Why do people hate the Seventh Day Adventists?

[mark wright]

2 Cor 3 does not say the Ten Commandments are done away with.

So then - still wrong to take God's name in vain.

And as Romans 3:31 says "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God"

No wonder that for all eternity in the new earth "From SABBATH to SABBATH shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder "what matters is keeping the COMMANDMENTS of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Because EVEN in the NT "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Thus the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 is UNCHANGED in Hebrews 8:6-10 and once the moral LAW of God which includes the TEN Commandments is no longer the schoolmaster of the lost directing them to the Savior - it is then "WRITTEN on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant.

A Bible detail so incredibly obvious that even these pro-sunday groups admit it.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

Of course, to truly see rom 3:31 reflected in our lives we have to understand the truth we must believe

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law rom3:20

And as you quoted:

Sin is the transgression of the law 1 john3:4

I'm sure you therefor understand fully what Paul is actually stating I rom3:20

 

[mark wright]

I can only go by personal experience, but I have found those who most stress the TC must be obeyed( to attain heaven) appear to have less awareness of, or conviction of sin in their lives than those who do not stress the law.
A couple of years ago I was in the home of an active sda member. They were vehement the TC must be obeyed, believing heaven hinged on that.
Yet that same person, and another were taking the Lords name in vain in a carefree manner and laughing while they did so. I cannot explain how deeply disturbing I found this to be. In all my years of attending churches I dont think I can recall anyone taking the Lords name in vain, let alone laughing while they did so.
I sat in an sda service a short while later, someone passed close by to me and casually took the Lords name I vain as they did so. I can only repeat, I have never come across this kind of thing before in any denominational church I have been a member of.
As an sda member has stated. The law under the new covenant is written on your mind and placed on your heart, so how on earth can anyone break the law that has been placed there and not be conscious they sin by doing so?
And as I said earlier, I saw more flagrant sin in that church than any other church I have personally been to.
It backs up my view that if people fully understand the laws demands they would be less inclined to stress with inference you must obey the commandments if you want to attain to heaven.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course, to truly see rom 3:31 reflected in our lives we have to understand the truth we must believe

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law rom3:20

And as you quoted:

Sin is the transgression of the law 1 john3:4

I'm sure you therefor understand fully what Paul is actually stating I rom3:20

And in 1 Cor 7:19, 1 John 5:2-4 and 1 John 2:4-7

 

[BobRyan]

I can only go by personal experience, but I have found those who most stress the TC must be obeyed( to attain heaven) appear to have less awareness of, or conviction of sin in their lives than those who do not stress the law. .

Romans 3:19-21 the purpose of the LAW is to bring about an awareness of what sin is. The idea that without God's Law we are much more aware of what sin is - is counter to the text.

Since this is not a "why I hate this or that group of people..." post - will add it to the "why I like..." thread

 

[mark wright]

Romans 3:19-21 the purpose of the LAW is to bring about an awareness of what sin is. The idea that without God's Law we are much more aware of what sin is - is counter to the text.

Since this is not a "why I hate this or that group of people..." post - will add it to the "why I like..." thread

Ok
Paul states the christian has no righteousness before God of observing the law.
If you fail to observe the law you commit sin.

I'm sure you agree with that

 

[mark wright]

Romans 3:19-21 the purpose of the LAW is to bring about an awareness of what sin is. The idea that without God's Law we are much more aware of what sin is - is counter to the text.

Since this is not a "why I hate this or that group of people..." post - will add it to the "why I like..." thread

Are you suggesting I have stated the christian is without Gods laws?
If you are, please produce the post where I am supposed to have stated that

 

[mark wright]

How can anyone believe they are without Gods laws if the law has been written on their mind and placed on their heart?

 

[mark wright]

Romans 3:19-21 the purpose of the LAW is to bring about an awareness of what sin is

And you agree the law is written on the mind and placed on the heart of the believer.
May I ask? What is your view of someone who commits sin but is not conscious/aware they do so?
In view of what you wrote, please give me your opinion

 

[mark wright]

Would any seventh day Adventist care to answer my question?
I am sure you all agree through the law the christian is conscious /aware of their sin. I'm sure you all agree with Doug bachelor that under the new covenant the law is written on the mind and placed on the heart of the zChristian. So my question is this:
If a person claims to be a christian but is not aware they sin when they break a law of God, written on the christians mind and placed on their heart, how would you view that situation?

 

[sparow]

Would be so kind as to point out which scriptures you are referring to?

Thank you.

