Change font size


Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 3   [ 28 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:34 am
Posts: 168
The Seventh-day Adventists appear very much to be a Bible-based group on the surface. They believe the young-earth Creation, old, baptism by immersion, believer's baptism, and other Biblical doctrines. I also might add that they have a tremendous understanding of the symbolic language used in prophecy (i.e. a day = a year, stars = angels, woman = church, etc.). There are some great, sincere individuals who are apart of the Seventh-day Adventist Church out there, but they are deceived. One might think they're just another denomination like the Baptists, Methodists, or others, but they are one-of-a-kind.

About two years ago I myself actually began conversion into this sect, but now I'm coming out of it. Matthew 24:24 says that if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived by false prophets (and false Christs). There are still some difficulties I have, because these doctrines are debatable. I'd like to discuss their teachings here, and refute them from the Bible.


Before we even dig into their doctrines, I'd like to address a woman the church holds to be equal to the Bible. This woman is named Ellen G. (Harmon) White. Initially, I was very reluctant of Mrs. White, and was opposed to her. Prior to Adventism. I didn't like the idea of a female prophet for one things (though they are in the Bible). Eventually, I did end up accepting her by faith, because I became convinced of the Sabbath doctrine, soul-sleep, and annihilationism; I thought that if these doctrines were Biblical, and she taught (or ”restored") them, she must be true; this is bad thinking however -- just because someone teaches some, what I thought were, true doctrines, does not make that person true. The Bible says let God be true, and every man a liar. As time went on though, it seemed as though "affirmation" came that “affirmed” her prophethood. Again though, just because she taught what I thought to be Bible-doctrines, does not automatically make her a true prophet. I knew there was controversy over the church and its teachings, but I thought these attacks weren’t true, or simply weren’t contextual. We need to be careful of exalting our religion over the Bible though.

One quote people often cite is where she writes something like “Jesus is not the Lord God Almighty,” that’s only part of the excerpt however. The very next sentence reads something along the lines of “Yet Christ, and the Father are one.” So this is a bad one to cite to Adventists. If you cite many excerpts such as this one, an Adventist may feel that these are attacks on the truth, just as I thought.

Mrs. White did contradict Scripture by a number of statements she made however. She wrote that God does not love "wicked children," and cannot love "those who are dishonest." Our Bible tells us how great God's love for us was, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. John 3:16 is the most famous Bible verse demonstrating God's love and mercy too.

E.G. White also wrote that eating flesh-meat affects our morals, and that ministers should not set forth "an evil example," of this. Jesus would've ate Lamb annually for Passover. (Luke 22:15) Jesus was not an "evil example," or "immoral" simply because he ate meat. Jesus even said that it's not what enters into a man that defiles him, but what comes out. (Mark 7:20) Paul warned that in the latter days some would give heed to doctrines of devils, and these seducing spirits would forbid marriage, and commanding to abstain from “meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth,” as the King James says. (1 Tim. 4:3)

Another thing she wrote is that we should never say / feel we are saved... So in short, Ellen White taught, like all other false religions, salvation is an ongoing process, that we are “being saved.” Previously, I did not necessarily believe in eternal security, but there certainly are verses that defend it. These verses put Ellen White to an open shame in terms of her statements on the Investigative Judgment: Verses like Romans 5:9-11, 1 John 5:13, and Hebrews 9:12, 23-28. I thought it was a prideful, boastful thing to proclaim "I'm saved." If it's a promise that God made to us though, the question is: Do you believe God?

These are a few of the problems with Ellen White’s teachings. There are other things wrong too, such as her saying that it’s a sin to be sick (yet, Job was afflicted with boils, but was called “upright” by God).



