Mark of the Beast

[NightEternal]

Good luck getting a straight answer Jim. I'm telling you, you're not going to see many progressive viewpoints actually voiced. Why? Because then it isn't just a matter of putting down what Traditionals believe, it becomes about actually having to defend what THEY believe.

I think Telaqua is right on the money.

Trust, this is such an unfair assertion. Really, I can't believe you would say this.

Why is it that just because we don't trumpet loudly our doctrinal beliefs on every single issue we are being 'evasive'? What baloney.

So I don't cut and paste about 70 proof texts that no one will ever bother to read. So I don't regurgitate every single thing I have ever heard in a Daniel and Revelation prophecy seminar (and I have been to hundreds as well as put on some of my own.) So I don't waste four pages worth of forum space parroting the same information our church has been teaching for years. So what? So that means I don't know what I believe? So that means I have not studied Revleation for myself and come to my own conclusions? Whatever. You are so wrong you have no idea.

What is the motivation behind these sorts of questions, really? You Traditionalists remind me of animals slowly circling a foreign creature, poking, prodding suspicously, until you ascertain if the creature in question is actually 'one of you'.

The last time I read about people demanding theological answers from others was the Inquisition.

But, if you won't stop harping for an answer, fine. If it will put your mind at ease that I am not your theological enemy on this issue, fine. My views are pretty much the same as Telaquapacky's also. I have always maintained the mark of the beast goes way beyond a day of worship. I just didn't feel the need to repeat what Tela had already explained so well. My silence is not evidence of ignorance or evasiveness, alright?

As for the seal of God, I believe it is the Holy Spirit, not the Sabbath.

Now maybe people can leave me out of these accusations.

 

[daro2096]

The locusts are symbolic but the gates and the city are not. On what authority do you make that distinction? Who called the Bible holy? Do you think the parts where the Hebrews claimed God told them to rape the virgins from the other nations are also holy?

Chapter and verse please.

 

[daro2096]

Of course. And can unholy man keep the sabbath holy?

Yes, that is why there is the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, the wise and foolish virgins and so on.

There will be a shaking of the church just prior to the end.

 

[sentipente]

Chapter and verse please.

That's the problem with individuals who claim to be defending "the Bible" but are really defending what they have been taught about the Bible. I don't expect people to remember every reference but they should know what the book teaches when they make such claims.

 

[daro2096]

That's the problem with individuals who claim to be defending "the Bible" but are really defending what they have been taught about the Bible. I don't expect people to remember every reference but they should know what the book teaches when they make such claims.

You made the claim. Back it up with texts.

 

[sentipente]

You made the claim. Back it up with texts.

Try [Bible]Judges 21:20-24[/Bible]

 

[TrustAndObey]

Trust, this is such an unfair assertion. Really, I can't believe you would say this.

Why can't you believe it? Do you not SEE how many times we're ridiculed without an alternative view point being offered?

Why is it that just because we don't trumpet loudly our doctrinal beliefs on every single issue we are being 'evasive'? What baloney.

Because it's expected of US. If we disagree with a progressive what is the first thing they ask for? An alternative explanation.

So I don't cut and paste about 70 proof texts that no one will ever bother to read. So I don't regurgitate every single thing I have ever heard in a Daniel and Revelation prophecy seminar (and I have been to hundreds as well as put on some of my own.) So I don't waste four pages worth of forum space parroting the same information our church has been teaching for years. So what? So that means I don't know what I believe? So that means I have not studied Revleation for myself and come to my own conclusions? Whatever. You are so wrong you have no idea.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I've been accused MANY times of not knowing why I believe something because I don't take the time, for the brazillianth time, to explain it to someone new. I see answering the same questions over and over and over again as a distraction, but some call it evasive.

Is it really so hard to believe that some of us have NO CLUE what Progressives really believe? We don't Night. We don't have a clue because they won't TELL us. They WANT us to try to decipher it, so they can say things like "well, now that you know what I'm THINKING, I guess I don't have to answer."

It's cowardly. It's obvious. And it's old.

DON'T regurgitate what you've heard or watched. Use your own words, give scripture.

What is the motivation behind these sorts of questions, really? You Traditionalists remind me of animals slowly circling a foreign creature, poking, prodding suspicously, until you ascertain if the creature in question is actually 'one of you'.

Nice. I learned this tactic in my Psychology class. I see it ALL the time. Compare people to animals (vultures seems to be the animal of choice on this forum) and then expect them NOT to be defensive. Yeah...it doesn't work that way.

The last time I read about people demanding theological answers from others was the Inquisition.

So we're supposed to give OUR viewpoints and face an iquisition but the people telling us we're wrong don't have to offer up ANY explanation whatsoever? Come on. That's just hypocrisy at its finest.

