SDA

[stephen pollard]

I
The core issues of Jesus being the only way to salvation is what's matter. I was saved for a long while before I read a scripture that said Jesus was God. I even wrote "Jesus is God!" in the margin next to the verse. It was like an epiphany.

What really irks me is when I hear preachers on the radio say that JWs and Mormons have a "different" Jesus, when in reality it is the same Jesus. .

I liked a quote of a minister who had been Trinitarian for thirteen years:

The difference between Christians is not in the nature of Christ(his essence) but his title. I think that would bear out your view(correct in my view) that we all worship the same Jesus

 

[1stcenturylady]

I liked a quote of a minister who had been Trinitarian for thirteen years:

The difference between Christians is not in the nature of Christ(his essence) but his title. I think that would bear out your view(correct in my view) that we all worship the same Jesus

I think it goes a bit further than title. For instance, Son of God, could be like Pinocchio, a created being. That is how JWs see Son of God. He was the firstborn among all creation. Firstborn actually refers to ruler. King David was also referred to firstborn, but was the youngest of 7. Some translations say Jesus was firstborn OVER all creation, which would be more accurate in meaning. It also could refer to He was the first resurrection after His crucifixion that went on to glory. For instance, Lazarus was resurrected, only to die again (I presume).

 

[1stcenturylady]

It's on a fan, if that is what you mean, I bought an external fan that it lays on top of--there are 5 little fans in it. The back is still on it though, never thought of removing it---it still gets so hot that I then have to put ice packs on the thing!! Which is not easy to do!

What is Geek Squad??

Is the fan blowing toward it or away from it. It should be away from it to draw away the heat, and out the window if one is close.

 

[stephen pollard]

I think it goes a bit further than title. For instance, Son of God, could be like Pinocchio, a created being. That is how JWs see Son of God. He was the firstborn among all creation. Firstborn actually refers to ruler. King David was also referred to firstborn, but was the youngest of 7. Some translations say Jesus was firstborn OVER all creation, which would be more accurate in meaning. It also could refer to He was the first resurrection after His crucifixion that went on to glory. For instance, Lazarus was resurrected, only to die again (I presume).

Well I wouldn't want to sidetrack the thread into an in depth discussion concerning this. I would just make one point as it is a thread concerning the SDA. I listened to a debate once between mainstream and sda theologians(I hate that word) It was stated that EGW, initially believed Jesus was not God Himself, but changed her views due to those around her. The sda theologian did not deny this was the truth

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well I wouldn't want to sidetrack the thread into an in depth discussion concerning this. I would just make one point as it is a thread concerning the SDA. I listened to a debate once between mainstream and sda theologians(I hate that word) It was stated that EGW, initially believed Jesus was not God Himself, but changed her views due to those around her. The sda theologian did not deny this was the truth

I grew up SDA, and believed that Jesus was the Word, but when he emptied Himself and became a man, He stayed a man forever. That is why it was such an epiphany for me when I read that Jesus is God, and even marked it in the margin of my Bible. Of course, that was almost 50 years ago that I left. I don't know if they still teach that or not. In the gospels it says, Jesus asked the Father to restore His glory that He had before. That means He is back to being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

 

[stephen pollard]

I grew up SDA, and believed that Jesus was the Word, but when he emptied Himself and became a man, He stayed a man forever. That is why it was such an epiphany for me when I read that Jesus is God, and even marked it in the margin of my Bible. Of course, that was almost 50 years ago that I left. I don't know if they still teach that or not. In the gospels it says, Jesus asked the Father to restore His glory that He had before. That means He is back to being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

I found many similarities between the sda church I was asked to visit, and the Pentecostal church of my youth, which maybe why I found ex Pentecostals in the church. As I assume it works the other way around also

 

[stephen pollard]

We also believe that praying to the dead and bowing down before images is wrong. But the fact that over a billion Christians engage in it - does not "make it right" it just means they have not been enlightened on that Bible truth.



The idea that it only matters when you choose to ignore something in the Bible is not a compelling argument. A Bible principle is true or it is not -- and has nothing to do with "but what if it is just Stephen Pollard ignoring it or unaware of it".

