SDA Forum

[woobadooba]

. . . I... am... a... girl....

no... I'm saying the seventh day adventist church is a maturity of christianity O_O I have NO idea whatsoever where you got that from. Quote me where I said seventh day adventist church = not christian

Please go back and read my post again. Sorry about the gender mix up.

Anyway, indeed you didn't say the SDA church isn't Christian. But, when you take your argument to its final conclusion, that the church is separate from Christianity, it necessarily follows that the SDA church isn't Christian.

Here's how the syllogism works:

Christianity is separate from the Church. Our Church is SDA.
Therefore, the SDA church isn't Christian.

Do you see now?

 

[Windmill]

No, heres what I said.

The standards for the two, and the way to reach the two is completely different. To become an adventist, you must first become a christian, but by becoming a christian you do not by defult become an adventist. Becoming a baptised member of the adventist church is totally different to becoming a christian.

Think of it this way...

To get say, a normal degree in maths, the understanding that is needed, is far different from a person with a doctorite in maths. To gain the doctorite, the person must've first got the first degree, but a greater understanding was needed before they could become Dr

 

[woobadooba]

No, heres what I said.

The standards for the two, and the way to reach the two is completely different. To become an adventist, you must first become a christian, but by becoming a christian you do not by defult become an adventist. Becoming a baptised member of the adventist church is totally different to becoming a christian.

Think of it this way...

To get say, a normal degree in maths, the understanding that is needed, is far different from a person with a doctorite in maths. To gain the doctorite, the person must've first got the first degree, but a greater understanding was needed before they could become Dr

But the logic still follows that you are saying(although you won't admit it)that the SDA church isn't Christian.

By the way, you don't become a baptised member of the SDA church. You are baptised into the body of Christ!

Do you think that the only true Christians are SDAs?

It's as if you separate SDA Christians from other Christians, as if to say SDAs make better Christians than all the rest.

Now that is condescending if anything is!

 

[Windmill]

But the logic still follows that you are saying(although you won't admit it)that the SDA church isn't Christian.

By the way, you don't become a baptised member of the SDA church. You are baptised into the body of Christ!

Do you think that the only true Christians are SDAs?

It's as if you separate SDA Christians from other Christians, as if to say SDAs make better Christians than all the rest.

Now that is condescending if anything is!

What you say here... this is bordering a very very thin line. I'll have to be espically careful from now on. I'll take this post bit by bit.

One thing we must realise here, is I'm speaking about the standards of the church. Not that of christianity as a whole.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that an adventist should believe in the fundemental beliefs before being baptised?

By the way, you don't become a baptised member of the SDA church. You are baptised into the body of Christ!

This is... a grey area.

Well, not really.

Lets just say, you didn't know anything about the SDA church, you lived on a secluded area, and lets say, a baptist group came down, convicted you of Jesus Christ, and you were baptised into their church. The bible was not in your native tounge, and you relied on their help to interpret it.

Are you part of the body of christ? YES! You're doing the best you can do and know.

Being baptised, is saying to God...

"God, I can't make it on my own. Please God, I give my heart to you, show me the way."

In other words, you're giving your life to God, and willing to do what is right for him. If someone really did want to do what God was saying was right, then one day, if someone showed them how the bible shows the sabbath, they would not harden their hearts to it because it sounded hard to keep. They would gladly keep it, as God is leading their lives.

So, it is possible to be baptised into the body of the christ, and not be part of the adventist church!

Do you think that the only true Christians are SDAs?

This was already explained above...

It's as if you separate SDA Christians from other Christians, as if to say SDAs make better Christians than all the rest.

You make it sound like a crime, for there to be one true church.

as if to say. Well, maybe its taken that way, but by being the chosen church of God, that doesn't make us feel above other christians, it just means we're right.

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:1[/BIBLE]

We are that woman..

We are the bride of christ!

How in the world did you become an SDA without believing this? *Shakes head in wonder* what church do you go to?

And, finally...

But the logic still follows that you are saying(although you won't admit it)that the SDA church isn't Christian.

Explain, once again, how I am stating this...

 

[Monie]

Some of the responses here make it sound to me like a few ppl are saying SDA is the ONLY way

You make it sound like a crime, for there to be one true church.

as if to say. Well, maybe its taken that way, but by being the chosen church of God, that doesn't make us feel above other christians, it just means we're right.

In this quote it seems as though we are no better than catholics who say that if you are another denom you will not be saved.Where does it say that we are the choosen church? We have beliefs based on the bible but that may not mean that we are doing everything perfectly as to God's specifications. Ppl I have spoken to always group us with Johova witness, or say that we are a cult who think this is the only way but if we do carry this attitude then how can we get rid of this bias?
This is off the topic I wanted to post but I cant remember what it was anymore so question some adventists take EGW as the coles notes to the bible for lack of a better word, I think this is wrong and I get funny looks when I say this does that make me less of an adventist?

 

[woobadooba]

Have it your way. You can take it bit by bit; but now I will too

One thing we must realise here, is I'm speaking about the standards of the church. Not that of christianity as a whole.

So then, what are you saying, that the standards of Christianity aren't good enough for the church, that they have to be separated from it?

Are you saying that the standards of the church are not the same standards of Christianity?

Let's look at it this way...

Follow this closely please!