But, if you won't stop harping for an answer, fine. If it will put your mind at ease that I am not your theological enemy on this issue, fine. My views are pretty much the same as Telaquapacky's also. I have always maintained the mark of the beast goes way beyond a day of worship. I just didn't feel the need to repeat what Tela had already explained so well. My silence is not evidence of ignorance or evasiveness, alright?

As for the seal of God, I believe it is the Holy Spirit, not the Sabbath.

Now maybe people can leave me out of these accusations.

Hey, was that so hard? My arm hurts from pulling teeth, so this is refreshing.

 

[NightEternal]

Trust, I have clearly laid out where I stand on almost every issue on this forum. I don't know why you would think I have not! Have you missed the many beatings I took for posting my views on salvation theology? I have even posted where I stand on the fundamentals!!

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=34128034&postcount=2

In fact, I will post them again right here for you or anyone else to analyze and dissect:

I believe all of the 28 fundamentals, but with several qualifiers:

1.) Agree. However, I am a strict thought inspirationist and I do not at all agree with the course men like Samuele Korangten Pippim are wanting to take this church, which is borderline verbal inspiration and inerrancy. I believe the Bible is limited in many areas and there are mistakes. I believe that totally avoiding the historical-critical method is next to impossible. I believe that culture and a range of other outside influences affected the Bible writers and I believe that they struggled to put into words grand spiritual themes. I also believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and salvation and its guidance for Christians.

2.) Agree.

3.) Agree.

4.) Agree. Some ultra-conservatives and offshoot organizations have altered the wording of this one to support the heresy that Christ had a fallen, sinful nature in thier own personal list of fundamentals. If the church ever officially accepts this antichrist concept, I will be gone so fast you will not see my dust. I also don't believe in a literal sanctuary in Heaven, so the wording here does not sit well with me.

5.) Agree. However, when it says 'those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God' I have to ask, what does this mean? If it is referring to glorification, whereby we recieve a sinless nature and a new body, then I wholeheartedly agree. If it is referring to process theology whereby through sanctification process a person works towards a state of sinlessness before glorification, then I categorically reject this as heresy.

6.) Agree. However, I believe that the earth is much older than the 6000 years EGW claims. Archelogical and geological evidence has borne this out unequivocally.

7.) Agree. Again, however, if the statement 'restores in penitent mortals the image of thier maker' refers to glorification, I agree. If it is referring to process theology, I reject that as heresy.

8.) Agree.

9.) Agree.

10.) Agree. However, where it says 'we are given the power to live a holy life' I have serious reservations. This smacks too much of sinless perfectionism. No one will reach a state of exalted sinlessness until Christ transforms our bodies and nature at glorification and corruptible puts on incorruptible and mortal puts on immortality. The Word says flesh and blood will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, refering not only to our physical bodies, but our sinful, corrupted, fallen nature inherited from Adam as well.

11.) Agree.

12.) Agree.

13.) Agree, although I always hesitate to use the term 'keep' the commandments of God. We cannot 'keep' anything as sinful, fallen human beings. Our attempts at following the moral law are pretty mediocre compared to the ancient Jews who were meticulous at all of thier law keeping, much less the perfection with which Christ kept the law in letter and spirit. Much better to say we attempt to follow the commandments of God as closely as possible, but still totally rely on Christ's perfect law keeping to stand in place of our own feeble efforts.

14.) Agree. However, I do not believe there will ever be true unity between purely evangelical Adventists and the cultic, historic ultra-conservative Adventists. Truth cannot co-exist with error. The Adventism of Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson is light years from my Adventism. I have nothing in common with thier tyrannical brand of fundamentalism. Therefore, I believe in unity as far as can realistically be expected.

15.) Agree.

16.) Agree.

18.) Agree, however, I qualify the statement 'authouritative source of truth.' I do not believe Ellen White has doctrinal authourity. I do not even believe she has the authourity of the apostles-indeed, she is subject to them. I also believe to use the word 'truth' in such a generalized manner with respect to her writings is deceptive, for there are many discrepencies, inaccuracies and outright wrong premises in her materials.

19.) Agree.

20.) Agree.

21.) Agree, although I do not believe that tithing is a moral imperitive.

22.) Agree. However, I have some very serious issues with the church attempting to outline behavioural standards in too much detail. Jewelry, for example, I have no problems with. I love rock music and movies. I am not vegetarian. If in practical application the church has not respected individuality and differing convictions on these matters, at least it is written here in theory as wisely leaving things up to the discretion of the individual. I do not want a nanny or a big brother church looking over my shoulder and dictating what my entertainment choices or diet should be. I am a big boy, thanks.

23.) Agree.

