this is a great thread guys & while i really appreciate the passion one like this stirs up, i believe it would be of great advanmtage if we kept it as impersonal as possible, i.e, NO NAME CALLING!

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

Anybody can quote scripture the way you do to support their group. I don't count as one of those seeking to do that. It's a complete waste of time. To assure you, I'm not a Catholic; and certainly not in 'babylon'. To make matters worse, nowhere in God's precious Word are Christians asked to be a part of the SDA. QED.

You might not be technically a Catholic, but if your organization follows her dictates then you sure are influenced by her. By holding to her Sunday-observance pagan practice, an institution that was designed to counterfeit bible truth, you are an accomplice to erroneous doctrines.

On the other hand I am not necessarily using those remarks to judge you per se, but only a reminder that you need to take note, especially as we are in God's judgement hour.

Revelation 14:6,7 says:
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

That symbolic angel represents God's last-day messengers (remnant church) who are calling back His people to true worship of our Creator. The Roman Catholic church, as was duly noted by Paul in Thessalonica, would sit in God's temple, and by that he meant usurping God's truth and plan, pretending to be God's representative, has decieved the world with her wine of fornication, meaning religious confusion. The nominal churches as well as the world have drunken of her wine, and have become blurred in their spiritual discernment.

Secondly, all I am asking of my dear friends on nairlander is to study God's words. I am not asking you to come to my denomination, for coming sake. The bible will take you where you need to be. The bible and Spirit of God will do the leading.

Woe to those who recieve her mark!

this is a great thread guys & while i really appreciate the passion one like this stirs up, i believe it would be of great advanmtage if we kept it as impersonal as possible, i.e, NO NAME CALLING!

Taken under advisement TJwealthy, thanks.

The true church hasn't got much to do with the various denominations rather a dedicated few who may or maynot belong to any of these assemblies. Church is the body of Christ as scripture makes clear & i think it will be grossly erroneous to undermine tis by defining church as any 1 of these denominations.

With respect to you TJWealthy, have you ever stopped to think that Christ only speaks and has spoken of one flock? This body of which you mention where is it? Can you have a body with members scattered all over, or will you see all those members intact in one body?

That is why John the prophet made a call for all of God's people, whereever they are, to come out of babylon to be where they aught to have been from day one.

There can only be one true body of believers which has to realistically manifest itself on earth as a denomination. That is an inescapable fact.

Listen to John as he speaks about what will happen to God's last-day church:

Revelation 12:17

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Woman here represents God's church. The dragon primarily represents Satan, but secondarily represents any power that opposes God's plans. Satan used pagan Rome to attempt on the life of Christ, but failed. From hence even up to the time of the dark ages Satan tried to blot out the church by using the state to persecute it. The water that he spewed from his mouth represents symbolicaly the very people who carried out the persecution.

Now that there remains a remnant of God's people who are still preserving bible truth, Satan is still angry with this remnant who can be identified as those "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"

In case you didn't know, there will be one last attempt to completly anhilate this remnant. Satan through the union of church and state will once again re-create an image to the first beast mentioned in Revelation 13:

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Now the "he" in the beginning of verse 15 is the US with its eventual union of church and state, that will eventually influence the rest of the world to accept Sunday Observance as the only way to bring about world peace. Because God's true believers will resist this move, they will be seen as the only ones holding up world unity under Rome's false Sunday sabbath. All attempts will be made to pressure us into accepting world unity, under papal Rome's influence.

The very chip to facilitate tracking the movement of people is US initiated. ,

As soon as you get the time please read this chapter:

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/books/gc/gc35.html

@Bobbyaf,

It's not my style to keep up unreasonable harangue like you've been sweating it all this while. But since you won't be the wiser for it, here are a few things to think through carefully:

Bobbyaf:

I have all rights to choose the denom I believe to be expressing God's truth as best as I am aware of it, and to say it loud and clear. Don't challenge my freedom to express, but challenge whether or not I am speaking the truth.

Childish rantings like this really are of no interest to me; but the reason why I oblige you an answer at all is that you often misread people and then turn round and cry like everyone is against you. Are you failing to see that everyone else has as much right to talk about their choice of "denoms"  as you arrogate to yourself? The reason why I don't see many people doing that and whining the way you do is because not many of them are that childish. Only kids behave the way you do; and you miss the mark by a million miles if you thought I was challenging your freedom to express anything.

Bobbyaf:

Jesus is no doubt God, but He is not allowed to use that power as long as He is man.

Don't even go there - I'm not one of those who confesses the deity of Christ and at the same time deny the same confession. The talk of "not allowed to use that power" is a twister that gets many folks in the confusion they find themselves, because such an idea supposes at the same time that He was not God at all.

Bobbyaf:

So how do you explain why there are so many denoms if there were no major differences in doctrines then?

Oh bother! Small minds! Where did I deny or pretend that there were not so many denominations? The point I've been trying to make is this: as long as you see everyone else as "babylon", you are part of the accusation that you level at others! How? As long as SDA is included in the "professing christian churches", you are part of the babylon you see in others. The only way you can deny that is to declare that the SDA is not a professing christian church!

Bobbyaf:

There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings.

. . . And only the SDA is the true church, abi??

Bobbyaf:

Come out of religious confusion and separate yourself from pagan teachings, otherwise you will suffer the wrath of God when he pours 7 plagues upon all those who recieve the mark of the RCC, being Sunday observance.

In what way have you been able to conclude that I adhere to pagan teachings - because I worship on Sundays? Phew!! FYI, my faith is in Jesus Christ, not in the rituals of worshipping on a particular day!

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

Bobbyaf:

That is why I use the term babylon. Its a combination of denoms that are set up in the name of unity to be used of the devil to decieve with their false miracles.

Yes, and that "combination of denoms" includes the SDA as well, no??

Bobbyaf:

Thank God the elect will have left the system long before. make sure you and malik leave before the 7 plauges start fallling.

Keep deceiving yourself. . . may God have mercy and open your eyes.

Cheers.

Bobbyaf:

@ Shahan
You might not be technically a Catholic, but if your organization follows her dictates then you sure are influenced by her. By holding to her Sunday-observance pagan practice, an institution that was designed to counterfeit bible truth, you are an accomplice to erroneous doctrines.

Thanks for prejudging again. This time, it was only mild. One thing I will guarantee you is this: Saturday worship will not guarantee anyone salvation. The rituals of emphasizing a particular day of worship as the basis for judging the correctness of people's relationship with God is untenable in God's Word. If you've forgotten, here's a reminder:

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

If Paul was afraid of people like you, so am I.

Bobbyaf:

On the other hand I am not necessarily using those remarks to judge you per se, but only a reminder that you need to take note, especially as we are in God's judgement hour.

Thanks for already prejudging and coming back with the pretense that you're not doing so per se. I've had good laughs today, and that's just one more - thanks.

Further, I'm not one of those bantering the idea that we are in God's judgement hour. Judgement is yet future when Christ comes back - [II Cor. 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad"].

God has appointed a particular Day when He shall judge all things by Jesus Christ. If you are facing judgement already, good for you. My confidence remains firm as the Word says - it is yet a future event when Christ returns.

Bobbyaf:

Secondly, all I am asking of my dear friends on nairlander is to study God's words. I am not asking you to come to my denomination, for coming sake. The bible will take you where you need to be. The bible and Spirit of God will do the leading.

Many have been led by the Spirit of God to find true worship where they are - outside the SDA.

Bobbyaf:

That is why John the prophet made a call for all of God's people, whereever they are, to come out of babylon to be where they aught to have been from day one.

Where is that place where they ought to be?

Bobbyaf:

There can only be one true body of believers which has to realistically manifest itself on earth as a denomination.

And that denomination is none other than the SDA??

Bobbyaf:

Listen to John as he speaks about what will happen to God's last-day church:

And that last-day church is which church/denomination - the SDA?

Bobbyaf:

Now that there remains a remnant of God's people who are still preserving bible truth, Satan is still angry with this remnant who can be identified as those "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"

And this describes none other than the SDA?

Bobbyaf:

Now the "he" in the beginning of verse 15 is the US with its eventual union of church and state, that will eventually influence the rest of the world to accept Sunday Observance as the only way to bring about world peace.

If you only look up and see the reality on the ground: the US and the rest of the world are not clamouring for Sunday Observance! If you can hear the chorus: they want every expression of Christianity obliterated! The weakness in your interpretation is simply the undue emphasis you place on Sunday observance/worship.

