₦airaland Forum

@ Havila

Since you appear to have a fixation on the repentant thief who was not baptised, while I concur totally with Shahan's posts and scripture, I will like to add that: if you know the significance of water baptism, then you will know that the thief did not necessarily need to be baptised.

Which proves the point I made earlier. Rest assured I know the significance of baptism.

Baptism signifies total submission of the body and life of a christian to the death, burial and especially the ressurection of Jesus Christ as the Lord. [Key words: signifies; submission; Christian; death/burial/ressurection; Jesus Christ.] On the cross, Jesus had neither been buried nor ressurected when the thief gave his life and then died on the cross. So, the thief does not necessarily had to be baptised on the cross since Christ as not yet ressurected when he (the thief) gave his life and died.

Christ already knew that purpose before He said it to Nicademus, although He didn't stress the point Paul further developed. The fact is baptism before, or after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection would still have had the same meaning and purpose to everyone taking part in this exercise.

If you notice the thread topic again you'd have seen why I responded the way I did. Anyway thanks for the reminder of what Paul further said about the purpose of baptism.

Read the book of Acts, Romans and Hebrew in the Bible and you will have a better understanding of the significance of water baptism by immersion to Christians from the resurrection and ascension of Christ till He returns. Peace

I am already familiar, but thanks anyway.

@ Seun

How can a "sinless" Christian commit a sin? If you are "sinless", then obviously there is no sin to confess.

Sounds a bit paradoxical, doesn't it? Well, in truth and in fact God looks at the trend of our lives rather than a slip here and there, because of our human nature.

So while we are maturing spiritually there are moments when we will come short, or miss the mark so to speak. So the very text that you remarked on implies that reality, but only as we recognize our weaknesses. No matter how good we think we are every time we kneel before the God of creation, we must confess our sins and faults, even while we think we might not have committed any. Sometimes we offend others without recognizing it.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.

@ Dannicool

My dear memebrs and guest of this lovely forum.
This is I nice topic raised by our fellow, I don't think one should start critisizing any body or Pastors here.

Yes miracle still happen today, both the one you see on TV are not planned work but they are real.

Please stop judging your fellow man.

So are you saying that we shouldn't take heed to what Jesus said about false teachers working miracles in the last days? The fact is false teachers are in abundance; and on TV itself.

get real and open your eyes to reality.

@ Shahan

If water baptism is a must, what then is the significance of believers not being baptized?

Tell that to the repentant thief on the cross who didn't get baptised. 

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

Many times I wonder if you really go through posts before you make any entry. Are you badly in need of attention? The very things you pressumed were lacking in mine have been thoroughly thrashed; and so far nothing erudite has been highlighted in yours.

What is it in yours that you think I have not dealt with??

All that matters is what the bible says, not what you think is so. Besides, aren't you breaking your own ill-concieved ideas about women teaching men anyway? As a woman, and based on your understanding, however skewed it may be, why are you ursurping?

@ Segoye2

We all know that for a healthy walk with God and a balanced attitude toward miracles, we should avoid setting our expectations below what God opens up to us, and we should also avoid presuming that God has to do miracles on demand if we feel strongly enough about it. True faith is confidence that God can do anything he chooses, and willingness to accept whatever he chooses.

Excellent point indeed. In essence true and genuine miracles do happen today, but in harmony with bible truth.

But with the Miracles shown on every TV stations, Magazines and the rest, with lots of them happening so fast, one will not help but ask if Miracle really happen today!

The fact is some people believe that only God alone can work miracles. Such a belief leads to deceptions galore. There is danger in using miracles as a test of faith, or truth, especially when we stop to think that Satan and his demons can also work miracles.  

Listen to what God's word says about the issue:

Matthew 24:24, 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Jesus made it clear as crystal that certain false teachers would come in His name, claiming the annointing, that would be healing, and performing all sorts of things, but the fact remains they are Satan's agents. I know its hard to accept that because it looks so real at times. These itineray preachers, and TV evangelists make it look oh so easy.  , you really have to wonder.  

Revelation 16:13,14, "13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the [b]spirits of devils, working miracles, [/b]which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

"Spirits of devils" are in fact demons using humans to decieve and distort the minds of other humans in the name of God. The only true test of faith and true religion is God's word.

"If they speak not according to this word, its because there is no light in them"

@ Segoye2

We all know that for a healthy walk with God and a balanced attitude toward miracles, we should avoid setting our expectations below what God opens up to us, and we should also avoid presuming that God has to do miracles on demand if we feel strongly enough about it. True faith is confidence that God can do anything he chooses, and willingness to accept whatever he chooses.

Excellent point indeed.

