Why do you consider yourself a Seventh Day Adventist?

[Kerwin]

In what way?

Jesus is not God but is the one God made King over everything on heaven and on earth. Jesus promised that if a person hungers and thirst for righteousness they will receive and walk by the Holy Spirit and so stop sinning by the power of God. I also believe in living by the Spirit of love your neighbor as yourself and not by the Law. I might have a disagreement over the reasons for being baptized as I believe a miracle occurs during in which you receive the Holy Spirit. I completely disagree with the end times prophecy supported by the church though I do not consider that an unimportant issue. There are probably other issues by those I mentioned but they are not coming to mind right now.

Do you observe all of the God-given laws set out in Leviticus 23?

I consider them to be legalistic as it is not what you eat that makes you unholy but what comes out of your heart and you should regard every day as Holy to the Lord. My goal is to adhere to the righteous requirements of the Law but even that is done through living by the Spirit and not by human effort.

 

[Joe67]

kerwin,

In connection with serving in the newness of the spirit, do you also count your body to be dead because of sin?

Joe

 

[Kerwin]

In connection with serving in the newness of the spirit, do you also count your body to be dead because of sin?

The words are correct but I am not sure what you interpret those words to mean. They happen to be located in Romans 8:10 where I gain the impression they mean the body we have now will suffer death as a penalty for the sins we have committed while those that believe will be resurrected in a new body due to living by the spirit.

There are also similar words in Romans 6:10 about being dead to sin but alive in Christ but they mean that a believer should not give into their evil desires but should give into the desire of the Spirit they received at baptism.



If you have some other understanding of either passage then please let me know.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Jesus is not God but is the one God made King over everything on heaven and on earth. Jesus promised that if a person hungers and thirst for righteousness they will receive and walk by the Holy Spirit and so stop sinning by the power of God. I also believe in living by the Spirit of love your neighbor as yourself and not by the Law.

If I've correctly understood, these seem to be things that you have in common with SDAism. Is that correct?

I might have a disagreement over the reasons for being baptized as I believe a miracle occurs during in which you receive the Holy Spirit. I completely disagree with the end times prophecy supported by the church though I do not consider that an unimportant issue. There are probably other issues by those I mentioned but they are not coming to mind right now.

Would you, for example, conclude that the seal of God and the mark of the beast relate to sabbath keeping? Would you conclude that man must stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator following the close of probation?

I consider them to be legalistic as it is not what you eat that makes you unholy but what comes out of your heart and you should regard every day as Holy to the Lord. My goal is to adhere to the righteous requirements of the Law but even that is done through living by the Spirit and not by human effort.

Do you conclude that man has been given the opportunity to pick and choose which laws are "still good?"

BFA

 

[Joe67]

To Kerwin:

You asked a question, but may we look at another scripture first.

Romans 7:5,6 Sin in our members receives energy from the law to become active and control the mind; thereby bringing about fruit unto death.

The law is holy, just, and good, but the only way to cease from this constant sinning and get sin out of my mind and back in my members is to become dead to that which is holy, just, and good.

Natural birth, religious duty, and social duty are all powerless to remove sin from my mind and put it back into the body. All three of these processes are God given and are profitable for this present generation.
I cannot face my God with sin in my mind. Who can deliver my mind from the body of death?

When God puts the answer to this question, as it comes by the Spirit, into our hearts and minds then He gives us a white stone with a new name that only he who receives it can know it. Whatever words He gives us to witness about it, we are given to understand that these words are just wood, hay and stubble burning as a witness to His precious gold.

Your brother in Jesus Christ,
Joe

 

[Kerwin]

If I've correctly understood, these seem to be things that you have in common with SDAism. Is that correct?

I believe in baptism by immersion and some of their ethnics though I find others legalistic. It has been a while so I have forgotten what the church teaches or it has changed over time so I cannot be more specific than that.

Would you, for example, conclude that the seal of God and the mark of the beast relate to Sabbath keeping? Would you conclude that man must stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator following the close of probation?

The mark of the beast is for those who live by the sinful nature in that they act like beasts and the seal of God is reserved for those who walk by the spirit. I am not sure what you mean by “following the close of probation” but if you mean “after judgment day” then man will no longer need Jesus to be our mediator and he can step down and retain his rightful place. I do not believe the disagreement over the Sabbath is productive “as one man sees one day as special to the Lord while another sees all days the same” and what each does they do for the Lord.

Do you conclude that man has been given the opportunity to pick and choose which laws are "still good?"

No! It just is not about the Law but it is about the Spirit and the Spirit is based on the command love your neighbor as yourself and you either live according to its dictates or you do not. Circumcism is part of the Law and yet the apostles did not command believers be circumcised. Were they cherry picking the law?

 

[Kerwin]

If I understand you correctly then everything you said sounds good except for this statement.

He gives us a white stone with a new name that only he who receives it can know it.

The new name He gives those that believe is a sonship which comes through living by the spirit and it is the same name that all that believe receive. I am not sure what you mean by “he that receives it can know it” except you receive and live by the spirit through faith. Feel free to clear up any misunderstanding I might have.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It has been a while so I have forgotten what the church teaches or it has changed over time so I cannot be more specific than that.

Gotcha.

I am not sure what you mean by “following the close of probation”

Traditional SDAism teaches that, prior to Christ's second coming, man's probation will close. Therefore, according to traditional SDAism, man must--between his close of probation and Christ's second coming--stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.

No! It just is not about the Law but it is about the Spirit and the Spirit is based on the command love your neighbor as yourself and you either live according to its dictates or you do not. Circumcism is part of the Law and yet the apostles did not command believers be circumcised. Were they cherry picking the law?

So what about the ten commandments? What about the fourth commandment? Are these important considerations?