Bobbyaf:

Because God's true believers will resist this move, they will be seen as the only ones holding up world unity under Rome's false Sunday sabbath. All attempts will be made to pressure us into accepting world unity, under papal Rome's influence.

"To pressure us. . ." - us as in the SDA, no?

@Bobbyaf,

I read your rejoinder regarding the RCC being babylon and all I could do was yawwwwn. As I said, you have not proved anything at all. Your pre-conceived notion which you acqired through indoctrination is at best laughable. I have debated with people like you before and I am just not in the mood for such adventure again. Hold on to your legalistic approach to christianity. Keep living in the O.T. subject to observance of days and voluntary humility. Keep chasing shadows and observing the traditions of men. In the end, you will find out that the reality is Christ and will join us in the blessed bliss of absolute faith in our rest: Christ.

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

It's not my style to keep up unreasonable harangue like you've been sweating it all this while. But since you won't be the wiser for it, here are a few things to think through carefully:

Unreasonable harangue you call it? Sorry you see it that way though. I was hoping you'd be different than the rest and stick it out.

Childish rantings like this really are of no interest to me; but the reason why I oblige you an answer at all is that you often misread people and then turn round and cry like everyone is against you.

What do you expect if persons keep attributing things to my ideas and giving the wrong impression of what I am trying to say? Calling me childish isn't solving the problem either.

Are you failing to see that everyone else has as much right to talk about their choice of "denoms"  as you arrogate to yourself? The reason why I don't see many people doing that and whining the way you do is because not many of them are that childish. Only kids behave the way you do; and you miss the mark by a million miles if you thought I was challenging your freedom to express anything.

So because I am making the claim that I see the SDA church as God's true church I am being childish?  , This is a joke!

Don't even go there - I'm not one of those who confesses the deity of Christ and at the same time deny the same confession. The talk of "not allowed to use that power" is a twister that gets many folks in the confusion they find themselves, because such an idea supposes at the same time that He was not God at all.

You'd be foolish to think I did that. Don't try to confuse the situation. You can't put words in my mouth Shahan. I keep saying if you happen to read my post, and you do not understand a point I have made, then ask me to expand on it. Don't accuse me of being inconsistent in my expression, when you fail to see the point I was making.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 02:04:14 AM
So how do you explain why there are so many denoms if there were no major differences in doctrines then?

Oh bother! Small minds! Where did I deny or pretend that there were not so many denominations? The point I've been trying to make is this: as long as you see everyone else as "babylon", you are part of the accusation that you level at others! How? As long as SDA is included in the "professing christian churches", you are part of the babylon you see in others. The only way you can deny that is to declare that the SDA is not a professing christian church!

As I have said before don't use a technicality to make excuses. I exlained to you before that obviously the denom to which I belong would not have been regarded by me as one of those "professed churches" by virtue of my being apart of it, and based on the fact that I believe that it's teachings are biblically sound.

You keep trying to give the impression that such an expression on my part is legalistic because I am being exclusive. far from it. As I have said there are other christians in different denoms, just as in the SDA denom. However, I believe that the SDA church is God's remnant church today, and because I express that notion you and others have a grave problem with it. I want to asure you and others though that the notion of their being one true church is very much biblical. Soon you will see that.

. . . And only the SDA is the true church, abi??

Well, in terms of biblical teachings only. So its never a question of whose is more righteous. A person in the SDA church can be very much exposed to truth and still live an unfaithful life. It happens in all denoms. So when I stress the true church I am always stressing doctrines that are bible-based.

You can either agree with me or not, but don't make me look bad because I express the notion. Don't label me as a legalist, because I am not.

In what way have you been able to conclude that I adhere to pagan teachings - because I worship on Sundays? Phew!! FYI, my faith is in Jesus Christ, not in the rituals of worshipping on a particular day!

I cannot blame you because you don't know better. Do me a favour. Prove to me from scripture why you gather on Sunday instead of the Lord's holy sabbath. You say your faith is in Jesus, well why aren't you obeying His commands? The same Jesus said: "If you love me keep my commandments" John 14:15

Are you aware that the disciples still kept the sabbath after the death of Jesus? I suppose that you were taught that Jesus came to put away His law of 10 commandments, and that all christians are now under grace. Think about it for awhile. There are only 8 references of the first day of the week. If you can show me where one of those passages has given you or anyone else the authority to keep Sunday as the resurrection day according to what is commonly believed, then go ahead.

Luke 23:54-56
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Does this look like a commanment that Jesus abolished after His death? Could it be that such disciples were not aware that Jesus did change the day after all? These were women who always saught every opportunity to be with Jesus. I cannot see my Jesus not telling them of such an important issue as the one under question. Surely, if Sunday was going to be such an important representation for what is considered by christendom as the Lord's day, then Jesus or any of His closest disciples would have made it clear about such a change. Wouldn't you agree?

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16.

You couldn't find a better exemplar than Jesus Himself. It was His custom to worship on the sabbath. Do you think He might have used this opportunity to introduce the "new day"?

Listen to what Jesus said: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17.

It is utterly impossible for any of God's moral law ever to change. All Ten Commandments are binding today.

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

This is easily explained. Paul simply addressed those jews who were imposing the ceremonial laws on newly converted christians. These laws came when Moses introduced rites and ceremonies. There were also introduced other sabbath days that had their own significance that poointed to the substance wich was Christ.

The day of which I speak is not under the Old Covenant, because it was introduced after creation on the 7th day. The Old Covenant came some 3000 years after creation.

Yes, and that "combination of denoms" includes the SDA as well, no??

That doesn't make sense whatsoever. God has His remnant church that has preserved His truth. I belieev its the SDA church, and you don't. Prove it.

Keep deceiving yourself. . . may God have mercy and open your eyes.



Cheers.

Cheers to you too.

@ Shahan

Thanks for prejudging again. This time, it was only mild. One thing I will guarantee you is this: Saturday worship will not guarantee anyone salvation. The rituals of emphasizing a particular day of worship as the basis for judging the correctness of people's relationship with God is untenable in God's Word. If you've forgotten, here's a reminder:

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

If Paul was afraid of people like you, so am I.

I agree with you that observing the sabbath isn't salvivic. We teach that too. We teach that salvation doesn't come by works, but by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. However, God's grace must not be used as a liscence to disobey His commandments. You merely cheapen God's grace that way.

By the way you keep quoting Paul out of context. Paul also kept the sabbath so why are you making it look as if I am being legalistic? Stop confusing ceremonial rituals as was being enforced by some Jewish leaders, and that were addresses by Paul. Unless of course the bible is contradictory. Read about Paul's sabbath expereinces while on his missionary journeys.

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.

And this is not even in a church building. In other words anywhere Paul found an opportunity to worship on the sabbath, he did.

Read again: "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

What non-jewish christians keeping the sabbath? Every sabbath Paul preached. can't seen to find where Sunday came into the picture at all.

Further, I'm not one of those bantering the idea that we are in God's judgement hour. Judgement is yet future when Christ comes back - [II Cor. 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad"].

Does it make sense to you that Christ will judge His people after He delivers them? Let me make it a bit clearer for you Shahan. Listen to what john said:

Revelation 22:11,12
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

In other words there has to be a verdict(reward) after the judgement. How you live now, will determine how you fare above now. That is why the books are opened now, so that our life's record are examined. Plus, Revelation 14 didn't say the judgement will come, but is come, or has come.

John made it absolutely clear that when Jesus returns those who are filthy will remain that way, and likewise those who are righteous will remain that way. When Jesus comes thats it. Its the end of salvation. There will be no more chances.

God has appointed a particular Day when He shall judge all things by Jesus Christ. If you are facing judgement already, good for you. My confidence remains firm as the Word says - it is yet a future event when Christ returns.

That day occured in 1844 based on bible prophecy. besides, when that statement was made the judgement wasn't yet started, so in a sense it was future, untill AD1844 arrived.

Many have been led by the Spirit of God to find true worship where they are - outside the SDA.

worship that is based on disobedience according to Jesus isn't good enough. It must be done "in truth and in spirit"

Bobbyaf:

With respect to you TJWealthy, have you ever stopped to think that Christ only speaks and has spoken of one flock? This body of which you mention where is it? Can you have a body with members scattered all over, or will you see all those members intact in one body?

but looking at the times when paul was on earth he wrote to churches all over europe. what binds the body of Christ which is the church together is not Geography but a unity of faith and knowledge of the son of God. I need not be in the same physical location with u for you to be my 'womb mate' ( brother).As we all over the world behold him, (CHrist) we are changed into his image. I submit to you that the church IS scattered abroad in all these denominations but the time of Shiloh is here and all his a people are gathering unto him. remember there were many contentious issues regarding doctrine in those times too but Paul never rebuked any of the assemblies (chuches) as being not of God. Rather he tried to augment their faith by adding 'what was lacking. but in it we can see the mighty hand of Jehovah working out his plan. BUt as long as we continue to believe that God has revealed himself to 1 denomination then we fall into the spiritual position os peter who called unclean what God had sanctified.