But with the Miracles shown on every TV stations, Magazines and the rest, with lots of them happening so fast, one will not help but ask if Miracle really happen today!

The fact is some people believe that only God alone can work miracles. Such a belief leads to deceptions galore. There is danger in using miracles as a test of faith, or truth.

Listen to what God's word says about the issue:

Matthew 24:24, 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Jesus made it clear as crystal that certain false teachers would come in His name, claiming the annointing, that would be healing, and performing all sorts of things.

Revelation 16:13,14, "13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the [b]spirits of devils, working miracles, [/b]which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

"Spirits of devils" are in fact demons using humans to decieve and distort the minds of other humans in the name of God. The only true test of faith and true religion is God's word.

"If they speak not according to this word, its because there is no light in them"

@ GeeGee

Dis is something that has been bothering me 4 some time now so i want sensible contributions from christians. Is water baptism compulsory 4 a born again christian? Let's start now!

In principle yes, however, there might be times when a person cannot get baptised in that manner. A case in point would be the thief on the cross who accepted Jesus, but died without experiencing that watery baptism.

Another example would be a person that is so old and sick that it would be virtually impractical and foolish to try to prove a point in attempting such a manner of baptism. Such persons can be recieved into the membership upon the profession of their faith.

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

The reason why Paul wouldn't have rebuked me is that you're misquoting him and putting words in his mouth.

Far from it. I have hinted to you that you have failed to provide a historical, as well as cultural context for Paul's church policy, because that is all it was. You have to learn to distinguish between Paul's need to create church policies due to situations, rather than see them as permanent doctrines, or dogmas.

Any careful and proper research would have to highlight that Paul was dealing with an isolated case that was developing in some of the churches. If you take a good look at how Paul phrased his remarks you'd see the point. If we look at 1 Tim. 2:9-12,

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

If we look carefully at the text, even without carefully researching cultural, or historical context, as important as they are, we already begin to see a context. From the outset let me ask a question. Why would Paul choose to bring up negativities unless he had good reasons to? I propose that a condition was already being developed that witnessed women in that environment, power playing their male counterpart for reasons known and unknown.

The obvious fact is, Paul would not have had reasons for mentioning something as critical as this, unless circumstances never dictated it. One doesn't just arbitrarily make up rules, just for rules' sake, and certainly not with the intention of belittling women. In these instances however, Paul chose to address those women that were posing a problem, the nature of which was to counter argue, which led to confusion and disorder.

In verse 9 Paul said: "in like manner also that women, " Paul wasn't just talking to women that were loosing their conservative values, but men also. Men too had their spiritual challenges, but besides that, there was obviously a band of women who saught to be more liberal in their manner of speech, and who even went as far as to challenge, even their husbands in the churches concerning issues. The constant pecking and bickering was enough for Paul to enact church policies, that were never meant to be used to make women look as if they have no role in teaching or preaching the word in the churches.

In fact Acts 2:17,18 speaks to the very role that women would play in the last days, and no doubt these roles would be carried out within the churches. Listen to Peter as he proclaimed the obvious.

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

So all this un-necessary talk about women ursurping men if they teach them, can only find its true understanding when we look at the situation that Paul addressed. It has absolutely nothing to do with women teaching men in the present day churches today. As it stands more women respond to the christian call than men. I'd add to that fact that there are more homes being headed by matriarchs than patriarchs.

I wonder what Paul would say if he were alive in our time?

Do I suspect that you conveniently missed the texts I offered because SDA is spearheaded by a woman (Ellen G. White)??

Spear-headed you say? ,

@ Shahan

It doesn't matter to you it seems that you quote out of context? If Paul were alive to day he'd have rebuked you.

@ Trini_girl

Hi Osegwu,

Haba, more "personal" criticism.  Your criticism is welcome.  However, I assure you that I am by no means conflicted or confused about what I believe.

I agree. I find you to be refreshingly animated, not conflicted or confused.

Also, I had no idea people were "scared" of responding to my posts. I have not gotten that impression in the least.

Only goes to show how people see others who happen to disagree.

I also don't think it's fair, as I'm sure you will agree, to use my personality quirks (if you can call it that) as an indication or justification for women not being in positions of authority in the church.

Very much agree with you on that!  

Perhaps I myself am not ready, but I'm sure there are many capable, scripture quoting women who have mastered the art of seething inwardly while politely giving a response with a smile, while their blood pressure hits the roof. Look at Shahan for example, she seems to be a well learned theologian.

Well, if that is the case she is not taking the biblical instructions not to teach men.  , whether outside a mere church building or not.  Of course she would argue otherwise as to what "in the churches" really mean.

