacks on the Adventists and their
> beliefs. Your statements have some truth in them but just enough to
> make them reasonable and decieve those who may be less grounded in the
> Faith. It will be unfortunate if some believe your half truths and are
> mislead, not only for them but for you as well.
>
> I am sure I'll get a few flames from you on this and I fully expect
> them but I don't know how else to tell you that you are wrong about us
> and our beliefs.
>
> Have a blessed Sabbath.
> DW4
>
DaMao
I understand why Adventist worship on or keep the weekly sabbath!
The 3 REAL REASONS why Seventh-Day Adventists keep the weekly Sabbath
Reason #1
They must vow Ellen G. White as a prophet at their baptism!
Official SDA Baptismal Vows
Vow #8: "I accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and believe
that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of
the remnant church."
Vow #11: I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught
by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is my
purpose, by the grace of God, to order my life in harmony with these
principles
Vow #13: people of every nation, race, and language are invited and
accepted into its fellowship. I desire to be a member in
this local congregation of the world church.
27 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists:
#17 "The gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy.
This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church
and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's
messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative
source of truth which provide for the church
comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear
that the Bible
is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.
Support is found in these Bible passages: Joel 2:28,29:
Acts 2:14-21: Hebrews 1:1-3: Revelation 12:17: Revelation 19:10"
So you can see that SDA's must vow to follow the official "27 Fundamental
beliefs" of their church. One of these beliefs is that
Ellen G. White was an inspired prophet! (there is no such thing as
a prophet who was not inspired!) If you don't like this fact,
look for another church!
Reason #2
Ellen G. White had to go to heaven to learn that, in spite of what the
Bible says, the sabbath law WAS NOT nailed
to the cross:
Ellen G. White wrote under "inspiration" the following:
In "Life Sketches of Ellen G. White," as published by the Adventists,
we have this language relating Mrs. White's "vision" of the
Sabbath day. "Elder Bates was resting upon Saturday, the seventh day
of the week, and he urged it upon our attention as the
true Sabbath. I did not feel its importance, and thought that he erred
in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon
the other nine. But the Lord gave me a view of
the heavenly sanctuary. The temple of God was opened in heaven,
and I was
shown the ark of God covered with the mercy seat. Two angels stood
one at either end of the ark with their wings spread over
the mercy seat and their faces turned toward it. This, my accompanying
angel informed me, represented all the heavenly hosts
looking with reverential awe toward the law of God ;which had been
written by the finger of God. Jesus raised the cover of the
ark, and I beheld the tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments
were written. I was amazed as I saw the fourth
commandment in the very center of the ten precepts
with a soft halo of light encircling it. Said the angel, 'It is
the only one of the
ten which defines the living God who created the heavens and the earth
and all things that are therein."' (Pages 95 and 96.)
Ellen G. White recorded under "inspiration", "In the ark was the golden
pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables
of stone, which folded together like a book. Jesus opened them, and
I saw the Ten Commandments written on them with the
finger of God. On one table were Four and on the other six. The four
on the first table shone brighter than the other six.
But the
fourth, the Sabbath commandment, shone above
them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's
holy
name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious a
halo of glory was all around it. I SAW THAT THE SABBATH
COMMANDMENT WAS NOT NAILED TO THE CROSS. If
it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are
at liberty to break them all as well as to break the fourth. I saw
that God had not changed the Sabbath, for he never changes.
But the pope had changed it from the seventh day to the first day of
the week; for he was to change times and laws." ("Early
Writings of Ellen G. White," page 33.) Again on page 65 of the same
book Mrs. White says, "The pope has changed the day
of rest from the seventy to the first day."
Reason #3
Adventists actually borrowed the sabbath law from the
Seventh-day Baptists who were already keeping it!
Arthur S. Maxwell, the editor of Signs of the Times, a leading Seventh-day
Adventist journal, the Sabbath observance was
started by a small following in the former Miller group that restudied
the prophecies after the Miller group melted away. He
writes: "Accepting the Sabbath truth from the Seventh-day Baptists,
they became the nucleus of the Seventh-day Adventist
movement....''
So you see, no matter what the Bibles about the
sabbath being nailed to the cross, Adventists won't believe what the Bible
says if it contradicts their inspired prophet Ellen G. White
Ellen G. White was a false prophet: Colossians
2:18 "Let no one keep
defrauding you of your prize by... taking
his (her) stand on visions he (she)
has seen inflated without cause by his
(Ellen White's) fleshly mind" (NASB)
I Speak truth in LOVE
"you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has
told you the truth" Jn 8:40
tmac...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here we go again. TMAC, do you understand the word of "ANTI-CHRIST"?
I'm
> not against Christ, so your statement(s)
> as usual are UNTRUE, and you are even violate one of the BIG TEN, Do
not
> bear false witness against another. As you have in your statement(s)
about
> me, to me, they are all false accusations.
>
> I have asked you to LEAVE MY NAME OUT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS. Thank you.
>
> Have you heard the song, "Hey you, I'm into Jesus"? That is one of my
> fav's...so again, I tell you, do not associate me with
> your words, "Jesuits" or "anti-Christ" ever again.
>
> Do you really equate evangelism with "Jesuit technic's"?
>
> Your false accusations, against me, are uncalled for, and I would
repent of
> your folly quickly if I was you.
>
DON'T LET IT BOTHER YOU BUDDY BOY DAMAO! I am still reeling from the
despotic and unproven accusations you leveled against the Adventist
Church. You had absolutely no conscience, and neither did you prove
anything and neither can you. It is Jesuit and antichrist for you to
charge all you have against the Adventist Church while telling us that
you respect all views.
If you use Jesuit tactics and yet can't stop, you are a Jesuit. All you
have to do is to present the facts honestly with the evidence being
weighed. You are not to ignore pointed questions as is your style. Yes
we can defeat you rather easily on most all your contentions.
Please don't try to give me a conscience or put me to shame if it is
impossible for you to be placed there.
Another thing. ANTICHRIST doesn't have to mean "against Christ." It
can also mean, "In the place of" Christ. Can we find that when people
tell us we must ignore the prophecies so that we can realize "the
Gospel?"
I will also continue to identify you as a worker for the papacy the more
you identify Adventism with legalism in what you claim is a desire for
freedom of thought.
Paul Harvey,
GOOD DAY!
DaMao
> You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles
> broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source for
> their theology for sunday worship?
All churches teach one of four positions on the day that Christians
worship.
#1. THE TRUTH: (This is what I believe....)
The 10 commandment law including the requirement to
keep the sabbath day
were abolished at the cross along with all the rest of
the law of Moses. God
gave a covenant at Mt. Sinai through Moses to the Jews.
It is called the
first/old covenant/testament. The ten commandments are
the foremost visible
representation of this first/old covenant was replaced
by a new covenant
called, among other things "the law of Christ". 100% of
the old covenant was
abolished. No part of the Old Covenant remains in
force. No one prior to
Moses (Abraham or Adam) ever heard of the sabbath law
much less kept it.
The very first time that anyone was commanded to keep
the sabbath was in
Exodus 16. The word "sabbath" is not even found in the
book of Genesis. Gen
2:2-3 was written by Moses to tell Jews at Sinai the
meaning behind WHY
they were to keep the sabbath, NOT WHEN the sabbath was
instituted. The
universal meeting day of Christians after the
resurrection was Sunday, and so
has been to this very day. Sunday is not a Christian
sabbath or a day of rest,
or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires
all Christians to gather
together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper
(communion, break bread)
Acts 20:7. Christians do not keep the ten commandment
law of Moses. This is
not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder
and commit adultery, just
because the 10 commandments have been abolished. No!
Christians are
under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal
6:2) a better covenant
(Heb 8:6-7). Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a
prophet or spiritual, let him
recognize that the things which I write to you are the
Lord's commandment."
(1 Corinthians 14:37) Apostle Peter said at the
beginning of the establishment
of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE
UP FOR
YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU
SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it
shall be that every
soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly
destroyed from among the
people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and
Moses in nothing. This is
New Testament Christianity!
#2. The Seventh-day Adventist position
They believe that Christians originally kept the
sabbath right from the time of the apostles, but
due to the influence of the devil, Christians went into
universal apostasy for
over 1600 years until, of course the arrival of Ellen
G. White, the Adventist
prophet, who saw, contrary to what the Bible says in
Col 2:16, that the
sabbath law was not nailed to the cross. Historically,
it was in 1844 the first
Adventists (known then as Millerites) started keeping
the Sabbath, introduced
to them by a Seventh-day Baptist who convinced their
Methodist minister that
the Bible teaches us to keep the Sabbath. But God chose
Ellen White and the
modern Seventh-day Adventist movement as the medium
through which to
reveal and confirm this "truth" through direct
inspiration and revelation.
Although Adventists believe that a tiny unknown remnant
has always kept the
sabbath day, (like the Seventh-day Baptist preacher
mentioned above) only in
the 19th century did God, through the Seventh-day
Adventist church, restore
in any measurable way, by direct revelation, the truth
that the day Christians
worship was Saturday. Adventists openly teach that
early Christians borrowed
Sunday as the day of worship from the pagan religion of
Mithraism in about
140 AD. Gradually Sunday replaced the sabbath day
(Saturday) so that today
the worship on Sunday is an almost universal Christian
practice of apostasy
and totally contrary to the will of God. "Sunday
keepers", as Sabbatarians call
them, have been deceived by the devil. SDA's interpret
"The Seal of God" to
be "Saturday Sabbathkeeping" vs "The Mark of the Beast"
which they
interpret to mean "Sunday Sabbathkeeping" - not now,
but AFTER an
assumed national Sunday law is passed so all must
choose between the two.
Of course these interpretations are apostate in
themselves.
#3. The Catholic
Position
Catholics worship God on the right day (1st Day) for
the wrong reasons.
Catholic theology is often confused within itself.
Having observed that
Christians have always met on Sunday, they figured that
God must have
transferred the significance of the sabbath commandment
to Sunday. This is
simply untrue. The Sabbath is abolished. Sunday is not
a day of rest. The
resurrection of Christ is the primary reason why
Christians meet on Sunday.
Catholics flatter themselves into thinking they made
the change. Yet even
Catholics have always taught that Acts 20:7, 1 Cor
16:1-2 and Rev 1:10 are
clear Biblical references supporting the practice of
worshipping on Sunday.
Although some Catholics have suggested that the pope
changed the sabbath
well after Christians had an established practice of
sabbath keeping, this point
has been strongly rejected by the highest Catholic
authorities today. In reality,
what the Catholic church believes is that apostle Peter
was the first pope (the
first pope was in 606 AD not Peter) and that the very
earliest Christians, in
apostolic times "transferred the solemnity from
Saturday to Sunday", by the
will of God. Officially Catholics have always taught
that the universal practice
of the earliest Christians was to meet every Sunday.
Seventh-day Adventists
actually misrepresent the official teaching of the
Catholic church. Yes the
Catholic church does teach that it, by authority given
to it by God, made the
change, but that change was realized early in the
Apostolic age. (33-96AD).
So Catholics mistakenly call the 1st day, the Sabbath,
borrowing the term
from the Old Testament, rather than abolishing it with
animal sacrifices.
Catholics, however, do a lot of judaizing (bring Mosaic
practices into the
church).
Peter Geierman, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic
Doctrine, p. 50.
Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep
holy the Sabbath
day.
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church
transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Notice that Catholics DO NOT say that Christians once
kept the sabbath,
(Saturday) then CHANGED the day of worship to Sunday.
Rather they
actually teach that this change took place at the time
when Christians first
started to worship on Sunday in 33 AD. It is critical
to keep in mind that the
Catholic church claims direct apostolic authority from
the present Pope in
Rome right back to Peter.
#4. The General
Protestant Position
The universal practice of Christians has always been
Sunday, similar to the
Catholic position, the meaning of the sabbath was
transferred to Sunday, to
commemorate the resurrection of Christ. but some are
doing the right thing for
the wrong reason. When Christians today wrongly apply
the 4th sabbath
commandment as the reason why they worship on Sunday,
they are not only
mistaken, but are making themselves very vulnerable to
manipulation by the
various Sabbatarian groups. Any church that claims to
keep the 10
commandments or the sabbath day are highly vulnerable
to any preying
Sabbatarian group. Such churches will be hard pressed
to justify their practice
of worshipping on Sunday, while quoting the 4th
commandment. "Six days you
shall labour, but the seventh is the Sabbath." A simple
kitchen calendar
showing that Saturday is the "seventh" day of the week
(just count them off) is
the only evangelistic tool Sabbatarians need to convert
these Christians to their
Saturday keeping churches. Of course, not all
Protestant churches take this
position, but it is the majority view.
tmac...@my-deja.com
Dear Jesuit DaMao,
How does all these Hitleristic statement coincide with your Jesuit
tactic of telling everyone that they are free to have their opinions and
that no one should lord their views over on anyone else?
You have laid out a host of accusations against the Adventist Church and
you always present those accusations in an air that they cannot be
challenged or controverted. When we post our rebuttals you post in to
make sure that we attach to all our messages your bulls and decretals
that we must state that these are our interpretations only.
I therefore don't see what problem you have with me calling you a despot
or a Jesuit, but I see the need for you discontinuing all association
with your papal order.
I will continue to be called a legalist and I will not mind. Now
please, brace yourself to be constantly identified as a worker for the
Papacy, for that identification matches your works and tactics and that
identification will leave once your works and tactics leave.
Thank you!
doctor...@my-deja.com
is the doctrine of men, Not the Lord. There is NO scriptural evidence
for changing the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day of
the week or sunday as you prefer.
Sorry your wrong, Adventism is solidly founded in bible teachings.
> >
> > If anyone twists scripture to meet their needs it is those who
attempt
> > to justify their sunday worship for which there is NO biblical
> > support. There is no commandment stated or implied to change the day
> > of worship to sunday. Not to mention other doctrines.
> >
> > If anyone here has not completely studied the Adventist beliefs and
> > their interpretation of the scriptures it is you. It also appears to
> > me based on your posts you went into the study with the Adventist
with
> > preconceived notions and maybe even an agenda of your own instead
of an
> > honest desire for knowledge. You apparently did not listen or study
> > with an open heart or mind. It appears you gained enough knowledge
to
> > twist and turn what adventist believe into something they do not
> > believe.
>
> Preconcieved? Not at all, just by studying with them, what they said,
and
> what the Bible says, contradicted each other. So I go with the Bible,
and
> toss out what people say.
sorry but they don't contradict if one studies with an open mind and I
would much rather go to the bible that to follow what MEN may say.
Like your references earlier in your post about which day to worship
on. Those are the teachings of me and they contradict the bible. So
when there is a conflict I choose the bible.
> >
> >
> > Your understanding of why Adventist worship on the Sabbath is one of
> > those that you twist and turn to meet your needs placing just enough
> > Adventist belief in your statement to make it appear to be true. No
> > matter how many Adventist tell you that we do not believe that our
> > salvation is based soley upon worshiping on the Sabbath, that we do
it
> > out of love for our Savior and the only thing that saves any of is
us
> > our belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior you insist on spreading
> > falsehoods about our belifes.
> >
>
> If you love love the Lord, and call yourself a Christian, I'll see ya
on
> Resurrection Day celebration.
I love the Lord with all my Heart, Mind and Soul. Only He knows if we
will see each other on resurrection day.
>
> >
> > Well, Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve. He sprinkled
> > just enough truth to make the lie seem reasonable and true when it
was
> > still a lie. Am I saying you are Satan? No my friend I am not, I am
> > saying you are misguided in your attacks on the Adventists and their
> > beliefs. Your statements have some truth in them but just enough to
> > make them reasonable and decieve those who may be less grounded in
the
> > Faith. It will be unfortunate if some believe your half truths and
are
> > mislead, not only for them but for you as well.
>
> Sounds like Mindless Advenstism...
> There is no truth in half truth so one must give FULL TRUTH.
Thats what we give, Bible Truth.
> >
> > I am sure I'll get a few flames from you on this and I fully expect
> > them but I don't know how else to tell you that you are wrong about
us
> > and our beliefs.
>
> No flame dude....I just hope you can get to the truth..
I have, you seem to be the one stuck in the world.
>
> 1877EGW-MYTH..call me...please do.
Why? I know the truth do you want me to explain it to you?
> >
> >
> > Have a blessed Sabbath.
> >
>
> Jesus is the Sabbath, so He is Blessed..and blesses.
> I have Jesus already, He gives REST!
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath not the Sabbath there is a difference. I'm
sorry you don't see that difference.
doctor...@my-deja.com
not based in scripture. Josh 24:15 "And if it seem evil unto you to
serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for
me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
Or as in this case choose you this day whom ye will trust; the word of
man as written by you above or the word of the Lord: as for me and my
house, we will serve the Lord.
Allen Hoessli
to keep the sabbath day
were abolished at the cross along with all the rest
Well, Damao, you don't mind if I hunt you down and kill you then,
right? God won't mind, would he? The Law was done away with.
I think that while I'm there, I'll talk your wife into an aulterous
relationship with me, you won't mind, neither will God, because the Law
is done away with.
I think that I'm going to start bowing down to idols and worshipping
other Gods, too. The Law was done away with. God won't mind.
Damao, you are telling me that after you become a Christian it is
alright to work iniquity. It is okay to sin. If you remember correctly,
the Bible says that sin is the transgression of the Law. I don't
believe God insinuated sin into the gospel of Christ.
All the passages that you have tried to use to justify sin are not even
saying that the law was done away with. One passage says that the law
contained in ORDINENCES (such as the passover) was done away with at
the cross. Those other passages that you try to use when reading them
in context with those verses says that the LAw is not needed to obtain
righteousness. It says the Law is done away with for righteousness. Of
course! In Christ we find righteousness through faith and not of any
work. But I do believe that one who has truely repented and received
Jesus into their life by faith will no longer do that which opposes
morality. God is a God with morals. He fully respects the marriage
covenant and I don't believe that he gives us the right to commit
adultery against him and against our wives. I don't believe God gives
us the right to take life. God is the creator and sustainer of life. If
we take life, then we are working against God. Do you think God sent
his Son to die for our sins so that we are allowed to worship some
other God besides the God of the Bible? Is it okay to use God's name or
His Son's name in a sentence when we are not referring to spiritual
things? Do you think it's okay to bow down to idols and worship them?
The Law was not done away with thought the covenant changed. According
to Hebrews, God's covenant, the Ten Commandments, would be written upon
the heart by His spirit with the coming of the New Covenant. The
commandments never changed. Just the place that they were written. Not
on tablets of stone, but on tablets of the human heart. It is our
desire after we have accepted Christ into our life to do that which is
right. The Ten Commandments are absolute moral principles, not just
something that is temporal that man wrote. God wrote it with his own
finger.
In article <38E5BB96...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------B1E2AA3823C80B7F287D5C5F
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> I understand why Adventist worship on or keep the weekly sabbath!
>
> The 3 REAL REASONS why Seventh-Day Adventists keep the weekly Sabbath
>
> Reason #1
>
> They must vow Ellen G. White as a prophet at their baptism!
Sorry but your wrong. While called vows by some they are simply a
committment. Lets look at all of them IN CONTEXT for a change.
1. I believe there is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a unity of
three co-eternal Persons.
2. I accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as the atoning
sacrifice for my sins and believe that through faith in His shed blood
I am saved from sin and its penalty
3. I renounce the world and its sinful ways, and lave accepted Jesus
Christ as my persona saviour believing tht God, for Christ's sake, has
forgiven my sins and given me a new heart.
4. I accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, my Intercessor in the
heavenly sanctuary, and accept His promise of transforming grace and
power to live a loving, CHrist-centered life in my home and before the
world.
5. I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word, the only rule of faith
and practice for the Christian. I covenant to spend time regularly in
prayer and Bible study.
6. I accept the Ten Commandments as a transcript of the character of
God and a revelation of His will. It is my purpose by the power of the
indwelling Christ to keep this law, including the forth commandment
which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the
Sabbath of the Lord and the memorial of Creation.
7. I look forward to the soon coming of Jesus and the blessed hope
when "this mortal shal put on immorlity." As I prepare to meet the
Lord, I will witness to His loving salvation and by life and word help
others to be ready for His glorious appearing.
8. I accept the Biblical teaching of spritual gifts and believe that
the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant
church.
9. I believe in church orgnaiztion it is my prupose to support the
church by my tithes and offerings and by my personal effort and
influence.
10. I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and will
honor Gody by caring for it, avoiding the use of that which is harmful;
abstining from all unclean foods; from the use, manufacture or sale of
alcoholic beverages; the use, manufacture or sale of tobacco in any of
its forms for human consumption; and from the misuse of or trafficking
in narcotics or other drugs.
11. I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught
by the Seventy-day Adventist church. I purpose by the grace of God, to
fulfill His will by ordering my life in harmony with these principles.
12. I accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion.
13. I accept and believe that the sSeventh-day Adventist Church is
the remnant church of Bible prophecy and that people of every nation,
race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship. I
desire to become a member of this local congregation of the world
church.
At baptism these are posed to the individual in the form of questions.
But do you see Mrs White's name anywere in these? I don't. Regardless
we are not baptized in Mrs Whites name. We are baptised in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as we were directed by
Christ in Matthew 28:19.
While this is part of Mrs White's vision it is not the reason we
worship on the Sabbath. We worship on the Sabbath out of our love for
the Lord and our desire to please Him. We realize that we are not
saved by following any law or ordinance but only through the blood of
Jesus. So we do not observe the Sabbath to be saved we observe it
because we are saved.
Here is what Mrs White wrote " The pope has changed the day of rest
from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very
commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has
thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus
make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord
is unchangeable, therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has
exalted himself above God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts
of holiness, justice, and goodness. He has trampled underfoot God's
sanctified day, and, on his own authority, put in its place one of the
six laboring days. The whole nation has followed after the beast, and
every week they rob God of His holy time. The pope has made a breach in
the holy law of God, but I saw that the time had fully come for this
breach to be made up by the people of God and the waste places built
up. {EW 65.1}"
In this case the pope she refers to is the catholic church as an
institution and the council of Laoddicea (AD 336)according to the
Catholic Church "transfered the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
which does attempt to change the Law (Remember the Sabbath Day . . .)
and time from the Seventh to the First Day. Their reasoning is if they
could not do it they wouldn't have.
> Reason #3
>
> Adventists actually borrowed the sabbath law from the
> Seventh-day Baptists who were already keeping it!
>
> Arthur S. Maxwell, the editor of Signs of the Times, a leading
Seventh-day
> Adventist journal, the Sabbath observance was
> started by a small following in the former Miller group that
restudied the
> prophecies after the Miller group melted away. He
> writes: "Accepting the Sabbath truth from the Seventh-day Baptists,
they
> became the nucleus of the Seventh-day Adventist
> movement....''
And the Seventh-day Baptist then got it from the Jews who got it from
God. So why is this a reason that the Seventh-day Adventists keep the
Sabbath? Based upon your reasoning here it's kind of well the baptists
did it so it must be OK, lets do it too. That's faulty logic on your
part and it just isn't the reason we worship on the seventh day
Sabbath. That's like saying you sunday keeping protestants got sunday
worship from the Catholic church. OK, so what? It had to start
somewhere. What matters is we are following the guidance of the
scriptures. Worshiping on the one day that the Lord Himself set aside
and blessed from the very creation of the world.
> So you see, no matter what the Bibles about the sabbath being nailed
to the
> cross, Adventists won't believe what the Bible says if it contradicts
their
> inspired prophet Ellen G. White
No we worship on the Sabbath because it is in harmony with the bible.
Just not your interpretation of the bible.
>
> Ellen G. White was a false prophet: Colossians 2:18 "Let no one keep
> defrauding you of your prize by... taking his (her) stand on visions
he
> (she)
> has seen inflated without cause by his (Ellen White's) fleshly mind"
> (NASB)
You'll have to do better than that. Here is what Mrs White said about
her own visions and teachings
Testimonies Never Contradict the Bible.--The Bible must be your
counselor. Study it and the testimonies God has given; for they never
contradict His Word.--Letter 106, 1907. {3SM 32.3}
If the Testimonies speak not according to this word of God, reject
them. Christ and Belial cannot be
33
united.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691. {3SM 32.4}
If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them.
Christ and Belial cannot be united. . . ."
> I Speak truth in LOVE
>
> "you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth" Jn 8:40
The truly sad part is you do believe what you are saying is the truth.
DW4
Ruby
>
>It is Jesuit and antichrist for you to
>charge all you have against the Adventist Church while telling us that
>you respect all views.
>
>If you use Jesuit tactics and yet can't stop, you are a Jesuit.
"...whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever
says,"you fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." MATT 5:22
Ruby
--
The Hall of Xena Lists: http://hometown.aol.com/rubyredinger/
doctor...@my-deja.com
> > broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> > midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source
for
> > their theology for sunday worship?
>
> All churches teach one of four positions on the day that Christians
> worship.
>
> #1. THE TRUTH: (This is what I believe....)
OH, it's the truth because YOU believe it? And we are supposed to give
up all biblical evidence to the contrary because YOU say this is the
truth?
> The 10 commandment law including the requirement to
> keep the sabbath day
> were abolished at the cross along with all the rest of
> the law of Moses.
Sorry but you need to study more. The laws Christ's death did away
with were the sacrifical laws, not the Moral Laws.
> God
> gave a covenant at Mt. Sinai through Moses to the Jews.
> It is called the
> first/old covenant/testament. The ten commandments are
> the foremost visible
> representation of this first/old covenant was replaced
> by a new covenant
> called, among other things "the law of Christ". 100% of
> the old covenant was
> abolished. No part of the Old Covenant remains in
> force.
Sorry but in other posts several of us have clearly demonstrated this
statement is false.
> No one prior to
> Moses (Abraham or Adam) ever heard of the sabbath law
> much less kept it.
> The very first time that anyone was commanded to keep
> the sabbath was in
> Exodus 16. The word "sabbath" is not even found in the
> book of Genesis.
So what? The words revelation and saviour isn't found in Genesis
either does that make it any less a part of the Bible or any less true?
The word salvation doesn't appear until Gen 49:18, SO WHAT?
> Gen
> 2:2-3 was written by Moses to tell Jews at Sinai the
> meaning behind WHY
> they were to keep the sabbath, NOT WHEN the sabbath was
> instituted.