@Bobbyaf,

Your rejoinders don't come as a surprise; and in a roundabout way, you've only managed to divulge my suspicion of what you've been taught by rote - that the SDA is the remnant church.

Bobbyaf:

That doesn't make sense whatsoever. God has His remnant church that has preserved His truth. I belieev its the SDA church, and you don't. Prove it

That says it all, and there's no need to prove anything. What that tells me is that the SDA assumes the legalistic role of arrogating to herself the title of a "remnant church" while seeing other christian churches as "babylon". So, all your efforts were geared towards the sole aim of trying to preach the SDA, and not the Bible.

Bobbyaf:

You can't put words in my mouth Shahan. I keep saying if you happen to read my post, and you do not understand a point I have made, then ask me to expand on it.

You just did - and you're still inconsistent. It doesn't take away from the legalism you've been bantering along.

Bobbyaf:

I exlained to you before that obviously the denom to which I belong would not have been regarded by me as one of those "professed churches" by virtue of my being apart of it. . .You keep trying to give the impression that such an expression on my part is legalistic because I am being exclusive.

Point made. The SDA church is one of those "professed churches" - and therefore falls into the broad category of "babylon" as you termed other churches. Your being exclusive is no wories to me; it simply highlights the legalism.

Bobbyaf:


There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings.

shahan link=topic=34371.msg803615#msg803615 date=1168289997:

. . . And only the SDA is the true church, abi??

Bobbyaf:

Well, in terms of biblical teachings only.

Point made, again. How do your responses differ from what I've been pointing out all along - that you class all other denominations as "professed christian churches" which are "lumped under the general term babylon." This is the very idea that I'd wanted you to reconsider, because by drivelling about that, you make yourself one of those babylonian churches; albeit, in a roundabout way you try to exonerate the SDA from the pack of your broad labelling.

Bobbyaf:

You can either agree with me or not, but don't make me look bad because I express the notion. Don't label me as a legalist, because I am not.

At the risk of repetition, I didn't make you look bad - you just keep doing that to yourself.

You really don't know what you're doing to yourself, Bobbyaf. There are Christians in other churches, and even on Nairaland - and God's love for them is not any less simply because they are non-SDA. If you go through the inputs of other Christians, you'd see they weren't trying to justify the idea that the true church is as narrow as only one denomination based on exclusive doctrinal issues. Let me partly quote just one of such inputs:

Havila:

But do not miss the purpose of this post; let us focus on the product of God's grace; Salvation by faith in the sacrificial death, burial, ressurection, glorification and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord is what defines the True Church of God. One Fold, One Sheperd. There is One Church, the body of Christ; and Jesus Christ is the Head!!

Did you catch that about what defines the True Church of God? When Havila states that "There is One Church, the body of Christ", I'm sure he didn't try to define the SDA. Your problem is that everyone outside the SDA 'denom' is not in the true church; and that, my dear, is classic legalism as highlighted by your pun on being "exclusive."

I believe that when the Bible speaks of the Body of Christ, it does not point to just one denomination, much less the SDA. God's children are loved and accepted by Him in Christ, not by the badge of membership they wear as belonging to an exclusive 'denom'.

@Bobbyaf,

Just so that you don't continue to miss the point, a few issues here:

Bobbyaf:

Does it make sense to you that Christ will judge His people after He delivers them?

Heb 10:30 - "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people."

Bobbyaf:

That day occured in 1844 based on bible prophecy. besides, when that statement was made the judgement wasn't yet started, so in a sense it was future, untill AD1844 arrived.

Try studying God's Word as it is, instead of posting what you've been taught by rote in SDA. So many of us know how the SDA spun the the theory of 1844 as the day of judgement.

William Miller (1782-1849), a former lay baptist minister spun this idea about Christ's Second Coming to occur in 1844. Miller's followers (Millerites) condemned all the churches of their day as apostate and Babylon, and warned Christians to come out of them. When Miller's prophecy failed, many were disappointed and left his Millerite Movement in what is now known as The Great Disappointment. The Millerite Movement morphed into the SDA when Ellen Harmon (later Ellen G. White) claimed that the date was correct, but that it rather referred to the start of an "Investigative Judgment."

In SDA theology, the Investigative Judgement began on October 22, 1844, when Christ entered upon the "judgment phase" of His ministry in order to blot out sin. The basis of this idea is Ellen G. White's claimed revelation that Christ entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not at His ascension, but in 1844, wherein He then began to investigate the records of human works (The Great Controversy, pp. 362-373).

Now, a few remarks:

1. If Christ didn't enter the holy of holies (or the Holy Place) before 1844, then Heb. 9:11-12 & 24 could not be true:

"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

2. If the judgement has started in 1844, then by inference the SDA (thanks to Ellen White's visions) is making out that Day to be other than is stated in the Bible:

Act 17:31 - "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

Rom 2:16 - "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

We are told that that day will be when the Lord Jesus Christ returns (I Cor. 4:5), and not the SDA date of 1844. See again II Tim. 4:1 = "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom."

3. Let us not forget that Miller's failed prophecy of 1844 was about one subject: the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. When the prophecy failed, Ellen G. White propped it up by saying the date was correct but it meant something else. Ever since, those who follow by rote this doctrine spun out of a failed prophecy simply keep missing the issue about "the Second Coming". Dates are still adjusted, excuses are being made for failed prophecies, . . . and in all of this, non-SDA 'denoms' are babylon!

God loves His children and does not rely on the idea of an exclusive remnant church to accept them. He does not reject them on the premise of their worshipping Him on any particular day or days. Faith in Jesus Christ saves and makes a true believer a member of the Body of Christ - and that Body is bigger than SDA.

@ TJWealthy

but looking at the times when paul was on earth he wrote to churches all over europe. what binds the body of Christ which is the church together is not Geography but a unity of faith and knowledge of the son of God.

Exactly! I very much agre with you here, but I wasn't really stressing the geographical aspect of things so much, but rather the unity of faith and doctrines. In other words one cannot, andin all fairness shold not, use the phrase "body of Christ" to mean that there are different denoms having different teachings. As you correctly said it is the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God.

I need not be in the same physical location with u for you to be my 'womb mate' ( brother).As we all over the world behold him, (CHrist) we are changed into his image. I submit to you that the church IS scattered abroad in all these denominations but the time of Shiloh is here and all his a people are gathering unto him.

So where will His people gather into might I ask? Its either they remain in their denoms and continue in false teachings, or they leave and find the body of Christ in which remains the un-diluted truth of God's word.

Yes as I have said before, God's people are in different denoms, but not all these different denoms are teaching in the unity of the faith. That is why John says "come out of her my people" Rev. 18:4 The term babylon used symbolically by John is unanymously accepted as referring to false worship by most evangelists today, and that is the point of emphasis.

remember there were many contentious issues regarding doctrine in those times too but Paul never rebuked any of the assemblies (chuches) as being not of God.

That would depend on what issues you are talking about. If my memory serves me right, Paul on several occasions rebuked, by letters, and otherwise, those who intiated certain issues that were not pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ. He even wrote a letter to Timothy about "many departing from the faith, and giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils"

Rather he tried to augment their faith by adding 'what was lacking.

Like for example.

but in it we can see the mighty hand of Jehovah working out his plan. BUt as long as we continue to believe that God has revealed himself to 1 denomination then we fall into the spiritual position os peter who called unclean what God had sanctified.

Far from it. The SDA denom's mission is to reach the world. We love people, and that is why we have to present the un-diluted word of God. God has revealed Himself to people in different denoms, and that has never been the issue in my posts, although some are bent on labelling me that way. , pardon if I find it a bit funny, but I have always contended that, although that is the case, God has one true church, one flock or fold, if you please in which is taught the un-diluted truth.

I will add this much, that if and when these pastors begin to open the word of God to the people, as God has instructed, they will find treasures awaiting them. I am not boasting when I say this. There have been cases when pastors from the Sunday-keeping denoms who have read our literature, and have brought their entire denoms over to us. Sometimes churches are split in half. Some coming over and some deciding to stay. God's Spirit cannot be stopped, and neither can the truth.