What is Christianity, but that world-view that upholds Christ's standards! According to the Bible Christ is the head of the church. With that said, how can Christianity(that movement which upholds the standards of Christ)be separate from the church, which, according to the Bible, is the body of Christ?

What you are saying, but not realizing that you are saying it, is that the head(Christ)is not connected to the church(the body of Christ). Because you say the church is separate from Christianty!

Hence, it necessarily follows that you are saying Christ's standards are different from our standards, since Christ(the head of the church)is separate from the body(the church)!

This is not Biblical!

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that an adventist should believe in the fundemental beliefs before being baptised?

It doesn't matter what I think. What does the Bible say? According to the book of Acts the Ethiopian didn't have to go through 27 fundamental doctrines to be baptised into the church(body of Christ), but that he only had to understand and believe that Christ died for him, and that was good enough.

Are you trying to tell me that the manner that the Bible prescribes for baptism isn't good enough for you?

Are you trying to tell me that Philip was wrong for baptising that man because he didn't go through and accept all 27 fundamental doctrines?

Lets just say, you didn't know anything about the SDA church, you lived on a secluded area, and lets say, a baptist group came down, convicted you of Jesus Christ, and you were baptised into their church. The bible was not in your native tounge, and you relied on their help to interpret it.

Are you part of the body of christ? YES! You're doing the best you can do and know.

Being baptised into the body of Christ isn't about doing your best to know! It's about accepting by faith Christ's best for you! It's not about your attempts; it's about His accomplishments!

Being baptised, is saying to God...

"God, I can't make it on my own. Please God, I give my heart to you, show me the way."

It's more like, "Thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me!"

In other words, you're giving your life to God, and willing to do what is right for him. If someone really did want to do what God was saying was right, then one day, if someone showed them how the bible shows the sabbath, they would not harden their hearts to it because it sounded hard to keep. They would gladly keep it, as God is leading their lives.

I am assuming you believe in the writings of Ellen White. Did you know that she commended Martin Luther for the work that he did in commencing the reformation? She suggested that he would have a place in heaven.

But did you know that some adept theologians at the time, informed him about the Sabbath? And did you know that he did not accept it? Yet, Ellen White was sure that he would have a place in heaven!

Now, would you dare say Martin Luther didn't love God? Would you dare say Martin Luther wasn't a true believer because he rejected the Sabbath message?

That is what you are implying! And you have no right to take the seat of God's throne to make such judgments!

You are standing on holy ground! Be careful!

So, it is possible to be baptised into the body of the christ, and not be part of the adventist church!

When Jesus returns there will be a remnant; and they will not be called Seventh Day Adventists! They will be called exactly what they were called when the church was established! They will be called Christians--children of God!

I was not baptised into the SDA church, nor were you! We were baptised into the body of Christ. Period!

What you are teaching is not Biblical.

But perhaps you think SDAs are better Christians than those of Paul's day. Maybe that is what it is!

Be careful!

You make it sound like a crime, for there to be one true church.

There is one true church. Unfortunately you put a name on it and excluded the rest of the people that belong to this one true church that the Bible speaks of!

as if to say. Well, maybe its taken that way, but by being the chosen church of God, that doesn't make us feel above other christians, it just means we're right.

In this statement I do not see the humility of Christ! What a shame! What I do see however, is the Pharisee that prayed to God saying, "Thank you Lord that I am not like them"!

Revelation 12:1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

We are that woman..

We are the bride of christ!

I'm sorry but I don't see the words Seventh Day Adventist in that text! Perhaps there is something wrong with my vision.

Let me tell you something! You don't decide what that church is or what it is called! God does!

How in the world did you become an SDA without believing this? *Shakes head in wonder* what church do you go to?

I did believe it. But then I grew up, and became wise, thanks be to God who showed me that I shouldn't be so pompous!

And since you asked me to explain once again how your logic is saying the SDA church isn't Christian...

You said the church is separate from Christianity. So, here's the syllogism again...

The church is separate from Christianity. We belong to the SDA church.
Therefore, the SDA church isn't Christian.

It's simple logic. It's not hard to follow.

 

[Windmill]

So then, what are you saying, that the standards of Christianity aren't good enough for the church, that they have to be separated from it?

Are you saying that the standards of the church are not the same standards of Christianity?

Let's look at it this way...

Follow this closely please!

What is Christianity, but that world-view that upholds Christ's standards! According to the Bible Christ is the head of the church. With that said, how can Christianity(that movement which upholds the standards of Christ)be separate from the church, which, according to the Bible, is the body of Christ?

What you are saying, but not realizing that you are saying it, is that the head(Christ)is not connected to the church(the body of Christ). Because you say the church is separate from Christianty!

Hence, it necessarily follows that you are saying Christ's standards are different from our standards, since Christ(the head of the church)is separate from the body(the church)!

This is not Biblical

. . . me? Not biblical?I think YOU are not biblical.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Take a look at te different meanings of being a christian. Now, look at them. You don't even need to believe in Jesus to be considered a christian!

And you mean to say, that the standards for being an adventist vs a christian are the same? I think not.

I never said its seperate. WHEN? Quote me on this.
I said MILLIONS OF TIMES TO BE AN ADVENTIST YOU HAVE TO BE A MATURE CHRISTIAN. How many times must I say that?

You must be one of the certain dictionarys definitions of being a christian. Plus, you must have the maturity to believe in other parts of the bible as well, such as revelation, and genesis.

