Sabbatarianism and the 1689 Confession: Were the Particular Baptists wrong?

[BobRyan]

Which gets us back to the subject of this thread - and the BCF and the TEN Commandments.
-- #2 #67


And as noted above - even pro-Sunday sources get this Bible doctrine about God's TEN Commandments still being applicable to the saints today - and they even get that it was the moral law of God for all of the OT times.

Notice that I actually quote from the Baptist Confession of Faith in that link. And ... as it turns out... that is the subject of this thread.

While you were at it, did you notice from those links I posted from all of those Baptists interpreting their BCF to harshly denounce Seventh Day Adventism .

I have to admit - I missed the "BCF harshly denounces..." in your list.

Maybe it is because your vitriol and diatribe format generate lost of interest after the first sentence or two.

But what I did notice is that I am actually quoting from the BCF - and you are avoiding it at all costs.

"Instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

You are being disingenuous, the chapter you are almost exclusively quoting has a context,
Chap 18 gives the support for the Assurance that the Believer has in Christ, not Law.
Chap 20 details why Christ is needed, though he object the SDA doesn't really have a need for Christ for EGW has attributed to the Law all the Merits of Christ.
Chap 21 details how the Believer has access to the Throne of Grace, the SDA denies this through their denial of the 1st Century cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary.
Chap 22 which is another chapter in question then details how the Christian Sabbath, or Day of Worship is rightly Lord's Day the First Day of the Week and Day when we look to the Resurrection of the Dead in light of Christ's triumphant defeat of Death.

That is the context in which the Confession states that the Law is profitable for the Believer as a Grace and condescension of God.

Does the Confession state that the Believer need do the Law? I wouldn't say that that is the doctrine expressed.

 

[VictorC]

And here is a Baptist webpage that denounces Seventh Day Adventism as a non-Christian Cult from the perspective of the BCF:

"They teach that to worship on a Sunday is to receive the mark of the Beast and that the true worship of Christians was during a Saturday. This is crazy! The Roman Catholic Church DID NOT create Sunday worship, the Bible did and Jesus ordained Sunday worship! To deal with Sunday verses, first and foremost Jesus rose on a Sunday (Matthew 28:1-7, Mark 16:2-9 Luke 24:1, John 20:1). Throughout the Book of Acts, worship and gathering was mostly done on SUNDAY so did Peter implement the mark of the Beast?! We will try to work on the Sunday defense soon. This kind of mentality has led to their paranoia on Sunday worshipers. This attitude lets them have the huge disorder of putting the Vatican in front of the Bible. I care less about what the Vatican is doing, the Bible COMES FIRST and any hellbent Roman Catholic still has the chance to be saved while they live. This has resulted to the generation of conspiracy theories."

Fundamental Baptist Christian: What's Wrong with Seventh Day Adventism?


And here's some unofficial denunciations of Adventism as a "snare" and a "Cult" from the Southern Baptist perspective:
Seventh-Day Adventists, Ecumenism and Hell | Cults
Seventh-day Adventism
http://www.newtestamentchristians.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/12-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Church.pdf

The following Baptist-supported webpage analyzes Adventism's "Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping" Doctrine:

"SDAs have, thereby, made Sabbath-keeping a criterion for a personal relationship with the Lord -- even to the extent of one's salvation! Why? Because, according to SDAs, we are all to be under strict adherence to Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments, of which the fourth one says, "keep the Sabbath." (This Sabbath-keeping requirement was supposedly confirmed in a vision received by Ellen G. White, rather than by study of the Bible.) SDAs believe that "Sunday-keeping" will be the mark of the beast in the future."

Seventh-Day Adventism - Orthodox or Cult?

Adventism: Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping. That's why Adventists post thousands of Sabbath posts and NEVER one on the Resurrection. You will not be able to find a single post by BobRyan regarding the Resurrection. I've done every combination of searches I can think of. He is a slick salesman for a modern-day revival of the satanic Ebionite Heresy that has been harshly condemned by Christianity relentlessly for 2,000 years. There is NOTHING in the BCF that supports this satanic heresy. Any comparison between the BCF and Adventism is deceitful and fraudulent.