> The
> universal meeting day of Christians after the
> resurrection was Sunday, and so
> has been to this very day. Sunday is not a Christian
> sabbath or a day of rest,
> or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires
> all Christians to gather
> together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper
> (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7
PLEASE show me where this is commanded in the NT? Or anywhere else for
that matter. Where does God require this? Please provide Scriptural
evidence of the "truth". What Acts 20 says is that they gathered
together to break bread (EAT) and Paul preached until midnight. This
too has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You are basing
your entire theology on ONE verse of scripture without takeing into
considereation the context.
OK, The apostles had been speaking in the Synagogs on the Sabbath
which goes from Sundown on what is now called Friday to Sundown of what
is now called Saturday. When the sabbath was over they gathered to
eat, just as we have a meal at the close of the day. Paul spoke to
them until midnight, continuing on with what he had been speaking of on
the sabbath because he was leaving in the morning and would not see
them for a long time, if ever. This is not a command to observe the
Lords supper on the first day of the week. It is simply a group
getting together after sabbath to eat and talk. THAT's IT. If it is
any different please give me the scripture to prove it.
> Christians do not keep the ten commandment
> law of Moses. This is
> not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder
> and commit adultery, just
> because the 10 commandments have been abolished.
No they don't keep the 10 commandments they keep 9 of them with no
scriptural basis for not keeping the other one.
> No!
> Christians are
> under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal
> 6:2) a better covenant
> (Heb 8:6-7).
While the Jews followed the 10 commandments to gain salvation. We now
have salvation through Christ but that does not negate following the
Moral laws provided for all manking by God. The Law of Christ and the
Law of God are one in the same since they are one in the same. The 10
Commandments are the Law of God. Remember Christ is the Lord of the
Sabbath.
> Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a
> prophet or spiritual, let him
> recognize that the things which I write to you are the
> Lord's commandment."
> (1 Corinthians 14:37)
We recognize Pauls writings along with the rest of the Bible as the
truth.
> Apostle Peter said at the
> beginning of the establishment
> of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE
> UP FOR
> YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU
> SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it
> shall be that every
> soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly
> destroyed from among the
> people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and
> Moses in nothing. This is
> New Testament Christianity!
This does not negate what Moses or any of the other OT prophets said.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Until His return all will not be fulfilled.
You still dont understand why we keep the Sabbath.
Since I'm not catholic I'll let them respond to you on your dissertation
You can't even get the Protestant view right.
BIBLE DOCTOR
Testament-Covenant?
And the next question?
What rest was Jesus speaking about in Matthew 11.28 ?
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
DaMao
tmac...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38E52DB9...@yahoo.com>,
> DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Here we go again. TMAC, do you understand the word of "ANTI-CHRIST"?
> I'm
> > not against Christ, so your statement(s)
> > as usual are UNTRUE, and you are even violate one of the BIG TEN, Do
> not
> > bear false witness against another. As you have in your statement(s)
> about
> > me, to me, they are all false accusations.
> >
> > I have asked you to LEAVE MY NAME OUT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS. Thank you.
> >
> > Have you heard the song, "Hey you, I'm into Jesus"? That is one of my
> > fav's...so again, I tell you, do not associate me with
> > your words, "Jesuits" or "anti-Christ" ever again.
> >
> > Do you really equate evangelism with "Jesuit technic's"?
> >
> > Your false accusations, against me, are uncalled for, and I would
> repent of
> > your folly quickly if I was you.
> >
>
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what
is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may
benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with
whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness
rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be
kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in
Christ God forgave you. Ephesians 4:29-32 (NIV)
>
> DON'T LET IT BOTHER YOU BUDDY BOY DAMAO! I am still reeling from the
> despotic and unproven accusations you leveled against the Adventist
> Church. You had absolutely no conscience, and neither did you prove
> anything and neither can you. It is Jesuit and antichrist for you to
> charge all you have against the Adventist Church while telling us that
> you respect all views.
>
You don't like the fact that Adventism is cultic? I'd suggest you leave it.
>
> If you use Jesuit tactics and yet can't stop, you are a Jesuit. All you
> have to do is to present the facts honestly with the evidence being
> weighed. You are not to ignore pointed questions as is your style. Yes
> we can defeat you rather easily on most all your contentions.
>
And what is the Adventist tactics? Defeat for what purposee?
And who is this "we" stuff?
>
> Please don't try to give me a conscience or put me to shame if it is
> impossible for you to be placed there.
>
> Another thing. ANTICHRIST doesn't have to mean "against Christ." It
> can also mean, "In the place of" Christ. Can we find that when people
> tell us we must ignore the prophecies so that we can realize "the
> Gospel?"
>
ANTI-CHRIST means exactly what it says, AGAINST CHRIST, look up the Greek.
>
> I will also continue to identify you as a worker for the papacy the more
> you identify Adventism with legalism in what you claim is a desire for
> freedom of thought.
Good for you, and that is your perogitive. I have mine, and I will continue
to bring to light the TRUTH.
Which obviously you don't like, so you resort into your "tactic" of falsely
accusing New Testiment Christians.
Perhaps you are a worker for Satan? Probably because your in a cult.
I'd repent of your folly quickly if I was you.
DaMao
Remember when Jesus healed the blind man,
and he was asked about it, he said. "All I know I was blind and now I see."
Your BLIND, and I wish you can see also.
I have no further words with you. Good Day, good bye.
Jesuit TMAC,
tmac...@my-deja.com wrote slandering words and personal attack on a New
Testiment Christian.:
> In article <38E5BB96...@yahoo.com>,
> DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> Dear Jesuit DaMao,
>
> How does all these Hitleristic statement coincide with your Jesuit
> tactic of telling everyone that they are free to have their opinions and
> that no one should lord their views over on anyone else?
>
> You have laid out a host of accusations against the Adventist Church and
> you always present those accusations in an air that they cannot be
> challenged or controverted. When we post our rebuttals you post in to
> make sure that we attach to all our messages your bulls and decretals
> that we must state that these are our interpretations only.
>
> I therefore don't see what problem you have with me calling you a despot
> or a Jesuit, but I see the need for you discontinuing all association
> with your papal order.
>
> I will continue to be called a legalist and I will not mind. Now
> please, brace yourself to be constantly identified as a worker for the
> Papacy, for that identification matches your works and tactics and that
> identification will leave once your works and tactics leave.
>
> Thank you!
>
doctor...@my-deja.com
"BIBLE DOCTOR" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
> If You think that not all laws were abolished so why do we have a New
> Testament-Covenant?
Because it was foretold in the Old Testament. In that prophesy in the
OT the laws of God were clearly going to continue with God's People.
Please see below
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land
of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto
them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know
me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no
more.
Note his laws (commandments) "will be in their inward parts, and write
it in their hearts . . ." In other words they will follow them because
they are written in their hearts. He will forgive their iniquity and
will remember their sin no more. See Hebrews now where the text is
repeated. Not only does it repeat the prophesy in Jeremiah it explains
it as well.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them
not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every
man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the
least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Lets continue with this thought in the context of the rest of the
passage in Hebrews. Here is the explanation of the New Covenant and
what was done away with.
It was the sacrificial or ordinances of divine service and the worldly
sanctuary. Note also there is no mention of the 10 commandments in
either the old covenant that is done away with. It is specifically the
sacrificial laws and the ceremonies of the earthly temple carried out
by the priests to remove the sins of man.
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine
service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the
candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the
sanctuary.
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the
Holiest of all;
Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant
overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had
manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of
which we cannot now speak particularly.
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went
always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every
year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the
errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest
of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet
standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were
offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the
service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Now here is where Christ enters the picture as the replacement
sacrifice for our sins.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come,
by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is
to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that
were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the
promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without
blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and
all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath
enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all
the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with
hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high
priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of
the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto
salvation.
This is the new covenant where God's laws are written on the hearts and
minds of His people and as Moses sprinkled the blood of animals,
Christ's blood is sprinkled in this case.
Lets Continue on this thought.
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not
the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which
they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
The animal sacrifice is the shadow of good things to come when the
repeated sacrifice of animals would be done away with because Christ
was the sacrifice for man's sins.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because
that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of
sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of
sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice
and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no
pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is
written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt
offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst
pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh
away the first, that he may establish the second.
Here the first ordinances of sacrifice were taken away and a new
sacrifice was established.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Under the old ordinance the priests had to perform these sacrifices
daily while Christ (verses below) was sacrificed only once for all sin
for all time.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his
footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after
that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in
their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us,
through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water.
The above clearly is explaining the new covenant where Christ's
sacrifice makes a "new and living way" through the veil which.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to
good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the
manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as
ye see the day approaching.
Look now to Hebrews 12:21 where the last mention of the New Covenant is
located.
Heb 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I
exceedingly fear and quake:)
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which
are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits
of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the
blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Note again the reference is to the sacrifice not the laws of God. The
new covenant or new testament
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without
blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and
all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath
enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all
the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.
Note again that Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator.
Nowhere in this entire passage do we see anything about God's law being
done away with and these are the only passages that talk specifically
about a "New Covenant" The covenant had to do specifically with the
ordinances of sacrifice and the shedding of blood for the remission of
sins.
> And the next question?
> What rest was Jesus speaking about in Matthew 11.28 ?
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest.
It's been a long day and I'll tell you tomorrow.
DW4
> --
> Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
> Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
>
>
DaMao
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
In article <38E5BB96...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles
> > broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> > midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source
for
> > their theology for sunday worship?
>
> All churches teach one of four positions on the day that Christians
> worship.
>
> #1. THE TRUTH: (This is what I believe....)OH, it's the truth because YOU believe it? And we are supposed to give
up all biblical evidence to the contrary because YOU say this is the
truth?
And OH to you, it's not because I believe it, I believe it because it is the TRUTH. Why would you give it up? Search the Scriptures, be a Berean....
> The 10 commandment law including the requirement to
> keep the sabbath day
> were abolished at the cross along with all the rest of
> the law of Moses.
Sorry but you need to study more. The laws Christ's death did away
with were the sacrifical laws, not the Moral Laws.> God
> gave a covenant at Mt. Sinai through Moses to the Jews.
> It is called the
> first/old covenant/testament. The ten commandments are
> the foremost visible
> representation of this first/old covenant was replaced
> by a new covenant
> called, among other things "the law of Christ". 100% of
> the old covenant was
> abolished. No part of the Old Covenant remains in
> force.Sorry but in other posts several of us have clearly demonstrated this
statement is false.
Sorry, but in the Word of God, is contrary to "other posts". For me, I
will go with the Bible. It is a MORE FOR SURE WORD than "several of us"
postings. Besides, the other postings are full of improper herminutics,
which I have pointed out by text that some state "twist Scripture" ect.
> No one prior to
> Moses (Abraham or Adam) ever heard of the sabbath law
> much less kept it.
> The very first time that anyone was commanded to keep
> the sabbath was in
> Exodus 16. The word "sabbath" is not even found in the
> book of Genesis.So what? The words revelation and saviour isn't found in Genesis
either does that make it any less a part of the Bible or any less true?
The word salvation doesn't appear until Gen 49:18, SO WHAT?
That isn't the point. Is it....
> Gen
> 2:2-3 was written by Moses to tell Jews at Sinai the
> meaning behind WHY
> they were to keep the sabbath, NOT WHEN the sabbath was
> instituted.> The
> universal meeting day of Christians after the
> resurrection was Sunday, and so
> has been to this very day. Sunday is not a Christian
> sabbath or a day of rest,
> or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires
> all Christians to gather
> together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper
> (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7PLEASE show me where this is commanded in the NT? Or anywhere else for
that matter. Where does God require this? Please provide Scriptural
evidence of the "truth". What Acts 20 says is that they gathered
together to break bread (EAT) and Paul preached until midnight. This
too has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You are basing
your entire theology on ONE verse of scripture without takeing into
considereation the context.
Do you really need to be shown?
Do you really on a command in the NT?
TO "break bread" is commonly associated with the Lord's Supper.
Luke 22:19 "And having takens some BREAD, when He had given thanks, He BROKE IT, and gave it to them, saysing "This is My body which is given for you; do this in rememberance of Me"
Luke 24:30,31 "And it came about that when He had reclined at table with them, He took BREAD and blessed it, and BREAKING IT, He began giving it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.
Luke 24:35 "And they began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD".
Therefore the evidence in Acts 20, or even Acts 2:42, as in the early church "to gather together" and "to break bread" eppear to be a standard formula for Christian meetings where the Lord's Supper was practiced.
To summarize Acts 20:7
The meeting was "on the first day of the week
It was probably Sunday night
Luke says they were "gather together to break bread" indicating the
purpose of the meeting
"breaking of bread" was probably the Lord's Supper
This was a Christian Church metting
It is the earliest strong evidence of Christians meeting on the first
day of the week.
From my study I have been unable to find any GOOD REASON for Paul to specifically mention the first day of the week, UNLESS this day held a degree of imporance to the New Testimetn Christians.
1 Corinthians 16:1,2
OK, The apostles had been speaking in the Synagogs on the Sabbath
which goes from Sundown on what is now called Friday to Sundown of what
is now called Saturday. When the sabbath was over they gathered to
eat, just as we have a meal at the close of the day. Paul spoke to
them until midnight, continuing on with what he had been speaking of on
the sabbath because he was leaving in the morning and would not see
them for a long time, if ever. This is not a command to observe the
Lords supper on the first day of the week. It is simply a group
getting together after sabbath to eat and talk. THAT's IT. If it is
any different please give me the scripture to prove it.
There is evidenc that this meeting was not a holdover from a Sabbath morning
service as some argue.
The weight of evidence is that this was a Sunday evening meeting, the
regular meeting time for the New Testiment
Christians in Troas.
> Christians do not keep the ten commandment
> law of Moses. This is
> not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder
> and commit adultery, just
> because the 10 commandments have been abolished.No they don't keep the 10 commandments they keep 9 of them with no
scriptural basis for not keeping the other one.
The other one is Christ Jesus, Haven't you found Jesus is the only true Sabbath rest?
> No!
> Christians are
> under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal
> 6:2) a better covenant
> (Heb 8:6-7).While the Jews followed the 10 commandments to gain salvation. We now
have salvation through Christ but that does not negate following the
Moral laws provided for all manking by God. The Law of Christ and the
Law of God are one in the same since they are one in the same. The 10
Commandments are the Law of God. Remember Christ is the Lord of the
Sabbath.
Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also
be a
change of the law.
Hebres 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and
useless
19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced,
by
which we draw near to God.
As you will probably state I'm talking about ceremonial laws here...
I have news for you...
Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are
coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never,
by the
same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those
who draw near to worship.
2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers
would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt
guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take
away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and
offering
you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, `Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I
have come to
do your will, O God.'"
8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin
offerings you
did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required
them to be made).
9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside
the first
to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of
the
body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties;
again
and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins.
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for
sins, he sat
down at the right hand of God.
13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are
being made holy.
The Book of Hebrews deals with the SUPERIORITY of Christ to the old
order--the sanctuary with all of its ceremonies and rituals. The author
here states
that the old order was not able to deal with SIN, yet we are perfected
by Christ's
sacrifice. Where does the conviction of SIN come from?
Romans 5:13 ... sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Romans 4:14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value
and
the promise is worthless,
15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.
Is this the CEREMONIAL law to which Paul refers? Obviously not. So if
the
author of Hebrews is speaking of the law not being able to deal with
sin, it is not
the cermonial law to which (s)he refers, but the entire law of God,
specifically in this instance, the "moral" law. (Don't you just love
that
terminology? Is there an "immoral" law? :) (Maybe where you live :-)
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says
the
Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on
their
minds."
17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."
18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice
for sin.
Logically, even you SDAs have to agree thatt his refers to the "moral"
law. Was there
a distinction between the "ceremonial" law that the author spoke of
in previous
verses and the "law" mentioned here? No, there wasn't. Law is law.
And our
brother James says that anyone who breaks the smallest and most insignificant
of the laws is guilty of them all.
(Notice verse 10:1 says that the entire law is a shadow of the
Reality of Jesus Christ.) Thank God I no longer have to live in the
shadows;
You want to live in the Light of the Son?
The Sabbath day is not a moral law...
For your better understanding this, please look at this and do your Berean study..
> Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a
> prophet or spiritual, let him
> recognize that the things which I write to you are the
> Lord's commandment."
> (1 Corinthians 14:37)We recognize Pauls writings along with the rest of the Bible as the
truth.
Do you really?
> Apostle Peter said at the
> beginning of the establishment
> of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE
> UP FOR
> YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU
> SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it
> shall be that every
> soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly
> destroyed from among the
> people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and
> Moses in nothing. This is
> New Testament Christianity!This does not negate what Moses or any of the other OT prophets said.
John 5:44-46
44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make
no
effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser
is
Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about
me.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Lawmongers, such the majority here however, will use this text to
"prove" we are still
subject to the law as a means of reconciling ourselves to God. That
is because,
as per usual, they are missing a very important point in the passage.
It is very
simple. Let me illustrate:
A. Jesus came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
B. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was
fulfilled.
C. Jesus fulfilled all of the law.
Conclusion:
That a jot or tittle (or more) may have passed from the law now that
all has
been fulfilled.
Yes I do..but do you really understand why? I don't understand when one reads it is done away with at the cross, that you continue to keep it. that is puzzling...
John Doe
that sunday or the first day is the day of worship or that it's the sabbath,
Jesus would of had to institute it while he was alive. Where did Jesus
make the change in scripture.Can someone
change their last will and testament after they die?Just as in the first
covenant, it was ratified by blood.The blood of animals.The New covenant was
ratified by the blood of Jesus.
Also, the 10 commandments were what the covenant agreement was based on
but not the agreement itself.The agreement or covenant
is what was faulty, not the commandments.
Why was it faulty.God's part was not faulty.
But Israel when they accepted and ratified it
made this promise"ALL THAT THE LORD
HAS SAID WE WILL DO".So the faulty promises
were from Israel.Just like Abraham when he attempted on his strenth to
fulfill God's promise
and took a bond woman to concieve Ishmael.
But God's promises are not faulty.And through
the free woman -Sarai, Issac was concieved.
So to, the New Covenant is based on better promises,God promise's to do
it.To write his law upon our heart and minds.The same law.
So then not by human effort"We will do"
but by faith in God's promises. His strenth
not mine.So then the just requirements of the
law are fulfilled in us who by faith walk according
to the Spirit, not the flesh.God's law is Spiritual.
So then, to be Spirtually minded is life, but to be
carnally minded is death.
<docto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8c6d78$g3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Allen Hoessli
of the Lord's supper. If you look in Acts 2:46 you will see that the
breaking of bread is something that they did DAILY and not just at the
Lord's supper. Breaking of bread is just an expression used to tell you
that they were eating. "...continuing daily with one accord in the
temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
(food) with gladness and singleheartedness of heart."
In article <38E69E71...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------838E325AA63766BF210FCC4F
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> --------------838E325AA63766BF210FCC4F
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <p>doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>In article <38E5BB96...@yahoo.com>,
> <br>DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <br>> >
> <br>> > You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the
apostles
> <br>> > broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached
until
> <br>> > midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole
source
> <br>for
> <br>> > their theology for sunday worship?
> <br>>
> <br>> All churches teach one of four positions on the day that
Christians
> <br>> worship.
> <br>>
> <br>> #1. THE TRUTH: (This is what I believe....)
> <p>OH, it's the truth because YOU believe it? And we are
supposed
> to give
> <br>up all biblical evidence to the contrary because YOU say this is
the
> <br>truth?</blockquote>
> And OH to you, it's not because I believe it, I believe it because it
is
> the TRUTH. Why would you give it up? Search the Scriptures, be a
Berean....
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>> The 10 commandment law including the requirement to
> <br>> keep the sabbath day
> <br>> were abolished at the cross along with all the rest of
> <br>> the law of Moses.
> <br>Sorry but you need to study more. The laws Christ's death
did
> away
> <br>with were the sacrifical laws, not the Moral Laws.
> <p>> God
> <br>> gave a covenant at Mt. Sinai through Moses to the Jews.
> <br>> It is called the
> <br>> first/old covenant/testament. The ten commandments are
> <br>> the foremost visible
> <br>> representation of this first/old covenant was replaced
> <br>> by a new covenant
> <br>> called, among other things "the law of Christ". 100% of
> <br>> the old covenant was
> <br>> abolished. No part of the Old Covenant remains in
> <br>> force.
> <p>Sorry but in other posts several of us have clearly demonstrated
this
> <br>statement is false.
> <br> </blockquote>
> Sorry, but in the Word of God, is contrary to "other posts". For me, I
> will go with the Bible. It is a MORE FOR SURE WORD than "several of
us"
> postings. Besides, the other postings are full of improper
herminutics,
> which I have pointed out by text that some state "twist Scripture"
ect.
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <br>> No one prior to
> <br>> Moses (Abraham or Adam) ever heard of the sabbath law
> <br>> much less kept it.
> <br>> The very first time that anyone was commanded to keep
> <br>> the sabbath was in
> <br>> Exodus 16. The word "sabbath" is not even found in the
> <br>> book of Genesis.
> <p>So what? The words revelation and saviour isn't found
in
> Genesis
> <br>either does that make it any less a part of the Bible or any less
true?
> <br>The word salvation doesn't appear until Gen 49:18, SO WHAT?
</blockquote>
> That isn't the point. Is it....
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>> Gen
> <br>> 2:2-3 was written by Moses to tell Jews at Sinai the
> <br>> meaning behind WHY
> <br>> they were to keep the sabbath, NOT WHEN the sabbath was
> <br>> instituted.
> <p>> The
> <br>> universal meeting day of Christians after the
> <br>> resurrection was Sunday, and so
> <br>> has been to this very day. Sunday is not a Christian
> <br>> sabbath or a day of rest,
> <br>> or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires
> <br>> all Christians to gather
> <br>> together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper
> <br>> (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7
> <p>PLEASE show me where this is commanded in the NT? Or anywhere
> else for
> <br>that matter. Where does God require this? Please
provide
> Scriptural
> <br>evidence of the "truth". What Acts 20 says is that they
gathered
> <br>together to break bread (EAT) and Paul preached until
midnight.
> This
> <br>too has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You are
> basing
> <br>your entire theology on ONE verse of scripture without takeing
into
> <br>considereation the context.</blockquote>
> Do you really need to be shown?
> <p>Do you really on a command in the NT?
> <br>TO "break bread" is commonly associated with the Lord's Supper.
> <p>Luke 22:19 "And having takens some BREAD, when He had given thanks,
> He BROKE IT, and gave it to them, saysing "<font color="#FF0000">This
is
> My body which is given for you; do this in rememberance of Me"</font>
> <p>Luke 24:30,31 "And it came about that when He had reclined at table
> with them, He took BREAD and blessed it, and BREAKING IT, He began
giving
> it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He
> vanished from their sight.
> <p>Luke 24:35 "And they began to relate their experiences on the road
and
> how He was recognized by them in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD".
> <p>Therefore the evidence in Acts 20, or even Acts 2:42, as in
the
> early church "to gather together" and "to break bread" eppear to be a
standard
> formula for Christian meetings where the Lord's Supper was practiced.
> <p>To summarize Acts 20:7
> <br>The meeting was "on the first day of the week
> <br>It was probably Sunday night
> <br>Luke says they were "gather together to break bread" indicating
the
> purpose of the meeting
> <br>"breaking of bread" was probably the Lord's Supper
> <br>This was a Christian Church metting
> <br>It is the earliest strong evidence of Christians meeting on the
first
> day of the week.
> <p>From my study I have been unable to find any GOOD REASON for Paul
to
> specifically mention the first day of the week, UNLESS this day held a
> degree of imporance to the New Testimetn Christians.
> <p>1 Corinthians 16:1,2
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>OK, The apostles had been speaking in the Synagogs on the
Sabbath
> <br>which goes from Sundown on what is now called Friday to Sundown of
> what
> <br>is now called Saturday. When the sabbath was over they
gathered
> to
> <br>eat, just as we have a meal at the close of the day. Paul
spoke
> to
> <br>them until midnight, continuing on with what he had been speaking
of
> on
> <br>the sabbath because he was leaving in the morning and would not
see
> <br>them for a long time, if ever. This is not a command
to
> observe the
> <br>Lords supper on the first day of the week. It is simply a
group
> <br>getting together after sabbath to eat and talk. THAT's
IT.
> If it is
> <br>any different please give me the scripture to prove
it.</blockquote>
> There is evidenc that this meeting was not a holdover from a Sabbath
morning
> service as some argue.
> <br>The weight of evidence is that this was a Sunday evening meeting,
the
> regular meeting time for the New Testiment
> <br>Christians in Troas.
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>> Christians do not keep the ten commandment
> <br>> law of Moses. This is
> <br>> not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder
> <br>> and commit adultery, just
> <br>> because the 10 commandments have been abolished.
> <p>No they don't keep the 10 commandments they keep 9 of them with no
> <br>scriptural basis for not keeping the other one.</blockquote>
> The other one is Christ Jesus, Haven't you found Jesus is the only
true
> Sabbath rest?
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>> No!
> <br>> Christians are
> <br>> under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal
> <br>> 6:2) a better covenant
> <br>> (Heb 8:6-7).
> <p>While the Jews followed the 10 commandments to gain
salvation.
> We now
> <br>have salvation through Christ but that does not negate following
the
> <br>Moral laws provided for all manking by God. The Law of Christ and
the
> <br>Law of God are one in the same since they are one in the
same.
> The 10
> <br>Commandments are the Law of God. Remember Christ is the Lord
> of the
> <br>Sabbath.</blockquote>
> Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must
also
> be a
> <br>change of the law.
> <p>Hebres 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak
and
> useless
> <br>19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is
introduced,
> by
> <br>which we draw near to God.
> <p>As you will probably state I'm talking about ceremonial laws
here...
> <p>I have news for you...
> <p>Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are
> <br>coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can
never,
> by the
> <br>same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect
those
> <br>who draw near to worship.
> <br>2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the
worshipers
> <br>would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have
felt
> <br>guilty for their sins.
> <br>3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
> <br>4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to
take
> away sins.
> <br>5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice
and
> offering
> <br>you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
> <br>6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
> <br>7 Then I said, `Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I
> have come to
> <br>do your will, O God.'"