It doesn't matter what I think. What does the Bible say? According to the book of Acts the Ethiopian didn't have to go through 27 fundamental doctrines to be baptised into the church(body of Christ), but that he only had to understand and believe that Christ died for him, and that was good enough.

Are you trying to tell me that the manner that the Bible prescribes for baptism isn't good enough for you?

Are you trying to tell me that Philip was wrong for baptising that man because he didn't go through and accept all 27 fundamental doctrines?

Philip, however, was open to everything the word of God told him. Therefore, he would've been open to the fundemental beliefs.
Back then, the SDA church didn't exist. Things were completely different, they didn't have revelation for one thing.

So, comparing us to back then is next to impossible. So don't even try. If, it had been now, however, and Philip was at the church, and he didn't believe the fundemental beliefs, I'm sure he wouldn't be baptised into the church, no. But, Philip did believe the churches fundemental beliefs back then. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been baptised. So he'd have to believe it now.

Being baptised into the body of Christ isn't about doing your best to know! It's about accepting by faith Christ's best for you! It's not about your attempts; it's about His accomplishments!

Okay. I take back my example. I think it was wrong. I'll explain my thoughts on this here:

There are honest people in the world, who've given their hearts to God, and are looking. Maybe, for reasons unknown to us, they have not found the church yet, but are they looking? Yes. Have they given their lives to God? Yes. Are they fully matured christians? No. They're beginning. But are they christians? By the dictionarys term, yes. Will they be saved? I have no idea. I can't judge that.

It's more like, "Thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me!"

That included. Really, did that actually need to be stated... being baptised is about both.

I am assuming you believe in the writings of Ellen White. Did you know that she commended Martin Luther for the work that he did in commencing the reformation? She suggested that he would have a place in heaven.

But did you know that some of our most adept theologians at the time, informed him about the Sabbath? And did you know that he did not accept it? Yet, Ellen White was sure that he would have a place in heaven!

Now, would you dare say Martin Luther didn't love God? Would you dare say Martin Luther wasn't a true believer because he rejected the Sabbath message?

That is what you are implying! And you have no right to take the seat of God's throne to make such judgments!

You are standing on holy ground! Be careful!

So he was enformed? What was his reasoning behind not following it? That makes a huge difference.

When Jesus returns there will be a remnant; and they will not be called Seventh Day Adventists! They will be called exactly what they were called when the church was established! They will be called Christians--children of God!

I was not baptised into the SDA church, nor were you! We were baptised into the body of Christ. Period!

What you are teaching is not Biblical.

But perhaps you think SDAs are better Christians than those of Paul's day. Maybe that is what it is!

Be careful!

. . . .
Wow this is becoming absolutely positively pathetic.
WHY are the two being mixed?
Face is, theres the one body all christians of all maturity levels belong to, the body of christ.
Then, we do had a church on earth called the Seventh Day Adventist church.

The adventist church exists. Please, can you understand that? It exists! Why can't you comprehend that? It exists, and it exists for a purpose! We ARE special! God made us to be seperate! We are the true church.

Not only this, but since we exist, you might as well come to grips with that. You should come to grips with the fact our church is different from the one body of christ.

Why are we different? Because we were given a purpose.

What is our purpose? The spirit of prophecy!

THIS AUTOMATICALLY MAKES US DIFFERENT.

We have been set aside in the bible, and as such, we need to wake up, and stop thinking we're the same as everyone else. Tall poppy syndrome here. People, maybe it sounds like we think highly of ourselves if we believe this, but thats too bad, because its true.

So, since we exist, and since we're different, we therefore must set ourselves aside differently, as we are, afterall, different in the first place.

Things like our members. Whoever joins us is very important, because we are to be a light unto the world, we are christs bride, we're supposed to have an unflawed theology, as it is based purely off the bible. As such, if we let members in who do not have an unflawed theology (the fundementals) they will penetrate our church, lead members astray, etc. People on the outside will be confused, is we accepted them as members, who's right, and who's wrong?

One belief. We need one belief to be taught to the world. If we change this, it'll have horrible consequences. Hence the 27 fundementals.

So, people, we are different. Lets realise this, and come to grips with it.

There is one true church. Unfortunately you put a name on it and excluded the rest of the people that belong to this one true church that the Bible speaks of

The bride is the SDA church. WOW, shocking, IT HAS A NAME, AND IT EXISTS. Oh too bad, it was a nice idea before, you know, that anyone was part of it, but that is not true. Not every christian is part of this church. Otherwise.. it'd be massive, and, narrow is the way, and few will find it.

In this statement I do not see the humility of Christ! What a shame! What I do see however, is the Pharisee that prayed to God saying, "Thank you Lord that I am not like them"!

But I am right. Because I follow Gods teachings.
Tall poppy syndrome. Why is it bad to say you're right if you're right?
If you know you're right why does that mean you have pride?
Do I think I'm so wonderful for thinking I'm right? Heck no.
I'm right, the adventist churches theology is right. I know this. Jesus, God, showed it to me. It is right, other denominations are not. People won't like to hear it, but thats true. This will come off horrible, but its true.

I'm sorry but I don't see the words Seventh Day Adventist in that text! Perhaps there is something wrong with my vision.

Let me tell you something! You don't decide what that church is or what it is called! God does!