These are very telling quotes. And, they dovetail into what I posted elsewhere that exposes the nature of Adventism's departure from Christianity:

~~~~~~~~April 11 2014:

I will first address this one thing about the sabbath and EGW---It has been brought up many times and each time totaly out of context and I am going to quote what she has written and not what somebody says she wrote: First, what she says about salvation.
...
Here the discourse was broken in upon by questions from one who had kept the Sabbath a short time, but who had recently given it up. Rising in the congregation, he said, “This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no.” I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received.

The condition 'if' should be replaced with the condition 'when', for Ellen White's determination of the condition 'if' is time related to 1844.

Testimonies for the Church
Volume Two, page 693, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: No Probation After Christ Comes

As we have followed down the chain of prophecy, revealed truth for our time has been clearly seen and explained. We are accountable for the privileges that we enjoy and for the light that shines upon our pathway. Those who lived in past generations were accountable for the light which was permitted to shine upon them. Their minds were exercised in regard to different points of Scripture which tested them. But they did not understand the truths which we do. They were not responsible for the light which they did not have. They had the Bible, as we have; but the time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that shall live upon the earth. Special truths have been adapted to the conditions of the generations as they have existed. The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation, was not a test to the people of generations far back. If the light which now shines upon us in regard to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment had been given to the generations in the past, God would have held them accountable for that light. When the temple of God was opened in heaven, John saw in holy vision a class of people whose attention was arrested and who were looking with reverential awe at the ark, which contained the law of God. The special test upon the fourth commandment did not come until after the temple of God was opened in heaven. Those who died before the light was given upon the law of God and the claims of the fourth commandment were not guilty of the sin of violating the seventh-day Sabbath. The wisdom and mercy of God in dispensing light and knowledge at the proper time, as the people need it, is unsearchable. Previous to His coming to judge the world in righteousness, He sends forth a warning to arouse the people and call their attention to their neglect of the fourth commandment, that they may be enlightened, and may repent of their transgression of His law, and prove their allegiance to the great Lawgiver. He has made provision that all may be holy and happy if they choose. Sufficient light has been given to this generation, that we may learn what our duties and privileges are, and enjoy the precious and solemn truths in their simplicity and power.​

To show Ellen's dependence on 1844, I will include this quote from Early Writings, Pg 42-43:

Sabbath, March 24, 1849, we had a sweet and very interesting meeting with the brethren at Topsham, Maine. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the city of the living God. Then I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the shut door could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out with all their importance, and for God’s people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches.

I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door into the most holy, and no man can shut it (Revelation 3:7, 8); [see page 86. See also appendix.] and that since Jesus has opened the door into the most holy place, which contains the ark, the commandments have been shining out to God’s people, and they are being tested on the Sabbath question.

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God’s people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now.​

Ellen White's soteriology revolves around the Sabbath she failed to keep Holy according the Law that ordained it. This is evident in these quotes provided below that show the Adventist formula for 'salvation' to be compliance with the old covenant from Mount Sinai you don't acknowledge God's redemption from:

No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth. {RH June 17, 1890, par. 8}

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)​

How much clearer does it need to be that the SDA church adopts a formula of 'salvation' by compliance to the old covenant? This is not a Christian organization that recognizes God's redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and having one foot in the tenets of Judaism while giving lipservice to our Redeemer is their form of promoting adultery. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

It is obvious from their own soteriology that the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' isn't Christian. This didn't escape the Baptist church's attention.

 

[BobRyan]

You are being disingenuous, the chapter you are almost exclusively quoting has a context,
Chap 18 gives the support for the Assurance that the Believer has in Christ, not Law.

You are grasping at straws now. This entire section is dedicated to the "Law and the Sabbath" your post title is about "Sabbatarianism and the 1689 Confession" which takes us directly to section 19 and 22 of that document.

This is impossible to deny.

I point out that of the 7 main points they make there - I agree with 6 -- and those who are slamming God's ten Commandments here - are slamming all SEVEN of the points in your own BCF.

Somehow you don't seem to care about the points your own BCF is making.

You have yet to defend section 19 against those who oppose ALL of it!

(And you have said very little even of the one area where I oppose ONE of the 7 primary points in section 19 -- because so also does everyone else here oppose that one point).

Chap 20 details why Christ is needed, though he object the SDA doesn't really have a need for Christ for EGW has attributed ...

Making stuff up will not work now.

