Why do people like Seventh-day Adventist and Adventist doctrine?

[stuart lawrence]

As romans7:7-11 has been mentioned, one of the most revealing passages in Paul's writings I cant resist commenting on it. Paul the christian looking back to the time the law came to him as a pharisee when he came of age to make a commitment to God.

Saul would not have known lust, except the law had said:
Thou shalt not covet. But sin, took occasion by the commandment and aroused all manner of concupiscence in Saul. Sin through the law became utterly sinful in him.
The result of Saul trying to follow the letter of the commandment was sin greatly manifested itself in him.
Saul had felt alive once without the law, for there was no condemnation then. But when it did come sin consciousness sprang to life and he died/ felt condemned. The commandment he believed was ordained to life if he obeyed it, instead brought death/ condemnation for he could not keep it
Sin, through the law slew him and became exceedingly sinful in him
Yet Paul knew the law was holy, just and good, the problem was not the law, but his sin.

So how could sin take advantage of the commandment and through it make Saul a far worse sinner/ sin manifested itself in him. Possibly those with a greater academic mind than mine may offer an explanation!

 

[BobRyan]

You are sure the law God desires you to keep has been written on your mind and placed on your heart aren't you?

I am also sure that it is still wrong to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:6.

Do you find that part of scripture to be a problem - because it spoken by God Himself and written with His own hand?

Does it bother you that even the majority of your own pro-sunday scholars do not condemn God's TEN Commandments - yet you respond in this way to someone saying that they think it is wrong for christians to take God's name in vain -- and your problem is just - "because it is in God's Ten Commandments"?

That should be a "wake up call" for you my friend.

Let me tell you something. I have far more conviction of sin than you will ever have.

Because you agree with the Word of God that "Sin IS transgression of the LAW"? 1 John 3:4
Because you agree with the Word of God that the LAW of God includes the Ten Commandments where we are told that we are not to "take God's name in vain"? Exodus 20:6
Because you know that the WORD of God says the NEW Covenant "Writes the LAW of God" (As known to Jeremiah and his readers - the moral law of God) - "On the heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33??

If that is true - why do you find it so offensive to see the Word of God quoted in those places??

But you carry on making your rather immature posts to me suggesting i don't care about taking the Lords name in vain after I have repeatedly stated what I have in this thread.

Your enthusiasm to falsely accuse, ignore the text of scripture and take offense rather than pay attention to Bible details in the discussion as lead you down a very dark path.

My repeated reference to "Do not take God's name in vain" has nothing to do with me accusing you of wanting to do it - it has everything to do with picking one of the TEN Commandments that I am pretty sure you will have a hard to waging war against or finding any sympathy for anyone here - for waging war against that Commandment.

I am deliberately picking one where I am sure you and I will both agree that it is not good to break that commandment. Then I am placing THAT in front of the steam roller you are trying to use against God's TEN Commandments.

I am simply asking you if you are really willing to run over that tiny-baby with your steam roller every time you "take another shot" at God's TEN Commandments-- precisely BECAUSE I know you will have a hard time bringing yourself to do such a thing with "Do not take God's name in vain"!

Thus your entire point only shows lack of attention to details in our discussion at this point.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[klutedavid]

Well first of all there is no such thing as a "young Ellen White at age 9" because at age nine should she would be Ellen Harmon.

Secondly her family was Methodists and the william Miller had no churches, congregations or denomination so she remained in the Methodist church until her local congregation demanded that any methodists that believed in a second coming that was before the millennium - as Miller taught - would need to separate from their local congregation.

So then - home fellowships where a few families that had been excommunicated from various denominations - would meet.



There is no such thing as a 17 year old Ellen White - she would still be "Ellen Harmon" at 17 and still living at home -- in a Methodist home at that. Not Sabbath keeping and not believing in any of the distinctive SDA doctrine.

Hello Bob.

