Where do Seventh Day Adventist sect beliefs fall relative to Christianity?

[Sola_Fide]

Correct and good summation of the discussion.

There are two gospels. One is True. The other is false.

The false gospel always includes works synergistically added to God's ("potentially") saving Grace. e.g. 7th Day Adventist legalism; Eastern Orthodox theodicy, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. etc.

The true CHRISTIAN gospel of Jesus Christ, is the good news that elect sinners were saved by His blood atonement on the cross, according to the predetermined and sovereign grace of God, ALONE.

Yes. Christianity is so beautifully simple: "Salvation is of the Lord".

[RJB]

Read the posts of mine and TER'S on page 3 and 4 of this thread. Test your reading comprehension skills, and then get back with me.

I did. You have a very bad tendency of reading what you want to read to keep your boogie men.

There are many times I have agreed with a statement that you've made but I refrain from giving you a + rep or stating that I agree with you simply because you've told me in the past that I can't agree with you because you need me as a boogie man as well.

I agree with HB that you're a bigger agent sabateur than any outsider could ever try to be, and it is why few take the time to debate you anymore-- your posts are already discreditted before they are read, based on your history. You really do give Reformed Theology a bad name and that's too bad, because I've come to respect many of them on this forum.

[ReformedObserver]

You really do give Reformed Theology a bad name and that's too bad, because I've come to respect many of them on this forum.

Sola Fide is one of the few out of many multitudes who claim the name of Christ, who actually proves to be faithful to the Word of God and the Reformed Faith, that is founded upon that inerrant Word of God.

Your criticism is unfounded.

[RJB]

Sola Fide is one of the few out of many multitudes who claim the name of Christ, who actually proves to be faithful to the Word of God and the Reformed Faith that is founded upon the inerrant Word.

Your criticism is unfounded.

Convenient sock puppets give Reformed theology a bad name too.

[ReformedObserver]

RJB,

I resent your calling me a troll, when I seldom have the opportunity to visit this forum.

What is your problem?

Jim

[RJB]

RJB,

I resent your calling me a troll, when I seldom have the opportunity to visit this forum.

What is your problem?

Jim

To say Orthodox Christianity isn't Christian defies theology, logic, and history. Because of that, you don't have my respect. Your convenient yet "seldom" appearances that are limited to strictly backing up other such idiotic statements confirms it.

[Sola_Fide]

Convenient sock puppets give Reformed theology a bad name too.

That's not who you think it is.

[Sola_Fide]

To say Orthodox Christianity isn't Christian defies theology, logic, and history. Because of that, you don't have my respect. Your convenient yet "seldom" appearances that are limited to strictly backing up other such idiotic statements confirms it.

I don't understand. Why does it defy all those things? What if Christianity is so simple that it's just what's in the Bible, and nothing else?

[Christian Liberty]

That wording is the official Presbyterian position, and I would argue it does a greater justice to the whole Gospel message than just saying boldface that Christ died only for the elect, precisely because it doesn't give the whole story, particularly when dealing with all of the material concerning the hour of judgment and the resurrection of the dead. "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" also heads off a number of objections such as the common Roman Catholic one that the Reformed Church's God is not all-powerful because he only has the ability to save a select few.

I generally don't care for taking a rigidly fundamentalist approach to the bible, mostly because it opens up a number of unnecessary side-topics like "well in this chapter it says A, so your point on B is questionable", and often involves losing the context of the original point. Having a clear and easily understood doctrine is good, but not if it comes at the expense of the whole picture.

Just curious, does the WCF actually address this topic anywhere? Not that I doubt that it could be wrong (I have a small number of disagreements with the WCF) but I don't remember this phrase appearing in the confession anywhere.

I agree that God is powerful enough to cover the sins of every single person if he wanted. If that's all that is meant by "sufficient for all" than I'm OK with it. However, I object to the idea that Christ actually represented the non-elect on the cross, that he actually paid for their sins, and so forth. So, I don't care for the terminology but I may agree with you on the concept.

