Why do SDA preach

[Adventist Heretic]

Your not sharing the truth are you? According to the scriptures God's Word is the only definition of what truth is *see John 17:17; Romans 3:4. I provided you with both the scriptures (Gods' Word) and the Greek word meanings. You are seeking to provide sources from the Roman Catholic Church outside of the scriptures and the Apostles teachings. Who did you say is not interested in finding the truth?

i am not interested in discussing with some who is an amature, who lacks the skills necessary to deal with the subject. you want to claim a doctrinal discussion when you really what a history lesson, sorry won't play by those rules. you don't even know how bad you are.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not in minds of most Christians it isn't easily refuted. I'm sorry to say this, but this is basically the same kind of conversation I would expect to be having with someone LDS or JW. As for Matthew 15:3-9, I think it can just as easily be applied to SDA theology the way you seem to be applying it. And I bet other fringe groups do just that.

At the end of the day it depends on if one believes God's Word over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God. This is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 15-3-9 by the way and why I asked you what you thought it means. For me only God's Word is true according to the scriptures and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What we think and our opinions do not really matter in Gods eyes.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

you did not actually say that the early church history was Catholic writings. what absoloute foolishness. What you consider Catholic did not even exist until the 6th century. the earliest you can make a claim is at Constantine. 300 years later. the first 300 years are just general Christianity. so you are with out merit on your objection. we quote the Early Church History as the authority of History. in other words you cannot get past what they said and did, we have record. this puts a limit on what people like yourself can say and claim. Now it is not doctrinal authority, we use the scripture for that, but on a subject like the historical use of the term the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, It is very normal and appropriate to use the Church History. You claim the Lord's day and the Sabbath are the same thing, History tells us other wise. Sorry you are wrong. try again.

You need to get your facts right not only in scripture but in History. The Roman Catholic Church did not start in 600 AD. Here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). I do agree however that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Sorry it is not me that is wrong here. It seems you are wrong in not only in scripture but in history as well.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

i am not interested in discussing with some who is an amature, who lacks the skills necessary to deal with the subject. you want to claim a doctrinal discussion when you really what a history lesson, sorry won't play by those rules. you don't even know how bad you are.

Ok lets agree to disagree.

Take Care.

 

[Ceallaigh]

At the end of the day it depends on if one believes God's Word over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God.

That would be the SDA, who think it's okay to keep a few commandments and break the rest because of the doctrinal stew Ellen White and whoever else came up with to condone it.

This what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 15-3-9 by the way and why I asked you what you thought it means. For me only God's Word is true according to the scriptures and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What we think and our opinions do not really matter in Gods eyes.

I know what most or all the verses you put up mean according to orthodox Christian theology. What they mean according to Ellen White's theology is another matter. I've been though this sort of thing, talking to members of fringe groups, going back at least 40 years. There's nothing new going on here.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That would be the SDA, who think it's okay to keep a few commandments and break the rest because of the doctrinal stew Ellen White and whoever else came up with to condone it.

Really Brian? What commandments are we now free to brake that you claim SDA's only keep a few commandments? Let's talk specifics please otherwise it is only misinformation. I would not think you would would to say things that are not true or that you may have a misunderstanding over. That is the reason for my questions. At the very least you will know exactly what I believe or do not believe rather then reading someone else's opinion that is not truthful.

I know what most or all the verses you put up mean according to orthodox Christian theology. What they mean according to Ellen White's theology is another matter. I've been though this sort of thing, talking to members of fringe groups, going back at least 40 years.

Really? I did not know I was presenting EGW theology? I thought I was presenting what the bible says. What is it that I have posted from the scriptures that you disagree with? What does Matthew 15:3-9 mean?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You need to get your facts right not only in scripture but in History. The Roman Catholic Church did not start in 600 AD. Here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). I do agree however that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Sorry it is not me that is wrong here. It seems you are wrong in not only in scripture but in history as well.

that is exactly what i was referring, except there is some debate as to the conversion of Clovis SDA's usually start it at 508 AD, so looks like you are over confident again. swing and a miss. you're really bad at this.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

clovis 1 Clovis I - Wikipedia.

Clovis eventually converted to Catholicism following the Battle of Tolbiac on Christmas Day 508[32][33]

that would be 6th century

 

[LoveGodsWord]

that is exactly what i was referring, except there is some debate as to the conversion of Clovis SDA's usually start it at 508 AD, so looks like you are over confident again. swing and a miss.

Sorry I have no idea what your talking about again.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

clovis 1 Clovis I - Wikipedia.

You do know that Clovis I was the first king of the Franks right? What has this got to do with when the Roman Catholic Church started? Your way out on your historical facts here. Did you read the linked post from Wiki? If Clovis converted to Catholicism in AD 496 how can he have started Catholicism in 600 AD if he was converted to Catholicism in 496 AD? As posted earlier here are some useful links that might be helpful (see here; here; here; here; linked). As posted earlier, I agree that the Roman Catholic Church did come out of the Roman Empire and that Constantine's civil Sunday law in March 7, 321 AD did a lot to promote it's development. Though it already existed well before this time according to History (see linked posts above).