With all that out of the way, let’s dig into some of their fundamental teachings:

I think the Adventist understanding of the Trinity differs from the mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity. There is actually a bit of a split in the church concerning this doctrine. Some Adventists actually deny the Trinity, and believe similarly to the Jehovah’s (False) Witnesses. I don’t know that these “Arian” (or Semi-Arian) Adventists believe that Jesus was a created being, but they believe that Christ was begotten in eternity — that without God the Father, God the Son could not consist; essentially inferior to the Father. They may say the Bible say’s He’s God’s only-begotten Son, and never calls Jesus, “God.” The Bible says He is God’s Son, but He’s also God manifest in the flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16) They interpret the Spirit of God to be the Spirit of the Father or Christ, an impersonal force. Peter said if you lie to the Holy Ghost, you’ve lied to God in Acts. We are also baptized in the NAME (not names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost… their name is Jehovah! Jesus is Jehovah clearly. Matthew 28:19, and 1 John 5:7 testify that they either share the same name, and that the three are “one.” So in short, I think the Adventist understanding of the Trinity is a little oblique. Trinitarian Adventists may understand the Trinity doctrine more along the lines of how the Mormon understanding of the Godhead is: that they are three separate beings that make up one God, like a family: there can be Husband, Wife, and Daughter — they all can be called “Smith,” but all are not the same person. Again, the “Arian” Adventists may believe more along the lines of the JW’s understanding of the Godhead.

The Adventists stress importance the Sabbath over Sunday, and they teach that the enforcement of Sunday as a recognized day of worship / day of rest (aka false Sabbath), will be the Mark of the Beast in the near future. This doctrine made sense to me since so many businesses close early Sundays (or are closed entirely for that matter), the Post Office is closed, and some lady in the Congress talked about a Sunday law recently in the news. Their understanding of the Mark of the Beast “taken in the right hand or in the forehead” is understood to be symbolic. They say “taking the mark in the right hand” symbolizes accepting the Mark of the Beast FORCEFULLY, while “taking the mark in the forehead,” symbolizes a conscious, willful decision to accept that Mark. They quote a plethora of statements by the Roman Catholic Church that says that Sunday won’t be found from Genesis to Revelation, that Sunday is the RCC’s MARK of Authority, and that some Catholic Priest stated if you want to be a Bible Christian, become a Seventh-day Adventist. The Bible makes no mention of the change of Sabbath, but makes no mention of it being abolished either. It makes no mention of the institution of Sunday as the official Christian day of worship. However, the Bible days say the Feasts, New Moons, and Sabbaths will be caused to cease. (Hosea 2:11) Paul also expands on this verse by saying not to let any man judge you in these things. (Col. 2:14-17) Adventists will try to tell you that the Sabbaths mentioned here are ceremonial, and not the Seventh-day Sabbath. They also might say that the Pharisees ACCUSED Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, but He still kept it apart from the legalism of the Pharisees, else he could not be the unblemished Lamb of God. Jesus also said “Come unto me all ye who labour, and are heavy laden, and I WILL GIVE YOU REST.” (Matt. 11:28) Christ also said that the Priests PROFANED the Sabbath and yet, were blameless. (Matt. 12:5) These are a few Scriptures at variance with this doctrine. We do find mention of the Sabbath in the NT, but never as a command for Gentile Christians to observe (though we do see they observe it in Acts 18:2-4, 17:2).

Adventists also teach there are essentially three types of laws. There is the “moral law,” (10 Commandments) the “ceremonial law,” (Handwriting of Moses) and the dietary laws. They teach abstinence from all unclean foods, such as pork, shellfish, and others. It's argued that the unclean animals are scavengers, and when we eat their flesh, we're essentially eating all the filth they consumed along with them, which is more hazardous to our health. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, and we need to take care of our bodies. Some might argue that even Noah knew what clean and unclean animals are. He took 7 of every clean animal, and 2 of every unclean animal. They might argue that of those 7 clean animals, Noah and his family would eat 5 of them until the flood waters were receded. Noah was allowed to eat of ALL flesh however. God never gave the Leviticus 11 restrictions to Noah, but says in Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Someone argued that not every green herb is food though, poison ivy would not be a good food for example. Going to the New Testament, there are some verses that can be used in defense that a Christian can eat any food as well. (Verses like Mark 7:14-23, Romans 14:1-4, 14-23, and 1 Timothy 4:1-5) Can anybody shed some more light on this for me please? What was the purpose of these dietary laws to the Israelites?