I point to a rather large group of Christians (much large than "just Stephen Pollard" ) and show that their not being aware of something does not make it right but it also does not mean they are lost due to that fact alone until it is pointed out to them under conviction.



Biblical truth does not "vanish" simply because it is shown in application with groups like Catholics. It is true all the same. Your question is not "just in my case -- is the Bible setting up special rules just for Stephen Pollard"? And I think we both know that.

I find this interesting. So the sda view is, Christians can break the Ten Commandments and remain in a saved state as they may not be convicted of the fact they are breaking them.

So, a Christian can commit murder, and remain saved for they may not have been convicted they sin by doing so

A Christian can commit adultery a few times, and remain saved for they may not be convicted they are sinning by doing so

A Christian can steal, and remain saved on the basis they may not be convicted of the fact they are stealing.

Sounds like a licence to commit the worst of sins in my view.


Just an honest observation. It is, in my experience sda members who keep repeating we can sin much in ignorance/with no conviction of sin. But at the same time, they keep quoting the letter stating those who do not obey the commandments cannot enter heaven.

Which isn’t really true is it? Christians have much scope not to obey commandments if you are correct.


And yet, the Holy Spirit is the convictor of sin. Where is the Holy Spirit in a person’s life, if he is not convicting them of sin, if they can constantly break commandments sda say they need to obey if they are not to be condemned?

Why is the law placed in your most inward parts not making you conscious of sin when you break it? For the law reveals the sin. etc

 

[mmksparbud]

What really irks me is when I hear preachers on the radio say that JWs and Mormons have a "different" Jesus, when in reality it is the same Jesus.

Actually, Mormons believe Jesus is One of His sons--not the only one.

 

[stephen pollard]

The answer to this is simple, as to why people are much stressing sinning in ignorance:

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,a]'>[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Rom7:4-6



If you choose to follow after the written code, you cannot follow after the Holy Spirit, it is one or the other. The Holy Spirit is the convictor of sin through the law placed within you. It is people who follow after the written code, who keep stressing sinning in ignorance. And sinning in ignorance is not being convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit.

Which I am sure is why, the only church I have ever been to, where people took the Lords name in vain, laughing whilst they did so was an sda church. I was truly shocked, they could not understand why I was so shocked.

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Rom7:6



It really is that simple

 

[Danthemailman]

Have you not met any sda members who believe heaven hinges on obeying the Ten Commandments/your justificati0on hinges on that? I have

I have as well. Here is a statement below made from a SDA who I was once in a discussion with.

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

 

[stephen pollard]

I have as well. Here is a statement below made from a SDA who I was once in a discussion with.

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

Thanks for that. An sda member once asked me if we must obey the Ten Commandments to enter heaven. When I replied that obeying them, was not the basis for entering heaven they shook their head and laughed

 

[stephen pollard]

I have as well. Here is a statement below made from a SDA who I was once in a discussion with.

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

Of course, the sda member I mentioned was having affairs at the time they laughed at me telling them obeying the Ten Commandments was not the basis of entering heaven. Sins of ignorance I presume

 

[bekkilyn]

I have as well. Here is a statement below made from a SDA who I was once in a discussion with.

The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

Sounds like it's the gospel of Jesus Christ vs. the "gospel" of the ten commandments. They seem to believe that the ten commandments and God are one and the same. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say that the ten commandments are our Rock and our Redeemer. Our foundation and the very foundation of the gospel is *Christ* who is God.

 

[Danthemailman]

Sounds like it's the gospel of Jesus Christ vs. the "gospel" of the ten commandments. They seem to believe that the ten commandments and God are one and the same. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say that the ten commandments are our Rock and our Redeemer. Our foundation and the very foundation of the gospel is *Christ* who is God.