Truth will prevail whether or not people see the point I am making.

@Bobbyaf,

Your rejoinders don't come as a surprise; and in a roundabout way, you've only managed to divulge my suspicion of what you've been taught by rote - that the SDA is the remnant church.

Of course it suits you to both say and believe that notion. Let me let you in on a little secret. Long before I became a SDA christian, most of their beliefs was already being practised by me. By simply reading God's word I already had accepted most of what I have come to accept. God simply lead me to that denom eventually. God be praised.

That says it all, and there's no need to prove anything.

I am not surprised! Paul says

", prove all things"

What that tells me is that the SDA assumes the legalistic role of arrogating to herself the title of a "remnant church" while seeing other christian churches as "babylon". So, all your efforts were geared towards the sole aim of trying to preach the SDA, and not the Bible.

Really now! You see, when persons lack the defensive reasoning, they accuse falsely. Instead of using scripture to buffer your arguments, you simply resort to accusations. All my arguments are based on scriptures.

You just did - and you're still inconsistent. It doesn't take away from the legalism you've been bantering along.

keep believing that if it makes you feel more spiritual.

Point made. The SDA church is one of those "professed churches" - and therefore falls into the broad category of "babylon" as you termed other churches. Your being exclusive is no wories to me; it simply highlights the legalism.

Ok, lets say I used the wrong expression, when I said "professed churches". Technically it would include the SDA church, since we are also making a profession, and I appreciate that point you're making, but deep down you know the real point I am making. You know that there has to be one true flock, that has to be the exception. You know that there can be one truth. The problem with you is that you find yourself in one denom that believes its ok for different churches to preach anything they like, as long as they call on Jesus.

Would you feel comfortable worshipping with JWs? They are a denom too. Would you feel comfortable worshipping with Mormons? They are a denom too. And guess what? Every denom has made a claim of uniqueness. And that is why they are called denoms. They have someting that they claim is not being taught by anyone else.

You find pleasure in hitting me because I am honest about my expression, and you're not.

Point made, again. How do your responses differ from what I've been pointing out all along - that you class all other denominations as "professed christian churches" which are "lumped under the general term babylon." This is the very idea that I'd wanted you to reconsider, because by drivelling about that, you make yourself one of those babylonian churches; albeit, in a roundabout way you try to exonerate the SDA from the pack of your broad labelling.

See explanation above!

At the risk of repetition, I didn't make you look bad - you just keep doing that to yourself.

No don't give me that! God knows your heart!

You really don't know what you're doing to yourself, Bobbyaf. There are Christians in other churches, and even on Nairaland - and God's love for them is not any less simply because they are non-SDA.

You see how non-sensical your argument has become? That was my qualifier Shahan. And deep down you know that that is not the point I am making. I am not condemning christians Shahan. I am pointing out an important biblical truth. Go take up your issues with John the prophet who said: "come out of her my people, " Rev.18:4

If you go through the inputs of other Christians, you'd see they weren't trying to justify the idea that the true church is as narrow as only one denomination based on exclusive doctrinal issues. Let me partly quote just one of such inputs:

This argument doesn't make any sense, and it counters what Jesus taught. He said "other sheep I have which are not of this flock, they I must bring in, and there shall be one flock, and one shephard"

Quote from: Havila on January 03, 2007, 07:43 PM
But do not miss the purpose of this post; let us focus on the product of God's grace; Salvation by faith in the sacrificial death, burial, ressurection, glorification and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord is what defines the True Church of God. One Fold, One Sheperd. There is One Church, the body of Christ; and Jesus Christ is the Head!!

But while I agree in general about God's grace and salvation by faith, unfortunately the topic is entitled

"which is the true church?"

Let us stick to the topic at hand. I am 100% for salvation by grace through faith, which cannot be debated.

Did you catch that about what defines the True Church of God? When Havila states that "There is One Church, the body of Christ", I'm sure he didn't try to define the SDA. Your problem is that everyone outside the SDA 'denom' is not in the true church; and that, my dear, is classic legalism as highlighted by your pun on being "exclusive."

But according to Christ that cannot be a true definition. Christ speaks to one flock. The fact that Christ predicted that false teacers would arise even more magnifies the point. Every shephard knows the danger of one sheep straying from the flock.

I believe that when the Bible speaks of the Body of Christ, it does not point to just one denomination, much less the SDA. God's children are loved and accepted by Him in Christ, not by the badge of membership they wear as belonging to an exclusive 'denom'.

I agree with you on that point, but I am not using a church badge per se to judge people. I am simply basing my arguments on the reality, that a long as false teachings are being taught by denoms, there would have to be a body of believers that still has truth un-defiled. This body is what Christ is coming back for. A spotless body.

It so happens that I believe that the SDA church for now represents that denom that has come closest to what I personally believe to truly represents "thus saith the Lord"

If you or anyone else don't feel that way thats your right, and perogative. Jesus, Paul all alluded to a time when rampant deception would become the order of the day. All I am saying is that christians in general should make it their duty to find that denom that represents God's end-time church.

@Bobbyaf,

Lol, you didn't quite make an impact with the latest and only tried to dress up your previous flaws. Nice try, but harder next time, perhaps?

Bobbyaf:

Really now! You see, when persons lack the defensive reasoning, they accuse falsely. Instead of using scripture to buffer your arguments, you simply resort to accusations

First, not one of my pointers have been conclusively refuted in your rejoinders - so there's no need for the hooters about being falsely accused. Second, where necessary, I've highlighted issues with Scripture texts to the point. If you missed that, too bad you did.

Bobbyaf:

All my arguments are based on scriptures.

Including the wrong inferences you draw, yes??

Bobbyaf:

Ok, lets say I used the wrong expression, when I said "professed churches". Technically it would include the SDA church, since we are also making a profession, and I appreciate that point you're making

Finally, at least that's one point conclusively refuted!

Bobbyaf:

but deep down you know the real point I am making.

I've pointed them out as well.

Bobbyaf:

You know that there has to be one true flock, that has to be the exception.

I know this much - that one flock is not SDA; and I've stated so time and again.

Bobbyaf:

You know that there can be one truth.

As contained in the Bible; not as interpreted by Ellen G. White and her crew.

Bobbyaf:

The problem with you is that you find yourself in one denom that believes its ok for different churches to preach anything they like, as long as they call on Jesus.

If you can reference where in my rejoinders that inference was made, then point made. If not, I still don't envy your official title on nairaland.

Bobbyaf:

Would you feel comfortable worshipping with JWs? They are a denom too. Would you feel comfortable worshipping with Mormons? They are a denom too.

Read just above: where you have read me defending JW or Mormon doctrines, please reference it. If not, you're perfectly fulfilling your title ascribed you by nferyn.

Bobbyaf:

And guess what? Every denom has made a claim of uniqueness. And that is why they are called denoms. They have someting that they claim is not being taught by anyone else.

In that case, the SDA is not different from the Mormon Church in having condemned all other churches, sorry to say. I'm not the one preaching my "denom", and I'm grateful to have been brought up to preach Christ Jesus and not make "condemning" other churches a part of my faith.

Bobbyaf:

You find pleasure in hitting me because I am honest about my expression, and you're not.

I didn't know you'd sob over that. No vex - you provided the punches, and they landed where you least expected. As for honesty, no vex again - I'm not the one being promoted as the fountainhead of liars on Nairaland, remember??

Bobbyaf:

No don't give me that! God knows your heart!

He always does, whether you take it or not.

Bobbyaf:

You see how non-sensical your argument has become? That was my qualifier Shahan. And deep down you know that that is not the point I am making.

Which amounts to zero as long as you keep spinning around what you've been taught by rote.

Bobbyaf:

I am not condemning christians Shahan. I am pointing out an important biblical truth.

An important biblical truth that lumps all professing christian churches as "babylon"?? Did you say "not condemning"?? I hear you.

Bobbyaf:

Go take up your issues with John the prophet who said:

"come out of her my people, " Rev.18:4

First, I don't have any issues with any of the apostles. I do have issues with legalistic men who condemn all other Christians but their own, especially when they give prophecies that have failed, and their morphed systems keep changing dates and making excuses for their failed prophecies.

Rev. 18:4 did not ask Christians to come out of Christian churches where God is worshipped in Spirit and in truth, so that they can flock enmass to an exclusive SDA. My interpretation may not help you (because you don't know any better); but whenever you can find it stated in Revelation that the SDA is the "exclusive" or only organization (remnant church, you call it??) that the Bible calls "the Body of Christ", then come back and let's talk. That's an amicable offer.

