Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One needs enough context to understand what is being said fully. Look I get the gist of the quote, but someone who doesn't understand orthodox theology won't. But this seems to be what the SDA is about anyway, deception.He has given you an expanded version... beyond that my friend, it's your duty to check the references if you so choose. As Bob said, how much context do you need?
But this seems to be what the SDA is about anyway, deception.
You know the biggest thing that turns me off when it comes to your denomination, is that you do not have the capacity to stand on your own two feet. For your denomination to justify itself, it requires slandering another group of Christians.Brother, if you actually had a desire to look into and understood what true Adventism is, you would see light and truth, not deception. I am sorry you cannot see that. The messengers are weak and erring but the message is sure... the three angels message is to be proclaimed with power in these last days and there is coming a time, not long from now, that you will understand the words we have been saying to you. I pray you will not grieve the Spirit at that point and will accept His truth and come out of her that you receive not of her plagues.
Praise God and may He be glorified!!
So if you want people to see the good, then show it. Because you aren't.
No you don't have to waste time posting anything. You know one thing you need to focus on though is being more positive about your beliefs. If anyone coming from the outside looking at the threads started by SDA members, that person would likely assume that the predominate dogma of the SDA is to hate all things Catholic.That's why I have two threads in GT at the moment... Daily Devotionals, that shows our understanding of scripture, and The Seer of Patmos, which goes point by point through the book of Revelation to help understand the meaning of the symbols and truths contained.
I can post more information for you but you must be honest with yourself on whether or not you will openly receive it.
For the record, I again state that I do not have anything against the faithful laity of the Catholic Church.... quite the opposite actually, even if I don't always show it. What I am called to expose, what I hate, because it goes against God's truth, are the errors promulgated by the Papacy and by Satan.
BobRyan said: ↑
The point in contention is that we have examples in Acts 17:11, and in Mark 7:6-13 where it is not "scripture plus tradition" but scripture alone that is testing all tradition, doctrine, practice etc. Those texts "should not exist" if the anti-SS position were correct.
I think that in both those cases, Scripture is being interpreted through Tradition or the Magisterium, not alone.
For example, Sola Scriptura were true, the Bereans would not have needed Paul and Silas to illuminate Scripture with the oral Word.
Moreover, Scripture says to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Your post does not change the fact that the bible explicitly says that the pillar and support of the truth is the Church, that we should hold to oral traditions, and that the Church was the ultimate authority for settling doctrinal disputes.
We all know that the bible is profitable for teaching, it is the Word of God!
I notice how the oral teaching of the Apostles is rightly called "the Word"
If Sola Scriptura is true, why did the Bereans need the oral Word to understand it?
And why does Paul say to hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter? 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2
And they were. The Scriptures and the oral Word always go together.
Are you assuming that "the Word of God" refers to Scripture alone?
In both cases, the Jewish Magisterium has been superseded by the Christian Magisterium.
My argument is not that the church serves no function or does not exist etc. My argument is that the Bible requires sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition.
Wrong. The bible tells us that the ultimate authority on earth is the Church, which is the body of Christ.
Fine - then just believe whatever the Seventh-day Adventist church tells you to believe - and show us how that works.
Or go with the actual Bible on this as illustrated in the texts above.
Seems like a simple choice.
Wrong. The bible tells us that the ultimate authority on earth is the Church, which is the body of Christ.
What the bible says:
Matt 18:17
And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he fails to listen to even to the church, let him be to you as the pagan and the tax collector.
1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements
In the NT it was one denomination -
Saint John thought otherwise.
And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.
That's a fact, but it's not true that the church that Christ founded is to be identified with a single denomination of later times.
In fact, there was division even when Christ was still with them, see John 6. Christ desired one Church, though, and he got it. John 17.Saint John thought otherwise.
And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.
I think it important to accept the early church and the early church fathers. Obviously, there have been many schisms since the councils at Nicea and Constantinople.
I meant the decisions and teachings of the Early Church as proclaimed in the early councils of the ecumenical Church.One of the problems with saying that one accepts the early church fathers is that it doesn't explain what is "accepted" about them. That they are great figures, and influential, in the history of the church is one thing. Talking, as many people do, as though they were either all of one accord, or formed a continuous consensus of belief, or something like that is something else.
I've kind of lost track of what you're seeking. Sure, we value the so-called ecumenical councils and consider the decisions made by them concerning the faith to be standards of orthodoxy.I meant the decisions and teachings of the Early Church as proclaimed in the early councils of the ecumenical Church.
I've kind of lost track of what you're seeking. Sure, we value the so-called ecumenical councils and consider the decisions made by them concerning the faith to be standards of orthodoxy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?