To use an imperfect analogy (and its very imperfect but here goes): I have a billion dollars. Twenty people are in debt for a million dollars. I give four of them a million dollars each. I was fully capable of paying the debt for all twenty. But I didn't. I only paid for four.

Was the atonement for the purpose of defeating death for all men so they will rise again in the last judgment? That's TER's position. How could you not see that? Did you not read pages 3 and 4?

Did the atonement defeat the bodily death of all men so they rise in the final judgment? Or did the atonement accomplish eternal redemption for the elect? I would like your answer please (with prooftexts from the book of Hebrews if you don't mind).

If one were to say "both", I can see why you would say that would be an error, but where precisely is the heresy?

Sola Fide is one of the few out of many multitudes who claim the name of Christ, who actually proves to be faithful to the Word of God and the Reformed Faith, that is founded upon that inerrant Word of God.

Your criticism is unfounded.

"Reformed Baptist" isn't "Reformed"

More seriously though, yeah, I generally like him, even if he doesn't really like me much anymore

[RJB]

I don't understand. Why does it defy all those things? What if Christianity is so simple that it's just what's in the Bible, and nothing else?

You're absolutely right. That idiotic statement defies not just the Bible, but theology, history, and logic as well.

[Sola_Fide]

You're absolutely right. That idiotic statement defies not just the Bible, but theology, history, and logic as well.

In what way?

[RJB]

In what way?

As I said a few posts above, your posts are self-defeating. Good night Sola.

[Sola_Fide]

Just curious, does the WCF actually address this topic anywhere? Not that I doubt that it could be wrong (I have a small number of disagreements with the WCF) but I don't remember this phrase appearing in the confession anywhere.

I agree that God is powerful enough to cover the sins of every single person if he wanted. If that's all that is meant by "sufficient for all" than I'm OK with it. However, I object to the idea that Christ actually represented the non-elect on the cross, that he actually paid for their sins, and so forth. So, I don't care for the terminology but I may agree with you on the concept.

To use an imperfect analogy (and its very imperfect but here goes): I have a billion dollars. Twenty people are in debt for a million dollars. I give four of them a million dollars each. I was fully capable of paying the debt for all twenty. But I didn't. I only paid for four.



If one were to say "both", I can see why you would say that would be an error, but where precisely is the heresy?



"Reformed Baptist" isn't "Reformed"

More seriously though, yeah, I generally like him, even if he doesn't really like me much anymore

It's not even a heresy, it's just not a Christian religion. The book of Hebrews is explicit in what the atonement accomplished. If you don't agree with the central aspect of Christianity, the atonement, then you aren't a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

I would suggest that everyone here who says they are a Christian do a study on the book of Hebrews.

[Christian Liberty]

It's not even a heresy, it's just not a Christian religion.

Can you explain?

The book of Hebrews is explicit in what the atonement accomplished. If you don't agree with the central aspect of Christianity, the atonement, then you aren't a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

I agree but I'm not sure how this applies to my question.

I would suggest that everyone here who says they are a Christian do a study on the book of Hebrews.

Will do.

[Sola_Fide]

I did. You have a very bad tendency of reading what you want to read to keep your boogie men.

There are many times I have agreed with a statement that you've made but I refrain from giving you a + rep or stating that I agree with you simply because you've told me in the past that I can't agree with you because you need me as a boogie man as well.

I said I need you as a boogie man? I certainly don't recall that, and I don't believe that in any way. I view these forums as a way that I can preach the gospel to more people than just who I see in every day life. And it's where I get most of my news. And it's where I compose my worldview together (as we all have to do in life). I don't have anything against anyone here, even the people I have heated debates with.

I agree with HB that you're a bigger agent sabateur than any outsider could ever try to be, and it is why few take the time to debate you anymore-- your posts are already discreditted before they are read, based on your history. You really do give Reformed Theology a bad name and that's too bad, because I've come to respect many of them on this forum.

I don't see it that way, although I could understand why you would.

[Eagles' Wings]

I agree, but I'm trying not to even get in to that issue, because I think there is even a more fundamental issue here. What was accomplished in the atonement?