You are stuck with the fact that you have not come to the aid of your own BCF - yet you know full well Spurgeon would have stood for his own revised edition - without having to "make stuff up about Ellen White" as his only defense.

I am sorry to see you resort to that nonsense. You were doing better the first page or two of this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

I have to admit - I missed the "BCF harshly denounces..." in your list.

That is an obviously false statement. Every link I posted featured a writing from the perspective of the BCF, which harshly denounced your Sabbath position. Additionally, the portion of the BCF I posted unequivocally denounced your Sabbatarian position. Two of the Baptist websites call the Seventh Day Adventist Church a "cult" and a "snare," which is a pretty harsh denunciation in anyone's book. Except for the very most deceitful, which is clearly what would have made the above statement in quotes. Strong proof that in order to hold to the Sabbatarian position, one must be willing to be caught brazenly lying in a public forum like this.

But what I did notice is that I am actually quoting from the BCF - and you are avoiding it at all costs.
Bob

That is the most willfully deceitful statement you have made on this thread. And that takes some doing, since so many of your statements are vying for a close second place! The entire BCF doctrine regarding the Sabbath was pasted in full in my last post. Along with two Baptist commentaries, drawing on that BCF, to denounce Adventism's Sabbath doctrine. You obviously did not read any of the three links, which cited the BCF from a Baptist perspective and then you lied publicly that I was trying to avoid BCF.

For you to keep citing the BCF as an imaginary source that endorses your Sabbatarian position, while at the same time having abundant proof that your argument has been demolished by Baptist websites, its just amazingly dishonest.

 

[BobRyan]

It is obvious from their own soteriology that the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' isn't Christian.

There was a dark-ages kind of thinking that went that direction but then we had this from one of the non-SDA groups.

Together with the Evangelical Foundation (founded by the late Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and publishers of the now-defunct Eternity magazine), we conducted a thorough new evaluation of the Seventh-day Adventists several years ago. The results of that new evaluation were presented comprehensively in the book The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism and then later in the previous editions of this volume.


It is my conviction that one cannot be a true Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc., and be a Christian in the biblical sense of the term; but it is perfectly possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and be a true follower of Jesus Christ despite certain heterodox concepts, which will be discussed.




Such Christian leaders as Louis T. Talbot, M. R. DeHaan, John R. Rice, Anthony A. Hoekema, J. K. Van Baalen, Herbert Bird, and John R. Gerstner have taken the position that Adventism is in fact a cult system; whereas, the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, myself, E. Schuyler English, and quite a few others have concluded the opposite.




Since the opposing view has had wide circulation over a long period of time, I felt it was necessary to include here Seventh-day Adventism as a proper counterbalance—presenting the other side of Adventism and representing the theology of Adventism as the Adventists themselves believe it and not as many critics have caricatured it.

 

[BobRyan]

Which gets us back to the subject of this thread - and the BCF and the TEN Commandments.
-- #2 #67


And as noted above - even pro-Sunday sources get this Bible doctrine about God's TEN Commandments still being applicable to the saints today - and they even get that it was the moral law of God for all of the OT times.

Notice that I actually quote from the Baptist Confession of Faith in that link. And ... as it turns out... that is the subject of this thread.

While you were at it, did you notice from those links I posted from all of those Baptists interpreting their BCF to harshly denounce Seventh Day Adventism .

I have to admit - I missed the "BCF harshly denounces..." in your list.

Maybe it is because your vitriol and diatribe format generate lost of interest after the first sentence or two.

But what I did notice is that I am actually quoting from the BCF - and you are avoiding it at all costs.

"Instructive".

That is an obviously false statement. Every link I posted featured a writing from the perspective of the BCF, which harshly denounced ....

So fine - point to a quote of the BCF where that document itself is used to "harshly condemn" some denomination -

in the mean time - I am affirming 6 of the 7 points in the BCF section 19 and you are opposing all 7.

Pretty hard to ignore - and your resorting to nothing more than SDA-bashing at the denomination level - as well as your ad hominem vitriol does not change facts in your effort to derail the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

There was a dark-ages kind of thinking that went that direction but then we had this from the non-SDA group.

So the Baptists identify Adventism as a cult, and your move is to abandon them. Let's see what Dr. Walter Martin had to say, since you brought him up.

In the case above - even Walter Martin notes that the Adventists were being primarily opposed for their stand in favor of premillennialism.

I prefer actual facts and apparently Walter Martin had a few.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Barnhouse concluded their interviews with GC officials with two major complaints, revolving around Ellen White's status as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" (SDA FB #18), and the Investigative Judgment (SDA FB #24). They concluded that the SDA church needed to drop these from their Fundamental Beliefs, consistent with their embracing Questions on Doctrine that Dr. Martin preferred to accept as representative of Adventist doctrine over their other writings.

Before the GC discussions and the publication of Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin's earlier book The Rise of the Cults classified the SDA church as a cult. Based on QoD, he chose to remove that classification and codify that conclusion in Kingdom of the Cults.