Another hallmark doctrine to the Seventh-day Adventists is their teachings on death and hell. As an Adventist, I believed Satan’s lie was “ye shall not surely die,” and that virtually all world religions today believe that lie, and teach that “death” is simply a new phase of life; some teach reincarnation, some teach purgatory, or going straight to heaven or hell. I also understood that the Spirit of God was the “breath of life” breathed into Adam’s nostrils. The Bible says the man will return to the dust of the ground, and the Spirit returns to God who gave it; I understood that to mean the breath of life returns to God, and our soul and body go back to dust, and we return to a lifeless form, such as Adam was before he was given life. This doctrine is known as conditional immortality, that we are not eternal until God gives us life. Other may argue that God is eternal, and once he creates a man, his soul lives on forever. The Bible also says “the soul that sinneth, it shall die,” in Ezekiel however, so it is debatable. Adventists believe that we will go into a state of dreamless sleep when we die, rather than going to be with the Lord, or suffering the penalty of sin. With that being said, I believe their doctrine on hell goes hand-in-hand. They teach annihilationism, the doctrine of complete annihilation of the unsaved in hell; that there will be burning in hell, but it won’t last forever. They say this emphasizes God’s love and mercy, but also justice. They say to believe otherwise (i.e. everlasting torment in hell) is to believe God is sadistic, and even unjust. I read on a website that such a teaching implies there will be no real consequence for our sins… that we could do all the sinning we want in this life, and just cease to exist is all. The Bible has a lot of testimony that can defend the traditional views on death and hell though. (Gen. 35:18, Luke 16:19-31, John 10:28, 11:25-27, Heb. 9:27, Phil. 1:22-24, 2 Cor. 5:5-8, 12:2-3, Rev. 6:9)

One final pillar I will discuss is the Adventist teaching of the Investigative Judgement. Ellen White wrote that in 1844 Christ entered into the final phase of his ministry of atoning. Jesus said that “it is finished” before He died at Calvary. Paul wrote that we have “now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:11) Hebrews 9:12, 23-28 also says that Christ only had to enter the Holy of Holies ONCE, and does not need to re-atone for us after he did it ONCE, or else he would have suffered from the “foundation of the world.” We don’t want to blaspheme that atonement as the Catholics do every week at mass by taking communion. They believe in transfiguration of the wafer and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. Ellen White taught, essentially, you need to prove yourself worthy of Jesus’ final atonement on our behalf. I agree that we should not be antinomians, but I don’t think we can earn our salvation, or even prove ourselves “worthy.” None of us are perfect, and we are all sinners saved by the grace of God. There is NONE righteous, no, NOT ONE. This doctrine essentially teaches that we cannot be certain of salvation, and that we can be "cut off." What happened to some of those good old Bible hymns like “Amazing Grace,” and “Blessed Assurance.” What do we have assurance of, if we don’t have assurance of salvation? Besides the point, a truly saved individual will not have the desire to return to their old, sinful ways. A new desire will be put on their heart, and a joy to serve the Lord. Old things are passed away, behold, ALL THINGS are BECOME NEW.


The bottom line folks is this: All we need to know about God is His inspired word, the Holy Bible. We don’t need ANY man to interpret it for us, not the Pope, not Joseph Smith, not Ellen White, or anybody else. All we need is the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us to understand it.

I hope this post sheds some light on their teachings, and I hope that someone else knowledgable on these topics will be able to help me out, and add more information to this post. Thanks.

_________________
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." – Ephesians 6:11


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:42 pm
Posts: 912
I'd like to know if SDAs worship Michael the Archangel who is, supposedly, Jesus.

_________________
1Peter 1:18,19
redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:34 am
Posts: 168
PeanutGallery wrote:
I'd like to know if SDAs worship Michael the Archangel who is, supposedly, Jesus.



The Adventist understanding of Jesus being Michael differs from the Jehovah's Witnesses slightly. Jehovah's Witnesses regard Jesus to be Jehovah's first creation, whereas the SDA's simply regard "Michael" to be a Title for pre-incarnate Christ. They do not regard Him to be created to my understanding, but rather regard Him to be "chief of angels." Adventists worship Jesus, not as an "angel," not as Michael, but as Creator.

If you believe the King James Bible, then Daniel 10:13 refutes the idea that Michael is the only Archangel, though someone tried to tell me that "one of the chief princes" could also be translated as "first." In other words, "first in prominence" as he put it, he continued with "greatest, highest of, the chief of princes."

Quote:
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood meoneand twenty days: but, lo, Michael, oneof thechief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.