Who ever said I decided?
I'm going to create another post after this one to show why we're the true church.

I did believe it. But then I grew up, and became wise, thanks be to God who showed me that I shouldn't be so pompous!

And since you asked me to explain once again how your logic is saying the SDA church isn't Christian...

You said the church is separate from Christianity. So, here's the syllogism again...

The church is separate from Christianity. We belong to the SDA church.
Therefore, the SDA church isn't Christian.

It's simple logic. It's not hard to follow.

I didn't say we don't belong to christianity! I said we're a mature form of christianity!
Adults and children are both humans, but adults are matured humans!

Now, onto my next post...

 

[payattention]

Windmill, did I read you correctly? Are you suggesting that one must have accepted the 27 FBs (now 28) to be accepted into the church? I am old enough to remember when we did not have any FBs. There were no FBs for EGW, John Loughborough, JN Andrews and the host of pioneers. Some of them did not believe in the Trinity. Do you think that with your 15 years of life you can tell them they were not true Adventists? I think not.

 

[payattention]

Windmill, if you were to peruse our ecclesiastical histiography you would observe that the rise of this church was premised solely on the need to advance the imminent return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Now, we have, over the years, added to that purpose but they are all secondary and of human devising.

 

[Windmill]

Okay. So, many people here, even adventists, are having a hard time come to grips with the fact we're the true church. I can understand that, its tall poppy syndrome, you know? No one is allowed to say anything like that.

Tough jerky, 'cause the bible says so otherwise! XD

Weeeeeeeeeee.... so, I present to you:

The Bride of Christ =D

Question: How is the true church represented in the bible?

answer: The bible sympbolises it by a pure woman and an apostate church as a harlot. We see this being used in these texts here-

[BIBLE]2 Corinthians 11:2[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Ephesians 5:22-23[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Revelation 19:7-8[/BIBLE]

Now, lets go to this verse here, which describes the end of time church:

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:1[/BIBLE]

Question: What do these different symbols mean?

Answer: The mean these:

The sun: Represents Jesus. His gospel, and his rightousness.

[BIBLE]Psalm 84:11[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Malachi 4:2[/BIBLE]

So, the church has Jesus..

The moon: The represnts the sacrifical system of the old testament. See:

[BIBLE]Hebrews 10:1[/BIBLE]
Like how the moon reflects the light, the system was helpful spiritually only as it reflected the light of Jesus to come =D

The crown of 12 stars: represents the work of the 12 disciples, which crowned the early years of the New Testament church

Okay, so now lets move on...

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:1-5[/BIBLE]

So what do we see? We see the woman, she gets pregnant, and then later, the baby was taken up to Gods throne. So, what does this mean?

The baby was Jesus. He will one day rule all nations with a rod of iron [BIBLE]Revelation 19:13-16[/BIBLE] [BIBLE]Psalm 2:7-9[/BIBLE]. Jesus, who was crucified for our sins, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven [BIBLE]Acts 1:9-11[/BIBLE]. His resurrection power in our lives is one of Jesus' essential gifts to His people [BIBLE]Philippians 3:10[/BIBLE].

We also get introduced to the dragon. What is it? It is Satan, who was thrown out of heaven [BIBLE]Revelation 12:7-9[/BIBLE] and who was working at the time of Jesus' birth through the pagan Roman empire. The ruler who tried to kill Jesus at birth was Herod, a king under pagan Rome. He killed all the male babies of Bethlehem, hoping that one of them would be Jesus [BIBLE]Matthew 2:16[/BIBLE]

Question: What is the meaning of the "seven heads" and "ten horns" of the dragon, and of "the third part of the stars of heaven" being cast to the earth?

Answer: The "seven heads" represent the seven hills or mountains upon which Rome was built [BIBLE]Revelation 17:9-10[/BIBLE]

The "ten horns" represent the governments, or nations, that support the major powers in their oppression of God's people and church. During pagan Rome's tenure [BIBLE]Revelation 12:3-4[/BIBLE] they represented the 10 barbarian tribes that supported the papacy in eventually bringing down the Roman empire [BIBLE]Daniel 7:23-24[/BIBLE] These tribes later became modern Europe. In the last days, they represent all the nations of the world united in the end-time coalition [BIBLE]Revelation 16:14[/BIBLE] which will support "Babylon the great" in her warfare against God's people.

"The third part of the stars of heaven" are the angels who supported Lucifer in his insurrection in heaven and who were cast out with him [BIBLE]Revelation 12:9[/BIBLE]

Okay, so lets just summerise this part shall we:

1. God's true church appears, symbolized as a pure woman.
2. Jesus is born into the church.
3. Satan, working through King Herod of pagan Rome, tries to kill baby Jesus.
4. Satan's plan is unsuccessful.
5. Jesus' ascension is pictured.

Okay. So, Satan didn't do quite what he was hoping. So, he was quite angry. So, what did he do next?

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:13[/BIBLE] He persecuted them.
Millions were burned at the stake by the catholics for their faith. They were, indeed, perscuted.