Bobbyaf:

This argument doesn't make any sense, and it counters what Jesus taught. He said "other sheep I have which are not of this flock, they I must bring in, and there shall be one flock, and one shephard"

The argument doesn't make any sense to you because all you know how to read is SDA material. Could you just please put down your religious goggles for a moment and study the Bible as the Word of God? When Jesus spoke of the one flock in that text, where did He interpret it as the SDA?

Besides, I'll give you a few more texts for your study:

Matt. 26:31 - "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" >> [Is "the sheep of the flock" scattered abroad equated as the SDA??]

Luke 12:32 - "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." >> [does "little flock" translate as "SDA"; or was the Kingdom meant only for SDA-ists?]

John 10:16 - "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." >> [do "this fold" and "one fold" translate as the SDA?]

Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." >> [so was Paul addressing the SDA in Ephesus when speaking of "all the flock" and "the church of God"?]

. . . several others if you may. The problem is that you always want to see things through the spectacles of the SDA doctrines, and that's why you keep sounding off your inconsistencies and posting your sobs in a public forum.

I don't try to treat you bad, Bobby, trust me - nevermind the fact that your pretended erudition and lack of focus are doing you in on a subject you haven't grasp properly. What I kick against is the legalism of "prophets" whose prophecies have failed, and whose doctrines you keep pandering about while dejecting other authentic Christians who are non-SDA-ists (though, you little realise the fact).

Bobbyaf:

But while I agree in general about God's grace and salvation by faith, unfortunately the topic is entitled Let us stick to the topic at hand. I am 100% for salvation by grace through faith, which cannot be debated.

You may say so, until some other time. Anyhow, tell me this: does your own branch of the SDA encourage their members about the assurance of salvation? In SDA, do members know for certain that they are saved?

Bobbyaf:

But according to Christ that cannot be a true definition. Christ speaks to one flock. The fact that Christ predicted that false teacers would arise even more magnifies the point. Every shephard knows the danger of one sheep straying from the flock.

And was William Miller not a false teacher who fits the bill of what you just described?

Bobbyaf:

I agree with you on that point, but I am not using a church badge per se to judge people.

Titters. You leep denying what you actually have done - only when they are directly pointed out to you.

Bobbyaf:

I am simply basing my arguments on the reality, that a long as false teachings are being taught by denoms, there would have to be a body of believers that still has truth un-defiled. This body is what Christ is coming back for. A spotless body.

Amen, bro. The problem is that the SDA does not represent your euphoric description as long as it was simply a morphed denomination from the Millerites.

Bobbyaf:

It so happens that I believe that the SDA church for now represents that denom that has come closest to what I personally believe to truly represents "thus saith the Lord"

I'm happy for you if that calms your fears. Good for you: celebrate it. However, give other Christians outside the SDA the privilege of rejoicing in Jesus Christ as He is heralded as LORD in their denominations.

Let me make it simpler for you: look again at my very first post on this thread and see my gist that I do not advocate just about any kind of system under the umbrella name "Christian Church." I hope you saw that. However, if in any denomination Jesus Christ is honoured as Lord and His Word rules in righteousness and holiness in the lives of the saints, bless His holy Name all the more! When the Corinthian Church threatened to scatter themselves into many factions, Paul did not advocate a policy of calling them out to his SDA system of a remnant church - because he had none! Rather, he simply recognized them all as brothers and sisters in Christ without a denominational badge. Take me up on that, and it won't be a bother to share amicably with you.

Bobbyaf:

If you or anyone else don't feel that way thats your right, and perogative.

Good then: respect others' prerogative.

Bobbyaf:

Jesus, Paul all alluded to a time when rampant deception would become the order of the day.

Aye. . . but did they as well recommend that the SDA would take care of it - especially on the basis of the failed prophecy of the Second Coming in 1844??

Bobbyaf:

All I am saying is that christians in general should make it their duty to find that denom that represents God's end-time church.

Aye again. . . and that end-time church (previously called "remnant church", or "being exclusive" is the SDA, yes??

Don't pay me any heed if you find me too much of a headache. I love to thrash out issues like this because I know people who have suffered from "the Great Disappointment".

Ta-ra!

Hi Peeps,

Denominationalism is one of the banes of the Christian faith, and being a denominational apologist is one of the easiest ways to build a sige mentality and make yourself unreceptive to correction or deeper truth. I write as one who was almost snared in that trap until God in His mercy pulled me up so sharply it left all my preconceived religious notions in tatters.

I appreciate the contributions to this thread. I think for the most part the posts have been well thought out and well articulated. That's not to say I agree with them all, but I acknowledge the effort and the passion. What I appreciate even more is someone who really want s to know the heart of God in Christ jesus, even if that means questioning tightly held traditional beliefs.

Claims by any particular denomination to be the true church or the remnant church are not new. I had a JW on my doorstep not long ago trying to prove just this. Funnily enough, most denominations start in the truth, but all to often, man-made tradition and error creep in. Sometimes to such an extent that even the original truths are deeply shrouded. Or as the Lord Himself said, "Made of non effect"

There are something like 37'000 so called Christian denominations. And a few hundred major ones. All with claims, be it of their doctrine, size, succession, revelation, signs etc etc. Truth is, most of us will come to faith in Christ through one of these denominations. The key is to then go on to faith directly in Him and in Him alone, not via membership or association.

The Church of God is all who through time have put their faith in Gods salvation in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Lord knows those who are His" [/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000]

I honestly believe that if we ditched the adversarial approach, put our heads together and pooled our understanding a lot of areas of misunderstanding, and error would be cleared up. At the very least we'd all be significantly edified.

God bless everyone

@shahan,

I salute your courage and passion; but the simple thing is, God's church is bigger than any denomination. We can all argue from now till thy-kingdom-come, but it won't change that fact whether some people label others as "babylon" or we think of some as "legalistic" or whatever.

If we are persuaded of God's truth as we are able, may God grant us the grace to therein rejoice and celebrate the same in those who love His truth as well, even where they don't belong to our own denomination.

Jesus is LORD.

@Bobbyaf,

Lol, you didn't quite make an impact with the latest and only tried to dress up your previous flaws. Nice try, but harder next time, perhaps?

Am I surprised you'd say the least?

First, not one of my pointers have been conclusively refuted in your rejoinders - so there's no need for the hooters about being falsely accused. Second, where necessary, I've highlighted issues with Scripture texts to the point. If you missed that, too bad you did.

Stop blowing your own trumpet about pointers that were simply yor own words that were not scripturally based. Not to mention poor context. How is that for pointers.

Finally, at least that's one point conclusively refuted!

Refuted? I simply made the point easier for you.

I know this much - that one flock is not SDA; and I've stated so time and again.

You will see it in time if God spares your life. The truth always wins.

As contained in the Bible; not as interpreted by Ellen G. White and her crew.

And I challenge you to read her books and see what will happen. You'll see inspiration at work.

If you can reference where in my rejoinders that inference was made, then point made. If not, I still don't envy your official title on nairaland.

I don't have to its pretty obvious you do not care for standards. Truth isn't important to you it seems.

Read just above: where you have read me defending JW or Mormon doctrines, please reference it. If not, you're perfectly fulfilling your title ascribed you by nferyn.

I wasn't making a statement if my memory serves me right, I simply asked a question. The fact that you and others use the forum to express your disagreement about religious issues is no different from what I am saying. Its either your view is right or wrong. The person who is expressing wrong views are often ridiculed by the very ones who choose to make a big issue out of my right to express. What hypocracy!

In that case, the SDA is not different from the Mormon Church in having condemned all other churches, sorry to say. I'm not the one preaching my "denom", and I'm grateful to have been brought up to preach Christ Jesus and not make "condemning" other churches a part of my faith.

All that is in your head about my condemning others. You seem to thrive on being deceptive. Thats not my style. If by calling others to take a good look as to what they are being taught is a bad thing, then Paul was bad. Paul said "prove all things, " You're content with the opposite.

I didn't know you'd sob over that. No vex - you provided the punches, and they landed where you least expected. As for honesty, no vex again - I'm not the one being promoted as the fountainhead of liars on Nairaland, remember??

And now your only resort is in athiests? Hahahahahaaaa, That little nut is where you get your inspiration from?

Which amounts to zero as long as you keep spinning around what you've been taught by rote.

Your memory is very short.

An important biblical truth that lumps all professing christian churches as "babylon"?? Did you say "not condemning"?? I hear you.