There does seem to be a lot of misinformation with Seventh-day Adventists, so that does make it difficult if people try to witness to them, because if they get their facts wrong, Adventists may feel affirmed they are right.

_________________
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." – Ephesians 6:11


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 3309
We have had SDA on here before, attempting to sow confusion about dietary laws and the sabbath. SDA is a very deceptive group, glad you saw the light!
Soldier4Christ wrote:
About two years ago I myself actually began conversion into this sect, but now I'm coming out of it. Matthew 24:24 says that if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived by false prophets (and false Christs).

Now that you are coming out of SDA, do you have a new denomination or church that you attend?
Soldier4Christ wrote:
There are still some difficulties I have, because these doctrines are debatable.

What are your difficulties you are having?

_________________
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." -- George Washington (Ref: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. 543)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:34 am
Posts: 168
Baptist1611 wrote:
We have had SDA on here before, attempting to sow confusion about dietary laws and the sabbath. SDA is a very deceptive group, glad you saw the light!
Soldier4Christ wrote:
About two years ago I myself actually began conversion into this sect, but now I'm coming out of it. Matthew 24:24 says that if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived by false prophets (and false Christs).

Now that you are coming out of SDA, do you have a new denomination or church that you attend?
Soldier4Christ wrote:
There are still some difficulties I have, because these doctrines are debatable.

What are your difficulties you are having?


I'm not attending a new church yet. As for denomination, I kind of like the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, but perhaps it'd be better to go by the name "KJV Bible Believer."


Some of the difficulties I'm having are on dietary laws, death, and hell. I'd also like to further discuss the Sabbath too.

I have a hard time understanding why God gave these laws on diet to the Israelites, and what their purpose was. Adventists will argue all unclean animals are toxic, and you consume all the waste they ate when you consume them; they're detrimental to our health. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, and we need to do our best to glorify God in our bodies. Paul said every creature of God is good though, nothing to be refused. I don't think this means we should be putting junk into our bodies though. (i.e. preservatives, junk foods, etc.) I am a bit hesitant on eating pork, or other unclean foods right now. There are Scriptures that can defend it's okay, but what was their 'ceremonial' purpose is my question? Was it to show the Jews that they are not to be defiled, or a health provision made to the Jews?

In terms of death and hell, there is a lot of significant word-choices that allude to the teachings of soul-sleep and annihilation; words such as perish, consume, die, sleep, cut off, put out, destroy, etc. Adventists will use Jude 7 as one defense, because Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning today, yet, they are set forth as an example of the punishment of "eternal fire." Malachi 4:3 is also another verse they use, stating the wicked will be ashes under the soles of our feet. There are places in the Bible where death is compared to sleep. Can you refute these statements?

There are also other verses that seem to suggest the other theory on death however, that souls depart to be with the Lord. (Gen. 35:18 for instance) But the Bible also says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." The question to ask is "what is death?" Adventists believe the breath of life (spirit) God gave man departs at death, returns to God, and our soul "sleeps," and the body returns to the dust from whence it came. (Ecc. 12:7)

Another question about death is the judgement. Hebrews 9:27 says after death comes the judgment, but I heard David Daniels from Chick Publications talk about hell, that wicked will be in torments, and eventually flipped from the frying pan into the skillet. Something like, that they people go to heaven or hell right away, but then are judged and then taken to their final destination. Maybe it has something to do with the soul going there first, then their body being resurrected to join them in their final destination. Can you shed some light on this area please?

If Luke 16:13-29 is NOT a parable, then it is a very chilling account, and that man is burning right now at this very moment; something not to be taken lightly.. I was reading a webpage where in 2 instances in Scripture a fire burned, yet did not consume what it burned (i.e. burning bush, and in Daniel when the people were thrown into the fire) So burning does not necessarily have to consume. Another webpage also said that annihilation implies that there is no consequence for our actions. At the same time, Adventists see annihilation to be a way that God punishes justly, but also mercifully. Annihilationism would also theoretically make our service to God all the more meaningful too.