> <br>8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and
sin
> offerings you
> <br>did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law
required
> <br>them to be made).
> <br>9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets
aside
> the first
> <br>to establish the second.
> <br>10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice
of
> the
> <br>body of Jesus Christ once for all.
> <br>11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious
duties;
> again
> <br>and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away
> sins.
> <br>12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for
> sins, he sat
> <br>down at the right hand of God.
> <br>13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his
footstool,
> <br>14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who
are
> <br>being made holy.
> <p>The Book of Hebrews deals with the SUPERIORITY of Christ to the old
> <br>order--the sanctuary with all of its ceremonies and rituals. The
author
> here states
> <br>that the old order was not able to deal with SIN, yet we are
perfected
> by Christ's
> <br>sacrifice. Where does the conviction of SIN come from?
> <p>Romans 5:13 ... sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
> <p>Romans 4:14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no
value
> and
> <br>the promise is worthless,
> <br>15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
> <br>transgression.
> <p>Is this the CEREMONIAL law to which Paul refers? Obviously not. So
if
> the
> <br>author of Hebrews is speaking of the law not being able to deal
with
> sin, it is not
> <br>the cermonial law to which (s)he refers, but the entire law of
God,
> <br>specifically in this instance, the "moral" law. (Don't you just
love
> that
> <br>terminology? Is there an "immoral" law? :) (Maybe where you
live :-)
> <br>15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
> <br>16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time,
says
> the
> <br>Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on
> their
> <br>minds."
> <br>17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no
more."
> <br>18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any
sacrifice
> <br>for sin.
> <p>Logically, even you SDAs have to agree thatt his refers to
the "moral"
> law. Was there
> <br>a distinction between the "ceremonial" law that the author spoke
of
> in previous
> <br>verses and the "law" mentioned here? No, there wasn't. Law is law.
> And our
> <br>brother James says that anyone who breaks the smallest and most
insignificant
> <br>of the laws is guilty of them all.
> <br>(Notice verse 10:1 says that the entire law is a shadow of the
> <br>Reality of Jesus Christ.) Thank God I no longer have to live in
the
> shadows;
> <br>You want to live in the Light of the Son?
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>The Sabbath day is not a moral law...
> <p>For your better understanding this, please look at this and do your
> Berean study..
> <p> <a href="http://www.soundofgrace.com/tablets/tos.html">Table
of
> Stone</a>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>> Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a
> <br>> prophet or spiritual, let him
> <br>> recognize that the things which I write to you are the
> <br>> Lord's commandment."
> <br>> (1 Corinthians 14:37)
> <p>We recognize Pauls writings along with the rest of the Bible as the
> <br>truth.
> <br> </blockquote>
> Do you really?
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <br>> Apostle Peter said at the
> <br>> beginning of the establishment
> <br>> of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE
> <br>> UP FOR
> <br>> YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU
> <br>> SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it
> <br>> shall be that every
> <br>> soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly
> <br>> destroyed from among the
> <br>> people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and
> <br>> Moses in nothing. This is
> <br>> New Testament Christianity!
> <p>This does not negate what Moses or any of the other OT prophets
said.</blockquote>
> John 5:44-46
> <p>44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet
make
> no
> <br>effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
> <br>45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your
accuser
> is
> <br>Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
> <br>46 If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about
> me.
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets:
> <br>I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
> <br>Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass,
> one
> <br>jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
> <br>fulfilled.
> <br>Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
> <br>commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least
> in
> <br>the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same
> <br>shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> <br> </blockquote>
> Lawmongers, such the majority here however, will use this text
to
> "prove" we are still
> <br>subject to the law as a means of reconciling ourselves to God.
That
> is because,
> <br>as per usual, they are missing a very important point in the
passage.
> It is very
> <br>simple. Let me illustrate:
> <p>A. Jesus came not to destroy, but to<b> fulfil</b>.
> <br>B. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law <b>until</b> all
was
> fulfilled.
> <br>C. Jesus fulfilled <b>all </b>of the law.
> <p>Conclusion:
> <br>That a jot or tittle (or more) may have passed from the law now
that
> all has
> <br>been fulfilled.
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <br>Until His return all will not be fulfilled.
> <br>>
> <br>> #2. The Seventh-day Adventist position
> <br>>
> <br>> They believe that Christians originally kept the
> <br>> sabbath right from the time of the apostles, but
> <br>> due to the influence of the devil, Christians went into
> <br>> universal apostasy for
> <br>> over 1600 years until, of course the arrival of Ellen
> <br>> G. White, the Adventist
> <br>> prophet, who saw, contrary to what the Bible says in
> <br>> Col 2:16, that the
> <br>> sabbath law was not nailed to the cross. Historically,
> <br>> it was in 1844 the first
> <br>> Adventists (known then as Millerites) started keeping
> <br>> the Sabbath, introduced
> <br>> to them by a Seventh-day Baptist who convinced their
> <br>> Methodist minister that
> <br>> the Bible teaches us to keep the Sabbath. But God chose
> <br>> Ellen White and the
> <br>> modern Seventh-day Adventist movement as the medium
> <br>> through which to
> <br>> reveal and confirm this "truth" through direct
> <br>> inspiration and revelation.
> <br>> Although Adventists believe that a tiny unknown remnant
> <br>> has always kept the
> <br>> sabbath day, (like the Seventh-day Baptist preacher
> <br>> mentioned above) only in
> <br>> the 19th century did God, through the Seventh-day
> <br>> Adventist church, restore
> <br>> in any measurable way, by direct revelation, the truth
> <br>> that the day Christians
> <br>> worship was Saturday. Adventists openly teach that
> <br>> early Christians borrowed
> <br>> Sunday as the day of worship from the pagan religion of
> <br>> Mithraism in about
> <br>> 140 AD. Gradually Sunday replaced the sabbath day
> <br>> (Saturday) so that today
> <br>> the worship on Sunday is an almost universal Christian
> <br>> practice of apostasy
> <br>> and totally contrary to the will of God. "Sunday
> <br>> keepers", as Sabbatarians call
> <br>> them, have been deceived by the devil. SDA's interpret
> <br>> "The Seal of God" to
> <br>> be "Saturday Sabbathkeeping" vs "The Mark of the Beast"
> <br>> which they
> <br>> interpret to mean "Sunday Sabbathkeeping" - not now,
> <br>> but AFTER an
> <br>> assumed national Sunday law is passed so all must
> <br>> choose between the two.
> <br>> Of course these interpretations are apostate in
> <br>> themselves.
> <p>You still dont understand why we keep the Sabbath.</blockquote>
> Yes I do..but do you really understand why? I don't understand when
one
> reads it is done away with at the cross, that you continue to keep it.
> that is puzzling...
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>>
> <br>> #3. The Catholic
> <br>> Position
> <br>> Catholics worship God on the right day (1st Day) for
> <br>> the wrong reasons.
> <br>> Catholic theology is often confused within itself.
> <br>> Having observed that
> <br>> Christians have always met on Sunday, they figured that
> <br>> God must have
> <br>> transferred the significance of the sabbath commandment
> <br>> to Sunday. This is
> <br>> simply untrue. The Sabbath is abolished. Sunday is not
> <br>> a day of rest. The
> <br>> resurrection of Christ is the primary reason why
> <br>> Christians meet on Sunday.
> <br>> Catholics flatter themselves into thinking they made
> <br>> the change. Yet even
> <br>> Catholics have always taught that Acts 20:7, 1 Cor
> <br>> 16:1-2 and Rev 1:10 are
> <br>> clear Biblical references supporting the practice of
> <br>> worshipping on Sunday.
> <br>> Although some Catholics have suggested that the pope
> <br>> changed the sabbath
> <br>> well after Christians had an established practice of
> <br>> sabbath keeping, this point
> <br>> has been strongly rejected by the highest Catholic
> <br>> authorities today. In reality,
> <br>> what the Catholic church believes is that apostle Peter
> <br>> was the first pope (the
> <br>> first pope was in 606 AD not Peter) and that the very
> <br>> earliest Christians, in
> <br>> apostolic times "transferred the solemnity from
> <br>> Saturday to Sunday", by the
> <br>> will of God. Officially Catholics have always taught
> <br>> that the universal practice
> <br>> of the earliest Christians was to meet every Sunday.
> <br>> Seventh-day Adventists
> <br>> actually misrepresent the official teaching of the
> <br>> Catholic church. Yes the
> <br>> Catholic church does teach that it, by authority given
> <br>> to it by God, made the
> <br>> change, but that change was realized early in the
> <br>> Apostolic age. (33-96AD).
> <br>> So Catholics mistakenly call the 1st day, the Sabbath,
> <br>> borrowing the term
> <br>> from the Old Testament, rather than abolishing it with
> <br>> animal sacrifices.
> <br>> Catholics, however, do a lot of judaizing (bring Mosaic
> <br>> practices into the
> <br>> church).
> <br>>
> <br>> Peter Geierman, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic
> <br>> Doctrine, p. 50.
> <br>>
> <br>> Q. What is the Third Commandment?
> <br>>
> <br>> A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep
> <br>> holy the Sabbath
> <br>> day.
> <br>>
> <br>> Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
> <br>>
> <br>> A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> <br>>
> <br>> Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> <br>>
> <br>> A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> <br>> Catholic Church
> <br>> transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
> <br>>
> <br>> Notice that Catholics DO NOT say that Christians once
> <br>> kept the sabbath,
> <br>> (Saturday) then CHANGED the day of worship to Sunday.
> <br>> Rather they
> <br>> actually teach that this change took place at the time
> <br>> when Christians first
> <br>> started to worship on Sunday in 33 AD. It is critical
> <br>> to keep in mind that the
> <br>> Catholic church claims direct apostolic authority from
> <br>> the present Pope in
> <br>> Rome right back to Peter.
> <p>Since I'm not catholic I'll let them respond to you on your
dissertation
> <br>>
> <br>> #4. The General
> <br>> Protestant Position
> <br>>
> <br>> The universal practice of Christians has always been
> <br>> Sunday, similar to the
> <br>> Catholic position, the meaning of the sabbath was
> <br>> transferred to Sunday, to
> <br>> commemorate the resurrection of Christ. but some are
> <br>> doing the right thing for
> <br>> the wrong reason. When Christians today wrongly apply
> <br>> the 4th sabbath
> <br>> commandment as the reason why they worship on Sunday,
> <br>> they are not only
> <br>> mistaken, but are making themselves very vulnerable to
> <br>> manipulation by the
> <br>> various Sabbatarian groups. Any church that claims to
> <br>> keep the 10
> <br>> commandments or the sabbath day are highly vulnerable
> <br>> to any preying
> <br>> Sabbatarian group. Such churches will be hard pressed
> <br>> to justify their practice
> <br>> of worshipping on Sunday, while quoting the 4th
> <br>> commandment. "Six days you
> <br>> shall labour, but the seventh is the Sabbath." A simple
> <br>> kitchen calendar
> <br>> showing that Saturday is the "seventh" day of the week
> <br>> (just count them off) is
> <br>> the only evangelistic tool Sabbatarians need to convert
> <br>> these Christians to their
> <br>> Saturday keeping churches. Of course, not all
> <br>> Protestant churches take this
> <br>> position, but it is the majority view.
> <br>>
> <br>You can't even get the Protestant view right.
> <p>Sent via Deja.com <a
href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
> <br>Before you buy.</blockquote>
> </html>
>
> --------------838E325AA63766BF210FCC4F--
>
>
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------838E325AA63766BF210FCC4F
is the
> TRUTH. Why would you give it up? Search the Scriptures, be a
Berean....
I gave it up becaause it wasn't the truth.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, but in the Word of God, is contrary to "other posts". For me,
I will
> go with the Bible. It is a MORE FOR SURE WORD than "several of us"
> postings. Besides, the other postings are full of improper
herminutics,
> which I have pointed out by text that some state "twist Scripture"
ect.
I'm sorry to but the Word of God is not contrary to the "other post"
only your interpretation of the Bible.. If anyone has twisted the
scripture here, it is you.
> >
> > So what? The words revelation and saviour isn't found in Genesis
> > either does that make it any less a part of the Bible or any less
true?
> > The word salvation doesn't appear until Gen 49:18, SO WHAT?
>
> That isn't the point. Is it....
Yes it is the point because the word Sabbath is not mentioned does not
mean it was not observed. God's laws were observed before the time of
Moses.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
If Abraham obeyed God's Laws they were obviuosly in place.
> >
> > PLEASE show me where this is commanded in the NT? Or anywhere else
for
> > that matter. Where does God require this? Please provide Scriptural
> > evidence of the "truth". What Acts 20 says is that they gathered
> > together to break bread (EAT) and Paul preached until midnight. This
> > too has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You are basing
> > your entire theology on ONE verse of scripture without takeing into
> > considereation the context.
>
> Do you really need to be shown?
Yes because there is no such commandment or even a strong suggestion
that what you say is true.
>
> Do you really on a command in the NT?
> TO "break bread" is commonly associated with the Lord's Supper.
It is also commonly associated with eating.
> Luke 22:19 "And having takens some BREAD, when He had given thanks,
He BROKE
> IT, and gave it to them, saysing "This is My body which is given for
you; do
> this in rememberance of Me"
>
> Luke 24:30,31 "And it came about that when He had reclined at table
with
> them, He took BREAD and blessed it, and BREAKING IT, He began giving
it to
> them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He
vanished
> from their sight.
>
> Luke 24:35 "And they began to relate their experiences on the road
and how
> He was recognized by them in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD".
>
> Therefore the evidence in Acts 20, or even Acts 2:42, as in the early
> church "to gather together" and "to break bread" eppear to be a
standard
> formula for Christian meetings where the Lord's Supper was practiced.
Sorry but that is conjecture not evidence.
> To summarize Acts 20:7
> The meeting was "on the first day of the week
> It was probably Sunday night
Sorry but the days were observed from sundown to sundown. The fist day
started at Sundown on what is called today Saturday. They just like
other Sabbath keepers ate their evening meal after Sabbath was over. If
they were eating on "Sunday" night it would have been the second day
not the first. You have to remember they did not have clocks then only
the sun in the day and the moon at night. They would have no idea what
time to start the next day except by the rising and setting of the
heavenly bodies. Surely they would not know what "midnight" was or
that in the future it would be considered the start of the day.
If you read the text you can clearly see this was the evening following
the Sabbath for they were to leave in the morning.
> Luke says they were "gather together to break bread" indicating the
purpose
> of the meeting
> "breaking of bread" was probably the Lord's Supper
> This was a Christian Church metting
> It is the earliest strong evidence of Christians meeting on the first
day of
> the week.
>
I note you use "probably" if it was the Lords Supper we would have
been told. In this case it is simply a term indicating that they came
together to eat.
Acts 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him
said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread,
and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he
departed.
Luke 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took
bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he
vanished out of their sight.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with
gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread,
and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he
departed.
Acts 27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks
to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to
eat.
Each of these, including your reference has simply to do with eating,
Not with the Lord's supper. Now if you had utilized 1 Cor as your
reference for the Lord's Supper you would have been correct however it
does not say that this was done on the first day.
So as you can see your entire theology is based upon one verse of the
bible. You are following Man's traditions and NOT God's word in this
matter.
> From my study I have been unable to find any GOOD REASON for Paul to
> specifically mention the first day of the week, UNLESS this day held a
> degree of imporance to the New Testimetn Christians.
>
> 1 Corinthians 16:1,2
Again speculation on your part, because YOU can find no "Good Reason"
for paul to specifically mention the first day of the week does not
mean that there even needs to be one.
>
> There is evidenc that this meeting was not a holdover from a Sabbath
morning
> service as some argue.
> The weight of evidence is that this was a Sunday evening meeting, the
> regular meeting time for the New Testiment
> Christians in Troas.
There is no such evidence for your supposition that this was a “Sunday
evening meeting”. Your grasping at straws here for you know there is
no direction or command to worship on Sunday or the First day of the
week.
> >
> The other one is Christ Jesus, Haven't you found Jesus is the only
true
> Sabbath rest?
Again there is no scriptural evidence that this supposition is
correct. Yes, He will give us rest but He is not the Sabbath rest.
> >
> >
>
> Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must
also
> be a
> change of the law.
There was a change in the priesthood. Christ is now our High Priest
and the law that was changed was the law of sacrifice and Christ's
sacrifice and blood was the change.
>
> Hebres 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and
> useless
> 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is
introduced, by
> which we draw near to God.
>
> As you will probably state I'm talking about ceremonial laws here...
Only because it WAS the ceremonial laws that were done away with.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
 I have news for you...
The only news I need is the good news that comes from the Holy
Scriptures.
Will wonders never cease you actually got part of this right. Christ’s
sacrifice is superior to the old animal sacrifices that had to be over
and over. They were the Shadow of Christ’s sacrifice.
These are the laws he did away with the ceremonial sacrificial laws.
Not the moral laws.
> The author here
> states
> that the old order was not able to deal with SIN, yet we are
perfected by
> Christ's
> sacrifice. Where does the conviction of SIN come from?
> Romans 5:13 ... sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
You conveniently took this out of context as well lets look at it in
context.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God,
and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification.
> Romans 4:14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no
value and
> the promise is worthless,
> 15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
> transgression.
>
> Is this the CEREMONIAL law to which Paul refers? Obviously not. So if
the
> author of Hebrews is speaking of the law not being able to deal with
sin, it
> is not
> the cermonial law to which (s)he refers, but the entire law of God,
> specifically in this instance, the "moral" law. (Don't you just love
that
> terminology? Is there an "immoral" law? :) (Maybe where you live :-)
What Paul is referring to in this passage is as follows:
14. The ones here described are those who rely on their own obedience
to obtain justification, that is, legalists. If legalists are to
inherit the kingdom, then faith has been emptied of all meaning, and
there is no reason for God’s commendation of Abraham. If the
fulfillment of the promise depended on our legalistic obedience, it
never could be fulfilled at all.
15. Legalists who depend on obedience to the law for justification from
sin are basing their expectations on a false assumption. The function
of the law is to reveal sin and to show it to be transgression of God’s
will. Far from justifying the sinner or bringing him peace, it
condemns him and brings the wrath of God upon him. Since Paul has
already proved that all men have sinned, it follows that ny who attempt
to be justified by the law will be involved only in wrath and
condemnation. Thus the law may produce an effect the very opposite of
that which is intended by the promise. By this verse Paul is by no
means denying the necesity of the law, He is only clarifying the
function of the law in the plan of salvation .
“No Transgression” That is no disobedience to a known commandment.
Paul seems to be using his negative statement to confirm the truth of
his positive assertion that where a law does not exits transgression is
revealed and wrath impends. He is trying to make clear to the
legalists. That if righteousness is not by faith but by the law, there
is no hope of salvation. For the Jews have a law and they have all
transgressed it’s requirements. Consequently, they are now exposed to
the penalties of transgression, and if the promise of justification
without works of law does not extend to them they are utterly without
hope.
You see Adventist do not believe at the legalists do that you can be
saved by obeying the law you must believe in Christ and be saved by his
blood. We are saved by grace not by works. But we do believe that the
laws still apply and apparently you do as well for you follow 9 of the
10.
> 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
> 16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says
the
> Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on
their
> minds."
> 17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no
more."
> 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any
sacrifice
> for sin.
>
You must look at Hebrews 8:12-13 first
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
“I will be merciful” When Jeremiah spoke these words on the eve of the
captivity, they were a promise of what God was willing to do for His
wayward people if they would return to Him. For the Christian they are
a promise of forgiveness full and free through the blood of Jesus with
out the shedding of the blood of animals under the Levitical system.
“Remember no more.” That is God will no longer hold these sins against
the transgressor. God will cast all our sins behind His back (Isa
38:17) He will cast them into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19).
“Covenant” This word is supplied and correctly so, as the Greek
indicates. The adjective translated “new” is in the same gender and
number as the word for “covenant.” That “covenant” is is correctly
supplied is further shown by the fact that “he saith” refers back to
the quotation cited in verse 12 (From Jer 31:31-33), which employs the
phrase “new covenant.”
“Hath made the first old. The quotation from Jeremiah (cited in vs 8-
12) clearly shows that the new was to replace the old, not to be in a
addition to it. This was a difficult point for the Hebrew Christians
to grasp.
“Decayeth”, or “is growing old” The question may be raised as to why
this word is in the present tenst if the old covenant passed away at
the cross. Some commentators think that they reference is to the time
that Jeremiah utterly his prophecy concerning the new covenant.
However it is possible to understand the reference also to the time
when the book of Hebrews was written. It is true that the ceremonial
system was fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross. However even for the
devout Christian the trnasition from the old to the new system was
gradual
“Ready to vanish away” Readers of the epistle are being prepared for
the time when the old system would be don away completely.
Now to verse 10:14-22-
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after
that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in
their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us,
through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
“One offering” – this is Christ’s sacrifice this theme is repeatedly
emphasized.
Perfected. The one sacrifice of Christ accomplished that which the
continual sacrifices of the priests could not, for they could not purge
the conscience. When the sinner accepts by faith the benefits of that
one =sacrifice he is accepted in the Beloved, being counted as perfect,
because Christ his substitute stands in his place.
“:For ever” The meaning is not that the man once saved cannot fall
from grace, for the author of Hebrews has already denied such a
proposition. The emphasis is on the continued efficacy of the one
sacrifice of Christ.
“Are sanctified” here the meaning is “are being sanctified.” However
this form does not necessarily imply that the author is now speaking of
sanctification as a continued process. It is unlikely that he would
use the same word with such different meanings in such a close
contextual relationship. The phrase “are being sanctified” is here
used to describe the continued influx of new believers into the
Christian Church.
15. “Holy Ghost” The testimony of Scripture is here presented as the
witness of the Holy Spirit
16. “This is the covenant” The wording is different than 8:10. The
author is simply selecting the salient points from Jeremiah’s prophecy.
“Remember no more: Now sins could be forgotten for the sacrifice for
them had been made which fact was not true under the old covenant.
“Remission” “forgiveness” in nearly every occurrence of this word in
the NT the world ‘sins” follows. It is evident that the world “sins”
should be understood.
“No more offering” The great truth taught by the stipulation that the
shedding of blood was required for forgiveness was that the salvation
of man would one day require the death of the Son of God. Compare Matt
26:28. Every animal sacrifice pointed forward to the supreme sacrifice
of the “Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world” John 1:29.
Having therefore – The author sums up briefly what he has established
namely that through Jesus Christ we have direct access to God and draws
practical lessons for the Hebrew Christians.
19 By the blood of Jesus. Not as the earthly high priest with the
blood of animals which could not take away sins, but by the blood of
the efficacious, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
20. New. It iwas now in the sense that it had not previously existed.
The old covenant had not provided such a way. It was also new in the
sense that it is always fresh.
Living – Christ “ever liveth to make intercession for us” Ch 7:25. The
new way centers in a person who is alive forever more. He is the “way,
the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). All this is in contrast with the
dead sacrifices offered under the old covenant.
Consecrated, to inaugurate, to dedicate. The way was inaugurated by
the death of Christ.
Veil “the veil here represents the means of entrance by which the
divine presence is approached. Also with the symbolic significance of
the rending of the veil at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. That
rending signified not only the sacrificial system was at an end but
also that “a new and living way is prepared”
Having a High priest over the house of God – Christ is our high priest
and he enters into the Holiest part of the temple cleansing the way
with His own blood.
> Logically, even you SDAs have to agree thatt his refers to
the "moral" law.
> Was there
> a distinction between the "ceremonial" law that the author spoke of in
> previous
> verses and the "law" mentioned here?
This is all about the ceremonial law from start to finish. Not
the “moral law”
> No there wasn't. Law is law.
No just as there are different types of laws today there are different
types of law in the bible, Moral and ceremonial.
> And our
> brother James says that anyone who breaks the smallest and most
> insignificant
> of the laws is guilty of them all.
Here he is talking about the 10 commandments. Note the whole passage
in context.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become
a transgressor of the law.
James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the
law of liberty.
> (Notice verse 10:1 says that the entire law is a shadow of the
> Reality of Jesus Christ.) Thank God I no longer have to live in the
shadows;
I have explained that in several posts and earlier in this one.
>
> You want to live in the Light of the Son?
I do.
>
> The Sabbath day is not a moral law...
Oh, yes it is.
>
> For your better understanding this, please look at this and do your
Berean
> study..
>
> Table of Stone
>
> >
> >
> > > Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a
> > > prophet or spiritual, let him
> > > recognize that the things which I write to you are the
> > > Lord's commandment."
> > > (1 Corinthians 14:37)
> >
> > We recognize Pauls writings along with the rest of the Bible as the
> > truth.
> >
>
> Do you really?
Yes we do, even more so than many other denominations.
>
> >
> > > Apostle Peter said at the
> > > beginning of the establishment
> > > of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE
> > > UP FOR
> > > YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU
> > > SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it
> > > shall be that every
> > > soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly
> > > destroyed from among the
> > > people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and
> > > Moses in nothing. This is
> > > New Testament Christianity!
> >
> > This does not negate what Moses or any of the other OT prophets
said.
>
> John 5:44-46
>
> 44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet
make no
> effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
> 45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your
accuser is
> Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
> 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about me.
Moses wrote of Christ, that’s not a startling revelation.
> >
> >
> > Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets:
> > I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
> > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
> > jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
> > fulfilled.
> > Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
> > commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least
in
> > the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same
> > shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> >
>
> Law mongers, such the majority here however, will use this text
to "prove"
> we are still
> subject to the law as a means of reconciling ourselves to God. That is
> because,
> as per usual, they are missing a very important point in the passage.
It is
> very
> simple. Let me illustrate:
>
> A. Jesus came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
> B. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was
fulfilled.
> C. Jesus fulfilled all of the law.
>
> Conclusion:
> That a jot or tittle (or more) may have passed from the law now that
all has
>
> been fulfilled.
I explained that below until He returns it is not all fulfilled.
> Yes I do,.but do you really understand why? I don't understand when
one
> reads it is done away with at the cross, that you continue to keep
it. that
> is puzzling...
I fully understand what you are saying and you do not understand why we
keep the Sabbath. That fact is blatantly obvious by your post above.
And yes I fully understand why we keep it.
What I don’t understand is why you believe the only part of the 10
commandments done away with at the cross was the 4th.