24.) Agree. However, I do not believe there is a literal building in Heaven. I believe that Christ Himself fulfills every symbolic application of the earthly sanctuary. I do not believe in a literal Holy and Most Holy apartment in Heaven that Christ literally moved into in 1844. I believe that the Holy and the Most Holy are representative of the phases of His ministry, intercession and judgment respectively. I believe that in 1844 Christ began his judgment phase. I categorically reject the traditional interpretation of the IJ as wrong and detrimental to one's assurance of salvation. I hate the term 'investigative' and use the term 'pre-advent'. The saints do not come under condemnation of the judgment and are pronounced innocent by virtue of Christ thier Savior. Our sins are cast into the deepest depths of the ocean, taken as far as the East is from the West, to be remembered no more. Most certainly they will not be retrieved for inspection in the judgment. The process is simply to reveal to the onlooking universe the goodness of God and a vindication of His right to take us to Heaven.

25.) Agree.

26.) Agree

27.) Agree.

28.) Agree.

Here is where I disagree with many Trads:

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=34625286&postcount=116

I believe in all of the things you have listed and I am in no way an SDA fundamentalist.

I may be a CHRISTIAN fundamentalist, yes, but nothing within a country mile of a TSDA.

A TSDA is one who believes that EGW has doctrinal authourity and is equal to, or, in some extreme cases, above the Bible. They usually also venerate EGW and believe in heresies such as the sinful nature of Christ and sinless perfection before glorification.

In addition, they revere the IJ and have made an untouchable idol out of it. They have also attached salvific significance to the IJ and made our Heavenly inhereitance conditional upon passing that inspection. They are also literalists in regards to the Sanctuary doctrine, ignoring the beautiful symbolism which points to Christ and the phases of His ministry in favor of a literal building with literal rooms which Christ literally moves around in.

They adore the moral decalogue and despise the Reformation Gospel and interpret sanctification as a process that our salvation is conditional upon instead of an accomplished fact. They believe Christ's righteousness is imparted rather than imputed to us, a clear violation of the Protestant position.

Diet is salvific and a way to attain righteousness. Some are vegetarian most are vegan and they regard any meat eater as disqualified for Heaven, especially at translation. Non-salvational lifestyle issues are made a strict test of Adventist authenticity and no one who disgrees on any point will qualify as a genuine SDA. Thier standards on music, food, entertainment and jewellry are all brutally set forth as the plumb line that no SDA should deviate from.

They hate women's ordination, contemporary worship styles and CCM and they consider Questions On Doctrine to be on par with the Satanic Bible.

For a good profile of TSDA's in thier raw, horrific form, please consult Great Controvesy.org, SDA Defend or Revival Sermons.

That is my personal understanding of what a TSDA fundamentalist is. If the shoe fits...

I didn't think that this needed explaining for any Adventist who has been in the denomination for any significant amount of time.

Is this transparent enough for you or do you want more?

 

[TrustAndObey]

You're not the norm though Night. I know what you believe because you're always really loud about it. Your way or the highway. The rest of us just spew theological garbage. That's what you imply a lot anyway.

You're evangelical though, not Progressive (by your own admission, right?) How many Progressives do you see offering up alternative views instead of just disagreeing?

It's a fair question. I'm not fighting with you. I lurve you for reasons I still can't explain, but I do.

And hey, you RESPOND with exactly what I'm asking for, so you're obviously not who I'm talking about, Kapiche?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Night, at least with you I know what I'm debating ABOUT.

You do stick your theological neck out there.

 

[PostTribber]

Jim,
I believe we need to be careful to make a distinction. It is not, nor has it ever been the official or unofficial teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that Sundaykeeping is the mark of the beast. Our teaching is that the mark of the beast is the persecution of Sabbath-keepers by Sunday-keepers. But you know very well that if it comes down to actual persecution by Sunday-keepers of Sabbath-keepers, the day of worship is not really what is in question. In fact, when the Pharisees persecuted Jesus about the Sabbath, the day of worship or how to keep it holy was only a pretext for a bigger issue. The issue at stake in the mark of the beast is, "Who is in charge? Who has authority on earth to make moral law? The bottom line is, who are we loyal to, God or man? That people keep one day of the week or another is important only as it indicates where their loyalties are. That many Christians worship on Sunday doesn't mean that they are intentionally serving the beast or trying to defy God. To their minds, they are honoring the day of Christ's resurrection. But That is the point of the mark of the beast- not a day.

..."Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him (Jesus), because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) seems the hostility would be directed at those who did not keep the Sabbath! (as goes on by 'ultra' conservative groups in Israel today). as 'believers', aren't we called to 'unity', as Paul wrote "there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ?" (Ephesians 4:4-7) every 'believer' is "sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Ephesians 1:13 & 4:30) and during such times that "there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened" (Matthew 24:22), days in which "it was given unto him (the beast) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7), would it be reasonable to expect anyone to keep track of what day of the week it is?