As for the Sabbath, can you help me refute the Adventist claim that Jesus kept the Sabbath, but was accused of breaking it by the Pharisees; that if He broke it, He would not be the unblemished Lamb of God? Adventists also say that He showed the proper way the Sabbath is to be kept apart from the legalism of the Pharisees. I know that He said "My Father works, therefore so I work." In John 5, I think it is, Scripture plainly says He broke the Sabbath. What did Jesus mean when He said He is "Lord of the Sabbath?" Did He mean by this statement, that, He created the Sabbath, but does not need it because He is God? Or did He mean by it, that the work He did was lawful work?

If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, how can we know that Sunday is "the Lord's Day?" Wouldn't the Lord's day be Saturday?

We see in Acts accounts of Paul, Jew, and Gentiles coming together in the synagogue on the Sabbath. We don't meet in synagogues anymore though. The silence on the issue is significant. Romans 14 seems to be saying a believer is at liberty to meet and worship any day of the week, so it doesn't have to be Sunday. Acts 20:7 talks about Paul preaching "the first day." Adventists argue that if you read verse 8, it's Saturday night, after Sabbath, thus considered a "new day." But the Bible also says evening AND morning are a new day. By those standards, wouldn't it be Sunday morning? Did Paul preach all day from morning to midnight? Why were lights on in the upper chamber if it was daytime? Why did the person fall asleep, could it be because it was late at night and he was tired?

Amid all this debate however, Hosea 2:11, and Colossians 2:16 seem to affirm the Sabbath would cease, and that we are not judge by them now. The theory that Jesus is our Sabbath makes sense because He said "Come unto me all ye who labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Jesus also said the priest PROFANED the Sabbath, yet were blameless. With all these things in mind, you can understand what Christ meant when he said "Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath." Paul said meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. (It could also be interpreted that the shadow is projected from Christ's body though, because it says these things ARE shadows of things to come, not WERE shadows)

So much debate, but there is only one truth. When we know the truth, and we can know it, it shall make us free. Thanks in advance for your help.

_________________
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." – Ephesians 6:11


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 2293
Soldier4Christ wrote:
I kind of like the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement
Movement? Where are the IFBs moving from or to?

(Actually, some are moving towards new versions and modernism, and the Bob Jones cult, but I wouldn't call those real IFBs.)

There are probably some posts and book recommendations (like The Trail of Blood) here that deal with Baptist history that might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. :D


Soldier4Christ wrote:
I have a hard time understanding why God gave these laws on diet to the Israelites, and what their purpose was. Adventists will argue all unclean animals are toxic, and you consume all the waste they ate when you consume them; they're detrimental to our health. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, and we need to do our best to glorify God in our bodies. Paul said every creature of God is good though, nothing to be refused. I don't think this means we should be putting junk into our bodies though. (i.e. preservatives, junk foods, etc.) I am a bit hesitant on eating pork, or other unclean foods right now. There are Scriptures that can defend it's okay, but what was their 'ceremonial' purpose is my question? Was it to show the Jews that they are not to be defiled, or a health provision made to the Jews?
Here is a thread you may want to look at when you have time: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=588. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but as I remember we had some interesting, and even fun, discussion with people on both sides of the issue.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 3309
Soldier4Christ wrote:
I'm not attending a new church yet. As for denomination, I kind of like the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, but perhaps it'd be better to go by the name "KJV Bible Believer."

Great! I suggest that you start attending an IFB adult sunday school program immediately and this will help you become well-grounded in the dispensation of the grace of God.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
Some of the difficulties I'm having are on dietary laws, death, and hell. I'd also like to further discuss the Sabbath too.

Of course you would! This is where the SDA's mess everyone up who swallows their lies and their deception! Also the bizarre junk they teach about Ellen which you have already mentioned! The way you refute SDA is the same way Paul refuted Judaizers in his day, by slicing their position apart using GRACE and cutting them free from the commandments via the sword of scripture.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
I have a hard time understanding why God gave these laws on diet to the Israelites, and what their purpose was. Adventists will argue all unclean animals are toxic, and you consume all the waste they ate when you consume them; they're detrimental to our health. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, and we need to do our best to glorify God in our bodies. Paul said every creature of God is good though, nothing to be refused. I don't think this means we should be putting junk into our bodies though. (i.e. preservatives, junk foods, etc.) I am a bit hesitant on eating pork, or other unclean foods right now. There are Scriptures that can defend it's okay, but what was their 'ceremonial' purpose is my question? Was it to show the Jews that they are not to be defiled, or a health provision made to the Jews?