Although I did attend DePaul University and took two years of Theology –
Philosophy there.
doctor...@my-deja.com
Allen Hoessli <ahoe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In Acts, breaking of bread did not necessarily refer to the ordinence
> of the Lord's supper. If you look in Acts 2:46 you will see that the
> breaking of bread is something that they did DAILY and not just at the
> Lord's supper. Breaking of bread is just an expression used to tell
you
> that they were eating. "...continuing daily with one accord in the
> temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
> (food) with gladness and singleheartedness of heart."
>
Your right on target. The only place in the NT where the "Lord's
Supper" is mentioned after the ressurection is in 1 Cor.
This book of the bible does a great job of explaining what the Lord's
supper is supposed to be.
1 Cor 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is
not to eat the Lord's supper.
1 Cor 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own
supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
DW4
DaMao
In doctrine you differ radically from evangelical churches. The main
points are these as taught in all your books: You hold to the materiality of
all things; believe in the sonship of Christ; believe that you only have a
correct understanding of the prophecies to which you give most of your
attention; that the end of the world is to occur in this generation; that we
are now in the Judgment which began in 1844; that the Seventh day, Saturday,
must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should
pay tithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible;
that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings; that you
are called of God to give the last warning to the World; that the dead are
unconscious; that the wicked and the devil will be annihilated; that all
churches but your own are Babylon and rejected of God; that everybody but
themselves will soon become spiritualists; that when Christ comes only
144,000 out of all then living on the earth will be saved, and all these
will be Seventh-day Adventists. Hence, you have no fellowship with other
Christians;
never work with them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.
Your Hostility to All Other Churches
One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter
hostility of its believers towards all other churches. Your theory is that
all churches but their own were utterly rejected of God in 1844 for not
embracing Miller's doctrine. Thus Mrs. White says: "I saw the state of the
different churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall [in 1844].
They have been growing more and more corrupt.... Satan has taken full
possession of the churches as a body.... The churches were left as were the
Jews; and they have been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I
saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet they profess to be
Christians. Their professions, their prayers and their exhortations are an
abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, God will not smell in
their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by them
without the reprovings of conscience." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 189,
190. She says it is the devil who answers their prayers. Thus: "I saw them
look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then
breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, page 47. Again:
"The nominal churches are filled with fornication and adultery, crime and
murder, the result of base, lustful passion; but these things are kept
covered." Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligent people know that
such statements are a misrepresentation of the evangelical churches today.
Elder White says:
"Babylon, the nominal church, is fallen; God's people have come out of her.
She is now the synagogue of Satan." Present Truth. April, 1850.
Henceyou say that the revivals and conversions in the churches are largely a
deception, the work of the devil, not of God. Mrs. White says of them: "The
converts are not renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will exult
that God is working marvelously for them, when the work is that of another
spirit. Under a religious guise, Satan will spread his influence over the
land. HE HOPES TO DECEIVE MANY BY LEADING THEM TO THINK THAT GOD IS STILL
WITH THE CHURCHES." Great Controversy, page 294, 296. On this the Review
and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "we are aware that to assume that this
revival work, so unquestionably accepted by all the churches, is not
genuine, will cause the hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror....
If He [God] is with us, He has not been with the popular churches in any
marked manner since they rejected the Advent message of 1843-4, and they are
congratulating themselves over delusive appearances, and a prosperity which
has no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two movements so
antagonistic in
nature."
Believing this, you eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut your
eyes to any facts against it. So you rejoice at any unfavorable thing you
can hear against ministers, churches, or members. You report it, repeat it,
publish it, magnify it, and live on it. To weaken, divide, or break up a
church, is your delight. You heartily join with worldlings, infidels and
atheists in your opposition to churches, and thus strengthen your unbelief
and help them to perdition. You have gathered up all the most unfavorable
things possible to find against the churches and put it in a book occupying
thirty pages, and this you hand out for all to read. It is sad to see
honest men devoting their lives to such highly censurable work, which must
please Satan well.
Who is Deceived?
Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived, to be
led by Satan, when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the truth.
It is amusing to see how innocently you apply this to all others, and never
dream that is has any application to yourselves! What, WE deceived? We
misled? Impossible! We KNOW we are right. Exactly, and that is just the
way all feel, whether they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics, or what not. The
Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with which people are
misled.
Your Methods of Work in 1912. (by Canright)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced"
Chapter 1
Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new fields. Being a
novelty, they attract attention. At first they present subjects which will
offend no one till they gain the confidence of the people. Gradually they
introduce their peculiar dogmas, then come out more boldly, till at length
they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and their pastors as hirelings
and deceivers. They say these pastors cannot defend their doctrines; dare
not
try. They offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how they
have
scared this one, defeated that one, and silenced another. If in sermons the
least reference is made to them, they call it persecution, give out a
review,
and do everything to provoke controversy. When the resident pastors are
compelled to defend themselves, the Adventists claim to be greatly abused.
If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should enter a town and
denounce all others of his profession as quacks, fools, or deceivers, how
would he be treated? All would combine against him as a common enemy.
This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks of the
Adventists,
because compelled to. Like Ishmael of old, the hand of the Adventist is
against every man, and hence every man's hand is against them. Gen 16:12.
It
is useless for them to deny this, for all know it to be true. They all do
it.
I was taught that way and followed it, and taught others to do the same.
Camp meeting. Adventists hold many camp-meetings yearly. Here their
ablest
speakers preach their doctrines to thousands, and distribute their
literature
widely. They hire the papers to print lengthy flattering reports of their
meetings, which they write themselves. Their reporters are trained for this
special work. They gain wide attention, and impress many in this way.
Bible Readings. Hundreds of their men, women, and even young girls, are
trained with printed lessons which they learn by heart, to go from house to
house and give Bible readings. At first they conceal their real object and
name, till they get a foothold. Then they cautiously introduce their
tenets,
work against pastors and churches, and lead many away.
Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass for their doctrinal
books. The real nature of the book is studiously concealed, and the
subscriber is deceived into buying a radical Advent book.
Distribution of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, privately, from
tent or church, by book-agents, colporteurs, Bible-readers, or private
individuals, in depots, on boats, in stores, or families, through the mails,
by sale, loan or gift, their tracts are persistently crowded everywhere.
Missions. They have Missions in many of the large cities and in foreign
lands; but they are largely proselyting agencies. They do little among the
heathen, or for the destitute and fallen, but go into the best families to
which they can gain access, and gather the converts whom other missionaries
have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs them: "Mistakes have been made in not
seeking to reach ministers and the higher classes with the truth.... Educate
men and women to labor for these higher classes both here and there and in
other countries." Testimony No. 33, pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his
disciples
into the highways and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans,
harlots and sinners; but Mrs. White does not relish that kind. She wants
them
from "the ministers and higher classes," "the whole who need no physician,"
those who can bring talent and money into the cause.
Where They Work. Adventists have the best success in new fields, where
they
are least known. Hence the western States is where they are most numerous.
In New England, where they started, they have had to struggle hard to hold
their own. In some of the older fields they have lost in numbers, in others
the gain is very small. In hundreds of places where they were fair sized,
active churches in the past, now no church at all, or a straggling,
discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. This was their
headquarters for forty years. Once there were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here,
all
united. Now there are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties,
their influence entirely gone. The same is true elsewhere. About all the
converts they make are at the outset. After a few years' acquaintance, they
have no influence and few or none join them. Their churches grow smaller,
generally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of their
churches
is 29 - exceedingly small; how different from the evangelical churches! The
longer these are in a town the stronger they grow, and the more influence
they
have generally. But Adventism does not wear.
Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, take warning
from those who have been through the mill, and stay out.
DaMao
Here is a man that was with them 28 years. He knew the Whites.
Let's look and see what we can learn from him. His name is Canright.
Chapter II - An Experience
of Twenty-Eight Years in Adventism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From "Seventh-day Adventism Renounced"
by D.M. Canright, 1914
I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this book,
but could
see no way to tell my story without it. My experience illustrates
the power
which error and superstition have over men. I am amazed at myself
that I was
held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it
was an
error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were,
hit whom they
may. Public men become public property, and as such their conduct
and work
should be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticizing
the
course of Elder White and wife, and others. They invite criticism
by claiming
to be reformers, better than other people.
I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 22, 1840.
I had no
religious training till I was sixteen. I was converted among
the Methodists
under the labors of Rev. Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858.
I soon
went to Albion, N.Y., to attend school. Here, in 1859, I heard
Elder and Mrs.
White. He preached on the Sabbath question. I was uneducated,
and knew but
little about the Bible. I had no idea of the relation between
the Old and New
Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference between the Sabbath
and
the Lord's day. I thought he proved that the seventh day was
still binding,
and that there was no authority for keeping Sunday.
As I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, but did
not expect
to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their
meetings on
Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me entirely from
other
Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned
from them
that all other churches were Babylon, in the dark and under the frown
of God.
Seventh-day Adventists were the only true people of God. They
had "the
truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They defended
Mr.
Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep
of the
dead, the annihilation of the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first
these
things staggered me, and I thought of drawing back; but they explained
them
plausibly and smoothed them over, and said they were no test anyway.
Having
no one to intelligently aid me, I began to see things as they did,
and in a
few weeks came to believe the whole system. I was again baptized,
as their
converts from other churches generally are, so as to get clean out
of Babylon.
Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the
study of
all else, listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied
my
Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an
enthusiastic
believer, and longed to convert everybody to the faith. I had
not a doubt
that it was the pure truth. This is about the experience of all
who go with
them, as I have since learned.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with
Elder Van Horn at
Ithaca, Mich. We had good success; raised up three companies
that year. In
1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was
ordained by
Elder White that year. Up to this date I had not a doubt about
the
truthfulness of our faith. As I now began to see more of Elder
White and
wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble
with
him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared
him. I saw
that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a
little, but not
seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with Elder J.N. Andrews,
the ablest
man among them. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself
into the work
with great enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was
strong in the
faith and very radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent
success. By this time I had become quite a writer. I returned
to Battle
Creek in 1867. At that time there was great trouble with Elder
White, and
many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It
was clear to me
that he was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained him in her "Testimonies"
and
severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews and a few others proposed
to stand
up for the right, and take the consequences. My sympathies were
with them;
but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that "we have
been
blinded by Satan." This was signed by the leading ministers,
and humbly
adopted by the whole church. See "Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612.
This shook
my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration.
I saw
that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself.
If any dared
question their course, they soon received a scathing revelation denouncing
the
wrath of God against them.
About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a party
in the
West, drew off from the body, in opposition to Elder White and the
visions.
They were denounced as "rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was
predicted that they would soon come to ruin! But they have continued
their
work for about fifty years, having several thousand believers.
Their
headquarters are at Stanberry, Missouri, where they publish two papers,
books,
etc. They have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs.
White's
inspiration.
But I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth,
and had little
experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed.
What could
I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. I wished I had
never heard of the
Adventists. Shortly I was back on my field in Maine. Busy
with my work,
preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed
it, I soon
got over my doubts. I have since learned that scores of others
have gone
through a similar trial.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the trouble
at
headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle
Creek for a
month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble
with most of the
leading men, and they with him. I was well convinced that he
was the real
cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained him, and that settled it.
They were
God's chosen leaders, and must not be criticized or meddled with.
I felt sad.
I was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called it; to
persuade
them that this was a people free from the faults of other churches;
then to
see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly.
So far,
I myself had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been
very
cordial to me. But I saw then that if I ever came to be of any
prominence in
the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all
of the
others got. The more I saw of the work, the more objections I
saw to it. I
will not stop to give them here, as I will give them together in Chapter
V.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines that
I firmly
believed the Bible taught them all. To give up the Advent faith
was to give
up the Bible. So all my brethren said, and so I thought.
That year I went to
Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler,
who
soon became president of their general conference. We had good
success and
raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder
Butler, and
told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as
myself, for we
often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered
courage and went
on, feeling better. Still, I came to see each year more and more
that somehow
the thing did not work as I had supposed it would and ought.
Wherever Elder
White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren,
and the
best ones, too. I came to dread to meet them, or have them come
where I was,
for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some thing, and
it never
failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them,
the best
brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled
to
apologize for them continually. For years about this time, the
main business
at all our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White
against
his brethren. Not a leading man escaped - Andrews, Waggoner,
Smith,
Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host of others
had to
take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a
time, and times
without number, I have sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife
denounce
these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them.
It violated all
my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet,
whatever vote
was asked by Elder White, we all voted it unanimously, I with the rest.
Then
I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise
my brethren
for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an iron hand.
Not a
nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was
ever acted
upon in business meetings until all had been first submitted to Elder
White
for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition
vote on any
question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, all official voting
was only a
farce. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any
one dared to
oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched
him.
Long years of such training taught people to let their leaders think
for them;
hence, they are under as complete subjection as are the Catholics.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and discouragement,
and
tempted me to quit the work. I saw many an able minister and
scores of
valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment.
I envied
the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this,
supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, in fact, it
was as near
purgatory as anything I could imagine. Many poor souls have gone
there full
of faith and hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872
I went to
Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written
much, and so
was well known to all our people. In July, 1873, myself and wife
went to
Colorado to spend a few weeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains.
I
soon found things very unpleasant living in the family. Now my
turn had come
to catch it, but instead of knuckling down, as most of the others had,
I told
the elder my mind freely. That brought us into open rupture.
Mrs. White
heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long
written
"testimony" for wife and me. It justified her husband in everything,
and
placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven only by a full
surrender to them. Wife and I read it over many times with tears
and prayers;
but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained
many statements
which we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit
of
retaliation, a determination to break our wills or crush us.
For awhile we
were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine
and
my fear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly miserable for weeks,
not
knowing what to do. However, I preached awhile in Colorado and
then went to
California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to
settle
what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us,
and tried to
reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally
decided to
forget all my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed
to Elder
White all we could possibly, and he generously forgave us! But
from that on
my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White
was very
friendly to me again after that.
Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, and
this is one of
the five. It is utterly untrue. I simply stopped preaching
for a few weeks,
but did not withdraw from the church nor renounce the faith.
If this is
leaving them, then most of their leading men have left them, too, for
they all
have had their periods of trial when they left their work awhile.
About 1856,
Elders J.N. Andrews and J.N. Loughborough, who were then the most prominent
ministers among them, and several other persons, left the work and
went into
business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. White gave an account of this
in "Experience
and Views," pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and,
after a long
effort, brought them back. Mrs. White says: "A dissatisfied party
had settled
in Waukon.... Brother J.N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone
to work at
his trade. He was just about to purchase land," etc., page 222.
These men did
just what I did.
Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their ranks,
also had his
seasons of doubt, when he ceased to work, and engaged in secular employments.
Hear his own confession: "That I have had in my experience occasional
periods
of trial, I do not deny. There have been times when circumstances
seemed very
perplexing; when the way to harmonize apparently conflicting views
did not at
once appear, and under what have seemed for the time strong provocations
to
withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the question how far this
could
reasonably be done, or how much of this work could consistently be
surrendered." Replies to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words
show that he
has doubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did.
For years we
were on intimate terms; often traveled and labored together.
We freely talked
over these matters. His doubts and trials were very similar to
my own. This
ran through a long period of years, till it was feared that he would
quit them
entirely. His wife was nearly driven to insanity over similar
trials.
Finally they broke down, "confessed" the same as I did once, and now
profess
to be satisfied. He wrote to me that he had to endorse Mrs. White's
visions
out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, that most of them
at times are
more or less troubled over it, just as I was. In the language
of J.W. Morton,
"I pity their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by which
they and
others are held to the most unscriptural dogmas. Even Mr. Smith,
for whom,
however he may denounce me, I entertain only the most kindly feelings,
is in a
position that calls for tender commiseration. He is expected,
as the great
man of the denomination (for he undoubtedly is by far the ablest man
they
have), to give a full and explicit endorsement of Mrs. White's claims
of
inspiration; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this point
-
especially he who has skill to 'read between the lines' - can see that
his
endorsement is so feeble as to be no endorsement at all. Such
a position is
one in which I would not place my worst enemy. He is, in part
at least, under
the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh, that Uriah Smith had the
courage, and
the manliness, to assert, before God and man, his right to that 'soul
liberty'
which is the inheritance of every child of God!"
Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place of Elder
White as
leader of the denomination, got into trial with his brethren, and,
practically, out of the work. Till middle life he was a small
farmer.
Naturally he was a humble, good man, with a strong sense of fairness.
Elder
White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White also turned against
him and
required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when
he could not
be an Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as others had
decided.
Disappointed and soured, under pretext of ill-health, he went off to
Florida
on a little farm - another example of the blighting effect of Adventism.
He
is now doing what I did two or three times, only from a different cause.
Has
he, then, left them?
In 1874 Elder White had arranged to have a big debate held at
Napa City,
Cal., between Elder Miles Grant, of Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers.
Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough,
their
ablest men, were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which
I did
for about a week, while the other ministers sat by. I mention
this to show
the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial
but a few
months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler
was now out
with Elder White, who took every possible opportunity to snub him;
but I was
in high favor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont,
Kansas,
Ohio and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the
Seventh-day
Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota,
then to Texas,
and so on through most of the Southern States, to look after our interests
there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me.
That year I
raised up a large church at Rome, New York, and labored over the State.
Went
with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent
to Kansas
to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This
year I was
elected a member of the General Conference Committee of three, with
Elder
White and Elder Haskell, and continued on the committee two years.
It is the
highest official authority in the denomination.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches
and did other
work. I spent 1878 in general work in various States, as Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio.
In the
fall was president of the Ohio conference. In 1879 labored in
Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at
Battle Creek
in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross,
and Mrs.
White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding
and
trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was very
little of the
spirit of Christ present. I got away as quickly as possible.
I saw more and
more clearly that a spirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and dissension
was the result of our work, instead of meekness, gentleness, and love
among
brethren. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me,
till I began
to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me
among old
churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Generally they were
cold and
dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, or nearly extinct, where once they
had
been large and flourishing churches. I lost heart to raise up
more churches
to go in the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely,
and the
next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I
never suffered
more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave the Adventists, and,
if I could, go
with some other church. I was president of the Ohio conference.
Our annual
state meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there.
My mind
was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against
my protest
they re-elected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Said
I was just the man
for the place; yet her special claim is to be able to reveal the hidden
wrongs
in the church. Here was an important matter. Why did she
not have a
revelation about it? No, I was all right so far as she knew.
The next week I
resigned, went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them
no
longer. Then she sent me a long written revelation, denouncing
me as a child
of hell, and one of the wickedest of men, though only two weeks before
she
thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to
do. I talked with
ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help
me. I
could settle on nothing. I held on to my Christianity and love
for Christ and
the Bible, and preached and worked as I had opportunity. I was
glad I had
decided to leave the Adventists, and felt much better. Finally
I met my
present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with
Elder Butler,
Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were
not as
I had imagined. They said I was in the dark, led by Satan, and
would go to
ruin. All the influence of old friends, associations, habits
and long
cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment.
I
yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them. In my
judgment and
conscience I was ashamed of the surrender I had made, yet I tried to
feel
right and go on.
Death of Elder White
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By
this time he had lost
the leadership of the people. Elders Butler and Haskell had taken
his place,
and hence he was very hostile to them, working against them, and planning
all
the while to get them out and get back in again himself. But
the people had
largely lost confidence in him as a leader. He wished me to work
with him
against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference
Committee
together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was always
a crafty,
underhanded man. Elder White wrote me thus: "February 11, 1881
- I wish Elder
Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again:
"Battle
Creek, Mich., May 24, 1881 - ...Elders Butler and Haskell have had
an
influence over her [his wife] that I hope to see broken. It has
nearly ruined
her. These men must not be suffered by our people to do as they
have done...
I want you to unite with me... It is time there was a change in the
offices of
the General Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful,
the Lord
will be pleased that we should constitute two of that board."
I could give much more to show how little confidence the leading
men had in
each other. I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him
nor work with
him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused
you, and if
you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you
should
go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction....
I do
not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died.
I have no
doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent doctrine, and persuaded
himself
that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent
qualities,
and doubtless meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule
and run
everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble
with
some one. No one could work with him long in peace. Elder
Butler told me
that his death was providential to save the body from a rupture.
Mrs. White
was so offended at Butler, that she would have no communication with
him for a
long while. All these things helped me to see that I was being
led by
selfish, ambitious men, who were poor samples of religious reformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England, and
Michigan,
and was elected member of the State Executive Committee of Michigan
that fall.
I worked another year in Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could
not get over my
doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers
in the State
felt about the same. I then decided to quietly drop out of the
ministry and
go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership
with the
church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory
all the time,
trying to believe what I could not. Yet I was not settled on
any other
church, and feared I might go wrong and so stood still. In the
fall of 1884,
Elder Butler, my old friend, and now at the head of the Advent work,
made a
great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He
wrote me several
times, to which I made no answer. Finally he telegraphed me,
and paid my fare
to a camp-meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried
to see
things as favorable as possible, heard explanations, etc., etc., till
at last
I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I
thought I could do
some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of
the
doctrine still, and I might go to ruin if I left them, etc. Now
I resolved to
swallow all my doubts, believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with
them for
better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which
I was ashamed
before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed
of myself, but tried
to feel that it was not so. But soon I felt better, because I
had decided.
Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the
whole
doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. In a
few weeks I was
sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota,
Iowa, and
New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed
with
Elder Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor successfully;
conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Mass.;
was at
the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In
the spring of
1886 was appointed to lecture before the theological class in the Battle
Creek
College, and Associate Editor of the 'Sickle'.
By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our ministers
to some
plan of study in which they are very deficient. I was on the
committee to
arrange this. I selected the course of studies and framed all
the questions,
by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand
reporter,
and in the summer was sent to ten different states, namely, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and
Michigan,
to attend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report
their
meetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In our conflict
with the
Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should
select a
representative man and hold a debate on the Sabbath question.
They selected
Professor D.R. Dungan, president of Drake University. Our people
selected me.
We expected a notable time, and I made every possible effort to be
ready.
That preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some
of our
positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our General
Conference that
fall, a sharp division occurred between our leading men over the law
in
Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other
the moral law
- a square contradiction. After a long and warm discussion the
conference
closed, each party more confident than before. There was also
much
disagreement over other points of doctrine, and a good deal of warm
party
feeling. This, with other things, brought up my old feelings
of doubt, and
decided me that it was time for me now to examine and think for myself,
and
not be led nor intimidated by men who could not agree among themselves.
I used every minute I could get for several weeks, carefully
and prayerfully
examining all the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary,
the
visions, etc., till I had not a doubt left that the Seventh-day Advent
faith
was a delusion. Then I laid the matter before the leading men
at Battle
Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to be dismissed
from the
church. This was granted February 17, 1887. That was the
first and only time
I ever withdrew from the church, nor was any charge ever made against
me
during the twenty-eight years I was with them. As soon as I took
my stand
firmly, to be a free man and think for myself, a great burden, which
I had
carried all these years, rolled off. I felt like a new man.
At last I was
out of bondage. I have never for a moment regretted the step
I took.
They now report that I left them four or five times before, and
then went
back. This is entirely untrue. From the time I joined them,
in 1859, till I
withdrew, in 1887, I remained in good standing in that church.
After I was
licensed to preach in 1864, my credentials were renewed each year except
one,
when I was farming and did not ask for them. Till I left them,
in 1887, I
never preached nor wrote against them once; nor did I unite with any
other
church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let them deny
any of these
statements if they can. They say I may yet return to them.
They know better.
The moment I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever.
The
fact that I remained with them under all these trials for twenty-eight
years,
shows that I am not a vacillating man, as they now try to think.
Why I Did Not Leave Them Sooner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner. Why
it took me so long to
find that it was an error. Then the Adventists affirm that I
must have been
dishonest while with them, or I am dishonest now. They say I
am an apostate
now, because I left them and joined the Baptists. My answer is
this: If to
change one's opinion and join another church makes one an apostate,
then more
than half their members are apostates, for they have come from other
churches
to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate and commend highly
a book
called "Fifty Years in Rome," written by a man who was many years a
learned
priest in the Roman church. They say that his high standing and
long
experience in that church makes his book invaluable. But they
say that the
fact that I was with them in high standing so long, and now have left
them,
only proves that I am a hypocrite!
Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their positions.
I united with
the Adventists when I was a mere boy, uneducated, with no knowledge
of the
Bible, of history, or of other churches. I went into it through
ignorance.
For years my zeal for that faith, and my unbounded confidence in its
leaders,
blinded me to their errors. But, as I grew older, read my Bible
more, read
history, met with other churches, heard sermons and read books against
Adventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with the inside
workings
of the church, learned more about its unfavorable origin, the many
mistakes we
had made, saw the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society,
got
hold of the early writings of Mrs. White and others; gradually I began
to see
that Adventism was not just what I had first supposed it to be.
When I
embraced it in 1859, Seventh-day Adventism was only fourteen years
old, the
believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. But when
Adventism was
twenty-five years older, ten times as large, and had fully developed
its
spirit and shown its fruits, when I had had the education, observation
and
experience of a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the matter
ought
to be worth more than when I embraced it as a green boy.
Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained possession
of
early Adventist documents, which show how they now deny and contradict
what
they once taught. These are now either suppressed or kept out
of sight, so
that not one in a thousand of them knows or will believe that they
ever
existed. My doubts of the system did not come to me all at once
and clearly.
It was well known that for the last dozen years I was with them, I
was greatly
troubled over these things. Gradually, year by year, the evidence
accumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then reluctantly
and sorrowfully I had to abandon and renounce it. God pity the
soul that has
to go through what I did to be honest to his convictions of right.
Positions Which I Held When I Left Them
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently had
serious
doubts about their faith, yet, as soon as I took hold with them again,
each
time they immediately put me forward and set me at the most important
work.
Elder Butler says: "He doubtless would have been [elected to important
office]
had he not proved himself unreliable in so many instances. His ability
would
have justified it." Review and Herald Extra, Nov. 22, 1887. Suppose,
now,
that I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position
than
for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have
gone right
along, pretending to be full in faith and in harmony with them.