This issue is definitional of Christianity, which is to say, if you get this wrong, you get Christianity wrong. In the book of Hebrews, the writer clearly explains what was accomplished at the atonement. The reason that non-Christian religions like Easter Orthodoxy reject what the Bible says the atonement accomplished is so that it will support their works salvationism.

The Bible says that Christ accomplished eternal redemption for the elect. This takes salvation out of the realm of man's efforts.

Eastern Orthodoxy says that Christ died so that all men would defeat death in the general resurrection, and then men are judged based on their works. This puts the realm of salvation into man's efforts.

Very good.

[Intoxiklown]

Not only me. You choose your traditions over the word of God, from issues like inspration and all the way to the central issue of Christianity, the atonement.

You've chosen your side, and you are in love with your deceptions.

Here is what the atonement of Jesus Christ accomplished:



Jesus obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION for the elect with His atonement. He did not obtain the eternal nature of men in the general resurrection with His atonement.

I have to ask.

What do you mean by the "elect"?

This thread seems to be a pissing match over some seriously inane things.

Christ endured the punishment and death as an act of atonement for all men. It is his gift to us born of love. All one has to do to receive it is call on him, and ask for this gift of forgiveness, that is salvation. Hell isn't some fire pit of despair, hell is separation from God.

Are you saying salvation is a gift to certain people based on some pre-destined "lottery"?

What faith do you subscribe to? I am Southern Baptist.

[erowe1]

I have to ask.

What do you mean by the "elect"?

This thread seems to be a pissing match over some seriously inane things.

Christ endured the punishment and death as an act of atonement for all men. It is his gift to us born of love. All one has to do to receive it is call on him, and ask for this gift of forgiveness, that is salvation. Hell isn't some fire pit of despair, hell is separation from God.

Not everyone receives him. Only some do. These are the elect. Ultimately, it was God who determined in eternity past who those people would be. And in time he drew them to himself and gave them saving faith.

Are you saying salvation is a gift to certain people based on some pre-destined "lottery"?

It's not luck. It's God's perfect will.

What faith do you subscribe to? I am Southern Baptist.

It used to be that it was perfectly normal for Southern Baptists, and all Baptists, to believe in the doctrine of election. Over the past century or so they've gotten a lot more liberal.

[Intoxiklown]

You mean Calvinists. Southern Baptists do not believe that, an offshoot we know as Calvinists do.

I won't assume to argue your faith, but the belief that people have no choice in their salvation is pretty contradictory to the life of Christ. While I am the first one to admit there is no telling what kind of rewrites were done to his words, that stance invariably means that either our record of Christ's teachings are bogus, or that he was fallible. Both which negates an entire faith.

[Sola_Fide]

You mean Calvinists. Southern Baptists do not believe that, an offshoot we know as Calvinists do.

I won't assume to argue your faith, but the belief that people have no choice in their salvation is pretty contradictory to the life of Christ. While I am the first one to admit there is no telling what kind of rewrites were done to his words, that stance invariably means that either our record of Christ's teachings are bogus, or that he was fallible. Both which negates an entire faith.

The president of the Southern Baptist Convention is a Calvinist and he says all Southern Baptists are Calvinists:

Albert Mohler: Why All Southern Baptists are Calvinists

http://sbcvoices.com/albert-mohler-w...re-calvinists/

[Sola_Fide]

I have to ask.

What do you mean by the elect.

I'll make it easy for you. I mean the same thing that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the writer to the Hebrews meant when they used the term "elect".

[Intoxiklown]

The president of the Southern Baptist Convention is a Calvinist and he says all Southern Baptists are Calvinists:

Albert Mohler: Why All Southern Baptists are Calvinists

http://sbcvoices.com/albert-mohler-w...re-calvinists/

I am not Catholic, or Mormon. No man speaks as God to doctrine. To compare a "chosen" view to the fact one cannot lose salvation is the most foolish thing I've ever read. You cannot lose salvation because to do so would mean that God was fallible. It has nothing to do with being special. I can remember OLD preachers when I was a child using the N word in the pulpit. I have so many Baptist preachers in my family,to include my father, it's downright freaky. I've actually had theology and seminary education. So, understand, Calvinism is not Southern Baptist. That means when Christ said all who come will be forgiven, he was lying. That the mandate to spread the word of God so all can be saved is a waste of time, since no ministry is needed since they are all "elect".