You can't separate just the dietary laws there was a mountain of laws about all kinds of things. The SDA's are obsessed with this -- they have elevated it to a false level of importance in YOUR life and this is why you are having difficulty. We have seen other victims of SDA doctrine on this forum, many have become unintentional Judaizers and they are always terribly mixed up by these OT perspectives on diet, meats, sabbath, yada, yada, yada. :roll:

You know what? I don't care that much about the reasons for the dietary rules, or the traditions, or ordinances, or rituals or the hundreds of other commandments of Judaism, because it was never meant for me as a Christian! To me it was a curse upon the Jews, designed to drive men to freedom in Christ. God blotted out those ordinances for me and I trust in His work on calvary, it is finished. If God wanted me to be involved with it, He would not have blotted them out!

You sound like you are on the right trajectory and for that I salute you. My suggestion for you is forget about that Jewish law stuff for a while and focus on the more important spiritual issues relating to your new position IN CHRIST --->

GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

GAL 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

HEB. 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; NOT WITH MEATS, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein."

Col. 2:14-17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.

Okay that's it for the dietary, I will try and get to your other stuff next! :)

_________________
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." -- George Washington (Ref: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. 543)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:34 am
Posts: 168
Baptist1611 wrote:
Soldier4Christ wrote:
I'm not attending a new church yet. As for denomination, I kind of like the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, but perhaps it'd be better to go by the name "KJV Bible Believer."

Great! I suggest that you start attending an IFB adult sunday school program immediately and this will help you become well-grounded in the dispensation of the grace of God.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
Some of the difficulties I'm having are on dietary laws, death, and hell. I'd also like to further discuss the Sabbath too.

Of course you would! This is where the SDA's mess everyone up who swallows their lies and their deception! Also the bizarre junk they teach about Ellen which you have already mentioned! The way you refute SDA is the same way Paul refuted Judaizers in his day, by slicing their position apart using GRACE and cutting them free from the commandments via the sword of scripture.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
I have a hard time understanding why God gave these laws on diet to the Israelites, and what their purpose was. Adventists will argue all unclean animals are toxic, and you consume all the waste they ate when you consume them; they're detrimental to our health. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, and we need to do our best to glorify God in our bodies. Paul said every creature of God is good though, nothing to be refused. I don't think this means we should be putting junk into our bodies though. (i.e. preservatives, junk foods, etc.) I am a bit hesitant on eating pork, or other unclean foods right now. There are Scriptures that can defend it's okay, but what was their 'ceremonial' purpose is my question? Was it to show the Jews that they are not to be defiled, or a health provision made to the Jews?


You can't separate just the dietary laws there was a mountain of laws about all kinds of things. The SDA's are obsessed with this -- they have elevated it to a false level of importance in YOUR life and this is why you are having difficulty. We have seen other victims of SDA doctrine on this forum, many have become unintentional Judaizers and they are always terribly mixed up by these OT perspectives on diet, meats, sabbath, yada, yada, yada. :roll:

You know what? I don't care that much about the reasons for the dietary rules, or the traditions, or ordinances, or rituals or the hundreds of other commandments of Judaism, because it was never meant for me as a Christian! To me it was a curse upon the Jews, designed to drive men to freedom in Christ. God blotted out those ordinances for me and I trust in His work on calvary, it is finished. If God wanted me to be involved with it, He would not have blotted them out!

You sound like you are on the right trajectory and for that I salute you. My suggestion for you is forget about that Jewish law stuff for a while and focus on the more important spiritual issues relating to your new position IN CHRIST --->

GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

GAL 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

HEB. 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; NOT WITH MEATS, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein."

Col. 2:14-17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.

Okay that's it for the dietary, I will try and get to your other stuff next! :)



Okay, I thank you for your response.