Ellen White is known, Ellen Harmon is unknown.
Such a fine distinction is a trivial matter.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I am also sure that it is still wrong to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:6.

Do you find that part of scripture to be a problem - because it spoken by God Himself and written with His own hand?

Does it bother you that even the majority of your own pro-sunday scholars do not condemn God's TEN Commandments - yet you respond in this way to someone saying that they think it is wrong for christians to take God's name in vain -- and your problem is just - "because it is in God's Ten Commandments"?

That should be a "wake up call" for you my friend.



Because you agree with the Word of God that "Sin IS transgression of the LAW"? 1 John 3:4
Because you agree with the Word of God that the LAW of God includes the Ten Commandments where we are told that we are not to "take God's name in vain"? Exodus 20:6
Because you know that the WORD of God says the NEW Covenant "Writes the LAW of God" (As known to Jeremiah and his readers - the moral law of God) - "On the heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33??

If that is true - why do you find it so offensive to see the Word of God quoted in those places??




Your enthusiasm to falsely accuse, ignore the text of scripture and take offense rather than pay attention to Bible details in the discussion as lead you down a very dark path.

My repeated reference to "Do not take God's name in vain" has nothing to do with me accusing you of wanting to do it - it has everything to do with picking one of the TEN Commandments that I am pretty sure you will have a hard to waging war against or finding any sympathy for anyone here - for waging war against that Commandment.

I am deliberately picking one where I am sure you and I will both agree that it is not good to break that commandment. Then I am placing THAT in front of the steam roller you are trying to use against God's TEN Commandments.

I am simply asking you if you are really willing to run over that tiny-baby with your steam roller every time you "take another shot" at God's TEN Commandments-- precisely BECAUSE I know you will have a hard time bringing yourself to do such a thing with "Do not take God's name in vain"!

Thus your entire point only shows lack of attention to details in our discussion at this point.


in Christ,

Bob

You know, in my view, the greatest message preached since Christ walked this earth was by Paul. Few understand it though.
I've heard that some churches actually chant:

We believe in Christ and the gospels.
In other words they reject Paul.

It is an amazing message
Know Jesus died for all your sins, past, present and future, know you have no justification of observing the law, know the law cannot condemn you and sin shall not be your master, for you are not under law but under grace.

People who don't understand the message, people who want to cling to a righteousness of their own don't understand the message.
Hence they say:
If you believe that, you speak of a licence to sin
Ah, never the blind will see

 

[BobRyan]

Im only going to write this once. If you don't understand it further conversation would be futile.
Bob Ryan believes all of the TC are written on the mind and placed on the heart of the believer, including the observance/ keeping of a specific seventh day Sabbath.
He also believes( correctly) that through the law placed within us we become conscious of sin.
He would agree you can only be a Christian if the law God requires you to keep is placed within you.
Do you understand so far?
So as Bob Ryan believed the law concerning observing a specific Saturday Sabbath is within you, and through the law placed within you, you become conscious of sin, he must believe every christian is conscious they sin by failing to observe a specific saturday Sabbath. Surely you can follow that
Yet at the same time, he and the SDA church accept as Christians people who have no consciousness they sin by failing to observe a specific saturday Sabbath.

And you have been told that the fallacy in your argument is that you make it "All about feelings - rather than the Bible". Mormons make it all about 'burning in the bosom' rather the Bible.

You are bend-wrenching the Bible text of the NEW Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 pretending that SDAs authored it then claiming that "your feeling supersede the Bible". A bend-and-wrench of Jeremiah 31 if ever there was one.

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

Your bend-and-wrench of God's NEW Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 turns that "killing of others for Jesus" statement in John 16 into "better-an-the-Bible". An idea that SDAs totally reject - and you and I both know it.

It has also been pointed out to you that millions of Christians "pray to the dead" and "Feel just fine" about it. Millions bow down before images in church "and feel just fine about it" -- we never doubt them on that point. They absolutely do "feel just fine about it" - but feelings are not "better-an" the Bible, in the SDA POV.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

Ellen White is known, Ellen Harmon is unknown.
Such a fine distinction is a trivial matter.