So, what did the "woman" do to protect herself, and just what is this wilderness spoken about in this verse here:

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:6[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Revelation 12:4[/BIBLE]

Verses 6 and 14 say, "The woman fled into the wilderness," where she was protected for "a time, and times, and half a time" (or 1,260 literal years) from the wrath of Satan--who was then working through papal Rome. The "two wings" represent the protection and support God gave the church during her time in the "wilderness" [BIBLE]Exodus 19:4[/BIBLE] [BIBLE]Deuteronomy 32:11[/BIBLE] The time spent in the wilderness is the same 1,260-year period of papal prominence and persecution (A.D. 538 to 1798) that Jesus repeatedly mentioned in prophecy. One prophetic day equals one literal year [BIBLE]Ezekiel 4:6[/BIBLE]


The term "wilderness" refers to the solitary places of earth (mountains, caves, forests, etc.) where God's people could hide in seclusion and
thus escape total annihilation
[BIBLE]Hebrews 11:37-38[/BIBLE]. And hide they did--the Waldenses, Albigenses, Huguenots, and many others, who although given seperate names by the catholic church, were one. God's people (His church) would have been obliterated if they had not fled and hid in the wilderness during this devastating persecution by the papacy. (In one 40-year period, "from the beginning of the order of the Jesuits, in the year 1540, to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred fifty thousand perished in the Inquisition in 30 years.") At least 50 million people died for their faith during this 1,260-year time period. God's church did not exist as an official organization during this 1,260-year time period. From A.D. 538 to 1798 it was alive but not identifiable as an organization. When it came out of hiding after the 1,260 years, it still had the same doctrine and characteristics as the apostolic church, which entered the "wilderness" in A.D. 538.

So, we can see the 1,260 years spoken about are in fact the time of the Papal rule

Okay, so, we've come across two points we can use to identify:

1. It would not exist officially as an organization between A.D. 538 and 1798.
2. It would arise and do its end-time work after 1798.

So, this immediately cuts out a lot of churches that are around today as being the true end of time church, 'cos it had to come after 1798 and do its prophecy. There were plenty of honest christians during that period, but they wern't part of the end of time church.

Lets now look to this verse:

[BIBLE]Revelation 12:17[/BIBLE]

Okay, *grabs dictionary* dictionary time! What does "remnant" mean?

1. Something left over; a remainder.
2. A piece of fabric remaining after the rest has been used or sold.
3. A surviving trace or vestige: a remnant of his past glory.
4. A small surviving group of people. Often used in the plural

It means the last remaining portion. In reference to Jesus' church, it means His church of the very last days, which is identical in doctrine to the apostolic church.

If we look further into this verse, we can see two other points used to describe this church:

• It would keep all the Ten Commandments, including the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment [BIBLE]John 14:15[/BIBLE] [BIBLE]Revelation 22:14[/BIBLE]
• t also would have the "testimony of Jesus", which the Bible tells us is the spirit of prophecy [BIBLE]Revelation 19:10[/BIBLE]

Remember that while hosts of sincere Christian people are found in churches that do not keep the Sabbath or have the gift of prophecy, none of these churches can be God's remnant end-time church into which Jesus is calling all last-day Christians, because God's end-time church will both keep God's commandments and have the gift of prophecy.

So, yay! We've found out some more points to help us.

But, there are two more points of identification! Yep yep. And theres are:

It will be a worldwide missionary church [BIBLE]Revelation 14:6[/BIBLE]

It will be preaching the three angels' messages of Revelation 14:6-14.

So, lets look over the points we've found-

1. It would not exist as an official organization between A.D. 538 and 1798.
2. It would arise and do its work after 1798.
3. It would keep the Ten Commandments, including the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
4. It would have the gift of prophecy.
5. It would be a worldwide missionary church.
6. It would be teaching and preaching Jesus' three-point message of Revelation 14:6-14.

So, lets find the church that fits all of these points. Well, theres only one church, and that is...

..... The seventh day adventist church!

The Seventh-day Adventist Church:

1. Did not exist as an official organization between A.D. 538 and 1798.
2. Arose after 1798. It began to form in the early 1840s.
3. Keeps the Ten Commandments, including the fourth--God's holy seventh-day Sabbath.
4. Has the gift of prophecy.
5. Is a worldwide missionary church, working in 208 of the 236 countries of the world.
6. Teaches and preaches Jesus' great three-point message of Revelation 14:6-14

They arn't vauge points, they're specific points, which only fit one church.

So, this is the true body, the end of time church. Let me clear something-

I've been getting confused as to what you've been reffering to. Let me make my thoughts clear:

There is only one true church, that is, the SDA church.

There are other christians who are still children of God, there are some who will still be saved who are in churches elsewhere, but they are not part of the true church. There is only one true church. This body of christ thingy you've been reffering too... I'm not sure what you're talking about as you don't state verses. I shall now assume you're meaning the true church of God. Well, there is only one [BIBLE]Ephesians 4:4[/BIBLE] And there is only one way to enter it, baptisim [BIBLE]1 Corinthians 12:13[/BIBLE]

The Bible says our day is like Noah's day [BIBLE]Luke 17:26-27[/BIBLE] How many ways of escape were there in Noah's day? Only one--the ark. Once again, today, God has provided only one boat, or church, that will take His people safely through to His heavenly kingdom. Be sure to get on the right boat! The Bible says, [BIBLE]Acts 2:47[/BIBLE]. It was true in apostolic times; it is still true today.