Going back to the verser you quoted from Gal. 3:10, salvation is by grace through faith. We need to be careful not to let this verse imply that we should be antinomians. Works do not save us of course, but faith without works is dead. It's when you trust in your good works that it becomes a problem. We have to kind of balance these things out. We should NOT be antinomians as Christians, and we do NOT have a license to sin just because we're under grace. Our works cannot justify, or atone for the sins we've already committed however, that's why we need Jesus. This may be why a denomination like Baptists can be controversial, because saying that we are saved by God's grace can imply antinomianism, and that we don't need to do works at all. Again, works do not save, but works should come as a result of faith; it should be our new desire as a born-again believer, though we do fall short. I hope this is the Baptist teaching / understanding of it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Adventists will say a similar thing too, that they don't keep the Sabbath to BE saved, they do it because they ARE saved. They may say it's by grace through faith, but in reality, I think Adventist theology teaches that it will come down to proving yourself worthy of Jesus' atonement, and remaining faithful unto death. I think that's what Ellen White taught anyway. :roll:

Some (lukewarm) Christians may understand salvation by grace means we can live life as we please (antinomianism) however, thus perverting its true meaning. I'm not saying that I'm perfect myself, but I do think, at the same time, a truly transformed, born-again believer will have the desire (a willing heart) to turn away from their sin, and do the Lord's will.

_________________
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." – Ephesians 6:11


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:34 am
Posts: 168
Here's a documentary done on them by Jeremiah Films.


Seventh Day Adventism - The Spirit behind the Church

_________________
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." – Ephesians 6:11


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Refuting the Seventh-day Adventists
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 3309
Soldier4Christ wrote:
In terms of death and hell, there is a lot of significant word-choices that allude to the teachings of soul-sleep and annihilation; words such as perish, consume, die, sleep, cut off, put out, destroy, etc. Adventists will use Jude 7 as one defense, because Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning today, yet, they are set forth as an example of the punishment of "eternal fire." Malachi 4:3 is also another verse they use, stating the wicked will be ashes under the soles of our feet. There are places in the Bible where death is compared to sleep. Can you refute these statements?

I do not see Malachi 4:3 as a doctrinal statement on eternal punishment.

Okay, basically humans have three parts -- body, soul and spirit. Sometimes the words are used interchangeably in the Bible but doctrinally they are different! Doctrinally, we Baptists believe it is only the BODIES that are said to sleep in the graves, not the souls.

1 THES 5:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are ASLEEP, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which SLEEP in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are ASLEEP.

When a Christian leaves his body, he has a confidence that he will be present with the Lord, so obviously it is the body which remains behind and is said to "sleep" here on earth -->

2 COR 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY, and to be present with the Lord.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
There are also other verses that seem to suggest the other theory on death however, that souls depart to be with the Lord. (Gen. 35:18 for instance) But the Bible also says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." The question to ask is "what is death?"

This death is understood to be the "second death" of REV 20. The unsaved souls are judged, then cast alive into the fire and there will be everlasting torment -- this is how a soul experiences "death" in the eyes of God:

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the SECOND DEATH. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
Another question about death is the judgement. Hebrews 9:27 says after death comes the judgment, but I heard David Daniels from Chick Publications talk about hell, that wicked will be in torments, and eventually flipped from the frying pan into the skillet. Something like, that they people go to heaven or hell right away, but then are judged and then taken to their final destination. Maybe it has something to do with the soul going there first, then their body being resurrected to join them in their final destination. Can you shed some light on this area please?

Yes sir, it's right there in the passage I posted for you above.
Briefly, our doctrine is that Hell is a temporary place of fiery punishment for the unsaved in the heart of the earth, it is located near another temporary holding place for OT saints, which Jesus called "Abraham's Bosom" or paradise but AB/paradise is now empty since Jesus went down there and led those people out per EPH 4:8-9.

Hell is not empty and it never fills up, whenever it gets too crowded it enlarges itself per Isaiah 5:14. Eventually hell will be tossed into the lake of fire, along with all the unsaved.

In the Bible, human bodies are reunited with their souls in various resurrection events throughout scripture, including both small scale events like maybe Jonas who died in the great fish and also major events like the GWTJ in REV 20.

Soldier4Christ wrote:
If Luke 16:13-29 is NOT a parable, then it is a very chilling account, and that man is burning right now at this very moment; something not to be taken lightly..

Yes sir, we believe Luke 16:13-29 is not a parable -- as far as I know, Jesus never used names in parables. Hope this helps, I will try and get back to the rest later!

_________________
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." -- George Washington (Ref: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. 543)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 3   [ 28 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

9,636,392 Views


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net