God's TEN commandments: Bend or Edit them?

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Sophrosyne

T
If you were to go step by step and prove him wrong about each one of his celebrities .
​

Having not done any of the actual math you claim victory as if you had vigorously demonstrated your point to have substance in fact.

Who is supposed to fall for that??? me?

I doubt that even you believe that you have gone to any of these source documents (freely available online to you) and done enough home work to make your point stick - so you state it as a hypothetical.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.





I prefer Bible details to the nothing-but-vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently.

In your post you suggested a hypothetical scenario where you would actually look at the statements from the sources quoted and deal with the subject.

Then you went on to imagine the results.

But in real life - I am posting those statements and those sources. So if someone would care to join me in real life -- looking at the arguments and the topic and responding -- i welcome it.

in Christ,

Bob

vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently. Isn't a tad bit out of line? I find it nothing more than a manipulation tactic. What you say is absolutely untrue. We're not attacking the law. You're attacking grace as an invalid way to live the Christian life. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit and not the law. You just can't believe we don't live by a rule list.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Originally Posted by Sophrosyne

T
If you were to go step by step and prove him wrong about each one of his celebrities .
​

Having not done any of the actual math you claim victory as if you had vigorously demonstrated your point to have substance in fact.

Who is supposed to fall for that??? me?

I doubt that even you believe that you have gone to any of these source documents (freely available online to you) and done enough home work to make your point stick - so you state it as a hypothetical.

You've been taken to task before about your "pet" theologians positions and when proven wrong it made NO DIFFERENCE to you. You completely IGNORE those who correct you totally oblivious to reality like you are in some sort of trance and then you go ahead and post the same thing again to bait another one to disprove them which you again ignore. It is like you take a white plate with a little bit of food on it and put on brown glasses and then tell someone to wash it and when they hand a sparkling clean white plate back to you, you refuse to admit it is white and tell them to wash it again it is still brown.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.





I prefer Bible details to the nothing-but-vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently.

In your post you suggested a hypothetical scenario where you would actually look at the statements from the sources quoted and deal with the subject.

Then you went on to imagine the results.

But in real life - I am posting those statements and those sources. So if someone would care to join me in real life -- looking at the arguments and the topic and responding -- i welcome it.

in Christ,

Bob

Your sources have been thoroughly debunked and you refuse to accept it because of your "brown" glasses you won't remove. The white dish is sparkling clean... remove the glasses and see for once.

 

[LarryP2]

There is only one common theme that runs through every single important SDA doctrine, either overtly or subtly: Denigrating and Degrading the effect of the Resurrection, or denying the Divinity of Christ.

Unless you understand that, they will stitch together an impressive and mind-numbing stew of half-verses and unrelated and out of context verses to baffle the unwary, illiterate and non-Biblically savvy. It is an extremely devious and deceptive non-Christian cult. I wasted my first 22 years in it, so I know of what I speak. If you understand how their corrupt and un-Biblical system works, you need not debate then on their specific stitched-together rambling collection of half verses and verses taken out of context, because they all are held together with the common "glue" of denying or denigrating the divinity of Christ, or the effect of the Cross, or the effect of the Resurrection. Or all three.

First and foremost, the SDA Church would not exist were it not for their multiple false predictions of Christ's return between 1843 and 1850. They devised an amazing stitched-together and botched misinterpretation of Daniel 8:14 to repeatedly falsely predict the return of Christ. Throughout the cult's lifetime, there have been a truly-jaw dropping massive number of their own theologians who have denounced the 1844 scandal and its mutant bastard child: The Sanctuary Doctrine or the "Investigative Judgment(IJ)" Many of their own top theologians have declared the entire debacle unscriptural and unbiblical. Sadly, the cult's General Conference always fires their dedicated theologians and pastors for being honest about this clearly non-Biblical doctrine. Raymond Cottrell, their most distinguished theologian, waited until his retirement to denounce this Satanic and unbiblical doctrine.