For expressing my opinion I have been accused of all sorts of erroneous things.  I think I've handled it quite well. In fact, I truly found it amusing how ignorant people can be. The fact is, once you don't conform to what other people believe on this forum when it comes to christianity, you automatically become a feminist tool of the anti-christ, and people offer you many "prayers".

Exactly! And especially when they cannot get around you scripturally.  

I do not conform.  I do not need or want to "impress" anyone here by being a "sweet" woman.  I do not need to be liked by the men here. I aint lookin for a husband. I do not have to be agreeable and I sure as hell do not have to respect anyone who disrespects me. If people cannot realize this is only one side of me then too bad.

Maybe it's a Trini-African thing, but black women here express themselves without fear. RAH!  

It seems that the problem is I should not express my opinion about people's post by using words like "rubbish" and "nonsense".  But others have expressed that about my posts and I didn't consider it an insult. In fact, I found it funny.  People are just too sensitive, and need to grow up! This is just a place to exchange ideas for heaven sake, it's not real life!

The problem is they believe they own the forum.

In fact, I think I will disappear for a while.

Stay for heaven's sake! Just when I was beginning to enjoy some animation you had to quit on me.  

@ Analytical

@mihai

Don't even go there. The Great Commission was given to his disciples, both men and women, at Galilee. Let's check the references.

Remember that at the tomb, the two Marys, who are also disciples, went early sunday morning and were met by an angel. Hear what the angel said unto them, just some verses above Matt. 28 vs. 20.


Quote
Matt. 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Check out the words of Jesus to the same women:


Quote
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”


And who are these His brethren or followers? The same people that had been with Him all these while, not just the eleven. How am I so sure? See the same account in Luke 24:


Quote
Luke 24:
5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6 “He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.”

Note what He said to them in verse 49:


Quote
49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”


Now, let's go to the book of Acts. Mind you, both Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, Dr. Luke. So Acts is actually a sequel to Luke. So who are these same brethren, followers, or disciples commanded to stay in Jerusalem?


Quote
Acts 1:
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together),

These were men and women, and not just the eleven disciples. However, see what Acts 2 says


Quote
Acts 2:
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them:

Are there only the eleven? No. This is just emphasising that the eleven diciples were present, not that the were the only ones present. The same thing conveyed in Matt. 28 vs.16.

Comparing scriptures with scripture establishes the truth. Guess I have done enough.

Very good reasoning Analytical.

Again this leads us back to stop smoking weed.

How you do not see the difference between someone prophesying and preaching to a church?

The context of the word prophesying as you will agree means to teach, correct?

Of course we will all prophesy that Jesus is Lord

The context and responsibility of teaching, as taught in scriptures, goes far beyond simply saying that Jesus is Lord. Teaching is a ministry that is wide in range, and scope. As such women are very much apart of that ministry, and are entitled to be, and in most cases seem to do a better job at it anyway.

but many parts of the bible makes it clear what the role of women should be in the church

And if you and I are both reading the same bible, and I'd advise you to read it within a historical context as well, you'd have noticed that the era under which the bible was written was dominated by males, a patriarchal age in which women had little or no rights. From creation that wasn't the case because both Adam and Eve were both made equally. The mere fact that she was made from his side indicates that.  The rib as you would note comes from the side.

you can refer to my previous posts. It is in no means demeaning to be asked not to preach, there is no guarantee that the preacher will get in heaven before the congregation, heaven is the primary goal after all.

Thats not the purpose of the topic, and besides, under Jesus "there is neither male nor female, jew nor gentile, " Christ came to restore the repectability, and to remove the indignity that was heaped upon women back then.

Paul's comments about women in the city of Corinth, and in other locations, as it relates to them not teaching in the churches, was never meant to be a precedence for all women throughout all dispensations.

But of course you male chauvinists cannot see that, can you? 

Which bible are you reading?. . . I tell you Jamaicans, stop smoking weed.

The very same one you need to read more widely, or fail to understand, 

Please read: Acts 2:17, 18 which says: 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Jesus possessed the form of God as expressed by Paul in Phillipians 2. Paul in Collosians referred to Christ as "the express image of the Father"

So from all indications Jesus was very much God, with all the attributes of His Father. Recall also that Jesus created the universe. He hholds it together according to Paul in Collosians.

I believe a woman should be able to preach, or teach. The biblical weight of evidence supports it.

@ Drusilla

Question:

Did God send 2 different but true religions?

Are Judaism and Christianity both true, even though they different religions?

I believe they were both based on true revelations that came from the same author, God. Judaism no doubt was the platform on which Christianity was built. Both have commonalities.

@ trinigirl

What is a "sinless" christian. There is no such thing. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I believe what the gentleman is trying to say is that God does not remember past sins after we come to repentence.

When we begin living for Christ, we have a NEW nature, the nature of God. So it's not that we don't sin, but we should come to a place where we do not HABITUALLY sin.