His reliance on QoD as the sole determinant for that reclassification becomes more clear in his comments made in 1983:

Kingdom of the Cults’ is in print as a standard textbook and is used all over the world. It is now on its 37th printing, coming up for revision and expansion; and in there is a chapter on Adventism, which I put in deliberately. The book will be a classic for years. The chapters has got to be in there spelling out that Adventists are not a cult, because they are already classified that way. What better place to deal with it than in a classic book? Anthony Hoekema, came after me with a hammer and tongs; he is a friend of mine. And M.R. De Haan came after me, among other people because of the position I took. I haven't recanted my position, but if the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will not back up its answers with actions and put Questions on Doctrine back in print - and, in effect, take a strong stand against people in [the SDA] denomination who are very vocal and powerful group and who very well can bring the judgment of God on up - then they're in real trouble that I can't help them out of; and nobody else can either.

Now, the result today is that QoD isn't accepted and does not reflect Adventist doctrine. I just looked up the list of SDA Fundamental Beliefs on their official website; #18 still claims Ellen White to be "the Lord's messenger", and #24 still claims that Jesus "entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry" in 1844. The Adventist publication of Questions on Doctrine has been relegated to the trash, and Dr. Martin noted this in 1983 in the same interview as above:

After 150,000 copies, Questions on Doctrine was permitted to go out of print.... I believe it was deliberately removed by people who felt that it was a thorn in their theological flesh.” Martin also added, “You have to understand that 30 years ago there was a great confusion. As a matter of fact, today is still in many areas of Adventism. They had strains of Arian Christology; there were men in positions of authority who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity. For all I know, some of them may still be there today. There were people who were absolute legalists, who believed that any person who kept Sunday - even in good conscience before God - right at that moment had the mark of the beast. And they were printing and distributing it under the official Adventist logos.

There has been no change in Adventism, as Dr. Walter Martin asserted in 1965. It is still properly classified as a cult, as he originally determined in his book The Rise of the Cults. I suppose your next move is to relegate the mid-19th Century to the dark ages, but that isn't going to draw Adventism's rise out of the period of time sandwiched in the 'dark-ages' encompassing it.

 

[Keachian]

There was a dark-ages kind of thinking that went that direction but then we had this from the non-SDA group.

Walter Martin was deceived, there is no reason to use him as a defense for SDA beliefs.

 

[BobRyan]

Does the Confession state that the Believer need do the Law? I wouldn't say that that is the doctrine expressed.

Can you say that while actually quoting the document in the section dealing with the Christian keeping the Law??

The Actual BCF -- (or is it the "much to be avoided BCF" Progmonk??)

====================================
[FONT=&quot]As modified by C.H. Spurgeon[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section 19[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]. The Law of God [/FONT]

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

• The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

• Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

• The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

===================================

or was that just a gimmick on your part?

Recall that you are the one that asked us to look at this.

How sad that I alone am quoting this section, highlighting it, underlining it, defending it. I don't think that C.H. Spurgeon himself would have left this to someone else to defend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

You are grasping at straws now. This entire section is dedicated to the "Law and the Sabbath" your post title is about "Sabbatarianism and the 1689 Confession" which takes us directly to section 19 and 22 of that document.

This is impossible to deny.

I point out that of the 7 main points they make there - I agree with 6 -- and those who are slamming God's ten Commandments here - are slamming all SEVEN of the points in your own BCF.

Somehow you don't seem to care about the points your own BCF is making.

You have yet to defend section 19 against those who oppose ALL of it!

(And you have said very little even of the one area where I oppose ONE of the 7 primary points in section 19 -- because so also does everyone else here oppose that one point).

Making stuff up will not work now.

You are stuck with the fact that you have not come to the aid of your own BCF - yet you know full well Spurgeon would have stood for his own revised edition - without having to "make stuff up about Ellen White" as his only defense.

I am sorry to see you resort to that nonsense. You were doing better the first page or two of this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

You are using the BCF to apologise for Adventism, it makes sense then to show where Adventism differs strongly from the BCF.

 

[BobRyan]

Walter Martin was deceived, .

Your logic is impressive at that point - as is your defense of section 19 of your own BCF document.

Consistency at least.

 

[BobRyan]

You are using the BCF to apologise for Adventism, it makes sense then to show where Adventism differs strongly from the BCF.

This thread is not titled "all the OTHER doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists like their opposition to OSAS - doctrines that are not about the Law and the Sabbath" as some will notice.

Rather it is about the 1689 confession and "Sabbatarianism" which drills down to focus the BCF on section 19 and section 22 where those subjects are discussed.

You all but run from them.

I quote them with delight.

One of us defends section 19 - and the other avoids it.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Name calling alone will not solve your problem in logic and reason here. You will need to do better.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