The reason that "details matter" is that almost every detail in your post was either fiction or rife with error. If "error does not matter" in your story - well then fine. Pay no attention to my corrections of those fictions.

But if "details matter" to you the way they matter to most Christians then it is important to notice that you cannot vilify a teenage girl - living at home, a methodist who believes in a pre-millennial 2nd coming and for that reason is nick-named "Adventist" by her contemporaries. Who is not the leader of any movement at all. Who barely had a 3rd grade education, who was not even keeping the Sabbath and YET God chose her at the age of 17 when she was given her first message from God - as a 1 Cor 12 Prophet. Recall in

1Cor 14:1-2 what Paul said about prophets in the church?

 

[BobRyan]

A christian said to me last year:
The SDA don't have any covenant.

I wondered what she meant. I don't anymore

Apparently you are still confused.

She was probably talking about "creed".

 

[BobRyan]

You are sure the law God desires you to keep has been written on your mind and placed on your heart aren't you?
Only you appear to think nothing of continuously breaking that law.

Here again you "merely quote you" for your false accusation.

Why keep doing that? If you want one of your accusations to "stick" why not try to prove it has substance first?

 

[stuart lawrence]

And you have been told that the fallacy in your argument is that you make it "All about feelings - rather than the Bible". Mormons make it all about 'burning in the bosom' rather the Bible.

You are bend-wrenching the Bible text of the NEW Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 pretending that SDAs authored it then claiming that "your feeling supersede the Bible". A bend-and-wrench of Jeremiah 31 if ever there was one.

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

Your bend-and-wrench of God's NEW Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 turns that "killing of others for Jesus" statement in John 16 into "better-an-the-Bible". An idea that SDAs totally reject - and you and I both know it.

It has also been pointed out to you that millions of Christians "pray to the dead" and "Feel just fine" about it. Millions bow down before images in church "and feel just fine about it" -- we never doubt them on that point. They absolutely do "feel just fine about it" - but feelings are not "better-an" the Bible, in the SDA POV.

in Christ,

Bob

Ah back to responding to a post without addressing the subject matter of it.
Is it wise to do that? You simply show you cannot address the point made.
Better to ignore the post completely than show your lack of ability to respond to the subject matter if it imho

 

[stuart lawrence]

Here again you "merely quote you" for your false accusation.

Why keep doing that? If you want one of your accusations to "stick" why not try to prove it has substance first?

You proved the substance of it by continually bearing false witness

 

[BobRyan]

You proved the substance of it by continually bearing false witness

repeated false accusation noted - evidence lacking -- as always

 

[stuart lawrence]

repeated false accusation noted - evidence lacking -- as always

No, you've been given the evidence previously as you well know. Stop fibbing and adding that sin to bearing false witness.
You need to accept grace, you will sin less if you do

 

[BobRyan]

Im only going to write this once. If you don't understand it further conversation would be futile.
Bob Ryan believes all of the TC are written on the mind and placed on the heart of the believer, including the observance/ keeping of a specific seventh day Sabbath.
He also believes( correctly) that through the law placed within us we become conscious of sin.
He would agree you can only be a Christian if the law God requires you to keep is placed within you.
Do you understand so far?
So as Bob Ryan believed the law concerning observing a specific Saturday Sabbath is within you, and through the law placed within you, you become conscious of sin, he must believe every christian is conscious they sin by failing to observe a specific saturday Sabbath. Surely you can follow that
Yet at the same time, he and the SDA church accept as Christians people who have no consciousness they sin by failing to observe a specific saturday Sabbath.

And you have been told that the fallacy in your argument is that you make it "All about feelings - rather than the Bible". Mormons make it all about 'burning in the bosom' rather the Bible.

