| Author | Message | ||
| Jamundson Registered user Username: Jamundson Post Number: 25 Registered: 7-2007 |
As some of the members here on this forum may know from a previous post "stand by me", I am in a rather heated debate with my FIL (former SDA pastor, now regenerated SDA extremist). I have been in a heated debate with him for about 2 months. The area that I have the most difficulty in is the following verses: Rev 12:7 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Rev14:12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus. SDAs lay claim to these two verses as authority for their claim to be the Remnant Church. Can anyone help me construct a response to this. Jay | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 519 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dale Ratzlaff covers this in way to much detail to duplicate here. His excellent book, Sabbath in Christ, has a chapter, The Sabbath and Seventh-day Adventists, that shows how Adventists are mis-interpreting the Greek. See footnote #6 on page 374. Also see pages 372, 373, 376, 377, 378, 380, 389 relating to Revelation 12:17. For Revelation 14:12 refer to pages 376, 378. http://www.ratzlaf.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1001718178 Another very kindly written book that you might get to give to him is Discovering The New Covenant-Why I Am No Longer A Seventh-day Adventist by Greg Taylor. I would feel comfortable giving this to even the most ardent Seventh-day Adventist relative. http://www.ratzlaf.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1092258299 Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 142 Registered: 8-2005 |
Jay, What Gilbert is referring to is the Greek that John uses in his Gospel for 'law'. That Greek work is 'numos' until Jesus says "I give you a new Commandment". From this word on through all his later writings (including Revelation), John uses the word 'entole' rather than 'numos'. It is an interesting thing to consider. It is as if John is making a distinction for the reader between the commandments before Christ and His commandment to love one another. Sadly, there is often nothing you can do when you are confronted by a staunch Adventist. They just will not see. It may not matter how reasoned your argument. To remove the foundation of the remnant from an SDA is to remove their unique position for this time. ISO | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2015 Registered: 10-2004  |
Another thing is that those verses have no mention of a "Remnant Church" (or even a "remnant" in modern translations!). Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6470 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jay, Chris Badenhorst has written an awesome article that discusses John's use of "commandments" as opposed to "law". It is one of the most concise and clear explanations I have encountered. You can read it here: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/studies/whataboutthetenc.html I hope this helps. Colleen | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 66 Registered: 5-2007 |
The "entole" of Revelation is the Greek word for commands or commandments. The verses you mention use the word entole. The same author (John) in 1 John 3:23 tells you what these Greek "entoles" are: To believe in the One who He has sent, and to love one another. It really is a faith based initiative! And to believe in the One He sent is to also not do works for your own salvation. How do I know all about these entoles? Youngs concordance. I suppose a Strongs would be even better, but I don't have one. Somebody please correct me if this is being too simplistic. Yes, the sda church just might be the 'remnant' but it will be the remnant of Revelation 19:21. Revelation 19:21 (King James Version): And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. Doesn't work in lots of other versions, but sda's are keen on the KJV! | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 67 Registered: 5-2007 |
If you want to go on a counter offensive, copy page 316 out of SDA's Believe book. Send it to him with corrections! It says that Jesus went to heaven to perform Levitical services to this day. That is a baldface LIE. He became a high priest after the order of Melchizidek. This lie of theirs permits them to "know" what happened in heaven in 1844, because they go to the old testament to find out what sorts of things the Levitical priesthood did. But with Melchizidek, they will have to admit they really don't know anything of heaven in 1844. Ask the FIL just how it is that there can be blatant lies in the Beliefs book! Hammer away at it and do not let it turn into a sabbath debate - something that usually happens when you have them cornered! Here are my other posts on this Melchizidek topic: http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5169.html?1185562708#POST77891 http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5842.html?1185755869#POST77984 http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5842.html?1185755869#POST78031 | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 109 Registered: 7-2007 |
Adventists call the Ellen White's writings the "Spirit of Prophecy." That seems blasphemous to me because the Bible says that the "Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy." Rev. 19:10. It seems clear to me that all the prophets in the Old Testament - in fact all the Old Testament would be the "Testimony of Jesus." In that text saying that the "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," (Revelation 19:10) my little reference Bible that I have here, refers me to Luke 24:27 where it's talking about what Jesus is saying: "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." For me, what it took to get me to understand what the Bible REALLY said instead of what the SDA church taught, was to get the Ellen White "glasses" off. For that to happen, I had to see that she was a false prophet. Dianne | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4105 Registered: 3-2004  |
Asurprise, My EGW glasses had been slipping off my nose for a long time. But was not until I learned about her plagiarism and having others write for her and then saying God told her that my EGW glasses came off and were thrown away. Thank You God. You are Awesome. Diana | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 130 Registered: 7-2007 |
Diana, my EGW glasses stayed firmly on my face, dispite her plagiarism, until someone pointed out how she clearly contradicted the Bible. Then they fell and broke into pieces  Dianne | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 541 Registered: 11-2005 |