Rev 12:7
Rev 19:14-16
Matt 13:41
Matt 16:27
Matt 24:31
1peter 3:22

Michael is the main defender of God fighting many of God's battles; both Jesus and Michael lead armies of angels; unless God has two armies of angels the Michael and Jesus are the same leader of the same army.

 

[sparow]

The words of an active seventh day Adventist, and I quote:

Obedience to the ten commandments is stressed multiple times to be the requirement for entrance to heaven.

Unquote.

If anyone cannot see that statement states your righteousness/ justification for heaven is obeying the law they are spiritually blind.

Yet that statement is what seventh day Adventists actually believe.

Do not be fooled by attempts at times to deflect from it by members of the sda

There is nothing wrong with the statement; I don't know of a single SDA who would say you can earn your salvation by keeping the law and you err reading that meaning into the statement. Keeping the Law is a requirement, a prerequisite. Everyone has to qualify as a sheep and not a goat and this is explained more fully in the Gospels.

 

[brinny]

Rev 12:7
Rev 19:14-16
Matt 13:41
Matt 16:27
Matt 24:31
1peter 3:22

Michael is the main defender of God fighting many of God's battles; both Jesus and Michael lead armies of angels; unless God has two armies of angels the Michael and Jesus are the same leader of the same army.

Michael is "created".

Jesus the Christ isn't.

He is Creator.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

and angel is an angel, plain and simple, and to which of the angels said he at any time "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?", he never said this to any.

The Son of God was eternally existent and all things were created by him and for him. If all things are created by the Son (Colossians 1) then that excludes himself. he is not a created being but eternal and as the Son of God. God so loved the world that ha gave his only begotten Son.

What is the difference between the captain of the Lords host and the archangel?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Michael is "created".

Jesus the Christ isn't.

He is Creator.

Can you provide scripture or some other evidence that Michael is created?

 

[mmksparbud]

Michael The Archangel is a title----not a designation of His substance. Jesus Christ---Our High Priest--is His title as that job, not a declaration that He is just a man serving God as a human priest.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been through a clean.
Please do not flame one another, and restrict your comments to the content of others' posts, rather than attacking one another personally.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Imagican]

All of that post is factually and historically untrue - but I guess you are free to make stuff up if that is your preferred form of posting.

Maybe that is the purpose of this kind of thread - draw a line between pure fiction and historic fact.

Factually and historically untrue? So you are accusing me of offering 'false information'? Ok.

Ever heard of Ellen White? Ever study the history of 'your religion'? If so, are you denying that she was suffering from illness when she received her 'delusions' or 'visions' from God? Or at least CLAIMED to have received visions or delusions? And that the 'religion': Seventh Day Advetists is the result of her 'claimed visions'?

While I'm certainly NOT a SDA, I have read quite a bit about it's history. So please, if you are going to make such accusations, at least be specific about what you believe I have offered that is UNTRUE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[LoveofTruth]

Michael The Archangel is a title----not a designation of His substance. Jesus Christ---Our High Priest--is His title as that job, not a declaration that He is just a man serving God as a human priest.

No, to call Michael an archangel, means he is an angel, like the other angels are and he is in a higher place of rank, and archangel. Jesus was made little lower than the angels (as a general term for all such beings whether archangels or lower rank), and God said unto which of the angels said he at any time thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The word "angel" is referred to a certain kind of being in scripture, not just a designation. Just like mankind is referred to a certain kind of being. Jesus is not an angel or a created being, he is God in the flesh the Son Of God, the Word of God eternal. He did not have a beginning and he is the creator of all things. If he created all things then he is not one of the creation. He is before all things and before they were created.

To miss this is a vital concern because to deny the Lord jesus and who he is is a salvation issue.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW the whole "God the Son is also called Michael" topic is not even one of our doctrinal statements of belief. But since you enjoy the subject - I am happy to participate in it.

No, to call Michael an archangel, means he is an angel, .

Archangel is the prototype for all angels. There is only 1.

To call God a man in Genesis 18 means he is a man??

We know that he is not.

And same is true for the 2 angels in Genesis 18 - being called "men" - we know in Genesis 19 for example that they are angels.

----------------- "our prince" - according to the Bible is God the Son - Jesus Christ - also called Michael

Isaiah 9 -- the ONLY prince from heaven - given to us in all of scripture

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Dan 10
21 However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.

---- God the Son - alone --- is commander of all the angels in heaven

And of course God the Son (and not some angel) is the head of all Angels

Hebrews 1 -
6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

Rev 12
7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and His angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.