Misusing Daniel 8:14 like that denigrates Christ, how? By making his return the subject of human prediction, by binding him time wise into your erroneous scripture-sculpting and stitching fetish. Like the Bible is some sort of esoteric code that only a few insiders can crack, rather than the extremely simple and plainly-obvious story of Gospel salvation that was given to the entire world at the Cross.

The IJ was strictly a face-saving fraud, devised out of thin air to compensate for the colossal disaster of 1844. The cult now posits Jesus entered the Holy of Holy places in Heaven in that year, to commence review of our conduct to see if we have earned our salvation with good works (in particular, Sabbath keeping). This necessitates an incomplete and unfinished work on the Cross, and a severe denigration of the effect of the Resurrection. This is the REAL reason that Adventist do not worship on Resurrection Day (Sunday and Easter) and insist on their Salvation by works-based Sabbath instead. They want to cow their terrified and panicked members into huddling together in paranoid fantasy, and relieving them of their money most importantly. They instill a paranoid and panicked fear of Roman Catholicism, who they falsely claim "changed Saturday to Sunday," and that one day the Catholics will hunt them down and murder them for keeping the Sabbath. That is a fairy tale that is pure, unvarnished paranoid conspiracy theory. Hence, their Sabbath keeping is really based on virulent Anti-Papacy paranoia coupled with an Un-Biblical fetish of Salvation by Works. Again, this entirely non-Biblical doctrine of Sabbath Keeping was absolutely proven false by their own theology professor, Dr. Samuele Bachiochi.

The IJ itself led logically to many satanic cult doctrines like Sabbath Keeping, Works based Salvation, following the Levitical dietary laws, and various forms of non-Christian and heretical views on the Trinity. In fact, for the first 100 years, the cult revived the ancient Arian Heresy and outright denied the Divinity of Christ. Due to the outcry from orthodox Christendom, they watered down their Arianism, and now deceptively teach a modified Aryanism known as Thritheism (while deceptively claiming they believe in the Trinity). It still is not the Trinity that has provided Salvation "once and for all" and that is THE CENTRAL doctrine of Christianity. The Adventist anti-Trinitarian heresy eventually spawned such overtly and odious Satantic cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Worldwide Church of God and the Branch Davidians. Adventism is much more deceptive and thereby much more successful than those three satanic cults in that the genius of Adventism is to disguise mutant and unbiblical cult doctrines with a thin veneer of superficially Christian-sounding doctrines that disguise its true core. They even managed to sucker cult expert Walter Martin into believing that they were Orthodox Christianity, even though at the end of his life, Martin was ready to write a new book denouncing them as a non-Christian cult once he realized that he had been "Had."

So when they focus obsessively on the Sabbath (which in actual practice, is MUCH more important to them than the Cross or the Resurrection) beware of their perspective. Disregard their ludicrous scripture-sculpting and scripture stitching, and go right for the jugular: Their odious and anti-Christian history of teaching heretical cult doctrines that deny or denigrate the Divinity of Christ and his role in the unified Godhead of the Trinity, his finished work on the Cross and his Resurrection.
Last edited by LarryP2; 20th March 2014 at 02:01 PM.

 

[BobRyan]

There is only one common theme that runs through every single important SDA doctrine, either overtly or subtly: Denigrating and Degrading the effect of the Resurrection, or denying the Divinity of Christ.

.

Story telling of that form might be the most effective form of discussion that some people are comfortable with -- but I prefer real life, actual facts.

Find one - and lets discuss it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Sophrosyne

T
If you were to go step by step and prove him wrong about each one of his celebrities .
​

Having not done any of the actual math you claim victory as if you had vigorously demonstrated your point to have substance in fact.

Who is supposed to fall for that??? me?

I doubt that even you believe that you have gone to any of these source documents (freely available online to you) and done enough home work to make your point stick - so you state it as a hypothetical.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

The text in red shows it all. You couldn't care less about people here debating you, you are only here to promote/preach/teach and your methods of spamming l.

I prefer Bible details to the nothing-but-vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently.

In your post you suggested a hypothetical scenario where you would actually look at the statements from the sources quoted and deal with the subject.

Then you went on to imagine the results.