So, heres some good news about the true church ^-^

A. Its central theme is "the everlasting gospel" of righteousness by faith in Jesus only [BIBLE]Revelation 14:6[/BIBLE]
B. It is built on Jesus, the Rock [BIBLE]1 Corinthians 3:11[/BIBLE] and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [BIBLE]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLE]
C. Jesus died for His church [BIBLE]Ephesians 5:25[/BIBLE]
D. Jesus describes His remnant church so plainly that it's easy to identify. He also describes the fallen churches and calls His people out of them. Satan will trap only those who keep their eyes and hearts shut.
E. Its doctrines are all true [BIBLE]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLE]

And, for the record, heres some good news regarding the people of the true church!

A. Be saved in His heavenly kingdom [BIBLE]Revelation 15:2[/BIBLE]
B. Overcome the devil by the "power" and "blood" of Jesus [BIBLE]Revelation 12:10-11[/BIBLE]
C. Be patient [BIBLE]Revelation 14:12[/BIBLE]
D. Have Jesus' faith [BIBLE]Revelation 14:12[/BIBLE]
E. Find glorious freedom [BIBLE]John 8:31-32[/BIBLE]

So, there we go. The Seventh day adventist is the true church!
(Note: This could be updated at some point, I'll add in why I updated it if I did)

 

[payattention]

Windmill, you have caused somewhat of a confusion here. You cited two passages:

[BIBLE]Ephesians 5:23[/BIBLE]
which says that Jesus is the head of the church, then
[BIBLE]Revelation 12:1[/BIBLE]

which you interpreted with Jesus being the sun with whom the woman is clothed. How can be both be the head of the woman and clothe her at the same time?

I am not trying to argue against your thesis. I am only pointing out a fundamental (there's that word you love) flaw in your analysis.

 

[woobadooba]

me? Not biblical?I think YOU are not biblical.

Hey, I'm not the one saying the church is separate from the Christ! That is what your LOGIC concludes!

Take a look at te different meanings of being a christian.

I don't need to look at definitions! I know what I am!

Now, look at them. You don't even need to believe in Jesus to be considered a christian!

This really is nonsense!

Either a person is a Christian or he isn't! And a Christian is one who upholds the standards of Christ! Period!

And you mean to say, that the standards for being an adventist vs a christian are the same? I think not.

So you don't think Paul's standards were the same as the SDA standards? The more you speak the more you show us that you really don't know the Bible!

I never said its seperate. WHEN? Quote me on this.

In post number 58 you said, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH ARE SEPERATE THINGS

I said MILLIONS OF TIMES TO BE AN ADVENTIST YOU HAVE TO BE A MATURE CHRISTIAN. How many times must I say that?

Oh, so no other Christian but an adventist is a mature Christian?

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself.

You must be one of the certain dictionarys definitions of being a christian. Plus, you must have the maturity to believe in other parts of the bible as well, such as revelation, and genesis.

To be a mature Christian one must take what God gives and give what God takes!

Philip, however, was open to everything the word of God told him. Therefore, he would've been open to the fundemental beliefs.
Back then, the SDA church didn't exist. Things were completely different, they didn't have revelation for one thing.

Wow! This has got to be one of the most pompous statements I've ever heard from an SDA!

So are you trying to tell me that you have more insight into what it means to be a Christian than Paul the Apostle?

So, comparing us to back then is next to impossible. So don't even try. If, it had been now, however, and Philip was at the church, and he didn't believe the fundemental beliefs, I'm sure he wouldn't be baptised into the church, no. But, Philip did believe the churches fundemental beliefs back then. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been baptised. So he'd have to believe it now.

But it wasn't Philip who was baptised, it was the Ethiopian, and he only had to know one thing--Jesus Christ!

You do not understand the purpose for or the meaning of the doctrine of baptism. This is very clear!

The adventist church exists. Please, can you understand that? It exists! Why can't you comprehend that? It exists, and it exists for a purpose! We ARE special! God made us to be seperate! We are the true church.

Can't I comprehend that? Who do you think you're talking to little lady?

You really are very crude! You should show more respect to your elders!

My opinion about your character is quickly changing!

I don't see the character of Christ in this type of language! What I do see is pride!

Your tone does not reflect the humility of Christ!

Not only this, but since we exist, you might as well come to grips with that. You should come to grips with the fact our church is different from the one body of christ.

Well then, if this is true, I choose to be with Christ, and you can go off to your version of the SDA church which is supposedly separated from Christ!

You know, you are really giving our church a bad name by talking like this.

Attention Viewers: I've studied under the most adept theologians in the SDA church, and I assure that this theology of this young lady is not what we believe! She is grossly misrepresenting what we believe.

We do not teach that the church and Christianty are separate!

And we are not as proud as she makes us out to be!

 

[Windmill]

Windmill, you have caused somewhat of a confusion here. You cited two passages:

Ephesians 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
which says that Jesus is the head of the church, then
Revelation 12:1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

which you interpreted with Jesus being the sun with whom the woman is clothed. How can be both be the head of the woman and clothe her at the same time?

I am not trying to argue against your thesis. I am only pointing out a fundamental (there's that word you love) flaw in your analysis.

Uh, how is that a flaw? Why can't he be both?

 

[Windmill]

Hey, I'm not the one saying the church is separate from the Christ! That is what your LOGIC concludes!



I don't need to look at definitions! I know what I am!



This really is nonsense!

Either a person is a Christian or he isn't! And a Christian is one who upholds the standards of Christ! Period!