But instead
of this, time and again, I went directly to their influential men,
Elders
White, Butler, Haskell, etc., and told them my doubts. Let candid
men judge
of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was teacher
of theology
in their college at Battle Creek, where I had a class of nearly two
hundred of
their best young people; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle;
was
writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools throughout the world;
had
the charge of some eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the
Executive
Committee of the International Sabbath School Association; member of
the
Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association;
and at
the last session of the general conference was chairman of the International
Sabbath School Association, and was on nine different committees, several
of
them the most important in the conference, as the one on distribution
of
laborers over all the world, the theological committee, the one on
camp
meetings, on a special course of study in our college, on the improvement
of
the ministry, etc. This shows what they thought of my ability.
I had just
gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes," of which they printed
an edition
of 10,000 after I left them. Others of my works they have revised,
left my
name off, and use them still. Why reprint mine after I have left
them and
renounced what they teach? They now say that my writings are
cheap and
worthless. But while I was with them they published over twenty
different
productions of mine, and circulated hundreds of thousands of them,
translated
several of them into other languages, and paid me hundreds of dollars
for
them. Strange that all at once I have become so imbecile, and
my writings so
worthless. Any one can see the animus of all this.
Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left them
at a time
when my withdrawal embarrassed them more than it would have done at
any other
time. This confesses that I was becoming more and more useful
to them, and
all know that I was. At the time I left I was getting higher
pay than ever
before, and was on friendly terms with all. All the leading men,
as Butler,
Haskell, Smith, etc., were my warm personal friends, ready to do all
in their
power to assist me. Had I desired office, or better position,
all I had to do
was to go right along without wavering, and positions would come to
me faster
than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go?
What could I
do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it
required all the
courage and faith in God I could master to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in
doing it I had
to leave all my life-long friends, the cherished hopes of my youth,
the whole
work of my life, all the means of my support, every honorable position
I held,
and bring upon myself reproach, hatred and persecution. I had
to begin life
anew, among strangers, with untried methods, uncertain where to go
or what to
do. No one who has not tried it can ever begin to realize the
fearful
struggle it requires. It is the dread of all this which holds
many with them
who are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is
so, for many
have confessed it to me, and yet remained where they were. Anyone
of candor
and fairness can see readily that self-interest and personal ambition
would
have held me with them. Yet, as soon as I did leave them,
though I went out
quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, and even spoke
favorably
of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives,
base
sins, and ambitious designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred
duty to blast my
reputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apostate"
was the epithet
all applied to me. I was compared to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan
and Abiram, to
Judas, Demas, and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest
or worthy
motive was granted me. The meanest and wickedest reports were
circulated as
to what I had done or said - things that I would despise even to think
of.
Yet all were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubted truth.
But I expected
it, for it is the way all are treated who dare to leave them and give
a reason
for it.
During the twenty years now since I left them, they have had
spies
constantly on my track, who have watched and reported the least thing
I have
said or done, to torture it into evil, if possible. This they
circulate to
the ends of the earth, and it comes back to me in newspapers and letters.
They have issued four different publications against me, and Mrs. White,
in
her last "revelation," has devoted three articles to myself!
Yet I don't
amount to anything; never did! "Sour grapes," you see.
It has been widely
reported that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up
my church,
been expelled from the denomination, and more yet, concerning all which
the
Lord judge between us. The pastors of all the churches here,
and public men
of the place have had to make written statements to meet these attacks
in
distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hard to bear, but knowing
that I
was right, I have had grace and patience to keep steadily at my work,
and
leave the rest with God and my friends.
I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country,
saying
that the Adventists affirm that I have asked to be taken back among
them!
They will report it till I die, and long after. This book shall
be my answer.
They are so certain that the curse of God will follow all who leave
them, or
that they will become infidels, or return to them, that they cannot
be
reconciled to have it otherwise.
A Sample Letter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889.
D.M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.:
My Dear Friend and Brother - If the lightning's shivering
crash had torn my
scalp loose from my head, I would not have been more surprised than
I was
today by having placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled "The Jewish
Sabbath." I have read after you for years, sold your valuable
works, and
preached the "Third Angel's Message." Now, I wish to ask you,
how do our
people treat you? To my knowledge you were a great favorite,
and quoted
oftener than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you
as hard as
they did on Snook? I suppose that your great research and life-long
study of
the subject in hand goes for nothing with them, and that you are classed
among
the fallen angels. F.A.B."
Ordained a Baptist Minister
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for eight
years, I was
ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptist Church, by an exceptionally
large council, composed of several of the ablest ministers of the state.
The
'Otsego Union' of that date says: "Regularly appointed delegates were
present
from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Plainwell, Three
Rivers,
White Pigeon, Allegan, Battle Creek, Paw Paw, Hickory Corners, Prairieville
and Otsego. Rev. A.E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was elected
moderator of
the council, and Rev. T.M. Shanafelt, D.D., of Three Rivers, secretary.
The
order of exercises was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev.
H.A.
Rose, of Kalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of Grand Rapids;
ordination sermon, by Rev. Kendall Brooks, D.D., President of Kalamazoo
College; prayer of ordination, by Rev. M.W. Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with
laying
on of hands by Rev. H.B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev. E.A. Gay, of Allegan,
and
Rev. H.A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; hand of fellowship, by Rev. T.F.
Babcock, of
Prairieville; charge to the pastor, by Rev. L.B. Fish, of Paw Paw;
charge to
the church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand Rapids.
"Rev. D.M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a large
and
representative council as a regular Baptist minister, and pastor of
the
Baptist church in Otsego."
I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one moment
had the
slightest desire to return.
What a testimony, thank you Rev. D.M. Canright. I can relate
with much what you say's here.
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote and I won't quote, but I SNIP:
DaMao
Milton F. Gowell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of Advent experience,
that I quote him in a letter to Rev Canright.. He was often at his father's
house, inP ortland, Me.; when he was a boy.
He says:
"My recollections of those days are full of the terrors of law, prophetic
charts, Mrs. White's visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform,
bloomer dresses, and a great zeal for being industrious on Sunday, and
little or nothing of Christ. All the DOING was indelibly impressed on my
mind as a boy, but the BELIEVING on Christ for salvation, and RESTING in his
finished work, I have no remembrance of whatever. How many there are that
join the Seventh-day Adventists utterly
unsaved, knowing nothing of the grace of God, hearing always barely the law.
I joined them at the age of fourteen, under conviction, guilty before God,
but unsaved, though I was baptized and received into the church as a SABBATH
KEEPER. I received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest by believing
about three and a half years ago; saved from the borderland of infidelity."
This is just the impression which all the children of that people are
receiving - cold legalism. While this young man was finally saved from
infidelity, hundreds of them are not, as we well know.
DaMao
Breaking bread as He Broke bread is the Lord's Supper. No matter how
you look at it.
DaMao
"I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. (16) Is
not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
the blood of Chist? And is not the bread that we break a participation
in the body of Christ? (17) Because
there is one ONE LOAF, we who are many, are ONE BODY,
for we all partake of the ONE LOAF".
This sounds very much like communion. No matter what you say, I believe in the Bible is saying that breaking of bread in Acts is exactly the Lord's supper. Not some plain ol meal.
Summary of the 1 Cor 10:15-17
We break bread for the Lord's supper in participation in the body of
Christ. That is communion with Christ.
There is ONE LOAF to eat from.
There is ONE BODY who partake of the ONE LOAF.
Yes, the Bible does a great job of explaining that the early Church held communion on the Lord's Day, Sunday. They did it everyday according to Acts 2:42. They did it from house to house. What a marvelous thing. I wonder how they reflected back to the UPPER ROOM. How they reflected back to what Christ said to them. And what they reflected back to that wonderful resurrection Sunday. Without that resurrection. We would still be in our sins.
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
In article <8c82q2$ltt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Allen Hoessli <ahoe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In Acts, breaking of bread did not necessarily refer to the ordinence
> of the Lord's supper. If you look in Acts 2:46 you will see that the
> breaking of bread is something that they did DAILY and not just at the
> Lord's supper. Breaking of bread is just an expression used to tell
you
> that they were eating. "...continuing daily with one accord in the
> temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
> (food) with gladness and singleheartedness of heart."
>
Your right on target. The only place in the NT where the "Lord's
Supper" is mentioned after the ressurection is in 1 Cor.
This book of the bible does a great job of explaining what the Lord's
supper is supposed to be.
1 Cor 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is
not to eat the Lord's supper.
1 Cor 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own
supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
DW4
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DaMao
the Sabbath. But let us consider what a 'ceremony' is.
Webster says:"Ceremony. Outward rite; external form in religion."
That is exactly what the observance of the Sabbath was in Jewish worship.
Do not Adventists class the keeping of all the other holy days as
ceremonial? Yes; but they were all
"holy convocations." Lev. 23:2, like the seventh day. Read Elder Smith's
own arguments on this point.
He says: "Were these other days which were EXACTLY LIKE THAT, - days of rest
and convocation, -
were these days also Sabbaths, or were they not?" What Was Nailed to the
Cross, page 11. Then he argues that
they were all Sabbaths like the seventh day. Well, then if the keeping of
these was a ceremony, and a part of the "ceremonial" law, then the same is
true of the seventh day.
The observance of the Sabbath on a particular day was a ceremonial service,
the very first and chief of all their "outward rites and external forms."
Thus, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article, Law of Moses, under the term
"Ceremonial Law," says: "(3). Holiness of Times. (a) The Sabbath. Ex. 20:8-
11. (b) The Sabbatical Year. (c) Year of Jubilee. (d) The Passover. (e)
The Feast of Weeks. (f) Feast of Tabernacles. (g) Feast of Trumpets. (h)
Day of Atonement." Thus the Sabbath stands at the head of all the
ceremonial seasons. God himself so places it. Lev. 23:1-44. "These are my
feasts: Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is the Sabbath."
Then follow in
order all the holy days of the year, the Sabbath standing first. It is
arranged that way time and again, showing it is so designed. Again, Dr.
Smith says: "The Sabbath was the keynote to a scale of Sabbatical observance
consisting of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year, and the Year of
Jubilee."
Adventists argue that the decalogue covers all sins. The greater embraces
the lesser, you say. The sixth command prohibits murder, the highest crime
of the kind, and that embraces and so forbids all lesser sins of the kind,
as anger, quarreling, malice, hatred, etc. Well, now, let you try that on
the fourth command and you will hit a truth which ought to open your eyes,
the weekly Sabbath, as chief and head of all holy seasons and ceremonials,
was placed there to represent all that class in the Jewish law.
DaMao
Following is a breakdown of these teachings - taken from their own publications.
1. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:
The Sabbath is eternally binding upon men from creation.
lSeventh-day Adventism says the Sabbath was made for mankind in general
and was given to Adam in the Garden of
Eden. Sabbath-keeping, therefore, is a sign of loyalty to God, the
Creator.
"God instituted the Sabbath in Eden; and so long as the fact that
He is our Creator continues to be a reason
why we should worship Him, so long the Sabbath will continue as
its sign and memorial. ... The keeping of
the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God." (Ellen
White, The Great Controversy, p. 386).
The Sabbath was kept by Adam in his innocence in holy Eden; by Adam,
fallen yet repentant, when he was
driven from his happy estate. It was kept by all the patriarchs,
from Abel to righteous Noah, to Abraham, to
Jacob. ( Ellen White, The Great Controversy
p. 398)
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:
1. The sabbath, though mentioned in Ge. 2:2-3,
was not given to man until it was given to Israel in the wilderness
(Ne. 9:13-14).
2. The sabbath was given, not to mankind in general,
but to Israel alone as a special covenant sign between her and
God (Ex. 31:13,17).
3. Ellen White added to Scripture in teaching
that Adam and the patriarchs kept the sabbath. The Bible says
absolutely nothing about this. In fact,
it cannot be true. If the sabbath had been kept by mankind in general from
the
creation, it could not have been given as a special
sign to Israel.
2. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:
The Sabbath continues to be binding upon N.T.
believers.
...from this it is evident that all Ten Commandments
are binding in the Christian dispensation, and that
Christ had no thought of changing any of them.
One of these commands is the observance of the seventh day
as the Sabbath... (Bible Footlights,
p. 37).
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:
The N.T. is the only infallible guide of what
part of the Mosaic law continues to be important for the church age
believer. The N.T. plainly teaches the believer
today is not bound to the sabbath law!
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or
in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath
days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col. 2:16-17
According to the N.T. epistles, the sabbath
question has no relevance to the church. In all the instruction God
gave the churches in the epistles, there is only
one mention of the sabbath-- Col. 2:16--and that one mention was only
to show that it is not binding upon N.T. believers.
Is it not strange, in light of the fact that the N.T. epistles mention
the sabbath only once and that to show it is
not now binding, that Seventh-day Adventism makes such a big deal over
sabbath observance? Surely, the SDA denomination
has a very different understanding of the sabbath and of the
things of God than did the Apostles! The Apostles,
in their writings, placed absolutely no importance on the sabbath.
The SDA, in their writings, place great importance
upon it.
The sabbath was a type of salvation.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that
is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased
from his own works, as God did from his Hebrews.
4:9,10.
Adventists admit that the O.T. types and shadows,
such as the Levitical offerings, were fulfilled in the life and death
of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet, they maintain
that the weekly sabbath was not a type which was fulfilled by Christ. In
Hebrews 4, though, the sabbath is presented as
a type of salvation.
As God rested on the seventh day from His work
of creation, the true believer today rests in the completed work of
the Lord Jesus Christ. In order to enter into
God's rest, a person must quietly accept God's work. He must cease
from his own work. Salvation is God's gift.
3. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:
The Sabbath law has been changed, with the harsh demands of the Mosaic system no longer binding.
Adventists do not keep the O.T. conditions of
the sabbath, but they claim they do not have to because the conditions
pertaining to the sabbath have changed in this
age. One of Ellen White's visions is offered as proof for this.
In the most holy place she saw the ark that
contains the law, and was amazed to note that `the fourth, the
Sabbath commandment, shone above them all;
for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy
name...' There was also shown her the
change of the Sabbath, the significance of Sabbath observance...
(Messenger to the Remnant, p. 34).
The institutions that God has established are
for the benefit of mankind. ...The law of Ten Commandments, of
which the Sabbath forms a part, God gave to
His people as a blessing... (Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, pp. 245-246).
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:
The sabbath law was severe and rigid and was
not given to be a blessing. (1) No work, Ex. 20:10; 31:14-15; (2)
bear no burden, Je. 17:21; (3) light no fire,
Ex. 35:3. Only in warm climates such as that in Israel could this be
reasonably observed. The law of the sabbath was
so severe that God had an Israelite stoned merely for gathering
sticks to build a fire because by this he broke
the sabbath law (Nu. 15:32-36). The Apostle Peter had lived under the
law all his life until he was converted in his
adult years, and he called it a yoke of bondage
which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear
Ac. 15:10.
Jam. 2:10 informs us that the law cannot be
broken. Thus, anyone desiring to observe the sabbath of the Mosaic
law
must observe it exactly as God demanded in the
Old Testament. And such a one must observe every other detail of
the law.
The O.T. law is not the Christian's standard; Christ is!
By reducing the requirements of the sabbath law,
the SDA church destroys the power of the Mosaic law to reveal the
need for the Savior. The Mosaic law was never
intended as a way of life for the justified man--knowing
this, that
the law is not made for a righteous man...
1 Ti. 1:9. It was intended solely as a schoolmaster to bring the
sinner
to the Savior and to His salvation.
But before faith came, we were kept under the
law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards
be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. But after that faith is
come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:23-25
There is no Bible authority for a change in the
sabbath law. The Lord Jesus did not change the law. He simply
condemned the traditions of the Pharisees which
had been added to the law. Think not
that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
Mt. 5:17-18.
This is another instance of Ellen White adding
to the inspired revelation. Mrs. White saw the sabbath law as more
important than all others; it "shone above them
all." The inspired Apostles saw no importance in it at all for the N.T.
believer.
doctor...@my-deja.com
This is nothing more than ONE person's "recollection" and it is by no
means the "true picture" of the Adventist home. Your assumption that
this is the experience of all adventist children is a clearly a lie.
I will admit that just as there is in any denomination we do have our
few who take things to the extream but these are few and far between
and this may be this young man's experience, however it is the
exception and not the rule. As I said you find these in many
denominations including yours I'm willing to wager. But as I do not
take that as a true example of your faith you need to afford other
denominations the same lattitude.
I am truly sorry you have to exagerate a point and present such
falsehoods to attempt to make your point.
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------8EB9D731FF59BF5824AEEC23
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
them 2
> years, and that was over 20 years ago.
> Here is a man that was with them 28 years. He knew the Whites.
>
> Let's look and see what we can learn from him. His name is Canright.
>
As with any religion there are those whose experience is not what it
should be. There are disgruntled former members of every church. To
take their word as the true experience of the denomination is
dangerous. I do not deny that they is the perception of the
individuals experience but perceptions are not reality.
Russell
commandments. Oh, you say? How about not worshipping
other gods? You are not to be part of their ceremony. You
are to follow the methods of worshipping God form the Bible.
But, I forget you dismiss the OT. BTW do you pray? Ceremonial
observance I am afraid. Outward form of religion. Can't have
it (read -- heavy on the irony/sarcasm here).
How about theft? An external ceremony whereby you refuse to
follow your natural inclinations to enrich yourself at another's
expense. It is an action of worship to obey God.
So, in brief, your analogy doesn't hold water. You can mis-quote
Elder Smith's words all you would like to but that doesn't change
the simple fact those days WERE NOT like the 7th day sabbath.
They fell on different days of the week each year.
They required specific sacrifices or rituals for the feast.
They pointed to some specific aspect of the coming Savior.
(The 7th day sabbath points both forward and backward to
God, not only as our Creator, but as our Sanctifier.)
The "laws" were added because of sin. Before sin entered
the world, there would be no killing, no backbiting, no other
gods, no hatred of parents, no breaking of sabbath because
those hours would be spent with God in person.
Keep trying to reach the truth, DaMao. Holy Spirit woes you
yet again.
Russell
DaMao wrote in message <38E7F449...@yahoo.com>...
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Doctrines..
>
> In doctrine you differ radically from evangelical churches.
And this is a bad thing? So according to you we are wrong because we
differ from evangelical churchs. Is that about it?
>The main points are these as taught in all your books:
> You hold to the materiality of all things;
The what? You’ll have to post some evidence of this one.
> believe in the sonship of Christ;
Not true based upon the context of your comment.. We believe just as
other denominations do that believe in the Trinity ,We believe there is
one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit a unity of three co-eternal
persons.
> believe that you only have a correct understanding of the prophecies
to which you give most of your
> attention;
Each denomination believes that their understanding of bible prophecy
is correct, including yours.
> that the end of the world is to occur in this generation;
Not true, we don’t know when Christ will return. We do believe that we
should be prepared for his return at any time. He is coming soon but
during this generation? We can only hope.
> that we are now in the Judgment which began in 1844;
Not quote true this is what is known as the investigative judgement
that was started in 1844. The cleansing of the temple.
>that the Seventh day, Saturday, must be kept;
If we love the Lord we will follow his commandments. Just as scripture
tells us to
that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast;
Not quite true, you need to do more research on this. If you want help
let me know and I’ll send you the book Mark of the Beast.
that all should pay tithes;
Your right we should. See below
Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein
have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this
whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may
be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of
hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
> that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible;
You finally got one right
> that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings;
Untrue, The bible is the Great light and her’s the lesser.
> that you are called of God to give the last warning to the World;
True. (Hey, you got one right on the first time. WOOOOO HOOOOOO)
> that the dead are unconscious;
Your presentation of this is not quite accurate. Do you believe they
go to heaven or hell immediately following death? Our belief is based
upon scripture both OT and NT.
> that the wicked and the devil will be annihilated;
Do you believe they will live forever? Check the scriptures below.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that
wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had
received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of
fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
that all
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is
the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire.
I’d say that is pretty good indication that Satan and the wicked will
be annihilated.
> churches but your own are Babylon and rejected of God
We teach the world is babylon.
; that everybody but > themselves will soon become spiritualists;
Again this is not what we teach.
> that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living on the
earth will be saved, and all these
> will be Seventh-day Adventists.
Sorry but that isn’t what we teach either. We don’t know who the 144K
are
Identity of 144,000 Not Revealed.--Christ says that there will be those
in the church who will present fables and suppositions, when God has
given grand, elevating, ennobling truths, which should ever be kept in
the treasure house of the mind. When men pick up this theory and that
theory, when they are curious to know something it is not necessary for
them to know, God is not leading them. It is not His plan that His
people shall present something which they have to suppose, which is not
taught in the Word. It is not His will that they shall get into
controversy over questions which will not help them spiritually, such
as, Who is to compose the hundred and forty-four thousand. This those
who are the elect of God will in a short time know without question.
{7BC 978.4}.
Hence, you have no fellowship with other Christians;
We have wonderful fellowship with other Christians.
> never work with them in any way, but zealously proselyte from all.
Yes we do work with them in many projects, it’s unfortunate that you
didn’t study with us longer or more honestly to see exactly what we do
and who we are. What we do is we witness to everyone preaching God’s
love and his saving grace, just as every other religion witnesses to
others, Just as you are doing here. But in a nicer way.
>
> Your Hostility to All Other Churches
We are not hostile to the people of other churches. Many good
Christian non-Adventist and non-Christians will be saved. We realize
that there are many many good faithful Christians of all denominations.
>
> One of the highly objectionable features of that system is the bitter
> hostility of its believers towards all other churches.
Untrue we as stated above we believe there will be people of all
denominations saved and have no hostility toward the other
denominations. While we do disagree with their theology in various
points and are willing to have spirited debates with them there is
no “hostility” toward any people
> Believing this, you eagerly watch for evidence to prove it and shut
your
> eyes to any facts against it. So you rejoice at any unfavorable thing
you
> can hear against ministers, churches, or members. You report it,
repeat it,
> publish it, magnify it, and live on it.
Kind of like what you do with those who criticize the Adventist faith?
Sorry to disappoint you we do not rejoice in any victory Satan has in
any church, minister or member.
> To weaken, divide, or break up a church, is your delight.
Sorry again this is a misconception on your part. We do not seek to
weaken, divide or break up any church and certianly do not delight in
it when and if it happens.
> You heartily join with worldlings, infidels and atheists in your
opposition to churches, and thus >strengthen your unbelief and help
them to perdition. You have gathered up all the most unfavorable
> things possible to find against the churches
Apparently you are looking in a mirror at this point because it is
exactly what you are doing here. You rejoice in any unfavorable thing
you can hear against ministers, churches or members, You report it,
repeat it, publish it, magnify it and live on it. This is probably one
of the best descriptions of your actions here on the web. Thank you
The difference is you don’t publish it in a book you publish it on the
web. Same thing. Maybe you should look into your own heart on this
matter.
> It is sad to see
> honest men devoting their lives to such highly censurable work, which
must
> please Satan well.
Again you need to look into your heart, for this is exactly what you
are doing with the Seventh-day Adventists.
>
> Who is Deceived?
>
> Seventh-day Adventists dwell much on how easy it is to be deceived,
to be
> led by Satan, when we think it is the Lord - to believe a lie for the
truth.
It is easy and Satan has demonstrated that from the beginning.
> It is amusing to see how innocently you apply this to all others, and
never
> dream that is has any application to yourselves!
We are harder on ourselves than we are on anyone else.
I notice you did not respond to my responses to your original post.
Very nice try at diverting attention from the truth.
Dolf Boek
Please don't use 100Kb of HTML to send two lines of text to a newsgroup.
Perhaps you should go to http://www.faqs.org/ and acquaint yourself with
your obligations of netiquette within this medium.
- dolf boek
alt.religion.christian.adventist
doctor...@my-deja.com
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------760328A53652360C751CE4EB
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. (16) Is
not
> the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
the
> blood of Chist? And is not the bread that we break a participation in
the
> body of Christ? (17) Because
> there is one ONE LOAF, we who are many, are ONE BODY, for we all
partake of
> the ONE LOAF".> This sounds very much like communion.
In 1 Cor there is more than one reference to the Lords supper. This is
another.
> No matter what you say, I believe in
> the Bible is saying that breaking of bread in Acts is exactly the
Lord's supper. Not some plain ol meal.
You may believe whatever you want but in the final analysis your wrong.
> Yes, the Bible does a great job of explaining that the early Church
held communion on the Lord's Day, Sunday.
Sorry your wrong they ate on sunday and if you really check there is
only one reference. So you are basing your entire theology on one
verse of scripture. Sorry but that isn't a very sound practice.
> They did it everyday according to Acts 2:42.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Sorry but your misinterpreting the scriptures again.
> They did it from house to house. What a marvelous thing. I wonder how
> they reflected back to the UPPER ROOM. How they reflected back to what
> Christ said to them. And what they reflected back to that wonderful
> resurrection Sunday. Without that resurrection. We would still be in
> our sins.
Sorry but that is not what the scriptures say. It's been explained to
you and you fail to see.
Terry
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
In article <38E7EAD5...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
This is nothing more than ONE person's "recollection" and it is by no
means the "true picture" of the Adventist home. Your assumption that
this is the experience of all adventist children is a clearly a lie.I will admit that just as there is in any denomination we do have our
few who take things to the extream but these are few and far between
and this may be this young man's experience, however it is the
exception and not the rule. As I said you find these in many
denominations including yours I'm willing to wager. But as I do not
take that as a true example of your faith you need to afford other
denominations the same lattitude.I am truly sorry you have to exagerate a point and present such
falsehoods to attempt to make your point.
What is the lie? Am I lieing? NO WAY...it's a sin to lie.
Assumtions?
Falsehoods to make a point? Ahem...
I hope you have realaudio..if not you can get it at
Take the time to listen to those who were raised in it, those who were
decieved into it, and those who have left and why
they left.
An Evangelical Adventist? The Dark Side of Adventism! Testimonies Part 1
An Evangelical Adventist? The Dark Side of Adventism! Testimonies Part 2
See IF you can identify yourself with any of these people. They have
something to say to all of us.
As it is with anyone who follows angel theology and visions, Jesus says to them...
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" Matt:22:29
DaMao
the Adventist Ministry.
Scripture doesn't teach or tell anyone that Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast.
This is a Sabbatarian scare crow....Tin man. So many Adventist grow
up believing this FALSE DOCTRINE.
Aren't you embarrassed believing this? I would if I was you..becasue
this is very unloving and very and is very
"hostile toword other Christians".