But in real life - I am posting those statements and those sources. So if someone would care to join me in real life -- looking at the arguments and the topic and responding -- i welcome it.

T
If you were to go step by step and prove him wrong about each one of his celebrities .

Having not done any of the actual math you claim victory as if you had vigorously demonstrated your point to have substance in fact.

Who is supposed to fall for that??? me?

I doubt that even you believe that you have gone to any of these source documents (freely available online to you) and done enough home work to make your point stick - so you state it as a hypothetical.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently. Isn't a tad bit out of line? I find it nothing more than a manipulation tactic

In the examples above - I am simply asking that people opposed to my views post actual facts where the details will stand up to close review.

We need not all agree on the same points - but at least there should be posting of actual facts that will hold up to discussion for those opposed to the Law of God - the Ten Commandments.

After - even pro-Sunday sources like those listed below - affirm them.

 

[BobRyan]

Your sources have been thoroughly debunked

Just not on this board - not in real life -- not anywhere you can actually point to.

That is why I keep asking for less fiction and more facts in the claims that are made against the Ten Commandments.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You've been taken to task before about your "pet" theologians positions and when proven wrong it made NO DIFFERENCE to you. .

There is no "taken to task - proven wrong" on this entire board regarding those sources.

Why not post something you can point to in real life that we can all see and observe to have happened on this actual board???

Why not keep track of the "details"??

For example the "Detail" that From-Scratch has repeatedly claimed that BugKiller supposedly did some sort of slam dunk on my reference to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and "Westminster Confession of Faith" - only to come up with "zip" -- "nada" -- nothing but a quote about D.L. Moody which did not refute a single point I have made from my own quote of Moody on this board?


Another "detail" not to be glossed over by those at war with God's Ten Commandments is that I keep pointing out points of agreement with the pro-Sunday sources - that those who look for any-ol-excuse to oppose God's commandments do not have.

Here is an example of claims made by the pro-Sunday sources.

1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 - and the "any ol excuse" crowd objects to all of them, and then complains that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.


Details matter.

I prefer facts. Real life. Acrimony and vitriol alone do not carry the argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

Story telling of that form might be the most effective form of discussion that some people are comfortable with -- but I prefer real life, actual facts.

The SDA Church has an OVERWHELMING history of denying the Divinity of Christ and belittling the effect of the Resurrection! For the first 100 years of its existence, it taught nothing but the extreme Arian heresy! Do you REALLY want me to post quotes from the founders? It is an extremely solid case. Here is just one:

"It is well known that the early Adventist leaders and founders were Arians, who denied the deity of Christ, and the Trinity. Their article "The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists" by Gerhard Pfandi, of their Biblical Research Institute (referred to as "Trinity" henceforth) tells us on page 1:

"Two of the principal founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Joseph Bates and James White, were originally members of the Christian Connection Church which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity…Other prominent Adventists who spoke out against the Trinity were J.N. Loughborough, R.F. Cottrell, J.N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith…"
These SDA leaders denied Jesus’ deity and the Trinity. Joseph Bates, raised in the Congregational Church, repudiated the Trinity doctrine upon joining the Christian Connection Church. Bates learned the Sabbath doctrine from Rachel Oakes, a Seventh-day Baptist; however, Bates did not accept the Seventh-day Baptist doctrine of the Trinity. So, early Adventists had more in common with the Shakers, who not only kept the Sabbath and had prophets, but also believed in Arianism. Only by the turn of the century did Adventism begin to move out of Arianism to espousing Jesus’ deity, and subsequently, the Trinity. This was hard to do in light of Ellen White’s statements, spanning over 50 years, upholding Arianism."
Did Ellen White teach ‘A Different God’?

At best, the SDA's position on the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity is only slightly different than the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's no wonder that the Millerite debacle spawned all manner of virulent anti-Christian cults! You actually have to give the JWs some credit here: They outright deny the Divinity of Christ and make no bones about it. The SDAs are far more cunning and deceitful with their anti-Christian cult doctrines.