So you don't think Paul's standards were the same as the SDA standards? The more you speak the more you show us that you really don't know the Bible!



In post number 58 you said, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH ARE SEPERATE THINGS




Oh, so no other Christian but an adventist is a mature Christian?

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself.





To be a mature Christian one must take what God gives and give what God takes!



Wow! This has got to be one of the most pompous statements I've ever heard from an SDA!

So are you trying to tell me that you have more insight into what it means to be a Christian than Paul the Apostle?



But it wasn't Philip who was baptised, it was the Ethiopian, and he only had to know one thing--Jesus Christ!

You do not understand the purpose for or the meaning of the doctrine of baptism. This is very clear!




Can't I comprehend that? Who do you think you're talking to little lady?

You really are very crude! You should show more respect to your elders!

My opinion about your character is quickly changing!

I don't see the character of Christ in this type of language! What I do see is pride!

Your tone does not reflect the humility of Christ!



Well then, if this is true, I choose to be with Christ, and you can go off to your version of the SDA church which is supposedly separated from Christ!

You know, you are really giving our church a bad name by talking like this.

Attention Viewers: I've studied under the most adept theologians in the SDA church, and I assure that this theology of this young lady is not what we believe! She is grossly misrepresenting what we believe.

We do not teach that the church and Christianty are separate!

And we are not as proud as she makes us out to be!

Hey, I'm not the one saying the church is separate from the Christ! That is what your LOGIC concludes!



I don't need to look at definitions! I know what I am!



This really is nonsense!

Either a person is a Christian or he isn't! And a Christian is one who upholds the standards of Christ! Period!



So you don't think Paul's standards were the same as the SDA standards? The more you speak the more you show us that you really don't know the Bible!

Pauls standards were the bible through and through -.-

In post number 58 you said, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH ARE SEPERATE THINGS

Yes, they are in terms of how we speak about them.
In other words, different things apply to different ones
Some things apply to one, whereas other things apply to others
To be a christian you do not need to believe in the sabbath day yet to be a SDA YOU DO. See? Get it? We can't speak about both as one.

But it wasn't Philip who was baptised, it was the Ethiopian, and he only had to know one thing--Jesus Christ!

You do not understand the purpose for or the meaning of the doctrine of baptism. This is very clear!

I DO understand it. I understand what it is. How do I not understand baptisim?

Can't I comprehend that? Who do you think you're talking to little lady?

You really are very crude! You should show more respect to your elders!

My opinion about your character is quickly changing!

My opinion, I'm afraid, of you, has already changed.

You treat me like I'm some child. Well, I am a child, but the way you speak about me, its as though I can't understand anything.
You make assumptions of me just because of my age. You also humor me a lot, I don't appriciate it.
You don't speak to me normally, the way you word things...
But whatever. I do respect you, but I think you're wrong, period. I also think you and stormy have the same problem, you do not explain yourselves enough.
I thought I spoke to you okay, myself personally. Where did I offend you? I'm sorry if I was rude to you. I suppose I lost my temper.

Well then, if this is true, I choose to be with Christ, and you can go off to your version of the SDA church which is supposedly separated from Christ!

You know, you are really giving our church a bad name by talking like this.

HOW?

Honestly, stop putting words in my mouth. You're making me look bad, for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I never, EVER SAID WE WERE SEPERATED FROM CHRIST. YOU TAKE WHAT I SAY OUT OF CONTEXT. YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS.

Oh, so no other Christian but an adventist is a mature Christian?

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself

No I'm not.

Its true. We are the true church, we have the true doctrine. Why are you an SDA then, if you don't believe what we say is true, and others false? Going by your logic, anyone is right. No one has the correct doctrine. So why be an SDA at all?

Wow! This has got to be one of the most pompous statements I've ever heard from an SDA!

So are you trying to tell me that you have more insight into what it means to be a Christian than Paul the Apostle?

They did not, infact, could not under any circumstances understand revelation.

Attention Viewers: I've studied under the most adept theologians in the SDA church, and I assure that this theology of this young lady is not what we believe! She is grossly misrepresenting what we believe.

We do not teach that the church and Christianty are separate!

And we are not as proud as she makes us out to be!

Pfft, I am not proud!

Stating that we are the true church does not make us proud!
I a but merely stating fact!
Why join a church that is wrong?
We are the true church.
We have evidence.
Saying you're the true ones does not make you proud.
Saying you're right by stating 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't make you proud
It makes you right.
As I am.

 

[Windmill]

Oh, also, I confess, I got that other post from sabbath truth. Edited, some of it copied and pasted (though read before done so, in many cases, edited to add in extra things) I urge people to take their bible studies.

 

[tall73]

I am new here so I hope you will put up with an outsider's view.
I might at a later point comment on the specifics of the symbols in Revelation 12, mostly because it is an interesting topic. But come on folks. This whole conversation is really destructive.

Our church has never said that you must subscribe to a creed. Please note that the official statement of the 27 state this. The earlier poster was right in saying that the 27 fundamentals (now 28 I guess) are a relatively new thought. At first Mrs. White referred to the 7 pillars. But even before that the truth is that the movement was studying all kinds of issues, learning all the time.

If we take the view that everyone must toe the line on tons of different issues then we cause ourselves to stop searching the scriptures.