Not quite true, you need to do more research on this. If you want help
let me know and I’ll send you the book Mark of the Beast.that all should pay tithes;
Your right we should. See below
Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein
have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this
whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may
be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of
hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.> that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible;
You finally got one right
Prior to 1980, (when news of White’s plagiarism was first published
by Walter Rea) ALL ADVENTISTS viewed
White as an inspired prophet. However, now that is it an absolute proven
fact that White plagiarized 80-90% of her "inspired
writings, including almost all her visions, modern SDA leaders, are
quickly watering down the churches historic stand on
White’s inspiration. .
"White’s writings are not a replacement of the Bible. Our standard for doctrine is the Bible only!"
Such statements are: lies, deception and a radical departure from both
the current official position of the SDA church AND the
historical foundation of the very denomination itself. Don’t be deceived
new convert! Such changes are also occurring in the
Mormon church who are watering down the long standing claims of Joseph
Smith’s inspired translation of the Book of Mormon
and the Jehovah’s Witnesses 100 year old claim that the Watchtower
magazine is inspired. These three groups, the Adventists,
Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses share these qualities:
1.were born at the same time in history (1800’s)
2.all claimed to have direct inspiration from God at the time they
were founded
3.all had the "spirit of prophecy"
4.all have watered down their inspiration claims in modern times
SDA's must vow Ellen G. White as inspired at your baptism!
Ellen G. White was a false prophet: Colossians 2:18 "Let no one keep
defrauding you of your prize by... taking his (her) stand on visions
he (she)
has seen inflated without cause by his (Ellen White's) fleshly
mind" (NASB)
> that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings;
Untrue, The bible is the Great light and her’s the lesser.
> that you are called of God to give the last warning to the World;
True. (Hey, you got one right on the first time. WOOOOO HOOOOOO)
> that the dead are unconscious;
Your presentation of this is not quite accurate. Do you believe they
go to heaven or hell immediately following death? Our belief is based
upon scripture both OT and NT.
Destination After Death
"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if
I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful
labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.
But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having
the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is
very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is
more necessary for your sake." Philippians 1:21-24
"Therefore, being always of good courage, and
knowing that while we are at home in the body we
are absent from the Lord—for we walk by faith,
not by sight—we are of good courage, I say . . . and
prefer rather to be absent from the body and to
be at home with the Lord." 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
The Soul and the Spirit are Separated from the Body at Death
Luke 8:54-55 ". . . he, however, took her by the
hand and called, saying, 'Child arise!' And her spirit
returned, and she rose immediately; and He gave
orders for something to be given her to eat."
Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the
body, but are unable to kill the soul but rather fear
Him who is able to destroy both the soul and the
body in hell."
James 2:26 "For just as the body without the
spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."
1 Kings 17:21,22 "Then he stretched himself upon
the child three times, and called to the Lord, and
said, 'O Lord my God, I pray to Thee, let this child's
life return to him.' And the Lord heard the voice of
Elijah, and the life of the child returned to him and
he revived."
The term "death" which is "thanatas" in Greek, does not mean to be non-existent or unconscious, it rather means to be separated. Some examples:
Colossians 2:13 "And when you were dead
(separated from God—not "unconscious") in your
transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh
. . . "
Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know they will die;
but the dead do not know anything, nor have they
any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten."
The context of this verse is "under the sun." It is
saying that the dead do not know anything that is
going on "under the sun"(on earth) vss. 3, 6—after
they die and are in Heaven. (Eccl. 12:7)
See also Ephesians 2:1 and Revelation 3:1
These scriptures clearly teach that the soul and spirit are more
than breath. People's souls and spirits are separated from their bodies
when they die. The soul is conscious in Heaven after death, awaiting the
resurrection of the body.
Then why do you zealously proselyte from the "many good faithful Christians
of all denominations?"
Squawkings from the SDA "Hen House"
An old preacher was once cornered by an angry woman after his sermon.
He listened patiently as her upbraided
him: claimed his sermon was the worst she'd ever heard, that he was
always meddling in other people's business,
and no longer fit to be her pastor. When she finally ran out of steam
the preacher said kindly: "Sister, when I was a
young lad and threw a rock at the hen house, the loud cackling and
squawking always told me I had hit my mark!"
We're Hearing Squawking From the SDA "Hen House"
Both the leadership and laity of the Seventh-day
Adventist church are now cackling and squawking about web sites
on the Internet that claim to tell the truth
about Seventh-day Adventism. In fact, we are told Cyril Miller of the
General Conference of SDAs has applied pressure
to one counter-SDA web site, hoping to have it either shut down
or renamed under the guise of "copyright violations."
This is similar to the way the Seventh-day Adventist church
persecuted a number of their own pastors and
lay people a decade ago claiming "trademark" violations. The SDA
church lost in court. However, even though
the SDA church lost previously, they are now considering legal action
against a number of congregations using the name
"Seventh-day Adventist." As a matter of fact, the greatest
persecutor of Sabbath keeping people today
is the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
It always amazes us that, as a result of Ellen
White's end time prophecies, the Seventh-day Adventist psyche is
very sensitive to being persecuted by others
(i.e. Roman Catholics, Sundaykeepers, Apostate Protestants,
Spiritualists, Muslims, Communists, the US Government,
Any Government, et cetera). However, whenever it suits
their purposes, Seventh-day Adventists obliterate
their consciences and work at the speed of light to try to bully
their way over the God-given Constitutional rights
of their objectors! This "caring" Church has shown itself
repeatedly eager to take everyone, from their
own members to perceived "enemies," to court.
Not satisfied with their attempts at using the
law to force people to "love" them, Seventh-day Adventists flood
counter-SDA web sites with e-mail claiming these
sites are not being open and honest by objecting to Seventh-day
Adventist lies and falsehoods. We believe that
the truth is, like the old preacher said, a lot of cackling and
squawking is going on in the Seventh-day Adventist
hen house because anti-SDA "rocks are finding their marks!"
Let's Look at Honesty
Let's take a look at this groundless charge of
dishonesty that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been bringing
against counter-SDA web sites. Let's begin our
investigation by asking every Seventh-day Adventist a thoughtful
question: "Has your church, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, dealt with you in an 'open and honest way?'"
Before any Seventh-day Adventist answers that
question, we invite you to think carefully about the following 13
facts posed as additional questions:
1.Is
your church "open and honest" with you about Ellen G. White? Did your church
tell you the truth
about Ellen White: that she lied repeatedly about the source of her information?
That she stole
voraciously from the writings of other authors and vehemently denied it?
That throughout her career
she maliciously maligned good Christians who stood up to oppose her
falsehoods? Do you believe your
church should be dishonest with you by promoting a liar as "the Lord's
Messenger?"
2.Is
your church "open and honest" with you about their financial fiascos? Did
your church tell you the
truth about their loss of Harris Pine Mills through their own incompetent
administration, during which
the General Conference threw 29 million of your dollars down the drain
of bankruptcy and closed down
thousands of jobs that once helped students pay their expenses at SDA schools?
And what about the
Davenport fiasco during which local conferences all across North America
lost tens of millions of your
dollars in risky investments? Are you comfortable trusting SDAs with
your tithes and offerings when
they throw them away faster than you can earn them?
3.Did
your church tell you how President Wilson illegally spent 20 million dollars
of the pastor's
retirement fund ("sustentation") on building Loma Linda Hospital -- and
then told objecting pastors
they would be able to draw retirement if any money was still available
to them? CEOs of worldly
corporations who steal from retirement funds go to jail!
4.Did
your church tell you the truth about how, in 1999, an Auditor of the General
Conference of SDAs
sued your church because the General Conference has been misusing your
tithe money for decades?
And how they General Conference maliciously slandered him, trying to force
him to drop the suit
against them?
5.And
while we're speaking about lawsuits, did your church tell you the truth
that it sued its own members
more than 100 times in just one court in California over a period of just
one year? Do you think it's
honest for your church to quote Ellen White instructing you that you can't
sue the church when it
wrongs you -- but then they conveniently forget her comments and sue you
anytime they think you
wronged them? Is that being honest?
6.Did
your church tell you the truth about former General Conference President
Neal Wilson lying in
court in the MaryKay Silver case to "protect the church?" (It's a matter
of court record, you know!) Is
it "honest" for the highest officer of your church to teach the ninth commandment
to others and then
break it himself?
7.Did
your church tell you the truth about the "hush" money paid to keep former
General Conference
President Folkenburg out of jail? You'll be hearing a lot more about
this in the years to come from a
group of Seventh-day Adventist MDs in California who are taking action
against the General
Conference for misappropriating your tithes and offerings.
8.Is
your church "open and honest" with you about the doctrines they taught
you? Did your church tell
you the truth that one third of their twenty-seven doctrines directly contradict
the Bible, and that all of
them are based on Ellen White's writings and guidance? Did they tell you
the truth about their Clear
Word Bible? How "open and honest" is it for your church to re-write the
Bible and insert Ellen White's
words right into the text without telling you that is what they did? How
do you think God feels about
people who add false doctrines and lies to His Holy Word? Take a look at
Revelation 22:18-19 and
you'll have God's own answer to Seventh-day Adventism's tampering with
Scripture!
9.Oh
yes, did your church tell you the truth about David Koresh and Waco: how
Shirley Burton of the
General Conference of SDAs set all that fiery destruction in motion by
submitting false, misleading,
and erroneous information to Attorney General Janet Reno's office -- precipitating
the ATF and FBI
attacks on those people in Waco? Didn't you question why the General
Conference was so quick to
take up an offering for the wounded FBI/ATF officers and their families?
Didn't that indicate to you
that the GC knew it had the blood of murdered officers and Sabbathkeepers
on their hands?
10.And did
your church tell you the truth that more than 10,000 Seventh-day Adventists
have been
persecuted and killed with the help of fellow SDAs in Rwanda? Were you
told of how the SDA
Conference President of Rwanda is sitting in jail at the Hague indicted
for crimes against humanity?
That he helped murder 1,000 of his own fellow Seventh-day who had crowded
into the SDA church
building at their own University, hoping for his protection? Did they tell
you that Conference President
then went next door to the Seventh-day Adventist hospital and helped murder
more of his own people?
Think about that! At least ten thousand SDA murdered by their own people--that's
far more than have
ever been persecuted throughout history by Sundaykeepers! Did they tell
all you that in your Bible
studies at church? And did they tell you that when government agents came
to the General Conference
and asked them for help in locating that Conference President so he could
be arrested and brought to
justice, the General Conference refused to help those government agents?
Did they tell you that? Of
course not, right? Why? Is it because they are not "open and honest" with
you?
11.Well,
maybe, instead, they told you how they hired a Catholic lawyer to shut
down Sabbathkeeping
churches that opposed the General Conference. And how he boasted that,
on behalf of the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, he sued more than fifty Congregational
Seventh-day Adventist
churches, persecuted their pastors, and shut those churches down--all right
here in the United States of
America? No? They didn't tell you that either? Why not? -- Why not, if
they are being "open and
honest" with you? And by the way, on this whole issue of "trademark"
violations, what if the Baptist
church said the word "baptism" was their trademark? And what if the
Christian church said the word
"Christian" was their trademark? And what if Jews said the word "Sabbath"
was their trademark?
Get the point? Seventh-day Adventists are way out of line trying
to claim the words "Adventist," and
"Seventh-day" are their "trademarks!" What do you think your church's
response will be when the
Seventh Day Baptists claim "Seventh Day" as their trademark? After
all the Seventh Day Baptists
had been using that name for more than five hundred years before Seventh-day
Adventists began
deceiving people!
12.And did
your church tell you how the General Conference threw away another million
dollars of your
tithe money trying to force a gay Seventh-day Adventist organization to
drop the name "Seventh-day
Adventist" because it was supposedly an SDA "trademark?" Did you know the
gay Seventh-day
Adventists defeated your General Conference in court and forced them to
conform to the law, and
stopped your church's persecution of all people who use terms like "Seventh
day," "Adventist,"
"Christian," "Sabbath," et cetera? How does it feel to have your church
be so misguided about
"trademark" law that it loses to SDA gays in court? How does it feel to
belong to a church which
routinely persecutes God's people? And how do you like to have your
church, after losing to gay
Seventh-day Adventists twenty years ago, now start all that legal manipulation
again, taking
Sabbathkeepers to court again for supposedly violating SDA "trademarks"?
Do you really want your
tithes and offerings to be spent once again on persecuting your fellow
Sabbathkeepers -- knowing full
well that once again your church is going to lose?
13.In conclusion,
how do you like your fellow Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters
lying to you
when they can't answer the truthful statements made by counter-SDA web
sites? They make
statements such as: "Oh, don't pay any attention to their claims!
Why, they don't have any documents
to prove their charges! They simply manufacture their lies against
Seventh-day Adventism!" Next
time your church members tell you that, say: "Oh really? Show me one example
of counter-SDAs
"manufucturing" documents, evidence, or facts!" And then go the second
mile by presenting them with
your church's own Veltman Report in which Fred Veltman proves beyond a
shadow of doubt that Ellen
G. White lied -- repeatedly lied -- stole and plagiarized -- in other words
repeatedly "manufactured"
evidence that she was directly inspired by God.
So, your church didn't tell you those things,
right? Well, let us ask you once again, do you think your church's
leaders and members have been "open and honest"
with you? Or did they just wiggle past all that rotten stink in
your church in the name of being "loving" and
in the interests of teaching you the "truth?"
What Avenue is There for Discovering the Truth About Seventh-day Adventism?
Since I believe your honest answer to these questions
will be that your Seventh-day Adventist church didn't tell
you all those things, I want to know how you
believe you and your fellow SDAs will hear those vitally important
facts? Can we agree you certainly are not going
to hear them through your church's websites, right? And you
certainly are not going to hear those truths
in church, or prayermeeting, or campmeeting, or at evangelistic
meetings, or during Sabbath School classes, right?
So where does that leave you and eight million
Seventh-day Adventists who might want to learn the truth for
themselves? You all will have to search for truth
among the counter-SDA websites that routinely share the truth
about your church. Those are the very web sites
that your church wants to shut down for supposedly violating
"copyright" laws! But remember, your church lost
those expensive arguments in court once before, and if as they
travel that road again, they'll lose badly again.
But once again, they'll be spending your tithes and your offerings in
their futile efforts to thwart the Constitutional
rights God gave you and every American.
So think really carefully now: Who deceived you?
Who was not "open and honest" with you? You were not deceived
by the counter-SDA web sites. You were deceived
by your own Seventh-day Adventist church!
Now, I agree with you, it's not honest for your
church to deceive you. Sometimes it's not comfortable to learn the
truth about your church. Sometimes it's very
costly to discover the truth. But when the dust settles, the truth always
prevails -- you have God's Word on it.
I hope you'll continue your search for truth! Here's a couple of websites you might find enlightening:
SNIPPED
DaMao
doctor...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38E7EF34...@yahoo.com>,
> DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --------------760328A53652360C751CE4EB
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Try a few chapters before 1 Cor 11. Try 1 Cor 10:15-17
> >
> > "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. (16) Is
> not
> > the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
> the
> > blood of Chist? And is not the bread that we break a participation in
> the
> > body of Christ? (17) Because
> > there is one ONE LOAF, we who are many, are ONE BODY, for we all
> partake of
> > the ONE LOAF".> This sounds very much like communion.
>
> In 1 Cor there is more than one reference to the Lords supper. This is
> another.
>
> > No matter what you say, I believe in
> > the Bible is saying that breaking of bread in Acts is exactly the
> Lord's supper. Not some plain ol meal.
>
> You may believe whatever you want but in the final analysis your wrong.
>
> > Yes, the Bible does a great job of explaining that the early Church
> held communion on the Lord's Day, Sunday.
>
> Sorry your wrong they ate on sunday and if you really check there is
> only one reference. So you are basing your entire theology on one
> verse of scripture. Sorry but that isn't a very sound practice.
>
> > They did it everyday according to Acts 2:42.
>
> Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
> fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
>
> Sorry but your misinterpreting the scriptures again.
>
> > They did it from house to house. What a marvelous thing. I wonder how
> > they reflected back to the UPPER ROOM. How they reflected back to what
> > Christ said to them. And what they reflected back to that wonderful
> > resurrection Sunday. Without that resurrection. We would still be in
> > our sins.
>
> Sorry but that is not what the scriptures say. It's been explained to
> you and you fail to see.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I don't fail to see, because..
I was once blind, like you, but now I see...
Allen Hoessli
criticizing the body of Christ of which you claim to be a memeber. You
have a twisted and distorted view of the doctrines of the Adventist
church. You are not in this forum simply to create thought provoking
discussion. You are here to provoke arguement and in doing so you are
atacking memebers of the body of Christ. You claim that you can see and
that others are blind, but have you become so hardened that you refuse
to further growth in grace? Open minded to Biblical doctrine is right,
but you insist that you are right and we are wrong. I have always
thought of being open minded enough to reason in the scriptures rather
than twist the scriptures to your own satisfaction. You cannot shape
God to be the way that you want HIM to be. You should be open to the
scriptures and the teachings thereof and allowed to be lead of the
Spirit of God who molds man into what God wants him to be. The Spirit
of Christ has yet to be found in you as far as I can see. You may say
that it is my place to judge, but Christ himself told me that I would
know the tree by his fruit and you have yet to display good fruit. My
Lord would never encourage the spirit of hate that you have toward his
own body. It appears to me and most in this discussion that you have
only the outward appearances of a Christian character. You should
seperate yourself from the work that you have put in your heart to do,
for you may be being lead by the wrong spirit.
"...I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if
this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it
be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God" --Acts 5:38, 39.
This is something that you should consider for yourself lest you reap
destruction upon yourself. Me and most especially Christ Jesus Himself
would find no pleasure in seeing that come pass.
In article <38E66940...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Remember when Jesus healed the blind man,
> and he was asked about it, he said. "All I know I was blind and now I
see."
> Your BLIND, and I wish you can see also.
>
> I have no further words with you. Good Day, good bye.
> Jesuit TMAC,
>
> tmac...@my-deja.com wrote slandering words and personal attack on a
New
> Testiment Christian.:
>
> > In article <38E5BB96...@yahoo.com>,
> > DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the
apostles
> > > > broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until
> > > > midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole
source
> > for
> > > > their theology for sunday worship?
> > >
> > > All churches teach one of four positions on the day that
Christians
> > > worship.
> > >
> > > #1. THE TRUTH: (This is what I believe....)
> > >
> > > The 10 commandment law including the requirement to
> > > keep the sabbath day
> > > were abolished at the cross along with all the rest of
> > > the law of Moses. God
> > > gave a covenant at Mt. Sinai through Moses to the Jews.
> > > It is called the
> > > first/old covenant/testament. The ten commandments are
> > > the foremost visible
> > > representation of this first/old covenant was replaced
> > > by a new covenant
> > > called, among other things "the law of Christ". 100% of
> > > the old covenant was
> > > abolished. No part of the Old Covenant remains in
> > > force. No one prior to
> > > Moses (Abraham or Adam) ever heard of the sabbath law
> > > much less kept it.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
Allen Hoessli
criticizing the body of Christ of which you claim to be a memeber. You
have a twisted and distorted view of the doctrines of the Adventist
misconceptions and misunderstandings, but you refuse to listen. You are
not in this forum simply to create thought provoking discussion. You
of the body of Christ. You claim that you can see and that others are
blind, but have you become so hardened that you refuse to further
an open mind to Biblical doctrine is right, but you insist that you are
right and we are wrong even though we have used scripture within the
context thereof to prove our doctrine. I have always thought of being
open minded enough to reason in the scriptures rather than twist the
Christian. You cannot shape God to be the way that you want HIM to be.
You should be open to the scriptures and the teachings thereof and
God wants man to be. The Spirit of Christ has not yet been displayed in
you as far as I can see. You may say that it is not my place to judge,
but Christ himself told me that I would know the tree by his fruit and
you have yet to display good fruit. My Lord would never encourage the
forum. Do you treat all your brothers shamefully? It appears to me and
most in this discussion that you have only the outward appearances of a
merely false head knowledge that has been taught to you by wrong
sources. You should seperate yourself from the work that you have put
in your heart to do, for you may be being lead by the wrong spirit.
"...I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if
this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it
be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God" --Acts 5:38, 39.
This is something that you should consider for yourself lest you reap
destruction upon yourself. Me and most especially Christ Jesus Himself
would find no pleasure in seeing that come pass.
In article <38E839AD...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------D31CC3C0A8766DEA36683BC4
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> --------------D31CC3C0A8766DEA36683BC4
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> Let us investigate exactly what Seventh-day Adventism teaches about
the
> Sabbath.
> <br>
> <br>Following is a breakdown of these teachings - taken from their own
> publications.
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>1. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:
> <br>
> <br>The Sabbath is eternally binding upon men from creation.
> <p>l<u>Seventh-day Adventism says the Sabbath was made for mankind in
general</u>
> and was given to Adam in the Garden of
> <br>Eden. Sabbath-keeping, therefore, is a sign of loyalty to God, the
> Creator.
> <br>
> <p><i>"God instituted the Sabbath in Eden; and so long as the fact
that
> He is our Creator continues to be a reason</i>
> <br><i>why we should worship Him, so long the Sabbath will continue as
> its sign and memorial. ... The keeping of</i>
> <br><i>the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God." </i>
(Ellen
> White, The Great Controversy, p. 386).
> <br><i></i> <i></i>
> <p><i>The Sabbath was kept by Adam in his innocence in holy Eden; by
Adam,
> fallen yet repentant, when he was</i>
> <br><i>driven from his happy estate. It was kept by all the
patriarchs,
> from Abel to righteous Noah, to Abraham, to</i>
> <br><i>Jacob. </i>(<i> </i>Ellen White, The Great
Controversy<i> </i>
> p. 398)
> <p><font color="#CC0000"><font
size=+2> &nbs
p; &nbs
p; &nbs
p;
> WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:</font></font><font color="#CC0000"><font
size=+2></font></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">1. The sabbath, though mentioned in Ge. 2:2-
3,<u>
> was not given to man until it was given to Israel in the
wilderness</u></font>
> <br><font color="#000000">(Ne. 9:13-14).</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">2. The sabbath was given, not to mankind in
general,
> but to Israel alone <u>as a special covenant sign between her
and</u></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"><u>God </u>(Ex. 31:13,17).</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">3. Ellen White added to Scripture in teaching
> that Adam and the patriarchs kept the sabbath.<u> The Bible
says</u></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"><u>absolutely nothing about this.</u> In
fact,
> it cannot be true. If the sabbath had been kept by mankind in general
from
> the</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">creation, it could not have been given as a
special
> sign to Israel.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> <font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">2. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"> </font>
> <br><font color="#000000">The Sabbath continues to be binding upon
N.T.
> believers.</font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><i><font color="#000000">...from this it is evident that all Ten
Commandments
> are binding in the Christian dispensation, and that</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#000000">Christ had no thought of changing any of
them.
> One of these commands is the observance of the seventh day</font></i>
> <br><font color="#000000"><i>as the Sabbath... </i> (Bible
Footlights,
> p. 37).</font>
> <p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=+2>WHAT THE BIBLE
TEACHES:</font></font><font color="#FF0000"><font size=+2></font></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">The N.T. is the only infallible guide of what
> part of the Mosaic law continues to be important for the church
age</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">believer. The N.T. plainly teaches<u> the
believer
> today is not bound to the sabbath law</u>! </font><i><font
color="#FF9900">
> </font><font color="#993300">Let no man therefore judge you in meat,
or
> in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbath
> days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ</font><font color="#FF9900">.</font><font color="#000000">
> </font></i><font color="#000000">Col. 2:16-17</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">According to the N.T. epistles, <u>the
sabbath
> question has no relevance to the church</u>. In all the instruction
God</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">gave the churches in the epistles, there is
only
> one mention of the sabbath-- Col. 2:16--and that one mention was
only</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">to show that it is not binding upon N.T.
believers.
> Is it not strange, in light of the fact that the N.T. epistles
mention</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">the sabbath only once and that to show it is
> not now binding, that Seventh-day Adventism makes such a big deal
over</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">sabbath observance? Surely, the SDA
denomination
> has a very different understanding of the sabbath and of the</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">things of God than did the Apostles! The
Apostles,
> in their writings, placed absolutely no importance on the
sabbath.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">The SDA, in their writings, place great
importance
> upon it.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> <font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000"> <u>The sabbath was a type of
salvation.</u></font><i><font color="#993300">
> There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he
that</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">is entered into his rest, he also hath
ceased
> from his own works, as God did from his </font></i><font
color="#000000">Hebrews.
> 4:9,10.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">Adventists admit that the O.T. types and
shadows,
> such as the Levitical offerings, were fulfilled in the life and
death</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet, they maintain
> that the weekly sabbath was not a type which was fulfilled by Christ.
In</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">Hebrews 4, though, the sabbath is presented
as
> a type of salvation.</font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">As God rested on the seventh day from His
work
> of creation, the true believer today rests in the completed work
of</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">the Lord Jesus Christ. In order to enter
into
> God's rest, a person must quietly accept God's work. He must
cease</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">from his own work. Salvation is God's
gift.</font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">3. WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES:</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">The Sabbath law has been changed, with the
harsh
> demands of the Mosaic system no longer binding.</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">Adventists do not keep the O.T. conditions of
> the sabbath, but they claim they do not have to because the
conditions</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">pertaining to the sabbath have changed in
this
> age. One of Ellen White's visions is offered as proof for
this.</font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><i><font color="#000000">In the most holy place she saw the ark
that
> contains the law, and was amazed to note that `the fourth,
the</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#000000">Sabbath commandment, shone above them
all;
> for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's
holy</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#000000"> name...' There was also shown her
the
> change of the Sabbath, the significance of Sabbath
observance...</font></i>
> <br><font
color="#000000"> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> (Messenger to the Remnant, p. 34).</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> <i><font
color="#000000"></font></i>
> <p><i><font color="#000000">The institutions that God has established
are
> for the benefit of mankind. ...The law of Ten Commandments,
of</font></i>
> <br><font color="#000000"><i>which the Sabbath forms a part, God gave
to
> His people as a blessing... </i>(Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, pp.