Your scripture sculpting of unrelated texts and partial texts is nothing more than a ruse to get real Christians to doubt their salvation. the SDA cult emphasizes the Sabbath as the central doctrine because they really DO believe that is the source of their Salvation. That has NOTHING to do with Christianity!

It's no war against the real Truth of Christianity. Its an argument against a plainly non-Christian counterfeit. That is why St. Paul argued so vehemently against the SDA Church of his time: The Galatian heresy.

There is NO power over sin in the SDA Church's pathetic emphasis on the Mosaic Law. If there is one common theme in the Epistles of St. Paul, it is that the Real Deal gives people power over sin.

Your repetitive arguments for the Sabbath are just a ruse to get gullible Christians to divert themselves into a miserable cultish system. It's pretty easy to see that you NEVER discuss the Gospel with anywhere NEAR the intensity that you push the Sabbath. It is plain the Sabbath is FAR AND AWAY more important to you than the Resurrection!

 

[BobRyan]

There is only one common theme that runs through every single important SDA doctrine, either overtly or subtly: Denigrating and Degrading the effect of the Resurrection, or denying the Divinity of Christ.

.

Story telling of that form might be the most effective form of discussion that some people are comfortable with -- but I prefer real life, actual facts.

Find one - and lets discuss it.

The SDA Church has an OVERWHELMING history of denying the Divinity of Christ and belittling the effect of the Resurrection! For the first 100 years of its existence, it taught nothing but the extreme Arian heresy! !

1. Until you actually "read" the published statements of belief - put out by the SDA denomination in both the 1800's and the 1900's.

2. Until you actually "read" the fact that even those few who came from the abolitionist "Christian Connection" like Uriah Smith accepted the Divinity of Christ yet not Trinitarian -- and eventually as in the case of Smith - the Triune Godhead.

So then even these guys that came from the "Christian Connection" were certainly not Trinitarian yet they held to the Divinity of Christ and were later convinced regarding the pro-Triune Godhead in the 1890's and early 1900's.

James White writes in 1877 that "ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, 'Let us make man in our image?' "

James White repeatedly called Jesus "the divine Son of God" (Bible Hygiene, pp. 192, 203; The Law and the Gospel, p. 14; Life Incidents, p. 357; The Redeemer and Redeemed, p. 46). Uriah Smith called him "God's divine Son" (The Biblical Institute, p. 140).

Smith emphatically stated that Christ is not a created being, and opposed such a teaching (Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 400, 430; Looking Unto Jesus, pp. 3-4, 10, 12, 18, 20-21).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

vitriol or acrimony solution that some have tried out recently. Isn't a tad bit out of line? I find it nothing more than a manipulation tactic. What you say is absolutely untrue.

In general name calling is the sort of ad hominem tactic that gets the label "vitriol" and "acrimony" stuck to it, as we all know by now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA Church has an OVERWHELMING history of denying the Divinity of Christ

hint: Read the published doctrinal statements of this church going back to the 1870's when we first published a list. "Divinity denying" has never been in that list.

Not that this is remotely on the subject - but since the ranting does need a response now and then....

===================== and you can see the official statement of beliefs here - ---


The beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church are stated in 28 short paragraphs. 28 statements of belief, 28 doctrines. Each paragraph is typically between 2 to 6 sentences. So not a lot of reading.

Beliefs: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church

http://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/...les/official-statements/28Beliefs-English.pdf

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

hint: Read the published doctrinal statements of this church going back to the 1870's when we first published a list. "Divinity denying" has never been in that list.

Hint: The Seventh Day Adventism cannot be trusted to articulate truthful versions of its own aberrant doctrines. It is founded on massive deceit on a well-organized and persistent level. It is more than happy to lie about its doctrines, depending on the urgency of the impending investigation.

 

[BobRyan]

It is hard to believe you think that I trust your wild rants above the actual statements of the denomination on what they say they believe.


The beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church are stated in 28 short paragraphs. 28 statements of belief, 28 doctrines. Each paragraph is typically between 2 to 6 sentences. So not a lot of reading.

Beliefs: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church

http://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/...les/official-statements/28Beliefs-English.pdf

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

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you do that?