Larry, My copy of SDA's Believe .. actually says the following on page 316 My personal opinion is that the first eight words, loosely interpreted, would be correct, while the remainder is written to align with the writings of Ellen White. It does not say that "Jesus went to heaven to perform Levitical services". It does say that "The Levitical priesthood illustrates the saving ministry Christ ..." There is a big difference. I suggest that this chapter is consistent with what Adventism teaches, and what Ellen White taught. Of course, Adventist belief cannot, under any circumstances, disagree with what Ellen White wrote. Whatever she wrote "trumps" what the Bible says. Selected Messages, vol 1, page 56-57, contains a description that is impossible for an Adventist to even support from the Bible. I find that just showing the red book to an Adventist, and asking if they truly believe what it says there on pages 56-57 is enough to make them turn pale. That is what I used to carry to church each week, and show people. They would roll their eyes in disbelief. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 73 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gilbert, I appreciate what you say about how an sda might try to twist half the sentence. However, if you substitute the word "Melchizidekian" for Levitical, you would have a true sentence. Levitical is not what Christ has carried on since his death. The intent of the writers of that sentence is for you to think Levitical, not Melchizidekian, agreed? Also, Hebrews says He sat at the right hand, not *served* at the right hand. I heard a saying once that said: Beware of half-truths, you might have gotten hold of the wrong half! Another: "Half-truths" are not the same as the truth -- just more dangerous. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 542 Registered: 11-2005 |
Larry, you are right. Adventism works overtime to try to make it appear as though they are teaching Christian doctrines. This is a perfect example of how a Christian would "see" one thing, while an Adventist would read into it something entirely different. Furthermore, when the Adventist is questioned, they will resort to a mental state of intellectual superiority "imagining" that any misunderstanding is because Adventism, as God's special messenger to the world, has "inside truth" that non-Adventists don't. Recently a dear SDA friend of mine proposed that we jointly study Great Controversy to gain a better biblical understanding of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment! I countered with the proposal that we study Hebrews. What a thought! You also made a very good point about "sitting" vs. "serving". Where in the Bible does it say Christ is doing anything other than "sitting/standing" at the right hand of God? What kind of "serving" is there for Him to do? Of course, they would then launch into the Investigative Judgment ... Adventist teaching is so "slippery". It is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 74 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gilbert, another thing sda's want to ignore as they defend such statements as found on page 316 is the fact the Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. Under Jewish law there was no way anyone from the tribe of Judah could be any sort of priest. Thus, for a Judah-ite to be a priest, Jewish law would have to be suspended (or abolished!) and that leads to all sorts of theological fallout. Wouldn't it just be easier to believe Hebrews when it says He became a priest after the order of Melchizidek? LOL All their "intellectual superiority", "inside truth", "jointly study Great Controversy", "slippery", and "intellectual dishonesty" has one purpose only: to perpetuate the lie that started with Miller and was expanded upon by egw. Thanks for responding! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6503 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Larry--that Judah/Levi issue is so telling. Yet I never really thought about it as an Adventist. The implications of Jesus' unique priesthood were completely ignored, and the confusion multiplied. No wonder we wandered around in such cognitive dissonance! Gilbert, I'm interested to know what your friend said when you suggested studying Hebrews instead of a joint foray into the Great Controversy? Colleen | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 75 Registered: 5-2007 |
Just thought of one more wrinkle that affects this sda trainwreck - that being this: sda's, by printing such stuff as found on page 316 (describing Jesus' ministry in heaven as being illustrated by Levitical models rather than Melchizidekial) are STILL preaching a different gospel! We all know what the book of Galations tells us about doing that. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6507 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right. It's all very subtle, but it's extremely clear if one looks closely. No matter how individuals may whitewash the church's teachings, re-interpreting and reforumlating the IJ, the reason for the Sabbath, the function of EGW—it's still the same false gospel. Nothing has changed. It's like Ramone said so well in his article—historic Adventism is the "family altar" every Adventist carries around with him/her. It has a spiritual claim, and no matter how they change the words, the Adventist gospel is still not the gospel of the Bible. Yes, some things are "closer to the truth". At the same time, the confusion and deception are more complete because the bottom line bondage is not renounced. No matter how enlightened or progressive, Adventists still have to re-learn and develop a new worldview if they leave the church. The reason is the Adventist deception has colored even the ways they understand and apply concepts such as "grace" and "forgiveness" and "atonement" and "sanctification". Every day when Richard and I walk, we climb a hill that overlooks Redlands and Loma Linda. On a really clear day we can see down the I-10 corridor practically to Claremont. From that hill we see, in the foreground of the valley below, the steeple of the nearly-new Mormon Temple in Redlands. Beyond it to the west is the white edifice of LLU Medical Center with its round towers. And every time I see them, I ask God to protect the unsuspecting, to expose and break the spirit of Adventism, and to release the spiritual captives in both churches. We are not just dealing with an "off" ideology. We are dealing with spiritual deception. Only the Spirit of God can defeat this. Colleen | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 995 Registered: 8-2004  |
It was argued to me that Mary must have had Levitical blood since she was cousin to Elizabeth, wife of a priest. Seems to me if that was the case (and any real issue) the Bible could have been much clearer about it! Just my tupence, Mary | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 76 Registered: 5-2007 |
Yes Colleen, there is spiritual claim around the neck of adventism that results from the wholesale belief in a lie at the time of Miller. This has never been repented of by the sda church, only "spun" one feature at a time into what you see today. Even those who think they are liberal, evangelic sda's, like you stated, still have a family alter of historic adventism lurking in a closet or two. I have family like that. Makes it really hard to reason with them, because they already say they do not believe so much in egw. They merely keep the sabbath because they think it pleases God. Still it is subtle righteousness by works, for if they make God pleased, won't He let them into heaven? Well, I can tell you do not live in Reche Canyon, cuz the hospital would be east of you from there. I spent 17 years in that general area! Mary, you can tell your friend that Hebrews 7:14 states: "For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews 6:20 "even Jesus, having become high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." This does not allow one whisper of a chance of "priest after the order of Levi or Aaron"! (Message edited by larry on August 09, 2007) (Message edited by LarRy on August 09, 2007) |