As oft as you mention this lie I will oft remind you it isn't true. Keep playing the game.

First, I don't have any issues with any of the apostles.

So you should see my point then.

I do have issues with legalistic men who condemn all other Christians but their own, especially when they give prophecies that have failed, and their morphed systems keep changing dates and making excuses for their failed prophecies.

Scratched record!

Rev. 18:4 did not ask Christians to come out of Christian churches where God is worshipped in Spirit and in truth,

Really? Continue decieving yourself. Do you know truth? Can you define it biblically for the fora? let me help you a bit:

Psalms 119:142 "Thy law is the truth", and so far you have rejected God's Holy law. According to you its abolished. God's word says

"7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

John 17:17 "Thy word is truth"

Its you and the church you belong to that teach that God's holy law has been nailed to the cross, not me. Its you that congregate on the RCC's false sabbath, otherwise called Sunday, paying homage to a man, the pope, rather than God, not me. I am the one calling you from such paganistic practise, by instilling that you pay close attention to God's word.

I am prepared for all sorts of blows. It isn't always easy, but who said it would be. I have a job to warn you and the fora to reject false teachings, and leave babylon now.

so that they can flock enmass to an exclusive SDA. My interpretation may not help you (because you don't know any better); but whenever you can find it stated in Revelation that the SDA is the "exclusive" or only organization (remnant church, you call it??) that the Bible calls "the Body of Christ", then come back and let's talk. That's an amicable offer.

I cannot talk on that premise. I am not being exclusive. Its the opposite. Am I not sharing truth? How can an exclusive person share truth? I am willing to share with you why I am making such a bold statement but you will have to come with an open mind, and be prepared to re-think what you have grown accustomed to. I had to do it before I eventually found the SDA church. I already told you that God Himself revealed to me those doctrines I have come to accept long before I was baptised in the SDA church. From age 10 I felt God's leading in my life. Even my mother had a hard time feeding me, because by hten my diet had changed.

The argument doesn't make any sense to you because all you know how to read is SDA material. Could you just please put down your religious goggles for a moment and study the Bible as the Word of God? When Jesus spoke of the one flock in that text, where did He interpret it as the SDA?

You're running out of excuses I see. Didn't I just quote what Jesus Himself had to say about having one flock? take up the issue with Jesus not me.

Besides, I'll give you a few more texts for your study:

Matt. 26:31 - "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" >> [Is "the sheep of the flock" scattered abroad equated as the SDA??]

Is this another of your out-of-context passage? The passage above had to do with the immediate crisis that would befall the disciples when Christ died. Christ was about to fulfill a prophecy concerning his death. This has absolutelynothing to do with His church in general. Good try anyway!

Luke 12:32 - "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." >> [does "little flock" translate as "SDA"; or was the Kingdom meant only for SDA-ists?]

No, because its not dealing with the church in general, but the little flock, meaning the 12 disciples. That was Christ's way of cheering up His depressed disciples. Satisfied?

John 10:16 - "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." >> [do "this fold" and "one fold" translate as the SDA?

Up to this point, yes. This is what I believe based on the fact that the SDA church bases all its doctrines on the scripture. You cannot disprove that. You're free to try though.

Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." >> [so was Paul addressing the SDA in Ephesus when speaking of "all the flock" and "the church of God"?

Not technically! He however was addressing the one true church. Its doctrines were constant and that is why he urged the leaders to make sure things were kept that way. If Paul were alive today he would be saying the same thing as he said back then. He was a stickler for preservation of truth.

. . . several others if you may. The problem is that you always want to see things through the spectacles of the SDA doctrines, and that's why you keep sounding off your inconsistencies and posting your sobs in a public forum.

You'll soon see who becomes the problem.

I don't try to treat you bad, Bobby, trust me - nevermind the fact that your pretended erudition and lack of focus are doing you in on a subject you haven't grasp properly. What I kick against is the legalism of "prophets" whose prophecies have failed, and whose doctrines you keep pandering about while dejecting other authentic Christians who are non-SDA-ists (though, you little realise the fact).

Well, Shahan we will see.

You may say so, until some other time. Anyhow, tell me this: does your own branch of the SDA encourage their members about the assurance of salvation? In SDA, do members know for certain that they are saved?

Of course. If you take the time to read our books you will discover that for yourselves. Many like you have come to accept our teachings. In fact the SDA church is the fastest growing denom in my region of the world. Its the largest denom in Jamaica.

Since the breaking of the iron curtain in Russia, and the USSR, we were the first to be given the permission to build a seminary. In fact the SDA church is the most represented denom in the world, where entered territory is concerned.

So despite the fase label of legalism often leveled at us, the SDA denom is highly respected for its positive influence in nation building. Just last year we donated over $300 million towards welfare in Jamiaca alone.

Medical science have backed up our health message, which is bible based. Long before medical science was developed the SDA church led the way in temperance groups. We were the ones who ran sanitariums, and health facilities. Even presidents used our facilities. Today SDAs live an average of 12 years longer than the typical population because of our healthy lifestyle. If you follow God's instructions you can't go wrong.

And was William Miller not a false teacher who fits the bill of what you just described?

He was a baptist preacher who started a movement. The SDA church never started as yet as a denom, but accoding to prophecy the time had come for God's true church to be resurrected. For you to understand this you'd have to understand the prophecy of Revelation 12 and 13, that predicted that God's church would be in the wilderness for 1260 years. During that time truth would have been supressed while the beast (the RCC) ruled until its head was wounded in 1798. Revelation 12 and 13.

So all of a sudden the awaking started among God's people. Funny enough some were not sabbath keepers as yet, but some were. So between what started in europe eventually started at around the same time in the US.

Titters. You leep denying what you actually have done - only when they are directly pointed out to you.

Well, I will keep reminding you until you understand. I am a patient man.

Amen, bro. The problem is that the SDA does not represent your euphoric description as long as it was simply a morphed denomination from the Millerites.

Its a pity you don't realize that Sunday-keeping denoms splintered off from Miller too. The Adventists, and not necessarily the SDA church followed God's leading and eventually revived the old path of truth, which included diet reform, the sabbath, water baptism, among others. The other denoms, the JWs included went on to make false prophecies concerning the Lord's return.

I'm happy for you if that calms your fears. Good for you: celebrate it. However, give other Christians outside the SDA the privilege of rejoicing in Jesus Christ as He is heralded as LORD in their denominations.

I am rejoicing in the truth Shahan. Give me some credit maaaaan. I aint judging anyone's relation with Christ. I love when people love the Lord. It mkaes my work easier, when I have to share with them what they must come to know. The whole truth.

Let me make it simpler for you: look again at my very first post on this thread and see my gist that I do not advocate just about any kind of system under the umbrella name "Christian Church." I hope you saw that. However, if in any denomination Jesus Christ is honoured as Lord and His Word rules in righteousness and holiness in the lives of the saints, bless His holy Name all the more! When the Corinthian Church threatened to scatter themselves into many factions, Paul did not advocate a policy of calling them out to his SDA system of a remnant church - because he had none! Rather, he simply recognized them all as brothers and sisters in Christ without a denominational badge. Take me up on that, and it won't be a bother to share amicably with you.

Yada yada yada, keep spurting. The light is just around the corner.

Aye. . . but did they as well recommend that the SDA would take care of it - especially on the basis of the failed prophecy of the Second Coming in 1844??

Wrong again. That was no failed prophecy by the SDA church. All those who listened to Miller came from different denoms. All Sunday keeping denoms to be exact. Ellen Harmon before she married as White, was a member of a Methodist denom. She was only nine or so when her family got disfellowshipped for listening to Miller.

As regards the 1844 prophecy, th eonly thing that went wrong was Miller's interpretation of the event. The date was perfectly fine. Can't blame the SDA church for that can you? Looking back now we have been able to develop a better understanding based on God's leading through His servant Ellen White, but that is another subject. By the way have you ever read any of her books? You should, I challenge you to.

@Bobbyaf,

I must say you have really proven your official title as a blatant liar, and sorry if it hurts you. You don't even know your SDA history, and your drive to defend the failed prophecies of both William Miller and Ellen G. White is nauseating, to say the least. May God have mercy and open your eyes to His truth instead of following the false prophets of the SDA.

Bobbyaf:

Wrong again. That was no failed prophecy by the SDA church.

So, in other words, Jesus' Second Coming actually happened in 1844 - exactly as William Miller prophesied?

@m4malik,
Can't say much more, can I? Lies, more lies, even more lies - all for the "exclusive" denom SDA.