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Sorry I have no idea what your talking about again.

what you concsider the papacy did not occur until the time of Clovis I. He was the champion of the church, the alliance of Church and State. this lead to the middle ages and the Dominance of the Papal institutions. without Clovis it was not possible. 508 marks the beginning of the 1260 years of Papal authority, 1290 ends the alliance of the Church state relationship and 1335 marks the restoration of the Temple or Sanctuary through the SDA movement.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

what you concsider the papacy did not occur until the time of Clovis I. He was the champion of the church, the alliance of Church and State. this lead to the middle ages and the Dominance of the Papal institutions. without Clovis it was not possible. 508 marks the beginning of the 1260 years of Papal authority, 1290 ends the alliance of the Church state relationship and 1335 marks the restoration of the Temple or Sanctuary through the SDA movement.

You have your facts wrong again we were talking about the origin of the Romans Catholic Church.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You have your facts wrong again we were talking about the origin of the Romans Catholic Church.

not the roman catholic chruch, what became the beast.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Really Brian? What commandments are we now free to brake that you claim SDA's only keep a few commandments? Let's talk specifics please otherwise it is only misinformation. I would not think you would would to say things that are not true or that you may have a misunderstanding over. That is the reason for my questions. At the very least you will know exactly what I believe or do not believe rather then reading someone else's opinion that is not truthful.

Really? I did not know I was presenting EGW theology? I thought I was presenting what the bible says. What is it that I have posted from the scriptures that you disagree with? What does Matthew 15:3-9 mean?

No you're presenting Ellen White's / SDAs interpretation of what the Bible says. One way I see this manifested is the extreme similarly in what you present to what I've seen other SDAs present. It all comes off as scripted. You'll have to forgive me for not going deeper, which I could do, but a lot of the time I'm on CF, I'm at work on my phone typing with one thumb. So for now I can only keep this going at a casual conversational level.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No you're presenting Ellen White's / SDAs interpretation of what the Bible says. One way I see this manifested is the extreme similarly in what you present to what I've seen other SDAs present. It all comes off as scripted. You'll have to forgive me for not going deeper, which I could do, but a lot of the time I'm on CF, I'm at work on my phone typing with one thumb. So for now I can only keep this going at a casual conversational level.

Not at all Brian, Everything I have posted is the result of my own prayerful bible study of Gods' Word. What is it you do not agree with and why? For me I work best with detail and facts as I LoveGodsWord (excuse the pun)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

not the roman catholic chruch, what became the beast.

The Romans Empire represents the 4th beast. The Catholic Church grew out of the 4th beast and was the little horn speaking great things (Daniel 7:7-27). I can send you some good references if your interested just pm me.

 

[mmksparbud]

That strikes me as theatrics. The latter half of the 19th century was full of mediums displaying fantastic abilities. I believe that's where the term "parlor tricks" originated.

What do you term as theatrics? Scripture says to try all the all the spirits.
1Jn_4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So obviously there will be true and false prophets. We are to test them---if they are of God they will agree with the bible.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Random rambling here. when it comes to fringe group members and fringe individuals. there often seems to be a very similar pattern among them. They go on quite a bit about everything they say is the pure Word of God. That everyone else is going by man-made teaching. Everyone else is wrong to the point where either their salvation is in dangrer or they're not really saved. That most Christians mistakenly think it's okay to sin by breaking God's commandments and still be saved. And so on. And interestingly, a lot of them believe in annihilation of the damned rather than there being a hell of eternal torment.

 

[Ceallaigh]

What do you term as theatrics? Scripture says to try all the all the spirits.
1Jn_4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So obviously there will be true and false prophets. We are to test them---if they are of God they will agree with the bible.

It seems like theatrics to me compaired to the biographical histories of other reformers such as Luther and Calvin etc.

Also scripture says the way to tell if someone is a false prophet, is if just one of their prophecies doesn't come true. And so far from what I've heard/read, Ellen White failed that test.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Random rambling here. when it comes to fringe group members and fringe individuals. there often seems to be a very similar pattern among them. They go on quite a bit about everything they say is the pure Word of God. That everyone else is going by man-made teaching. Everyone else is wrong to the point where either their salvation is in dangrer or they're not really saved. That most Christians mistakenly think it's okay to sin by breaking God's commandments and still be saved. And so on. And interestingly, a lot of them believe in annihilation of the damned rather than there being a hell of eternal torment.

Is that an argument not to believe Gods' Word and that there is no pure truth of the Word of God? Or is it an argument that there is no truth and no error? I do not think so. Does that mean that when Jesus says many will be called but only the few will be chosen is not true? Or does that mean when Jesus says those who follow man-made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God they are not worshiping God is not true? - Once again, I do not think so. It is God's Word and we should believe and follow it according to the scriptures. Nothing else really matters according to the scriptures.