Amen! Sounds like salvation by "grace through faith, not works" vs. salvation by "grace plus law, faith plus works." The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). To "believe" the gospel is the trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

You are correct in that the SDA is not the only denomination to get the covenants confused. Taking God's name in vain is a sin under the new covenant because Jesus told us to love God

In Matthew 19 Jesus said "if you want eternal life - keep the commandments" --
Jesus is then asked "which ones".
Instead of avoiding the TEN in Matthew 22 - Jesus specifically quotes from the Ten -- the commands that deal with "Love your neighbor" as He instructed in Leviticus 19.

your idea that all those Christian denominations are confused - is your POV. You can have any view you want.

What's interesting are the commandments Jesus leaves out of that passage.

Agreed.

Note that He is not including any commandments related to "Love God with all your heart"

He does not list "do not take God's name in vain"
He does not list "Love God with all your heart"
He does not list "Do not worship false gods"
etc.

In that list He only includes things related to "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

But he does quote outright - verbatim commandments from the TEN commandments

Such that Paul can say in Eph 6:2 that the 5th commandment in that still-binding unit of Ten is the "First commandment with a promise"

He also leaves out the fourth commandment.

True.. as I said .

Note that He is not including any commandments related to "Love God with all your heart"
He does not list "do not take God's name in vain"
He does not list "Love God with all your heart"
He does not list "Do not worship false gods"
etc.

However, if it weren't for the fact that the passage is about putting Jesus first in our lives rather than obeying commandments, the man would have had eternal life by having followed just the commandments that Jesus listed and not any other commandment. None of the others were required.

Note that He is not including any commandments related to "Love God with all your heart"

your notion that these are not part of God's Law or that violation of them is fine... is an extreme position for any Christian of any denomination. Has nothing to do with SDA or not.

He does not list "do not take God's name in vain"
He does not list "Love God with all your heart"
He does not list "Do not worship false gods"
etc.

It's not about following commandments. It's about putting Jesus first

Creative writing -- but here is what the text says in real life.

16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
“You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother;
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Two things to note --
1. This is affirming the Ten Commandments not rejecting them
2. Jesus left out "Do not covet" because that is what the young man was in fact doing and Jesus was going to make a point of it.


20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

This is - commandment affirming teaching... not commandment denying teaching.

Sounds like it's the gospel of Jesus Christ vs. the "gospel" of the ten commandments. They seem to believe that the ten commandments and God are one and the same. .

how sad

 

[BobRyan]

Technically, most cults are defined by the amount of believers they have. They are made as a offshoot of a specific religion or denomination, the amount of people who believe in it's teachings isn't efficient enough to call it a sect or denomination yet. Once the cult increases in population, it slowly moves into the "religion" status and some are that delusional and think they are denomination (JW's, Mormons..). SDA is a protestant denomination now, but around 20+ years ago it could be viewed as a cult.

Christianity Today wrote an article in Jan 22 of 2015 stating that the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world and one of the fastest growing if not the fastest growing.

Your statement that "cult is determined by size of group" sounds like creative writing - did you make that up or is that "Websters"??

The Christian church itself started "small" is it your claim that the Christian church itself used to be a cult??

If you read my post, you would see that I do acknowledge SDA as an actual denomination now, but like 20+ years ago it was too small to be considered a denomination.

I was questioning the idea that size determines if a group is a cult or not.

most cults are defined by the amount of believers they have.

My statement that you think sounds as creative writing is actually out of the dictionary. One of the definitions of cults is a "small group of people"..

Which is why I asked if it is from Webster's etc. Just curious.

You last sentence is correct. In fact, many historians state that during the start, Christianity was viewed as a offshoot cult of Judaism because it did consist of small and cohesive group of people to be called/viewed as an actual religion during that time.

Paul admits that Christianity was being considered "a sect" of Judaism and that he belonged to it.

Acts 4
14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets

 

[BobRyan]

Because they are ignorant.

Walter Martin called it a cult in his book Kingdom of the Cults. But he was wrong, but because he was respected, people to this day call them a cult.

Walter Martin did not call the Seventh-day Adventist church a cult in that book. Rather in that book Martin refuted Robert Hoekema's book on Cults where Hoekema had called Adventists a cult. See the appendix to Kingdom of the Cults -- where Martin deals with the topic of Seventh-day Adventists.