@Bobbyaf,

I must say you have really proven your official title as a blatant liar, and sorry if it hurts you. You don't even know your SDA history, and your drive to defend the failed prophecies of both William Miller and Ellen G. White is nauseating, to say the least. May God have mercy and open your eyes to His truth instead of following the false prophets of the SDA.

Wrong again! That was not the failed prophecy of the SDA church, or Ellen White. By alluding that I believe what you are saying would indeed make me a liar, because in truth its you who lie when you project information that cannot be substantiated. In 1844 Ellen Harmon was a little girl, probably about 11 or so and had not yet recieved visions until she was 17 years old. So who is the liar? It must be you.

William Miller was a baptist preacher who started a revival movement. The SDA church never started as yet as a denom, but according to prophecy the time had come for God's true church to be resurrected. For you to understand this you'd have to understand the prophecy of Revelation 12 and 13, that predicted that God's church would be in the wilderness for 1260 years. During that time truth would have been supressed while the beast (the RCC) ruled until its head was wounded in 1798.

If you can recall your history, the RCC dominated europe, until the reformation started in the 15th century, which was the platform for the religious awakening that was happening at the same time in William Miller's movement.

You don't have to be sorry because I know you don't mean it anyway.

@ Shahan

So, in other words, Jesus' Second Coming actually happened in 1844 - exactly as William Miller prophesied?

No, Jesus didn't come as Miller expected, but that was because Miller mis-understood the prophecy of Daniel 8:14. And remember too that Miller was a baptist preacher.

According to the history Miller thought that the word "sanctuary" in the prophecy statement by Daniel meant the earth. He figured that the only way Jesus could cleanse the earth was via His second coming. His calculation of the prophecy from a date point-of-view was accurate, but the event wasn't. What happned instead in 1844, was the beginning of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, which represented the pre-advent judgement of God's people.

What he missed, his followers picked up through further bible study and prayer. Later those followers who kept studying became the SDA organization. Ellen White came into the picture when God used her to strengthen such bible studies with the revelations God gave her.

A lot of people believe that Ellen White's main emphasis was predictions. Most of her visions were geared towards teaching and admonition. Her visions have proven themselves over time. She is considered the most prolific writer that existed in her time, and even beyond her time as well.

@m4malik,
Can't say much more, can I? Lies, more lies, even more lies - all for the "exclusive" denom SDA.

Don't just say it, prove it. Its easy to accuse me of lying, but its obvious that you are desperate.

There is error in all denominations (and outright heresy in some!). Show me any denominations structure and doctrine and I’ll show you error to some degree.

If per chance there is a denomination that perfectly (or even close too perfectly) adheres to biblical truths, one of the first things they would acknowledge is that they are not the authors, arbiters or sole possessors of that truth. Elijah made the same mistake, thinking it was just him left. Like I said, God knows and preserves those who truly seek Him.

Trying to pursue one’s faith (or defends one’s position) based on strict adherence to man-made tradition will always (if one is honest) lead to a point where some precepts just don’t fit. For such a one, scriptural interpretation is always (at least in part) through the eyes of those they associate with, whether they realize/acknowledge it or not. Some doctrine although erroneous will have to be tightly held on too, or things will come unstuck (at least in part, if not totally).

A sermon I have never heard preached is the example of Paul (Saul). The narrative contained in his epistles clearly charts his transition from a zealous champion of man-made tradition to unadulterated faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s why he told Timothy “His life was meant as pattern/example” to believers after Him.

In Galatians he recounts how legalistic and zealous he was. By Philippians, he has come to the understanding that all his achievements, zeal, background and pedigree were as dung and need to be utterly discarded to lay hold on true faith in Christ.

Most of us are “born-again” into one sect/denomination or the other. We are zealous for God, eager to learn and willing to please. We learn the precepts, the traditions and swallow wholesale the words of the Apostle, or Prophet. But the key is to focus firmly on the Author and Perfecter of your faith, if indeed He is. You have to keep asking, I know what the MOG says, but what are You saying Lord. Keep asking Like Paul did, “Who are you Lord?” and “What would you have me do?”

Otherwise you will become bound by tradition, trapped in a man-made carnal construct and ultimately end up a well-schooled religionist. I can personally testify that deliverance from that state to true liberty in Christ takes Gods grace, and is an epiphany akin to the rebirth experience.

The saved are always first and foremost individuals. They can be in any denomination. But if one is truly seeking God, loving the Lord and keeping His commandments, God will draw him to Himself, and in due course bring such a one out of “Babylon”. The Lords ways and thoughts are not ours. He knows the best time for individuals to make that transition. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Yes, Spiritual Babylon is real, but I am not yet certain it is fully manifested. In these days, heresy is hard at work and apostasy is right on its heels. I personally believe that at it’s zenith, Babylon will comprise of a whole system of united denominations and sects (ecumenism), and possibly even religions (syncretism). And the religious aspect may well be joined be others (being the political and economic). But that’s another thread.

Interestingly enough, we are able to discuss these things at present, because for the most part we have liberty to choose Whom and how we worship. It may not always be thus. There is not as yet a universally mandated way to worship God. I suspect such a time will come, and those against or outside the system (Babylon), will understand the true meaning of the words “whoever kills you will think that he offers God service”.

Lets share openly and with hearts unprejudiced by denominational bias while we yet can.

God bless.

@TV01,

Thank you so very much for that input. I wouldn't want to sound accusative or pedantically persecutive. And God bless you for levelling the platform - you will not lose your reward, in Jesus Name!

shahan:

@TV01,

Thank you so very much for that input. I wouldn't want to sound accusative or pedantically persecutive. And God bless you for levelling the platform - you will not lose your reward, in Jesus Name!

Thank you & amen to that. Kind words indeed.

May the Lord lead & direct all who seek Him in truth and have mercy on those who do not!

@Bobbyaf,

I only took time to respond to yours in the previous thread so that we don't derail the purpose thereto. Secondly, you still are having problems articulating your ideas and so far it doesn't seem to differ in anyway than the one already debunked. So here:

Bobbyaf:

You guys are already set in your views about an apparently attack on your version of christianity. My version is far different, and is based on the un-diluted word of God. If anything, I am relentlessly attacking a counterfeit remodel of christianity, that has been infected with pagan practises. Since you chose to mis-represent as always what I have to say freely, then I guess you have understood a we bit clearer what I mean.

I'm least interested in your shadow boxing. The facts still stand as stated, and your attempt to pretend your version does not help your cover-up. Compare:

shahan:

Biblical Christianity has no hint of paganism in it.

Bobbyaf:

Yes it does and not even you can deny it.

Do you see your denial now??

Bobbyaf:

Your version of christianity has caught a cold. It needs to once again be purified. The only way to do that is to totally remove youselves from the teachings and influence of papal and pagan Rome.

Right, so when I stated the case for BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY, you refer to it as a version that has caught a cold. No worries, because while you think you're being funny, you little realise how you're actually attacking the Word of God. Carry on.

Bobbyaf:

I believe that the SDA church is the best representation of what God intended for His church to be in terms of doctrines and lifestyle. As to whether all SDAs live out these doctrines in their lives is another question.

In that case, are you admitting to two things:

(a) SDA is the only Church of God today and all others are going to hell?

(b) So, inspite of your problems with other denominations, you don't even have full confidence in the members of SDA?

Bobbyaf:

Note however, that I have always believed that God's people like sheep are scattered in various bodies of believers. Most of these bodies have mixed some truth with erroroneous practises, to which I have allluded.

Which means that the SDA has no errors??

Bobbyaf:

I am not quite sure what you mean by promoted in all ages. However, we have had through the history of the denom people who have started erroneous doctrines, but were never accommadated. The church is so structured to detect such by God's Holy Spirit. We've had our own internal struggles with people who have become our worst enemies, in that they still claim to represent the SDA denom, but only as splinter groups. They know the treasure of being with what we have as a heritage.

I didn't query the splinter groups but SDA as a whole. Specifically, has Ellen G. White not propagated any heresies that the SDA church promotes and holds up until now?

Bobbyaf:

As you know factions have been plauging God's church ever since, but ultimately God's true remnant will be blessed and maintained by Him. So there is a constant cleansing of God's church.

And that "God's Church" happen to be none other than the SDA??

Bobbyaf:

Well, I am not perfect! In terms of what I believe, no. I mean I have said a lot of things, and as you know the English language is a strange language. People see in expressions what they choose to see, despite any explanations.