245-246).</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> <font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=+2>WHAT THE BIBLE
TEACHES:</font></font><font color="#FF0000"><font size=+2></font></font>
> <p><font color="#000000"><u>The sabbath law was severe and rigid and
was
> not given to be a blessing</u>. (1) No work, Ex. 20:10; 31:14-15; (2)
</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">bear no burden, Je. 17:21; (3) light no
fire,
> Ex. 35:3. Only in warm climates such as that in Israel could this
be</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">reasonably observed. The law of the sabbath
was
> so severe that God had an Israelite stoned merely for gathering</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">sticks to build a fire because by this he
broke
> the sabbath law (Nu. 15:32-36). The Apostle Peter had lived under
the</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">law all his life until he was converted in
his
> adult years, and he called it a yoke of bondage</font><font
color="#993300">
> <i>which neither our</i></font>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">fathers nor we were able to
bear </font></i><font color="#000000">
> Ac. 15:10.</font><i><font color="#000000"></font></i>
> <p><font color="#000000">Jam. 2:10 informs us <u>that the law cannot
be
> broken</u>. Thus, anyone desiring to observe the sabbath of the Mosaic
> law</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">must observe it exactly as God demanded in
the
> Old Testament. And such a one must observe every other detail
of</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">the law.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font
color="#000000"> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; <b>
> The O.T. law is not the Christian's standard; Christ is!
</b></font><b><font color="#000000"></font></b>
> <p><font color="#000000">By reducing the requirements of the sabbath
law,
> the SDA church destroys the power of the Mosaic law to reveal
the</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">need for the Savior. The Mosaic law was
never
> intended as a way of life for the justified man-</font><i><font
color="#993300">-knowing
> this, that</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">the law is not made for a righteous
man</font></i><font color="#000000">...
> 1 Ti. 1:9.<u> It was intended solely as a schoolmaster </u>to bring
the
> sinner</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">to the Savior and to His salvation.</font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> <font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><i><font color="#993300">But before faith came, we were kept under
the
> law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">be revealed. Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster
> to bring us unto Christ, that we might be</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">justified by faith. But after that faith
is
> come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all</font></i>
> <br><i><font color="#993300">the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. </font></i><font color="#000000">
> Galatians 3:23-25</font><font color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">There is no Bible authority for a change in
the
> sabbath law. The Lord Jesus did not change the law. He simply</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">condemned the traditions of the Pharisees
which
> had been added to the law. </font><b><i><font color="#993300">Think
not
> that I am come to</font></i></b>
> <br><b><i><font color="#993300">destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
> not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto
you,</font></i></b>
> <br><b><i><font color="#993300">Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled</font></i></b>
> <br><font color="#000000">Mt. 5:17-18.</font><font
color="#000000"></font>
> <p><font color="#000000">This is another instance of Ellen White
adding
> to the inspired revelation. Mrs. White saw the sabbath law as
more</font>
> <br><font color="#000000">important than all others; it "shone above
them
> all." T<u>he inspired Apostles saw no importance in it at all for the
N.T.</u></font>
> <br><u><font color="#000000">believer.</font></u>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font>
> <br><font color="#000000"></font> </html>
>
> --------------D31CC3C0A8766DEA36683BC4--
>
>
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
DaMao
Allen Hoessli wrote:
Damao, I know that you think that you are doing the right thing in
criticizing the body of Christ of which you claim to be a memeber.
The Body of Christ I do not criticize, though you think that the Adventist
is part of that body. I ask you this straight
question. Do you really think God allows cults into the Body of Christ?
You
have a twisted and distorted view of the doctrines of the Adventist
church. You are not in this forum simply to create thought provokingAgain, Do you think cults are part of the body of Christ?
discussion. You are here to provoke arguement and in doing so you are
atacking memebers of the body of Christ.
You claim that you can see and
that others are blind, but have you become so hardened that you refuse
to further growth in grace? Open minded to Biblical doctrine is right,
but you insist that you are right and we are wrong. I have always
thought of being open minded enough to reason in the scriptures rather
than twist the scriptures to your own satisfaction.Twisting SOUND DOCTRINE is not cutting it straight. So I don't think I twist anything, nor do we serve pretzels with
our communion.
You cannot shape
God to be the way that you want HIM to be.
Not at all, we are clay, God is the Potter, he shapes us how we
are to be.
You should be open to the
scriptures and the teachings thereof and allowed to be lead of the
Spirit of God who molds man into what God wants him to be.
What I have presented here is that. You and the majority here, should
open up to the Scriptures.
The SpiritYou see "outside" But God see's inside.
of Christ has yet to be found in you as far as I can see.
No doctrine of the faith is more fundamental than that of salvation
(theologians call it soteriology).
Misconceptions here result in eternal destruction, because faith that
is placed in the wrong object cannot save.
Let me ask you the question. If you were to die today and stand
before God, what reason would you give Him for admitting you into His heaven?
Are you relying on your efforts to live a good life, keep Ten Commandments,
do good, help others, go to church (even putting something in the plate!)?
Are you trusting in the fact that in the past you raised your hand,
walked an aisle, or signed a card? Do you believe that joining a church,
being confirmed, or being baptized will save you?
None of these reasons are acceptable to God. None of these things will save anyone.
In spiritual matters, man’s ways are not God’s ways ( Isaiah 55:8-9)
You may say
that it is my place to judge, but Christ himself told me that I would
know the tree by his fruit and you have yet to display good fruit. My
Lord would never encourage the spirit of hate that you have toward his
own body. It appears to me and most in this discussion that you have
only the outward appearances of a Christian character. You should
seperate yourself from the work that you have put in your heart to do,
for you may be being lead by the wrong spirit.
"...I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if
this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it
be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God" --Acts 5:38, 39.This is something that you should consider for yourself lest you reap
destruction upon yourself. Me and most especially Christ Jesus Himself
would find no pleasure in seeing that come pass.
and I say to you "The Spirit clearly says that in later times (now even)
some will
abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught
by demons." 1 Tim 4:1
Where do these teachings you hold come from?
"Such teachings (as the majority here hold) come from hypocritical liars,
whose conscienes have been seared as with a hot iron. "
Who does the Bible call a liar? Ellen G. White.
Who does the majority here follow? The one the Bible calls a liar.
Ellen G. White.
We must make sure that " See to that NO ONE takes you captive through
HOLLOW and DECEPTIVE philosophy,
which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world
rather than Christ"
Col 2:8
Who has taken you captive through hollow and deceptive ideas?
Ellen G. White.
We are to COMMAND certain men, not to teach false doctrines any longer
nor to devote to myths to what promotes
controversy rather than God's work.
We should also know that the law is made NOT FOR THE RIGHTEOUS BUT FOR
LAW BREAKERS and REBELS,
the ungoldy and sinful, and unholy irreligious....
1 Timothy 1:3-11
The majority hear are devoted to myths that promotes controversy.
tulipBee
>writings, including almost all her visions,
>modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering
>down the churches historic stand on
Now that is a lot of coping! If she wrote 100,000 pages, it would take a
very long time. Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Didn't Ms White have anything better to do? What did she say in her 10% of
her own words? Just curious.
tulipBee
tulipBee
>Allen Hoessli wrote:
>Let me ask you the question. If you were to die today and stand before God,
>what reason would you give Him for admitting you into His heaven? Are you
>relying on your efforts to live a good life, keep Ten Commandments, do good,
>help others, go to church (even putting something in the plate!)? Are you
>trusting in the fact that in the past you raised your hand, walked an aisle, or
>signed a card? Do you believe that joining a church, being confirmed, or being
>baptized will save you?
What is the grace of God? The Greek word translated grace has as its root
idea the concept of bringing joy and gladness through gifts. The Apostle
Paul uses this word to refer to the unmerited and freely given favor and
mercy which God bestows upon the sinner in salvation. Through this grace,
the sinner is delivered from sin and judgment. This grace, though freely
given, is precious and costly, for its basis is the saving work of Jesus
Christ. A salvation that is received by grace is the very opposite of a
salvation that is earned by working or by obeying the law of God. A person
who is saved by grace has no basis for boasting in his salvation for he has
done nothing to earn or merit it. The gospel of grace is the only true
gospel. Those who teach a salvation that is earned or merited through
obedience of any sort have to some degree fallen from the teachings of grace
into legalism. Being justified freely by His GRACE through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24 Now to him who works, the wages are not
counted as GRACE but as debt. Romans 4:4 But the free gift is not like the
offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the GRACE of
God and the gift by the GRACE of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to
many. Romans 5:15 And if by GRACE, then it is no longer of works; otherwise
GRACE is no longer GRACE. But if it is of works, it is no longer GRACE;
otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:6 For you know the GRACE of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became
poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. 2 Corinthians 8:9 I
marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the
GRACE of Christ, to a different gospel. Galatians 1:6 You have become
estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have
fallen from GRACE. Galatians 5:4 For by GRACE you have been saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest
anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (God) has saved us and called us with a
holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose
and GRACE which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. 2 Timothy
1:9
More at :
http://capo.org/cpc/grace.htm
tulipBee
Allen Hoessli
these threads. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that a person is
saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and his shed blood on the
cross of cavalry for the penalty for my sins and the sins of all of
humanity. I also believe that the fruitage of salvation is keeping the
commandments of God including the Ten Commandments which is a
transcript of the character of God and the foundation for which his
government stands. If I am being cloned, I find it a pure blessing that
the devil finds me threatening enough to make a bad name out of me.
Satan used others in the old days of the Bible when the prophets and
apostles of God were persecuted. I am a child of God saved by grace
through faith in God the Son, Jesus Christ, who died to pay the penalty
for my sins. Praise the Lord!
In article <B5108F88.10536%thompso...@earthlink.net>,
tulipBee <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Allen Hoessli wrote:
> >Let me ask you the question. If you were to die today and stand
before God,
> >what reason would you give Him for admitting you into His heaven?
Are you
> >relying on your efforts to live a good life, keep Ten Commandments,
do good,
> >help others, go to church (even putting something in the plate!)?
Are you
> >trusting in the fact that in the past you raised your hand, walked
an aisle, or
> >signed a card? Do you believe that joining a church, being
confirmed, or being
> >baptized will save you?
>
--
Allen Hoessli
Any cult book you read and most denominations out there will admit
that. We are believers on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Only by
faith in His shed blood are we saved through grace. He paid my penalty
and the sin debt owed for all of mankind by suffering that which we
owed on the cross. He died willingly for our sakes. Our faith in Jesus
saves. Noone in this forum is claiming to receive salvation by works at
all, but when you are saved, do you continue to bow down to idols or
worship other gods or take the name of the Lord in vain? I certainly
hope that you don't. I don't believe that the Lord will let anyone into
heaven who do such things. Well these items that I mentioned are part
of the 10 commandment law. We are saved by faith only. Our fruitage of
our salvation through faith is by keeping the commandments. "If you
love me, keep my commandments." I don't think that Christ was implying
to salvation by works by asking us to keep his commandments. It's
something that he empowers us to do after we receive Jesus into our
heart for salvation. You are wrongly mistaken to think that we are
claiming salvation by works and not of faith. No person in here ever
claimed that.
You have some kind of beef for Ellen White. I don't believe that any of
her writings are to be used above scripture. The Bible is the only Word
of God. Only the Bible is absolute in doctrine. All doctrine I belive
are solely based on scripture. Noone taught me their own theories on
spiritual things, I learned what I know and believe by the Bible and
the Bible alone. I do believe that Ellen White was an inspired writer.
I do believe God gave her a special revelation to redirect people into
the Bible. Ellen White never even claimed to have any special role, but
to lead others to the Source of all life. She called herself, "A lesser
light" which is to point others to "the greater light". I, nor the
Adventists, nor Ellen White herself ever claimed that her writing were
above scripture or meant to be equal with scripture. I think she was a
very good writer for someone with a 3rd grade education.
Damao, you are right in saying that Jesus won't let a cult into the
Body of Christ. Anyone who claims that Jesus is not God in the flesh
(which I and the Adventists claim) and anyone who relies on other
writings rather that the Bible for spiritual insight and anyone who
follows a leader who does these things are memebers of a cult. We never
claimed to take on any of these. We are members of the Body of Christ.
And your words and accusations will be brought back up to you in
judgement when you will be asked to give an accout for your own actions.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. For by thy words
thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." --
Matthew 12:36, 37
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them,
I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" -- Matthew
7:21-23.
"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" --Revelation 12:17.
"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that KEEP THE
COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, AND the faith of Jesus" --Revelation 14:12.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, TO GIVE EVERY
MAN ACCORDING AS HIS WORKS SHALL BE...Blessed are that that DO HIS
COMMANDMENTS, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates of the city" --Revelation 22:12, 14 (Jesus
Speaking)
In article <38EA69F8...@yahoo.com>,
DaMao <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --------------EECC1EE33D790EEE4AEB701E
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> --------------EECC1EE33D790EEE4AEB701E
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <p>Allen Hoessli wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Damao, I know that you think that you are doing
the
> right thing in
> <br>criticizing the body of Christ of which you claim to be a
memeber.</blockquote>
> The Body of Christ I do not criticize, though you think that the
Adventist
> is part of that body. I ask you this straight
> <br>question. Do you really think God allows cults into the Body of
Christ?
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You
> <br>have a twisted and distorted view of the doctrines of the
Adventist
> <br>church. You are not in this forum simply to create thought
provoking
> <br>discussion. You are here to provoke arguement and in doing so you
are
> <br>atacking memebers of the body of Christ.</blockquote>
> Again, Do you think cults are part of the body of Christ?
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You claim that you can see and
> <br>that others are blind, but have you become so hardened that you
refuse
> <br>to further growth in grace? Open minded to Biblical doctrine is
right,
> <br>but you insist that you are right and we are wrong. I have always
> <br>thought of being open minded enough to reason in the scriptures
rather
> <br>than twist the scriptures to your own satisfaction.</blockquote>
> Twisting SOUND DOCTRINE is not cutting it straight. So I don't think I
> twist anything, nor do we serve pretzels with
> <br>our communion.
> <br>
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You cannot shape
> <br>God to be the way that you want HIM to be.</blockquote>
>
> <p><br>Not at all, we are clay, God is the Potter, he shapes us how we
> are to be.
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You should be open to the
> <br>scriptures and the teachings thereof and allowed to be lead of the
> <br>Spirit of God who molds man into what God wants him to
be.</blockquote>
>
> <p><br>What I have presented here is that. You and the majority here,
should
> open up to the Scriptures.
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The Spirit
> <br>of Christ has yet to be found in you as far as I can
see.</blockquote>
> You see "outside" But God see's inside.
> <p>No doctrine of the faith is more fundamental than that of salvation
> (theologians call it soteriology).
> <br>Misconceptions here result in eternal destruction, because faith
that
> is placed in the wrong object cannot save.
> <br>Let me ask you the question.<b> If you were to die today and stand
> before God, what reason would you give Him for admitting you into His
heaven?
> Are you relying on your efforts to live a good life, keep Ten
Commandments,
> do good, help others, go to church (even putting something in the
plate!)</b>?
> <b>Are you trusting in the fact that in the past you raised your hand,
> walked an aisle, or signed a card? Do you believe that joining a
church,
> being confirmed, or being baptized will save you?</b>
> <p>None of these reasons are acceptable to God. None of these things
will
> save anyone.
> <p>In spiritual matters, man’s ways are not God’s ways ( Isaiah 55:8-
9)
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You may say
> <br>that it is my place to judge, but Christ himself told me that I
would
> <br>know the tree by his fruit and you have yet to display good fruit.
> My
> <br>Lord would never encourage the spirit of hate that you have toward
> his
> <br>own body. It appears to me and most in this discussion that you
have
> <br>only the outward appearances of a Christian character. You should
> <br>seperate yourself from the work that you have put in your heart to
> do,
> <br>for you may be being lead by the wrong spirit.</blockquote>
> The working of the Holy Spirit is not the wrong spirit.
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>"...I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for
if
> <br>this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But
if
> it
> <br>be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to
fight
> <br>against God" --Acts 5:38, 39.
> <p>This is something that you should consider for yourself lest you
reap
> <br>destruction upon yourself. Me and most especially Christ Jesus
Himself
> <br>would find no pleasure in seeing that come pass.
> <br> </blockquote>
> and I say to you "The Spirit clearly says that in later times (now
even)
> some will
>
<br> &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught
>
<br> &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> by demons." 1 Tim 4:1
> <p>Where do these teachings you hold come from?
>
<p> &nb
sp; &nb
sp;
> "Such teachings (as the majority here hold) come from hypocritical
liars,
>
<br> &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> whose conscienes have been seared as with a hot iron. "
> <p>Who does the Bible call a liar? Ellen G. White.
> <br>Who does the majority here follow? The one the Bible calls a liar.
> Ellen G. White.
> <br>
> <p>We must make sure that " See to that NO ONE takes you captive
through
> HOLLOW and DECEPTIVE philosophy,
>
<br> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this
world
> rather than Christ"
>
<br> &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
> Col 2:8
> <p>Who has taken you captive through hollow and deceptive ideas?
> <br>Ellen G. White.
> <p>We are to COMMAND certain men, not to teach false doctrines any
longer
> nor to devote to myths to what promotes
> <br>controversy rather than God's work.
> <p>We should also know that the law is made NOT FOR THE RIGHTEOUS BUT
FOR
> LAW BREAKERS and REBELS,
> <br>the ungoldy and sinful, and unholy irreligious....
> <p>1 Timothy 1:3-11
> <p>The majority hear are devoted to myths that promotes
controversy.</html>
>
> --------------EECC1EE33D790EEE4AEB701E--
John Doe
of of her writings.
The four gospels were based on the Gospel of Mark.Is that copying.
Not that I put hers there.
You attack with viciousness of character sir.
I don't think that is Christ like.
Have you read Ellen White.
No you rely on your Aventists are cult books.
Have you known any Adventists?
Have you been to one of their services?
You judge based on a nother's opinion.
So therefore you haved judged wrongly.
"tulipBee" <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B5108CD9.10535%thompso...@earthlink.net...
> > White plagiarized 80-90% of her "inspired
> >writings, including almost all her visions,
> >modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering
> >down the churches historic stand on
>
John Doe
> >what reason would you give Him for admitting you into His heaven? Are you
> >relying on your efforts to live a good life, keep Ten Commandments, do
good,
> >help others, go to church (even putting something in the plate!)? Are you
> >trusting in the fact that in the past you raised your hand, walked an
aisle, or
> >signed a card? Do you believe that joining a church, being confirmed, or
being
> >baptized will save you?
>
What SDA disagrees with you?
But now, since you have recieved this grace,
do you continue in sin?
But alas, for you Christianity is about YOUR salvation.So what of Christ
then?
Should we not render unto God what is God's
If we have been bought at a price by the blood of
Christ, what then? continue in sin!
Or do we then seek to glorify God.
Because we love him, and because he first loved us.And how do we show our
love?
"For this is the love of God,that we keep his commandments.And his
commandments are not burdensome."1 John 5:3
> the sinner is delivered from sin and judgment
I couldn't have said it better.We are saved from sin.God has dlivered us
from bondage.
What the bondage of obediance?, bondage of
the law?.No, No. From sin.Do you think grace is a licence to sin then?Yes we
have been delivered from the curse of the law, but not from obediance.
"who gave himself for us, that he might redeem
us from every lawless deed and purify for himself
His own special people, zealous for good works."Titus 3:14
Allen Hoessli
rest of the brethren. She did her part in doing God's work no matter
what kinds of sins she may have been recovering from.
Concerning plagerism, the only copying that I noticed from Ellen White
is quoting scripture. Not unless they consider her compliations
plagerizing her own writings. Besides that, if she did by some chance
quote material from another's book, is that truely wrong? It is a
common thing people do in the author's world. I read modern Christian
books where an author borrows thoughts and ideas from other authors to
backup their point to whatever subject they may be portraying. I
suppose all those other authors are plagerizing too.
Besides all this, Ellen White never claimed to be perfect or anything
more valuable than Christ or the scriptures. Like I said before, she
too was a sinner by nature and subject to the same sins and temptations
as other men and women. If that is wrong, then I suppose we are all
condemned even though we receive Jesus into our heart to be a part of
our lives as Lord and Savior and Friend. She claimed to be a lesser
light who was sent to point people back to the greater light. Her
mission was to direct people back into the Bible and back to the Savior
of whom the scriptures testify.
In article <B5108CD9.10535%thompso...@earthlink.net>,
tulipBee <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > White plagiarized 80-90% of her "inspired
> >writings, including almost all her visions,
> >modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering
> >down the churches historic stand on
>
> Now that is a lot of coping! If she wrote 100,000 pages, it would
take a
> very long time. Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy!
> Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy!
> Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy!
> Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy!
> Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
Copy!
> Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
>
> Didn't Ms White have anything better to do? What did she say in her
10% of
> her own words? Just curious.
>
> tulipBee
>
>
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
doctor...@my-deja.com
> >writings, including almost all her visions,
> >modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering
> >down the churches historic stand on
>
take a very long time.
>
10% of
> her own words? Just curious.
>
> tulipBee
>
she did. The 80=90% as alleged in the post you readis grossly
exagerated. Here is what the E.G. White Estate has to say on the issue.
"The Plagiarism Charge
Was Ellen White a plagiarist?
Ellen White often made use of literary sources in communicating her
messages. In the Introduction to one of her most popular books she
wrote:
"In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to
afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has
summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted;
but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the
quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as
authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible
presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of
those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use
has been made of their published works" (The Great Controversy, p. xii).
Ellen White's use of other authors was not limited to historical or
geographical material, but included other subject areas as well.
Research has found that she enriched her writings with choice
expressions from her reading more extensively than had been known,
although the extent of verbal dependency that has been documented thus
far is a small percentage (less than 2 percent) when measured against
her total literary output.
Because she included such selections from other authors in her
writings, critics have charged Ellen White with plagiarism. But the
mere use of another's language does not constitute literary theft, as
noted by Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark,
and copyright cases. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in
American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page legal opinion in which
he concluded "Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not
constitute copyright infringement/piracy." Ramik points out several
factors that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into
account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. 1) Her
selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use.'"
2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used
them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her
own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies
of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did
not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and
that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any
other author.
Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she
selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected"
reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more
forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the
slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p.
461).
Dolf Boek
contradiction:--"My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing
that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many
things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also
to bridle the whole body. Indeed, we put bits in horses’ mouths that they
may obey us, and we turn their whole body..." [James 3:1-18]
- dolf boek
alt.religion.christian.adventist
<doctor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
You have stated what you question, yet you did not answer the question I
posed to you. By what authority do you question him?
You wish him to provide you with an answer by what authority he speaks, I
simply want to know by what authority you question? Are you questioning as a
Seventh-day Adventist member or a Seventh-day Adventist official?
Dazza
"Terry" <tgre...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:38E9721A...@yahoo.com...
tulipBee
>I believe that a person is
> saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and his shed blood on the
He'll whisper into your ear and choose you, then you will have faith. If He
dosn't want you, then you will not have faith even if you try.
Did He choose you?
tulipBee
tulipBee
> That's a lie she only plagerized 2%
> of of her writings.
I've seen her writings compared to other writings and they sound alike. I
love to copy myself. I'm a painter. I would feel bad if I copied Monet's
paintings and sold them without saying anything. Sooner or later, one will
notice my copy by comparing to other's artwork. That person will
say,"COPYCAT!" Then I'm a copycat. By then I would be dead and wouldn't care
what others thought of my copy. I enjoyed the money I got from it while I
was living. I'm sure EG White is answering to God right now ( Not soul
sleeping, Wake up! Life moves on!)) on why she got carried away on coping
90%. Mark, Paul, Peter and others would say "thats alright, we copied from
the old writings too, but we didn't let the devil mislead them like you
did"). God is very forgiving and He will be the judge of her.
> Have you read Ellen White.
I don't have time to read something that would get past my unconscience
mind. She has a lot of Modern auto suggestion techniques and believed in
Animal magnetism just like J. Smith did. They all lived in the time when
Hypnotism was popular. The Spirit will help you recognize such lies that are
told today.
> Have you known any Adventists?
I have learned very well from an Adventist, He got me FOOLED and hope you
won't fall for it ethier.
> Have you been to one of their services?
If I went to the services, I would be an example of tell others that Jesus
didn't fulfill the prophesy. It won't hurt to go on Saturday but for the
reason of claiming that Jesus didn't die for me would be wrong.
> You judge based on a another opinion.
> So therefore you haved judged wrongly.
I try not to judge others and know its wrong and I'm sure I'll be judged too
since I know God is in control and choose me without myself having anything
to do with it. I may try to choose Jesus but its useless since God is the
one Who does the judging and chooses His own people. He gave me Faith. Its a
gift only from Him. I didn't produce faith. Only Arminains produce their own
faith and have control over what they believe. Its a lie. Did Satan
introduce free will to Eve before she was deceived? Is Satan deceiving you
by telling you that you have free will? Thats the first lie.
Allen Hoessli
What kind of a question is that to question the grace of God. Do you
think the Lord shows favoritism? Many are called but few are chosen.
Everyone has the opportunity to accept or reject Christ, but only few
truely repent of sin and accept the saving grace through faith in
Christ. God wants all to come to repentence and to the saving faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ. Only a few do it.
In article <B514BFA3.106C9%thompso...@earthlink.net>,
--
Your Brother in Christ,
Allen Hoessli
Dolf Boek
Welcome to alt.religion.christian.adventist. I notice this may be the first
occasion you have participated here. alt.religion.christian.adventist seeks
to provide an alternative self-moderating and hence a dynamic and natural
environment where those attributed by Seventh-day Adventist beliefs or
Seventh-day Sabbath keepers can participate by expressing in liberty, their
individual human right to freedom as 'belief, thought and conscience'.
We hope that your participation here will foster the enduring and endemic
qualities that are characterised by its genus.
- dolf boek
alt.relgion.christian.adventist
"Dazza" <dar...@gunter7.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8co89p$qud$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
tulipBee
> Christ. God wants all to come to repentence and to the saving faith in
> the Lord Jesus Christ. Only a few do it.
"All" are the christians. They are his people. They are the elect. "All" are
the ones that are going to heaven to be with Him. "All" are the sheeps.
"All" are the believers. "All" are the ones God knows. "All" will come to
repentance. Its in God's plan. He does it in His own pleasure. Why?, cause
your spirit is dead. Only He can drag you out of the grave. Why?, cause He
loves you when you don't deserve it. Grace is free. Faith is free. Salvation
is free cause there is nothing you can do to earn it. You don't know how.
look for it in the Bible.
tulipBee
John Doe
It is true God give's every man a mesure of faith.