We see this same issue in the much discussed GC session of 1888. Two of the key issues dealt with biblical interpretation/orthodoxy. They were the identification of the Germanic tribes in Daniel 7, and the identification of the law in Galatians. These were no small matters. Especially given that at that time sunday laws were being passed, there was a sense of tension, and the thought that the church would change a previous understanding was greatly debated--even though in one case, the tribes, it was fairly clear that we were probably wrong.

Some pressed Mrs. White to clarify things with her understanding. But she refused to do this entirely. Even though she disagreed with parts of Wagoner's views for instance, she encouraged them

a. to regard him as a sincere brother
b. to better emulate his manner of presentation--loving and respectful
c. to accept his overall view of the centrality of Christ in a way that was sorely lacking in the debate ridden denomination.

She noted that if the methods used to defend the truth were so harsh, she was tempted to reconsider if it really was the truth.

Did not your hearts break when that non-adventist said that they were wanting to examine our beliefs but couldn't get past our attitudes? I know mine did. I work hard to try to share Christ with people, and to turn one away from more of His will is a terrible shame!

She also encouraged them to STUDY out the issue.

We do not settle disputes by "thus saith the GC." Or "thus saith EGW" or even "thus saith our view of the Bible in the past." We instead cite the texts that show truth to be just that--truth. And if we can't answer those who question us, why are we calling it truth?

You all need to stop the witch hunt. If you don't want to see your fundamentals questioned then use your own self restraint and AVOID those posts where it happens. The truth will lose nothing by being stated--even numerous times if necessary.

 

[StormyOne]

Thank you Tall for that post.... no where has it ever been said that to be a sda you MUST read, believe and sign off on all 27 (now 28) fundamentals... To use them as a litmus test of who is or is not an adventist is a travesty.... I am sure if some of the pioneers were alive they would be appalled.....

 

[Cliff2]

I am new here so I hope you will put up with an outsider's view.
I might at a later point comment on the specifics of the symbols in Revelation 12, mostly because it is an interesting topic. But come on folks. This whole conversation is really destructive.

Our church has never said that you must subscribe to a creed. Please note that the official statement of the 27 state this. The earlier poster was right in saying that the 27 fundamentals (now 28 I guess) are a relatively new thought. At first Mrs. White referred to the 7 pillars. But even before that the truth is that the movement was studying all kinds of issues, learning all the time.

If we take the view that everyone must toe the line on tons of different issues then we cause ourselves to stop searching the scriptures.

We see this same issue in the much discussed GC session of 1888. Two of the key issues dealt with biblical interpretation/orthodoxy. They were the identification of the Germanic tribes in Daniel 7, and the identification of the law in Galatians. These were no small matters. Especially given that at that time sunday laws were being passed, there was a sense of tension, and the thought that the church would change a previous understanding was greatly debated--even though in one case, the tribes, it was fairly clear that we were probably wrong.

Some pressed Mrs. White to clarify things with her understanding. But she refused to do this entirely. Even though she disagreed with parts of Wagoner's views for instance, she encouraged them

a. to regard him as a sincere brother
b. to better emulate his manner of presentation--loving and respectful
c. to accept his overall view of the centrality of Christ in a way that was sorely lacking in the debate ridden denomination.

She noted that if the methods used to defend the truth were so harsh, she was tempted to reconsider if it really was the truth.

Did not your hearts break when that non-adventist said that they were wanting to examine our beliefs but couldn't get past our attitudes? I know mine did. I work hard to try to share Christ with people, and to turn one away from more of His will is a terrible shame!

She also encouraged them to STUDY out the issue.

We do not settle disputes by "thus saith the GC." Or "thus saith EGW" or even "thus saith our view of the Bible in the past." We instead cite the texts that show truth to be just that--truth. And if we can't answer those who question us, why are we calling it truth?

You all need to stop the witch hunt. If you don't want to see your fundamentals questioned then use your own self restraint and AVOID those posts where it happens. The truth will lose nothing by being stated--even numerous times if necessary.

Some good points have been stated, welcome as I see you are new at CF.

 

[Cliff2]

Thank you Tall for that post.... no where has it ever been said that to be a sda you MUST read, believe and sign off on all 27 (now 28) fundamentals... To use them as a litmus test of who is or is not an adventist is a travesty.... I am sure if some of the pioneers were alive they would be appalled.....

I will tell you what they would be appaled by.

The basic SDA beliefs being challenged by those who claim to be SDA's.

That's for sure.

No one here says we all must believe exactly the same but there must be a core of beliefs that those who are SDA can say we believe the same.

Such as the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Second Coming, IJ & the Sanctuary, Creation, End Time Events, Prophecy, Trinity, God's Word as Truth, and there are probably a few I have left out.

We get all these from the Bible but as a package we can turn to the "27/28" to find a summary of them.

 

[StormyOne]

I will tell you what they would be appaled by.

The basic SDA beliefs being challenged by those who claim to be SDA's.

That's for sure.

No one here says we all must believe exactly the same but there must be a core of beliefs that those who are SDA can say we believe the same.

Such as the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Second Coming, IJ & the Sanctuary, Creation, End Time Events, Prophecy, Trinity, God's Word as Truth, and there are probably a few I have left out.

We get all these from the Bible but as a package we can turn to the "27/28" to find a summary of them.

Probably not... they engaged in vigorous debates, studied and restudied issues... they were not afraid to look at their beliefs and there were no sacred cows.... today that is not the case in all places....