Really? Well that's good then. I read that book decades ago, and my memory must not be clear on that. Thanks.

you are welcomed

 

[BobRyan]

I remember hearing someone say that there was some early connection between SDA and JWs. Do you know who or what? Personally, I don't believe they are a cult either,

Although Wendell was a Millerite (And all Millerites were called "Adventists) it does not appear that he ever became a Seventh-day Adventist. (Millerites were at about 50,000 in 1844 from which 50 went on to start the Seventh-day Adventist church).

Charles Taze Russell heard a sermon in 1870 by Jonas Wendell.

Elder Jonas Wendell (December 25, 1815 – August 14, 1873) of Edinboro, Pennsylvania, was a zealous Adventist preacher following in the spirit of William Miller. Following the "Great Disappointment" Wendell experienced periods of weak faith, as did many Adventists. He eventually recovered his faith after renewing his study of Bible chronology (historic and prophetic) and began to preach extensively throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, the Virginias, and New England By the late 1860s he had been studying the chronology of the Bible, and was encouraged by conclusions showing Christ's return would occur in either 1868 or 1873/4. In 1870 Wendell published his views in the booklet entitled The Present Truth, or Meat in Due Season concluding that the Second Advent was sure to occur in 1873.

Russell was born in 1859 long after the Millerites had disbanded and fragmented either returning to their former churches or starting new ones. Wendell was one of those who did not join Seventh-day Adventists.

 

[BobRyan]

Well I wouldn't want to sidetrack the thread into an in depth discussion concerning this. I would just make one point as it is a thread concerning the SDA. I listened to a debate once between mainstream and sda theologians(I hate that word) It was stated that EGW, initially believed Jesus was not God Himself, but changed her views due to those around her. The sda theologian did not deny this was the truth

Which is false - Ellen White - is her married name - she joined with Millerites as a United Methodist -- full Trinitarian. She never rejected that Trinity doctrine she grew up with - and came out with statements about the Holy Spirit being "the third person of the Godhead" to guide the denomination to its acceptance of the Trinity in all its domain.

 

[BobRyan]

However, if a Saturday sabbath is as important as sda members believe it is, I am not how sda members would believe, in view of this the Holy Spirit would allow people to continually sin in ignorance of it

We also believe that praying to the dead and bowing down before images is wrong. But the fact that over a billion Christians engage in it - does not "make it right" it just means they have not been enlightened on that Bible truth.

I am discussing biblical truth, please discuss catholic beliefs with catholics

The idea that it only matters when you choose to ignore something in the Bible is not a compelling argument. A Bible principle is true or it is not -- and has nothing to do with "but what if it is just Stephen Pollard ignoring it or unaware of it".

I point to a rather large group of Christians (much large than "just Stephen Pollard" ) and show that their not being aware of something does not make it right but it also does not mean they are lost due to that fact alone until it is pointed out to them under conviction.

I am giving you bible truth and showing how this works out in real life.

For example James 4:17 as it applies to the obvious example above "17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Once again, please discuss catholic beliefs with catholics. I am giving you biblical truth based on the foundation the new covenant stands on

I am giving you bible truth and showing how this works out in real life.

For example James 4:17 as it applies to the obvious example above "17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

It is deflection, and catholics may well argue they do not pray to the dead(in their view)

They may argue anything they wish.

This is about - a bible truth and showing how this works out in real life.

For example James 4:17 as it applies to the obvious example above "17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

The biblical facts remain:
Sin is the transgression of the law
Through the law we become conscious of sin

And yet 17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Do you not believe sin is the transgression of the law?
Do you not believe through the law we become conscious of sin?

as it turns out they are not conscious of the fact that praying to the dead is wrong and bowing down to images is wrong.

This is irrefutable.

I have no conviction of sin whatsoever by failing to follow a set Saturday sabbath. .

Similarities abound - as your post appears to point out.

I want to thank you, and two other sda members who, in the last few days have all stressed sins of ignorance, not being convicted of sin at times. It joins up all the dots as it were in my views on your denomination.

You are welcomed -- glad to help.