But if you don't use it, you will be lost.
Further more you are claiming calvinsim.
That only the elect are chosen.
"Therefore, as one man's offence judgement
came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even
so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting
in justification of lfe."
Romans5:18
"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the
living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who
believe."1Tim 4:10
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"Titus
2:11
There are many more including John 3:16.
But read this from a Baptist web page.
I got this from a Baptist web page.
It's nice to se some protestants who
don't believe this false hood.
http://www.techplus.com/bkjv1611/pillar.htm#Topical%20Index
Danger of Teaching that Christ Died Only for the Elect
The following is excerpted from "The Dangers of Reformed Theology," George
Zeller, Middletown Bible Church, 349 East St., Middletown, CT 06457. This
study and a companion one entitled "For Whom Did Christ Die?" are available
from Pastor Zeller for $2.75 each postpaid.
The teaching that Christ died only for the elect is commonly known as a
belief in a "limited atonement" (some reformed men like to refer to it has
"definite atonement"). It is the teaching that Christ died on the cross and
paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect. He did not die for the ones
who eventually will be in the lake of fire. Often it is worded as follows:
"Christ died for all men WITHOUT DISTINCTION but He did not die for all men
WITHOUT EXCEPTION." This is a subtle game of semantics which makes it
possible for them to say that He died for all without really meaning that he
died for all. What they really mean is that Christ died for all kinds of
people and all classes of people, but He did not die for every single
person. That is, He died for Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slave and
free, male and female, etc., but it is understood that He died for only
elect Jews and Gentiles, only elect rich and poor, etc. Dr. Paul Reiter has
clearly and simply summarized the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR
WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED... 1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).
One believer who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all
men made this remarkable concession: "If Christ really did die for all men
then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does." How
true! It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear
language and obvious sense of many passages and he must force the Scriptures
and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem
logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? "What
saith the Scriptures?" (Romans 4:3). In child-like faith we must simply
allow the Bible to say what it says. Those who promote this erroneous
doctrine try to tell us that "world" does not really mean "world"' and "all"
does not really mean "all" and "every man" does not really mean "every man"
and "the whole world" does not really mean "the whole world." We are told
that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood not
as a child would understand them but as a theologian would understand them.
That is, we must re-interpret such verses in light of our system of
theology. The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows: The
Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of
the world (John 1:29) and that the Saviour's work of redemption (1 Timothy
2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and propitiation (1 John 2:2)
was for all men (1 Timothy 4:10), but the cross-work of Christ is efficient,
effectual and applicable only for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10; John
3:16). We could even say it in a simpler way: "Christ's death was SUFFICIENT
FOR ALL but EFFICIENT only for those who believe." The cross-work of Christ
is not limited but the application of that cross-work through the work of
the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only 'The extreme Calvinist would
say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for
the "non-elect" (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God's Son had a
divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God's design was
salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the
world began (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). For unbelievers, God's purpose and
design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because
they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God's
only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a
provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never
stand before God and say, "The reason I am not saved is because Christ did
not die for me." No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected
the One who died for them and who is the Saviour of all men (1 Tim. 4:10).
They are without excuse. This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely
practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The
gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this:
"Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good
news for all men (compare Luke 2:10-11)? In preaching the gospel, what can
we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, "My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ
died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your
Substitute"? One reformed writer said this: "But counselors, as Christians,
are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good
news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He
bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all
whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life
everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors
must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY
CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for
whom He died" [emphasis mine] (Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70). As
C.H. Mackintosh has said, "A disciple of the high school of doctrine
[extreme Calvinist] will not hear of a world-wide gospel--of God's love to
the world--of glad tidings to every creature under heaven. He has only
gotten a gospel for the elect." If the reformed preacher were really honest
about it, he would need to preach his doctrine along these lines: "Christ
may have died for your sins. If you are one of God's elect, then He died for
you, but if not, then you have no Saviour. I cannot tell you that Christ
died on the cross for you because I don't know this for sure. If you believe
the gospel then this proves that you are one of God's elect, and then it is
proper to speak of Christ dying for you." What an insult to the God "who
will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"
(1 Timothy 2:4). The Apostle Paul was not so handicapped when he preached
the gospel to the unsaved Corinthians. He clearly proclaimed that "Christ
died for our sins [yours and mine!]." If Paul could preach that message, so
should we and so must we!
To Topical Index of Baptist Doctrine
Ralph H. Blank III
Correction: Ellen White did not plagiarize at all. She copied words from
other sources, but that is not the same as plagiary, which is strictly
defined by law. As defined and understood, both in her day as well as ours,
she was never guilty of plagiarism. Mrs. White copied. She did not
plagiarize.
II Cor. 13:14.
In Christ,
Ralph
John Doe <Joh...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:8cgpd4$e8v$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> That's a lie she only plagerized 2%
> of of her writings.
> The four gospels were based on the Gospel of Mark.Is that copying.
> Not that I put hers there.
> You attack with viciousness of character sir.
> I don't think that is Christ like.
> Have you read Ellen White.
> No you rely on your Aventists are cult books.
> Have you known any Adventists?
> Have you been to one of their services?
> You judge based on a nother's opinion.
> So therefore you haved judged wrongly.
> "tulipBee" <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:B5108CD9.10535%thompso...@earthlink.net...
> > > White plagiarized 80-90% of her "inspired
> > >writings, including almost all her visions,
> > >modern SDA leaders, are quickly watering
> > >down the churches historic stand on
> >
> > Now that is a lot of coping! If she wrote 100,000 pages, it would take a
> > very long time. Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> Copy!
> > Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> > Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> > Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> > Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> > Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy! Copy!
> >
Ralph H. Blank III
Adventists do not believe man is the source of faith. It is our teaching
that faith is the gift of God. Notice, though, it is a gift, not something
forced into us.
You misrepresent the issue here. The source of faith is not the debate. It
is whether man has been given the power to accept or reject God's gifts.
As for free will, you seem to misunderstand even you own (apparent)
Calvinistic doctrine. Even Reformed Theology allows for free will. The
difference is that they believe man--that is, those who are elect--are made
to only want to choose God's will, thus it is a free will limited only to
God's will. We believe this is error.
Regardless, the debate over the definition and limits of free will and God's
Sovereignty is an "in-house" debate within Christendom, and both sides
(except perhaps the very extreme ends of both) fall within the pale of
orthodoxy.
As for Ellen White and hypnotism, I would like to see the documentation
supporting your charge. In all my reading, she has come right out against
hypnotism, unlike some modern Christian leaders (such as the late Walter
Martin, who believed there is a place for hypnotism in the believer's life).
As for whom it was Jesus died, it is without question in the Adventist
church: He died for the world. How you got the idea attending one of our
services would deny His death for you is beyond me.
Finally, though you opened with it, Tulip, you raise an interesting
comparison between Ellen White's use of other sources in her writings and
your copying of Monet's paintings. Certainly, if you had copied Monet's
painting in its entirety and attempted to pass it off as your own, you would
be guilty of lying and perhaps even theft. If, however, you used elements
from the same painting in a work of your own, and did not bother to draw
arrows pointing out where you used some of Monet's work in yours, one could
hardly claim the same against you.
The same is true of Ellen White. The charge that her writings contain 90%
plagiarization is, like our economy, a greatly inflated balloon--it looks
big, but it isn't full of substance. Ellen White made it no secret that she
copied from other sources. These "revelations" are in her own
books--including some of her most well-known publications. Thus, she wasn't
trying to fool anyone. This also refutes the idea that she was trying to
pass off the words of another as her own--you can't do that very well if you
have already stated that some of the text was copied from others.
Going on, you will never find the complete work or message of another
published with Ellen White's name on it. Instead, she used elements of
other writers' works and put them in hers, but the thrust of her message,
the overall content was her own, like the painting containing both elements
of Monet and your own. For this reason, the charge of plagiarism, as
understood by legal experts, has no basis, for Mrs. White never once
attempted to pass on the complete ideas of another as her own.
II Cor. 13:14.
In Christ,
Ralph
tulipBee <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B514C768.106CA%thompso...@earthlink.net...
>
> I've seen her writings compared to other writings and they sound alike. I
> love to copy myself. I'm a painter. I would feel bad if I copied Monet's
> paintings and sold them without saying anything. Sooner or later, one will
> notice my copy by comparing to other's artwork. That person will
> say,"COPYCAT!" Then I'm a copycat. By then I would be dead and wouldn't
care
> what others thought of my copy. I enjoyed the money I got from it while I
> was living. I'm sure EG White is answering to God right now ( Not soul
> sleeping, Wake up! Life moves on!)) on why she got carried away on coping
> 90%. Mark, Paul, Peter and others would say "thats alright, we copied from
> the old writings too, but we didn't let the devil mislead them like you
> did"). God is very forgiving and He will be the judge of her.
>
>
> I don't have time to read something that would get past my unconscience
> mind. She has a lot of Modern auto suggestion techniques and believed in
> Animal magnetism just like J. Smith did. They all lived in the time when
> Hypnotism was popular. The Spirit will help you recognize such lies that
are
> told today.
>
>
> If I went to the services, I would be an example of tell others that Jesus
> didn't fulfill the prophesy. It won't hurt to go on Saturday but for the
> reason of claiming that Jesus didn't die for me would be wrong.
>
>
Ralph H. Blank III
Very well-stated. Ellen White used elements from other writers, but in the
end created her own masterpiece.
Bridget_dx
beliefs. However, go back to your Bible and read Hebrews
chapter 4. It clearly states that for all who believe,
Jesus is our Sabbath. Though, yes, one should rest one out
of every seven days. Also, there is a verse in the Bible.
It'll prove that even Adventists don't truly keep the
Sabbath. Their pastors preach, therefore they work on the
Sabbath. There are a lot of things about the Sabbath that
Adventists just don't want to accept.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Russell
priests work and are blameless. Perhaps Bridget, you
should read more of the Bible regarding the Sabbath
in the NT. What did Jesus say? He said that it is
good to do well on the Sabbath day.
While we SDA's believe in keeping the Sabbath
you won't find an SDA Talmud arguing all the
reasons why you should or should not eat an egg
laid on the Sabbath day. I think the legalism
charge is mislaid.
Russell
Bridget_dx wrote in message <292d8032...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>...
Dazza
"Bridget_dx" <fuzzyguy19...@zdnetonebox.com.invalid>
> I almost got cuaght up in all the hype and Adventist
> beliefs. However, go back to your Bible and read Hebrews
> chapter 4. It clearly states that for all who believe,
> Jesus is our Sabbath. Though, yes, one should rest one out
> of every seven days. Also, there is a verse in the Bible.
Which verse? I'm interested
> It'll prove that even Adventists don't truly keep the
> Sabbath. Their pastors preach, therefore they work on the
> Sabbath. There are a lot of things about the Sabbath that
> Adventists just don't want to accept.
Is preaching working or teaching? Is teaching working? How far do you go
until you are working?
Do you take the line of the Jews and (for example) set a limit to how far
you can walk and anything over that is working?
About Hebrews 4, unless I am missing something, I cannot find the verse in
which you state that Jesus is our Sabbath. However it says that "There
remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God ... Let us labour therefore
to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of
unbelief" Heb 4:9, 11 KJV.
That rest is refers, unless I am wrong, to the time when Jesus takes us to
heaven. Heb 4:4, 5 states "For he spake in a certain place of the seventh
day on this wise. And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And
in this place again, they shall enter into my rest." Is this the part from
which you got "Jesus is our Sabbath"?
Dazza
juli...@my-deja.com
commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial
law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died. God
made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained
it to the people at Mt. Horeb "And he declared unto you his covenant,
which he COMMANDED YOU to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote
them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord COMMANDED ME at that time
to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land
whither ye go over to possess it" (Deut 4:13,14). Please notice how
Moses clearly separated the ten commandments, which 'he commanded you',
from the statutes which 'he commanded me' to give the people. Those
statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were
designated as a separate and distinct 'law'. "Neither will I make the
feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their
fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I HAVE
COMMANDED them and according to all the law that my servant MOSES
COMMANDED them" (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes
which Moses gave the people were called a 'law'. Two different laws
are being described here. God speaks of the law I COMMANDED and also
the law MOSES COMMANDED. Daniel was inspired to make the the same
careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his
scattered nation. "Yea, all Israel have transgressed THY LAW, even by
departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is
poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the LAW OF MOSES the
servant of God, because we have sinned against him" (Daniel 9:11).
Once more we see THY LAW and THE LAW OF MOSES and this time the two are
recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in
the ten commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote
contained an adundance of such curses and judgments. The major point
of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies
in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited
Moses' statement that "God wrote them (the ten commandments) upon two
tables of stone" (Deut 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18 "two
tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God".
No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was
produced. "And Moses wrote this law...And it came to pass, when Moses
had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they
were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of
the covenant of the Lord, saying, 'take this book of the law, and put
it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it
may be there for a witness against thee" (Deut 31:9, 24-26). This book
of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a BOOK was placed in a
pocket on the SIDE of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on
TABLES OF STONE was placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant. "And thou
shalt put INTO the ark the testimony which I shall give thee" (Exodus
25:16). At this point we can note several distinctions in the two
laws. They had different authors, were written of different materials,
were placed in different locations and had totally different content.
THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US....Let's take a closer look at the
ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to
repose in the "side of the ark...for a WITNESS AGAINST THEE" It is
interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled
out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the ten
commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be
a law which was AGAINST them. Even in the New Testament we read the
same descriptive language in reference to that law. "Blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances that was AGAINST US, which was CONTRARY TO
US, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians
2:14).There was nothing in the ten commandment law that could be
defined as CONTRARY to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It
was not AGAINST those early christians to refrain from adultery, theft,
lying etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a protection to them
and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul's
exalted description of the ten commandment law to recognize that those
eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross.
After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7,
Paul wrote these words "Wherefore the law IS holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good" (verse 12). Then he continued in verse
14, :For we know that the law IS spiritual...." If the ten commandment
law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such
glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak
of a past law. He said the law IS holy...the law IS spiritual. In
other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to
the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of
ordinances in the past tense: "WAS against us...WAS contrary to us" It
is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and
one was past. Paul spoke of the fifth commandment as being in effect
when he wrote to the Ephesians. "Children, obey your parents in the
Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which IS the
first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou
mayest live long on the earth" (Eph 6:1-3). Again, we find the apostle
affirming that this commandment IS, not WAS. Had it been a part of the
ordinances described by the same writer in Colossians, he would have
said , "it WAS the first commandment with promise". In the New
Testament Church, there was a lot of contention over the subject of
circumcision, which was a major requirement of the ceremonial law. In
Acts 15:5 we read, "But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharises which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses". This could not be
referring in any sense to the ten commandments. They do not even
mention circumcision. Yet Paul declared, "Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God"
(1 Corin 7:19). If the law dealing with circumcision was now NOTHING
(abolished), then what commandments was he exalting as being still
binding? The moral law remained, while the law of circumcision
(ceremonial law) was abolished. The truth is that there are numerous
references in the Bible which prove that the law of types and shadows,
because of its temporary application, was never considered on an
equality with the eternal moral law. Its system of sacrifices, human
priesthood and feast days were instituted AFTER sin entered the world
and always pointed forward to the deliverance from sin which would be
wrought through the true Lamb and Priest who was to come - Jesus.
The mosaic law is never equated with the eternal moral code which
operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they were
not written down until Mount Sinai, the ten commandments were
understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that
it was a sin to kill, because God told him that "sin lieth at the door"
(Gen 4:7) after he murdered his brother. It is impossible for sin to
exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, "for where no law is,
there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Again we are
told, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is
the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). This principle is
amplified further by Paul's statement that "had I not known sin, but by
the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, "Thou shalt
not covet" (Romans 7:7). These verses nail down the truth that no sin
can be imputed where the ten-commandment law is not in effect. God's
statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his
killing Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is
absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date.
Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that
same law. He said to Potiphar's wife "how then can I do this great
wickedness, and SIN against God?" (Gen 39:9). He knew adultery was
sin. Abraham was commended by God in these words: "Because that
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my
statutes, and my laws" (Gen 26:5). It is very obvious that the law
which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that
law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established
that the ten commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain
for murder.
It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later,
and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. "And
this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thiry years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect" (Galatians
3:17). The contents of the verse indicates that Paul is talking about
the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the ten commandments.
In verse 10, he refers to the curses "which are written in the book of
the law". We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have
already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on
stone. We can further confirm that this later law was indeed the law
of Moses: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made..." (Galatians 3:19). Here we have two significant facts set
forth concerning the law which was added. We are told WHY it was given
and also HOW LONG it would remain in effect. It was "added because of
transgressions". This is most revealing because we have just
established that "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans
4:15). One can't be guilty of transgressing a law which does not
exist. In this case, one law obviously did exist; and it had
been "transgressed", making it necessary to add another law 430 years
after God's covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded
that "Abraham obeyed...my laws" we have to believe that that earlier
law, which Abraham observed, was the ten commandments. Moses had not
yet been born, and it could not have been his law.
So what must we conclude from this evidence? The ten commandments had
been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon
relection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding
murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to
prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We
have already established that the ten commandments contained no curses
(penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was
characterized by those very things. How long did this 'added' law
remain in effect? "Till the seed should come" There is no controversy
over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. We have evidence that
the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the
law of Moses. It is designated as the "handwriting of ordinances".
Nowhere are the ten commandments identified as ordinances.
Colossians 2:14-16: After describing the "blotting out" and "nailing"
of the ordinances, Paul wrote, "Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat,
or in drink" The word 'therefore' means, 'based on what has just been
said, we must come to this conclusion'. In other words, he was
saying, 'based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out,
THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink'. Now we begin to see
clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the ten
commandments about meat and drink? No. Is there anything in the
ceremonial law about meat and drink? Yes. Much of its content had to
do with prescribing certain meat and drink offerings for sacrifices.
Let's read the rest of the scripture in Colossians: "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a SHADOW OF
THINGS TO COME but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16,17). These
sabbath days are clearly defined as SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME which
clears up that it is not referring to the weekly Sabbath of the ten
commandment law. The weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin
entered the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN
EXISTED. All the shadows were introduced BECAUSE of sin and pointed
forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all
the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the
sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have
been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing
to a Saviour.
Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the
cross. At the moment of Christ's death, the veil of the temple was
ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most
holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood
recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be
sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to
which all those sacrifices pointed. From then on, it would be denying
that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore,
it would be "against us" or "contrary to us" to continue observing that
mosaic law.
On the day before Jesus died, would it have been a sin for a man to
refuse to bring a lamb in order to have his sins forgiven? of course,
because that was the only way to be forgiven. Would it have ben a sin
to refuse to bring that lamb, the day after Jesus died? no, because the
true Lamb had died, the veil had been rent, and the ordinances blotted
out. A law had been abolished by being nailed to the cross-the
ceremonial law of Moses. Ephesians 2:15 says "Having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances"
On the day before Jesus died, was it a sin to steal? yes. On the day
after He died, was it a sin to steal? yes. It was just a wrong as the
day before He died. Obviously, all the blotting out of ordinances,
types and shadows did not affect the great moral code of the ten
commandments - they all applied afterward as much as before Christ died.
Ken Clark
Thanks
Ken
juli...@my-deja.com wrote:
> My message was not supposed to have been posted here. Sorry. I wanted
> it posted as a new thread entitled Law of God not same as Law of Moses.
>
> In article <8dg86a$tch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
juli...@my-deja.com
it posted as a new thread entitled Law of God not same as Law of Moses.
In article <8dg86a$tch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
juli...@my-deja.com wrote:
DW4
Amen
DW4
--
Rev 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.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Isa 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be
weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
balue92
"Mainstream" "listen" to what Paul put forth, and supposedly believe it, but the fact that Paul claims himself a Spiritual Jew (as a side note: ...thus showing that the tribe of Benjamin was not biologically Jew) is completely ignored. What Tribe was entrusted with the very words of God?? And do not the "Jews" cling to the so-called outdated, canceled "Laws" to this very day!?
Romans 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? :2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
The Old Testament is still binding for ALL of Israel. The only thing that is done away with are animal sacrifices, and ONLY for the "few" that God has called and chosen to this very day. The rest of Israel is still required to adhere to ALL. The New Testament is for the "few", NOT the blinded "many" (main streamers). Will you believe and accept this? Of course not! It was meant to be forcefully advanced (told), not expected to be believed by the deliberately blinded "many". It is to be said as a witness, and the "many" will remember it during and after the tribulation to come.
Michael
http://www.zionministry.com
juli...@my-deja.com
tulipBee
> From: "John Doe" <Joh...@mindless.com>
> Further more you are claiming calvinsim.
> That only the elect are chosen.
You believe because you are born again, not you are born again because you
believe. How much do you know about your unconscience mind? Not much or does
it matter? What really matters is that you believe that its your spirit that
you give up when you die. Most if all Adventist believe they don't have a
spirit at all but a simple breath of life. If God controls your spirit what
He sees fit to his pleasure, then you have no control over it. If you don't
believe you have a God givin spirit, then this whole foreknown theory
doesn't make sense to you. What good is dust to God? Most Adventist will not
see that God ~IS~ in control. You question his will too much.
> "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"Titus
> 2:11
If God brings and cause salvation to all ,then all will go to heaven, the
whole world including Hitler and Charles Mason,ect. In most cases, ALL are
the elect only. If He dies for the unbelievers, then the unbelievers gets
elected.
All are Christians in most cases.
> There are many more including John 3:16.
> But read this from a Baptist web page.
> I got this from a Baptist web page.
If this site is a reformed Baptist site, then they believe and follow the
Bible. Reformed Baptist, Reformed Lutherans, Reformed Presbyterians and most
Bible believers Follow closely to the Bible. Saint Augustine in the forth
century believed this. Most early monks preserved how the early church
taught. May this matter to you, probably not. Most churches has become
universalist or Romanist. They have become watered down and believe they can
control what God has predestined. Its God that gives you the Gift of Faith
according to his will, not you say, "Hey!, give me the gift of Faith!, I've
done my part and earned it" You are not in control and are blinded by sin.
You have no ability to even know or ask for the free gift of Faith. God
gives it to you when and whom He decides or wishes to give it to. According
to the Adventist theology, without your spirit which you believe is a simple
breath of God, you are a bag of dirt and dust. How can a bag of dust decide
on the things of God? You can't cause you don't know dirt about God or
Jesus. God loves you and chooses you out of LOVE. Nothing you did, law or
not, you didn't do anything to earn salvation. Its the LOVE of Christ that
picked you , not you picked him. The only thing you can do is to be
thankful, lawfully or not. neither matters.
> It's nice to se some protestants who
> don't believe this false hood.
Martin Luther didn't want to start a new reformed church, He nailed the
notes to the church asking the popes to stop all those pagan beliefs. It
just happened that others started churches on their own. You throw the dirty
bathwater out, not throw the baby (Christ) out with the bathwater. Early
reformers DO believe in this theology. Thats what its all about. What does
protestants mean to you? Lets take the first known or recognized protestant
(forget Waldenians since they mixed Judaism with the Bible they can't even
read) and read his book "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. You will
find that this theology IS in the Bible.
> Danger of Teaching that Christ Died Only for the Elect
Christ died for the believers. His death is only effective to the elect.
Don't believe in the univeralist. They want to control God.
tulipBee
DaMao
COMMANDMENT and do things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His
commandment; (#1)that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ
and (#2)love one another, as he gave us commandment. Now he who keeps His
commandments (#1 and #2) abides in Him, and He in him.
Exo 31:17 It will be a sign between Me and Israel
1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, you faith is futile, you are
still in your sins
The LXX (Septuagint) translation of "Sabbaths" in Exodus 20:8, is the same
as Col 2:16
DW4 wrote:
> Right On Target Julie.
>
> Amen
> DW4
>
> --
> Rev 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.
> Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Isa 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength;
> they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be
> weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
>
ernli...@my-deja.com
tulipBee <thompso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
SNIP...............................
>Most churches has become
> universalist or Romanist. They have become watered down and believe
they can
> control what God has predestined. Its God that gives you the Gift of
Faith
> according to his will, not you say, "Hey!, give me the gift of
Faith!, I've
> done my part and earned it" You are not in control and are blinded by
sin.
> You have no ability to even know or ask for the free gift of Faith.
God
> gives it to you when and whom He decides or wishes to give it to.
According
> to the Adventist theology, without your spirit which you believe is a
simple
> breath of God, you are a bag of dirt and dust. How can a bag of dust
decide
> on the things of God? You can't cause you don't know dirt about God or
> Jesus. God loves you and chooses you out of LOVE. Nothing you did,
law or
> not, you didn't do anything to earn salvation.
SNIP...................
> Martin Luther didn't want to start a new reformed church, He nailed
the
> notes to the church asking the popes to stop all those pagan beliefs.
It
> just happened that others started churches on their own. You throw
the dirty
> bathwater out, not throw the baby (Christ) out with the bathwater.
Early
> reformers DO believe in this theology. Thats what its all about. What
does
> protestants mean to you? Lets take the first known or recognized
protestant
> (forget Waldenians since they mixed Judaism with the Bible they can't
even
> read) and read his book "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. You
will
> find that this theology IS in the Bible.
>
SNIP..........................
> Don't believe in the univeralist. They want to control God.
>
> tulipBee
>
>
tB,
I almost disregarded your message -- probably should have -- but
couldn't resist. According to your partial posting above, you don't
give ANY other religion any credence! You damn them all (except of
course the EGW version of theology). You also feel that mankind, whom
God had created, is worthless muck (as if it were OUR fault that we
were brought into this world as we were!)
You obviously dislike the Catholics (especially), Baptists, JWs,
Mormons, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and on and on. Oh, let's not forget
the American Indians and their Spirit God and the Africans and their
path. Yep, it sounds like you're really ready for heaven. It's little
wonder this little globe in this big universe is so problematic.
Oh yeah, you have a problem with a "universalist" church too. Uh,
wouldn't it be nice if we ALL could worship together all in synch? Of
course, this universal church would have to fit in with your religious
ideology, right?
EW
John Doe
"DaMao" <jtre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38FC2CC3...@yahoo.com...