Hint: The Seventh Day Adventism cannot be trusted to articulate truthful versions of its own aberrant doctrines.

Hint - no denomination can promote its doctrine by not telling anyone its doctrine. How sad that your rants reduce to such levels.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As we have seen on this thread - D.L. Moody was at war with those who declare themselves to be at war with God's TEN commandments.

#60

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

 

[LarryP2]

Just one example: The Seventh Day Adventists claim they believe in the Trinity as one of their fundamental doctrines.

That is clearly a deliberate, calculated falsehood.

They never explain when they claim to adhere to certain doctrines that their definitions are miles apart from Christianity's definitions. Adventism teaches a warmed-over Arian heresy, packaged now as a more acceptable "Tri-theism:"

CultOrChristian.com - Does Seventh-day Adventism Teach the Trinity?

The Church has a very long and pathetic record of either outright denying the Divinity of Christ, or severely discounting it. Their present definition is simply more deceitful on more levels than in the days when they openly and honestly embraced the Arian heresy. A Trinitarian Godhood is analytically incompatible with a Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping.

So when they claim they believe in the Trinity as a Fundamental Belief, nobody is required to take such a statement at face value. And given the massive history of calculated deception the Church is founded on, and the active dodging of facts and history you see them daily doing on this site, one would be advised taking anything they say with a grain of salt.

 

[stevenfrancis]

There is a thread titled -

God's TEN Commandments: Keep them? or break them?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7802097/

And there we find a number of Bible texts proving the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God - still binding on all the saints from Eden to this very day.

.........................................(Longish post snipped. See OP for content)
[/FONT]
What are your thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob
[/SIZE]

Hi Bob:
Not completely sure what your stand is, or what you're advocating, or if you're just looking for what folks think on the subject.

My personal Christian journey was broken up a bit by huge swaths of Buddhism and various new age time wasting idealist groups/religions/cults, which it has taken some time to get out of my head. But looking back, my Christian faith journey, minus all the other jazz, began with the Lutherans, moved to the Southern Baptists, then the Methodists, and finally the Holy Catholic Church. As far as I can tell and remember from the Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists, they all taught and incorporated the 10 commandments pretty up front in their theology. And we definitely do in the Catholic Church. It forms the springboard for the morality section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. My point is, every stop in my spiritual journey which was with Christians, involved the 10 commandments. All 4 of my Christian stops were pretty main stream Christian. And all 4 revere and teach the 10 commandments.

Are you saying there are some, or many Christian faith traditions which have eschewed the 10 C's in favor of something else? Is it because Jesus condensed them to their essence of two commandments? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength (Commands 1-4); Love your neighbor as yourself (Commands 5 - 10)? It's my understanding Jesus was not abolishing them, but simplifying them. All 10 still apply. They are written in our hearts, and contained within the two commands of Jesus.

Not one iota of the law shall pass away until this heaven and earth pass away. The only difference is that through Jesus Christ and with the power of the Holy Spirit, man's heart has been softened, and the commandments are natural to our hearts now. Until the incarnation, man needed the written law ever taught, and harshly enforced, as they were a hard hearted and "stiff necked" people. The incarnation and pentecost seem to effect the implementation and enforcement of the law in an objective sense, but certainly not it's validity, nature, nor necessity.

Is this what you're getting at? Or something else.

Thank you, and God bless,

Steve

 

[alex2165]

If I understand him right, I think he meant that the Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses still valid and active even today, and I assume and so in the future. If he meant that, he is absolutely right, because Ten Commandments is a basic Law, very much like constitution, describing the basic morality and decent behavior to obey.

Same morality of Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ also teach too, and encouraged to follow it practically on all His speeches and sermons. Ten Commandments can be described as the spiritual essence and spiritual principals of entire Law of Moses, on which all commandments of the Law of Moses are based upon, and so they are all relevant, applicable, important, and significant for today and in for the future as well.

Christ by His Sacrifice on the cross made the physical rituals of the Law of Moses obsolete, but the spiritual commandments and statutes of the Law of Moses He kept intact, and they will remain active and useful forever, because they are based on the spirituality and morality of the GOD Himself.