This thread is not titled "all the OTHER doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists like their opposition to OSAS - doctrines that are not about the Law and the Sabbath" as some will notice.

Rather it is about the 1689 confession and "Sabbatarianism" which drills down to focus the BCF on section 19 and section 22 where those subjects are discussed.

You all but run from them.

I quote them with delight.

One of us defends section 19 - and the other avoids it.

You're still missing the point, the Classic Adventist doctrine of Obedience is one without reference to Christ's work in purification or the Spirit's work in Sanctification, this is in direct contrast to the Doctrine of Obedience found in the BCF and the fact that you keep calling foul to my pointing this out is evidence that there is no room for this in your man-centered doctrine of Obedience.

 

[VictorC]

Walter Martin was deceived, there is no reason to use him as a defense for SDA beliefs.

In the mid-1950's, Dr. Walter Martin concluded the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' to be a cult.
In 1965, Dr. Walter Martin decided the Seventh-day Adventist 'church' wasn't a cult anymore.
Then in 1983, Dr. Walter Martin concluded the Seventh-day Adventist church was "in real trouble" and reverted to being the cult it was all along.

The deception was the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine, which was alleged by the GC of the SDA 'church' to displace the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA 'church'. In reality, QoD was was a lie that was never accepted within Adventism and never displaced any of their beliefs.

 

[BobRyan]

You're still missing the point, the Classic Adventist doctrine of Obedience is one without reference to Christ's work in purification or the Spirit's work in Sanctification, .

That looks like creative writing where you simply "quote you" - why do that??

I have never doubted your ability to quote you - and I have no claim to stop you from making stuff up.

But if you are claiming to quote me - or one of the published beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church claiming that obedience on the part of the born-again saint is apart from Christ - then give us all the news - because yours would be the first.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The deception was the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine, which was alleged by the GC of the SDA 'church' to displace the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA 'church'.

There is no statement from the SDA denomination that questions on Doctrine replaced anything. That is pure fiction and I think we both know it.

QoD was a book of "answers to questions" where the questions were asked by Martin and a few people in leadership tried to provide the clearest answer based on the existing Fundamental Beliefs - that have never been in Question and Answer format - no not ever.

Fortunately this thread is not about "what do you not like about the Seventh-day Adventist church" according to ProgMonk's title and opening post.

Why keep going down that road?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This thread is not titled "all the OTHER doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists like their opposition to OSAS - doctrines that are not about the Law and the Sabbath" as some will notice.

Rather it is about the 1689 confession and "Sabbatarianism" which drills down to focus the BCF on section 19 and section 22 where those subjects are discussed.

You all but run from them.

I quote them with delight.

One of us defends section 19 - and the other avoids it.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Name calling alone will not solve your problem in logic and reason here. You will need to do better.

Very soon - I will quote the BCF once again.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

There is no statement from the SDA denomination that questions on Doctrine replaced anything. That is pure fiction and I think we both know it.

QoD was a book of "answers to questions" where the questions were asked by Martin and a few people in leadership tried to provide the clearest answer based on the existing Fundamental Beliefs - that have never been in Question and Answer format - no not ever.

Fortunately this thread is not about "what do you not like about the Seventh-day Adventist church" according to ProgMonk's title and opening post.

Why keep going down that road?

in Christ,

Bob

You're the one who introduced Dr. Walter Martin.

You've already demonstrated a poor historical perspective of Dr. Martin in your previous posts, and this includes the discourse that surrounded QoD and its role in deceiving Drs. Martin and Barnhouse in their discussion with GC representatives. What is the most telling is how Dr. Walter Martin concluded the SDA 'church' to be a cult on both ends of that discussion.

 

[LarryP2]

You're the one who introduced Dr. Walter Martin.

You've already demonstrated a poor historical perspective of Dr. Martin in your previous posts, and this includes the discourse that surrounded QoD and its role in deceiving Drs. Martin and Barnhouse in their discussion with GC representatives. What is the most telling is how Dr. Walter Martin concluded the SDA 'church' to be a cult on both ends of that discussion.

The organized deceptive "snow job" the SDA church conned Dr. Martin with should be an cautionary object lesson for us all. These are simply people who cannot tell the truth. They will tell any lie in order to benefit the organization. '

Try rereading the "Great Controversy" and randomly fact checking some of the historical assertions therein. It is a blatant tissue of outright lies and carefully camouflaged willful fraud. And that's before you even tackle the estimates of up to 90 percent outright literary theft! And before you even look into the "visions" she had that were usually suggested by her husband. No doubt: If Ellen White were doing her crimes today, there would be US Attorney Generals across the United States competing for the longest prison sentence possible. Anywhere you examine that organization historically, there are shocking multiple-levels of incredible fraud. It is completely founded on deceit, on a monumentally well-organized level.

Yes, Dr. Martin was "Had."