You are bend-wrenching the Bible text of the NEW Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 pretending that SDAs authored it then claiming that "your feeling supersede the Bible". A bend-and-wrench of Jeremiah 31 if ever there was one.

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

Your bend-and-wrench of God's NEW Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 turns that "killing of others for Jesus" statement in John 16 into "better-an-the-Bible". An idea that SDAs totally reject - and you and I both know it.

It has also been pointed out to you that millions of Christians "pray to the dead" and "Feel just fine" about it. Millions bow down before images in church "and feel just fine about it" -- we never doubt them on that point. They absolutely do "feel just fine about it" - but feelings are not "better-an" the Bible, in the SDA POV.

Details matter.

Ah back to responding to a post without addressing the subject matter of it.
Is it wise to do that? You simply show you cannot address the point made.
Better to ignore the post completely than show your lack of ability to respond to the subject matter if it imho

So far you are avoiding every detail in the response - to your wild claims about 'feelings'

"feelings based theology" does not survive this -

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

 

[BobRyan]

No, you've been given the evidence previously as you well know. Stop fibbing and adding that sin to bearing false witness.
You need to accept grace, you will sin less if you do

"you have been given a good detailed post in support of my position - some place -- some where --- else --- just not here"... again

I going to post more Bible texts -- you can ignore them again if you wish.

 

[stuart lawrence]

And you have been told that the fallacy in your argument is that you make it "All about feelings - rather than the Bible". Mormons make it all about 'burning in the bosom' rather the Bible.

You are bend-wrenching the Bible text of the NEW Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 pretending that SDAs authored it then claiming that "your feeling supersede the Bible". A bend-and-wrench of Jeremiah 31 if ever there was one.

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

Your bend-and-wrench of God's NEW Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 turns that "killing of others for Jesus" statement in John 16 into "better-an-the-Bible". An idea that SDAs totally reject - and you and I both know it.

It has also been pointed out to you that millions of Christians "pray to the dead" and "Feel just fine" about it. Millions bow down before images in church "and feel just fine about it" -- we never doubt them on that point. They absolutely do "feel just fine about it" - but feelings are not "better-an" the Bible, in the SDA POV.

Details matter.



So far you are avoiding every detail in the response - to your wild claims about 'feelings'

"feelings based theology" does not survive this -

Christ called them "blind guides" -- in John 16
2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

The post showed your absurd position of believing the TC as written are all placed within the believer, through this the christian I conscious of sin, yet at the same Tim your church accepts as christians those who have no consciousness they commit sin by failing to observe a specific Saturday Sabbath.
I'm getting worried about you, truly I am, your posts seem more desperate as Tim goes on

 

[stuart lawrence]

"you have been given a good detailed post in support of my position - some place -- some where --- else --- just not here"... again

I going to post more Bible texts -- you can ignore them again if you wish.

Why quote scripture when you don't understand the message.
I suppose the more you quote the more you try to cover up the exposed flaws in your belief

 

[stuart lawrence]

"you have been given a good detailed post in support of my position - some place -- some where --- else --- just not here"... again

I going to post more Bible texts -- you can ignore them again if you wish.

Don't just quote scripture explain it!!!!!!

Why are sinful passions aroused in people by the law if they live under it rom7:5

Can you explain the letter, or only quote it???

 

[BobRyan]

.
If you shun following after the holy spirit you shun spiritual truth for he leads into truth

True - but the Holy Spirit is not at war against the Word of God -- rather He authored it.

 

[BobRyan]

Why quote scripture when you don't understand the message.
I suppose the more you quote the more you try to cover up the exposed flaws in your belief

Is it your imagination that whenever you offer a factless accusation - then suddenly a "flaw" in someone else's belief has been exposed???

Really?

 

[BobRyan]

If you understand spiritual truth you can explain the message contained in the letter cant you.

Indeed --

Romans 6 comes to mind --


Romans 6
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
..
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?