This is why several people have asked you to be careful what you say. How else do you want them read and not misunderstand you when you use expressions carelessly without knowing their meaning, prejudge issues and people who you don't even know, and yet refuse to listen to all the appeals that they keep sending you? You haven't made a good case for yourself on the Forum, Bobbyaf.

Bobbyaf:

If you are able to take up the challenge to prove otherwise, be my guest. I am open minded enough to see the truth, if it is the truth.

Well, you really haven't demonstrated you're ready to learn. The complaint that SDA members are belligerent is a strong testimony to that, even though I haven't encountered a sizeable number in all my travels as others have.

Bobbyaf:

Hmmnn! My getting it all wrong, huh? You guys are free to say whatever you desire to say. I am cool. I carry no hard feelings or malice. This is an open forum.

How does that demonstrate that you're willing to learn in humility?

Bobbyaf:

When you get to see the other and less controversial side of Bobby, you will like him. He is a cool guy you know.

Does it have to take forever for "the other and less controversial side of Bobby" to show up?

@ Shahan

Right, so when I stated the case for BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY, you refer to it as a version that has caught a cold. No worries, because while you think you're being funny, you little realise how you're actually attacking the Word of God. Carry on.

You'll soon find out who is attacking what!

In that case, are you admitting to two things:

(a) SDA is the only Church of God today and all others are going to hell?

Those are your words not mine. Besides, we are not discussing hell here are we? As I have said so many times, the SDA church is the best representation of what God intended His church to be, in terms of doctrines, and lifestyle practise. I am not saying that the SDA church is perfect, and at least I am honest enough to say that. God's church is continually growing by His grace, until we take on the "fullness of the stature of Christ" (see Eph. 4)

(b) So, inspite of your problems with other denominations, you don't even have full confidence in the members of SDA?

So why should I have confidence in men may I ask? I have full confidence in Jesus Christ and His word. You as well as I know that you will always have un-converted people in all denominations, including mine. So, please avoid trying to send the wrong ideas about what I am really trying to say.

My emphasis is doctrines which lead to a particular lifestyle. Once someone is sold on God's will and instructions as being more important than one's wishes and fancies about christianity, then you're ok with me. That is why I said that in all denominations there are God's people who are just waiting to hear the truth presented. Jesus said "you shall know the truth and it shall set you free"

The problem is that what they are exposed to is the doctrines and traditions of men. I say down with man's traditions and false teachings. Let us rebuild the old places. Let us restore the will and instructions of God so that the curse will be lifted from the land. Listen to what God's word has said:

Isaiah 24:5

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

They the innocent in babylon have been taught to ignore God's eternal law and covenant, and even the blind can see what is taking place upon the land. Lawlessness prevails.

Which means that the SDA has no errors??

That is for you to show me. I wouldn't be there if I had any problems.

I didn't query the splinter groups but SDA as a whole. Specifically, has Ellen G. White not propagated any heresies that the SDA church promotes and holds up until now?

As for Ellen White I haven't read all her material as yet, because of the huge volumes of books she has written. But so far I haven't read anything that would suggest heresy. And even if she made mistakes that doesn't necessarily mean that she wasn't called as a messenger of God for our time.

What I do know is that millions have come to know Jesus because of her writings. No other woman has written more in terms of volume than E.G. White.

Shahan there are several sites that point to the so-called heresies of Ellen White. A lot of things that were said by her have been taken out of context, and that is why I don't bother anymore about such criticisms.

@Bobbyaf,

For the sake of argument and a well-rounded debate, let me point out a few things about why you still mix up issues.

Bobbyaf:

You'll soon find out who is attacking what!

As straight-forward as can be, my post was about BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY; and your reply was directly attacking that very issue. See for yourself:

shahan:

Biblical Christianity has no hint of paganism in it.

. . . and your direct response to that was:

Bobbyaf:

@ Shahan
Yes it does and not even you can deny it.

So there - your attempt to circle round issues is not helping your case.

Bobbyaf:

Those are your words not mine. Besides, we are not discussing hell here are we? As I have said so many times, the SDA church is the best representation of what God intended His church to be, in terms of doctrines, and lifestyle practise.

The question was simple enough: "(a) SDA is the only Church of God today and all others are going to hell?" I simply wanted your statement in as simple as you can afford to state it.

Since SDA members are too "exclusive" to appreciate other denominations and have labelled them daughters of "babylon" who are not "close" enough to represent God's will, the question then would be - "Are other denominations going to hell if they are non-SDA?"

Bobbyaf:

I am not saying that the SDA church is perfect, and at least I am honest enough to say that. God's church is continually growing by His grace, until we take on the "fullness of the stature of Christ" (see Eph. 4)

Bobbyaf, what is God's Church??

Bobbyaf:

So why should I have confidence in men may I ask? I have full confidence in Jesus Christ and His word. You as well as I know that you will always have un-converted people in all denominations, including mine. So, please avoid trying to send the wrong ideas about what I am really trying to say.

I am quoting your very words and following on from there; so there's no sending wrong ideas besides what you have been saying.

Bobbyaf:

My emphasis is doctrines which lead to a particular lifestyle. Once someone is sold on God's will and instructions as being more important than one's wishes and fancies about christianity, then you're ok with me.

In other words, one is okay with you so long as his or her doctrines are flavoured after SDA?

Bobbyaf:

That is why I said that in all denominations there are God's people who are just waiting to hear the truth presented. Jesus said "you shall know the truth and it shall set you free"

In other words again, all denominations are not good enough until they receive SDA doctrines?

Bobbyaf:

The problem is that what they are exposed to is the doctrines and traditions of men. I say down with man's traditions and false teachings. Let us rebuild the old places. Let us restore the will and instructions of God so that the curse will be lifted from the land.

Right. I am persuaded that the SDA is exposed to the doctrine and traditions of a woman - Ellen G. White. And I say, as you do, "down with Ellen G. White's traditions and false teachings!"

Bobbyaf:

That is for you to show me. I wouldn't be there if I had any problems.

Just requesting you to say a simple yes or no to the question: "Which means that the SDA has no errors??"

Bobbyaf:

As for Ellen White I haven't read all her material as yet, because of the huge volumes of books she has written.

You mean the ones she plagiarized from other sources and claimed as her visions and revelations from the Lord? I haven't read them all as well; but I guarantee you that I've contacted most of them direct.

Bobbyaf:

But so far I haven't read anything that would suggest heresy. And even if she made mistakes that doesn't necessarily mean that she wasn't called as a messenger of God for our time.

Two things need to be sorted here:

(a) you "haven't read anything that would suggest heresy"; or, you are simply not aware of the fact; or, you just want to pretend they are just not there?

(b) by the statement that, "even if she made mistakes" are you admitting to heresies in Ellen G. White's writings and plagiarized works??

Bobbyaf:

What I do know is that millions have come to know Jesus because of her writings. No other woman has written more in terms of volume than E.G. White.

Bless God for the millions who have found the Saviour - Jesus Christ; but nope - the "volumes" are mostly plagiarized works from other sources. More than that, thank God for the millions more who left the SDA after discovering the facts!

Bobbyaf:

Shahan there are several sites that point to the so-called heresies of Ellen White.

I know, my dear, I know. . . and trust shahan: she's not that gullible to pander just about anything ferreted from just about any website. I could list for you some of those websites that are anti-SDA but are shamelessly lying through their teeth against EGW. I know that much. However, only very few of them have the facts right and sourced their material from SDA offcial publications - which I have contatcted myself!

Bobbyaf:

A lot of things that were said by her have been taken out of context, and that is why I don't bother anymore about such criticisms.

I think it would do you a whole lot of good to bother about those critcism - however sarcastic and bitter they may sound. Not all of them are sincere; but loads of them tell the truth about what SDA really is. Besides, when I source materials in my personal study, I mae sure that Ellen G. White is not misquoted; and her very bold statements have shown that she could not be trusted at all.

Only those who live according to the teachings of Christ are his disciples indeed.
They may be SDA,RCC,ABC or TNT.

Denominations cannot save.You can be in a holy ghost filled,bible believing church and still miss the mark.
Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he falls.

@babyosisi,

Thank you for that concise input. Problem is that the SDA will NOT see eye-to-eye with any other Christian church/group/denomination; and to the SDA, all other 'denoms' are daughters of Babylon with RCC as the head!

I had a good friend in SDA,the sabaath thing was a little strange to me but I thought that was the only difference we had,I never knew they believed that all non SDA were false.

Wonders shall never cease.
You know deeper life people thought (or Think) the same way too.

CHURCH CANNOT SAVE!!! ONLY CHRIST CAN!!!