And for that matter, it is practically no difference between spiritual statutes of the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ, because Jesus based all His teachings and speeches on the basis of these spiritual commandments of the Law of Moses and nothing else.

So today, we actually following not the Jesus’ “New Testament”, which is completely wrong name for the Gospel of Christ, but the same spiritual Laws of Moses based on the Ten Commandments, which Jesus Christ introduced to us in His Message of the Good News, in order to bring us into purely spiritual worship of GOD without any physical rituals and physical traditions of the Law of Moses, all of which Jesus converted into spiritual entities.

 

[LarryP2]

The Ten Commandments are neither necessary, nor are they even CLOSE to being sufficient. The Ten Commandments only prohibits Murder. The New Testament prohibits having anger in your heart, then equates it with murder. The Ten Commandments condemns Adultery. The New Testament condemns lust. The Ten Commandments condemn coveting your neighbor's goods. The New Testament condemns keeping your goods for yourself, and not selling them to support widows and orphans. The Ten Commandments condemn idolatry. The New Testament condemns many different forms of idolatry, including failure to eat meat offered to idols if it means someone not hearing about the Resurrection. The Fourth Commandment creates the Sabbath, one day a week set aside for God. The New Covenant requires EVERYDAY to be set aside for God.

That is how the New Testament deals with the Ten Commandments: On a case by case basis. There are no cases where the Ten Commandments are adequate. No requirement to follow the 4th Commandment Sabbath is in the New Testament. Furthermore, the Church Fathers were unanimous in harshly condemning Sabbath Keeping as the "Judaizing" heresy. Christians worshiped on Sunday from Day One after the Resurrection, and did so at the explicit instructions of the Apostles.

Some of the commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament, but not all of them. Some of the Noahide laws are commanded (the part of the Mosaic law that applies to Gentiles). The Apostles well understood the preamble to the 10 Commandments: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." It is clear the Apostles were familiar with Judaism's Death Penalty for any Gentile who tries to keep any part of the Mosaic Law. A Gentile attempting to keep the 4th Commandment Sabbath was subject to the death penalty. Nobody is confused about who the Old covenant was made for, aside from non-Christian Heretical cults that have been condemned and renounced from the beginning of Christianity.

2 Corinthians 3 cannot be misunderstood: The Ten Commandments are not a part of the New Covenant.

 

[from scratch]

It is hard to believe you think that I trust your wild rants above the actual statements of the denomination on what they say they believe.


The beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church are stated in 28 short paragraphs. 28 statements of belief, 28 doctrines. Each paragraph is typically between 2 to 6 sentences. So not a lot of reading.

Beliefs: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church

http://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/...les/official-statements/28Beliefs-English.pdf

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

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you do that?



Hint - no denomination can promote its doctrine by not telling anyone its doctrine. How sad that your rants reduce to such levels.

in Christ,

Bob

I find the differences here amusing and unbelievable.

 

[from scratch]

Just one example: The Seventh Day Adventists claim they believe in the Trinity as one of their fundamental doctrines.

That is clearly a deliberate, calculated falsehood.

They never explain when they claim to adhere to certain doctrines that their definitions are miles apart from Christianity's definitions. Adventism teaches a warmed-over Arian heresy, packaged now as a more acceptable "Tri-theism:"

CultOrChristian.com - Does Seventh-day Adventism Teach the Trinity?

The Church has a very long and pathetic record of either outright denying the Divinity of Christ, or severely discounting it. Their present definition is simply more deceitful on more levels than in the days when they openly and honestly embraced the Arian heresy. A Trinitarian Godhood is analytically incompatible with a Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping.

So when they claim they believe in the Trinity as a Fundamental Belief, nobody is required to take such a statement at face value. And given the massive history of calculated deception the Church is founded on, and the active dodging of facts and history you see them daily doing on this site, one would be advised taking anything they say with a grain of salt.

Its very easy to see the SDA depart from their stated position on the trinity in the face of Scripture. My favorite to ask them about is John 15:10. They must deny the trinity to promote their idea and or make Jesus and Moses liars.