 

[TrustAndObey]

..."Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him (Jesus), because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) seems the hostility would be directed at those who did not keep the Sabbath!

Which part of that statement made by the Pharisees are you agreeing with? That Jesus broke the Sabbath or that He really wasn't the Son of God?

You do realize it was the Pharisees saying that, right?

And they wanted to KILL Him, so let's consider what we agree with very carefully. Was He really not the Son of God or were they mistaken?

Neither of their statements were true. THEY felt He broke the Sabbath commandment (because He didn't follow their MAN-MADE laws around God's commandment) and that He WASN'T the Son of God.

Do you agree with them?

Do you believe it when scripture says that Jesus never sinned and that He was the Son of God?

 

[TrustAndObey]

would it be reasonable to expect anyone to keep track of what day of the week it is?

Considering God specifically said the 7th day, yes.

 

[NightEternal]

You're not the norm though Night. I know what you believe because you're always really loud about it. Your way or the highway. The rest of us just spew theological garbage. That's what you imply a lot anyway.

You're evangelical though, not Progressive (by your own admission, right?) How many Progressives do you see offering up alternative views instead of just disagreeing?

It's a fair question. I'm not fighting with you. I lurve you for reasons I still can't explain, but I do.

And hey, you RESPOND with exactly what I'm asking for, so you're obviously not who I'm talking about, Kapiche?

Fair enough Trust. I'm glad we got that clarified.

Your way or the highway. The rest of us just spew theological garbage.

No, this is not what I think. I apologize if that is how it comes off.

 

[OntheDL]

... would it be reasonable to expect anyone to keep track of what day of the week it is?

Of course. The weekly system has never been changed. Just the jews what day the 7th day sabbath is.

 

[OntheDL]

Which part of that statement made by the Pharisees are you agreeing with? That Jesus broke the Sabbath or that He really wasn't the Son of God?

You do realize it was the Pharisees saying that, right?

And they wanted to KILL Him, so let's consider what we agree with very carefully. Was He really not the Son of God or were they mistaken?

Neither of their statements were true. THEY felt He broke the Sabbath commandment (because He didn't follow their MAN-MADE laws around God's commandment) and that He WASN'T the Son of God.

Do you agree with them?

Do you believe it when scripture says that Jesus never sinned and that He was the Son of God?

Of course Jesus didn't break the sabbath commandment since the scriptures say He committed no sin.

An interesting off-topic note...the jews accused Jesus breaking the sabbath while themselves planning plots to kill Him on the Sabbath.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Fair enough Trust. I'm glad we got that clarified.

Your way or the highway. The rest of us just spew theological garbage.

No, this is not what I think. I apologize if that is how it comes off.

Just look around this thread Night. Jim asked for the Progressive view of what the mark of the beast is.

Has he gotten an answer?

Nope.

My guess is that he won't.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Of course Jesus didn't break the sabbath commandment since the scriptures say He committed no sin.

An interesting off-topic note...the jews accused Jesus breaking the sabbath while themselves planning plots to kill Him on the Sabbath.

But to say he did, and quote the Pharisees' statement as FACT, is agreeing with them that He did break it right?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people agree with the very people that plotted to kill our Savior. And yes, I had heard that before that they plotted to kill Him on the Sabbath. That's definitely not "keeping it holy" amen?

Yet they wanted to put Him to death for healing a man.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU AGREE WITH!!!

 

[Jimlarmore]

The locusts are symbolic but the gates and the city are not. On what authority do you make that distinction?

I was simply responding to your post there was no distinction drawn by me on that. You mentioned the gates of the city and that they wouldn't be necessary. I gave you Biblical support as to why they were indeed necessary. Then you mentioned the locust's and birds. I said the locust's were symbolic of spiritual things that you would most likely dismiss off hand . Do you want to discuss the gates and the locust's further?

Who called the Bible holy? Do you think the parts where the Hebrews claimed God told them to rape the virgins from the other nations are also holy?

The Bible itself claims to be the Holy inspired Word of God. If God told them to do something it was indeed a holy act. There is a lot in the Bible that seems strange to us but if we dig deeply we can usually find a holy theme. What incidence are you talking about.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[TrustAndObey]

The Bible itself claims to be the Holy inspired Word of God. If God told them to do something it was indeed a holy act. There is a lot in the Bible that seems strange to us but if we dig deeply we can usually find a holy theme. What incidence are you talking about.

Amen.

You brought up a really good point. There was a show on the Discovery channel (you'll have to ask Honor the specifics because I've forgotten them) about one of the cities God commanded be destroyed.

In scripture He commanded that even the children and animals be destroyed (I'm rusty, I don't remember the name of the city).

Anyway, they dug up the remains of that city and even the CHILDREN had syphillis. It was a den of sin and the children were not taught was decent and moral.

I probably totally messed that up.