You want to stay stuck on what the Roman Paul did with his creative addition to the Bible, and focus on one book to understand an entire collection of books, so be it. You're saying that God has no power to move on the spirit of anyone willing to listen, lest they be elect. Like it or not, that is what a Calvinist believes. But that is on you. But the Gospels themselves fly in the face of Calvinism. If you believe God pre-destined man to be saved, then you believe God causes the others to sin.

And you don't believe what Christ said. You believe in what the "reformers" said he meant.

[erowe1]

You mean Calvinists. Southern Baptists do not believe that, an offshoot we know as Calvinists do.

Most don't any more. Some still do. But it used to be the norm.

[erowe1]

You want to stay stuck on what the Roman Paul did with his creative addition to the Bible, and focus on one book to understand an entire collection of books, so be it.

I'm not here to defend the SBC. And I think you're right that Mohler overstated the case. But your beliefs are definitely not in line with theirs.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not here to defend the SBC. And I think you're right that Mohler overstated the case. But your beliefs are definitely not in line with theirs.

My church is a 1689 church, we aren't in the SBC (I wouldn't be a part of it anyway), but it is interesting to see the Reformed resurgence in the SBC.

Baptists have tendency to have this "all us Baptists are in this together" mindset that is not Biblical and ridiculous. There are some Reformed Baptists who have basically rejected the gospel because they say Arminians are our brothers and this kind of nonsense. This is the problem with focusing on church affiliation rather than the gospel.

[Sola_Fide]

I am not Catholic, or Mormon. No man speaks as God to doctrine. To compare a "chosen" view to the fact one cannot lose salvation is the most foolish thing I've ever read. You cannot lose salvation because to do so would mean that God was fallible. It has nothing to do with being special. I can remember OLD preachers when I was a child using the N word in the pulpit. I have so many Baptist preachers in my family,to include my father, it's downright freaky. I've actually had theology and seminary education. So, understand, Calvinism is not Southern Baptist. That means when Christ said all who come will be forgiven, he was lying. That the mandate to spread the word of God so all can be saved is a waste of time, since no ministry is needed since they are all "elect".

You want to stay stuck on what the Roman Paul did with his creative addition to the Bible, and focus on one book to understand an entire collection of books, so be it. You're saying that God has no power to move on the spirit of anyone willing to listen, lest they be elect. Like it or not, that is what a Calvinist believes. But that is on you. But the Gospels themselves fly in the face of Calvinism. If you believe God pre-destined man to be saved, then you believe God causes the others to sin.

And you don't believe what Christ said. You believe in what the "reformers" said he meant.

When I get to my office, I'll respond to this post.

[Christian Liberty]

My church is a 1689 church, we aren't in the SBC (I wouldn't be a part of it anyway), but it is interesting to see the Reformed resurgence in the SBC.

Baptists have tendency to have this "all us Baptists are in this together" mindset that is not Biblical and ridiculous. There are some Reformed Baptists who have basically rejected the gospel because they say Arminians are our brothers and this kind of nonsense. This is the problem with focusing on church affiliation rather than the gospel.

Wait, so I know you never thought Arminians were Christians but are you now saying that those who think Arminians are their brothers have "rejected the gospel"? SMH.

[Sola_Fide]

Wait, so I know you never thought Arminians were Christians but are you now saying that those who think Arminians are their brothers have "rejected the gospel"? SMH.

Yes, it's a rejection of the gospel.

[Sola_Fide]

FF, does the gospel that Arminianism preaches save? Of course not. If I was to say that I believe in the one gospel that saves, but my brothers in the faith are the ones who believe in the false gospel that doesn't savd, what am I really saying?

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, it's a rejection of the gospel.

All that I'm going to say to this is that your church is probably filled with unsaved people by your definition