I'm a former SDA, so that might provide some perspective on the way I view these issues.

BFA

 

[Kerwin]

Traditional SDAism teaches that, prior to Christ's second coming, man's probation will close. Therefore, according to traditional SDAism, man must--between his close of probation and Christ's second coming--stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.

I have certainly forgotten that though I was probably taught it as I have a traditional background. Offhand I would say it does not sound consistent with what I read in scripture as from what I remember man’s “probation” ends either with his death or at Jesus’ second coming; which ever comes first. I am certainly not up on the specifics of scripture but I cannot see how what I do see can be reconciled to what you say is a traditional SDA tenet. I can get scriptures to back up what I say if I need to but I do not believe I do.

So what about the Ten Commandments? What about the fourth commandment? Are these important considerations?

The Ten Commandments are a part of the Law and just choosing them out of the Law is cherry picking the law. From what I have heard Jews divide the law into several parts and one part they call the righteous requirements just as Paul did in one of his letters. I am not sure if the Sabbath is included but I do know that it is a gift from God to the Hebrew people which is probably one reason why Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man. The gift of the New Covenant is not the Sabbath but it is the Holy Spirit by which you can have true rest.

29 Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

 

[sentipente]

BFA, I think you are blinded to the fact that all of Christianity is guilty of having adulterated the gospel. You are making the same error that the SDA church has made: believing that by identifying one source of error you have established your position as the truth.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Kerwin, thanks for your candor. Just curious how you view these issues. Thanks for humoring me by answering my questions.

FROM SENTI: BFA, I think you are blinded to the fact that all of Christianity is guilty of having adulterated the gospel.

Discussing a specific error of one denomination does not equal a suggestion that such denomination is the only denomination that embraces error. All denominations have embraced error of one form or another.

FROM SENTI: You are making the same error that the SDA church has made: believing that by identifying one source of error you have established your position as the truth.

• BFA is not a remnant church and offers no remnant message.
• BFA is not the continuing and authoritative source of anything.
• You need not believe anything that BFA says in order to obtain the seal of God or to avoid the mark of the beast.
• There is no one who does good; no one who understands--not even BFA.
• BFA has no corner on any market.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Discussing a specific error of one denomination does not equal a suggestion that such denomination is the only denomination that embraces error. All denominations have embraced error of one form or another.

Where are your discussions regarding the errors you hold?

• BFA is not a remnant church and offers no remnant message.
• BFA is not the continuing and authoritative source of anything.
• You need not believe anything that BFA says in order to obtain the seal of God or to avoid the mark of the beast.
• There is no one who does good; no one who understands--not even BFA.
• BFA has no corner on any market.[/quote]

It is about philosophies. Don't you think that Christianity has a corner on the market? Don't you believe that the Bible only is the word of God? Don't you believe that Christianity only is the way to God?

 

[Joe67]

Kerwin,

Revelation 2:17 speaks about the white stone with a new name written, that no one knows except the one who receives it.

Joe

 

[sentipente]

Kerwin,

Revelation 2:17 speaks about the white stone with a new name written, that no one knows except the one who receives it.

Joe

It also speaks of a dragon with seven heads. Do you hope to see one some day?

 

[Joe67]

It also speaks of a dragon with seven heads. Do you hope to see one some day?

Sentipente,

I saw a documentary on the history channel concerning: the belief in / the worship of dragons presently and in past societies. I was quite suprised. Do you have any info in that regard?

It is an interesting comparison of the dragon of Rev12 and the beast out of the water in Rev13. Heads and horns are the same but the crowns are placed differently.

Through the eyes of understanding we need to see the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. As we see them God gives us repentance.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Where are your discussions regarding the errors you hold?

Probably in the same place where the discussion of your errors can be found. The errors to which you and I currently hold are beliefs that we do not yet recognize as error. At the moment, you and I don't even realize yet that such beliefs are errors. Therefore, it's pretty hard for either you or I to discuss them. However, I do know that there is no one who understands (see Romans 3), and I am confident that this includes me.

With that said, I can certainly discuss those errors that I have held in the past and that I now recognize as error. And I have done exactly that in this forum (hence my discussion of "the close of probation," "the seal of God" and "the mark of the beast;" all are errors which I once believed).

Don't you think that Christianity has a corner on the market?

No, I really don't.

Don't you believe that the Bible only is the word of God?

I believe the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. I also believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

Don't you believe that Christianity only is the way to God?

No, I really don't.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

The errors to which I currently hold represent beliefs that God has not yet revealed to me as being error.

Are you certain that such a deterministic view of revelation fits reality? Is it your contention that if we don't recognize error it is because God has not revealed it to us? If it is God's responsibility to reveal error are you not usurping His authority in some sense when you attempt to point out error to others?

 

[sentipente]

The errors to which I currently hold represent beliefs that God has not yet revealed to me as being error.

Are you certain that such a deterministic view of revelation fits reality? Is it your contention that if we don't recognize error it is because God has not revealed it to us? If it is God's responsibility to reveal error are you not usurping His authority in some sense when you attempt to point out error to others?

 

[sentipente]

Ooops!

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Are you certain that such a deterministic view of revelation fits reality? Is it your contention that if we don't recognize error it is because God has not revealed it to us? If it is God's responsibility to reveal error are you not usurping His authority in some sense when you attempt to point out error to others?

Is it your contention that there is one who understands? Which "one" would that be? If it is left up to me to understand, will I ever?

Is it your contention that men are not to tell others about the good news of the free gift of salvation by grace through faith? Or do you conclude that man is to keep his mouth shut when folks claim that salvation is by grace through works?

Is this a discussion forum where folks are free to explore various ideas relating to SDAs and to SDAism? If not, why not?

BTW, where are your discussions regarding the errors you hold?

BFA