Christianity is a practice, not a magical tranformation. But we have God's Holy Spirit who helps us become transformed.

It means then that if before I used to be a thief, after knowing Christ, I might steal again, but immediately afterwards I feel so bad for doing it, I correct my behaviour. That's the difference.
Once we have the nature of God, we should be convicted of sin, learn to hear his voice and correct our behaviours to become more like Him.

Amen to that!

@ Winie

According to Rom:5:1 a christian that is believes that Jesus is lord and alive is justified by faith. This means that God sees us as sinless. This is an awesome truth. i
know that many may find it hard to believe, but its true. We are no longer under the curse of sin.

Without wanting to throw off your wonderful reminder of God's free grace, I just thought I'd ask a few questions:

1. How does one define sin? Better yet how does the bible define sin?

2. At what point does God see us as sinless?

3. Will this sinless state fluctuate, or is it permanent? In other words is there a point in one's conversion experience where we are so attuned with God that we begin to live like His Son Jesus?

This is my understanding. Christians are expected to grow in grace towards the fullnes of the stature of Christ. (see Eph. 4)

In the light of this, sin has to be understood as it relates to our growth, and how we react to God's revealed will. In fact sin is when we reject His revealed will. As God reveals knowledge of His will, through whatever means, as christians we must act on such revelation, and walk in that revelation by His enabling strength. If we don't we sin, and sin deliberately too. If we are not aware of His will and instructions, then we sin in a different way. We sin unknowingly.

Of course our love for God is the motivating factor. When we experience His love we are "constrained" to love Him. We will be prepared to die before dishonouring Him just as the patriarchs of old, and just like the apostles were prepared to lay down their lives.

Bless.

@ 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.

@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.

@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,

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.

@ 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.

@ 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"

@ 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.

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

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.

@ 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!

@ Shahan

No, we are not amused; and just so we don't get you wrong or pre-judge your statement, it was rational that you said it in white and black. So, how does this take away from the earlier inferences that you make yourself a judge over others? Or, how does this detract from the statement by m4malik that only legalistic men see themselves as "bible-believing christians" and all others are wrong but them alone?

Believing as I do does not necessarily make me legalistic Shahan. If Jesus said in matthew 24 that "many shall be decieved" why shouldn't I take Him seriously? I am aware through God's word that at all times we must choose to either accept truth, or reject error. In doing so one will always be in a position to be faced with descriptions like the ones placed on me by malik, because of a mis-understanding.

I see myself as feeling/being obligated, as we are encouraged in the SDA church to point out the necessity for us to not be part of religious confusion because the bible has called us to walk in the light and not in darkness, and there is no doubt that not all denoms are teaching the truth of God's word. Our job as followers of Christ is to ensure we walk in the light. Paul says if another comes preaching another gospel other than what is expected by Christ let him be accursed. Hence 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.

I can think all by myself, thank you. And you're doubly wrong! several times I have offered like m4malik that we all try and appreciate other believers in every Christian denomination or every professing Church without pre-judging them.

All that is good. As christians we can agree on those things we have in common, and render support in such cases, but we also have a duty to stand up for truth if we believe its not being emphasised, or being neglected. There will come a time when issues will be brought to the forefront that need clarification. My bible asks the obvious question can two walk together unless they agree? I am sure you already know the answer to that.

Truth must not be placed in obscurity in the name of being nice. Truth according to Jesus will at times separate family and friends. Its that serious. He warns that it can be an offence, but not a sin to emphasise it.

And your point is. . . that I should have been in the SDA in order to understand the deity of Jesus Christ? Not even when you have not been able to defend His deity and humanity coherently.

Let me put it this way. You'd have a clearer vision, but you are not doing so badly now. There is not much difference bewteen us on the deity of Jesus. Let me give you an analogy now that you have brought up this deity matter. I picture a king becoming a beggar. Yes he is a king, but he cannot expect to have kingly powers as long as he is a beggar.

Jesus is no doubt God, but He is not allowed to use that power as long as He is man. He must depend on His Father for all power before He suffers Calvary's death.

The only point of difference I made was: if anyone's "tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word". That does not warrant my lumping them up as you did; and certainly God's Word does not do that at all.

So how do you explain why there are so many denoms if there were no major differences in doctrines then? God's word says the following:

"broad is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that find it" The bible also says that "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet areRev. 20:10

There can be only two classes of people, those that are true and those that are false. When push comes to shove one must choose the way of the Lord, regadless of friends or family. There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings. Listen to that Paul says about the true believers.

Ephesians 4:11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Shahan this is war, and Satan doesn't wear pajamas. He doesn't sleep. He is bent on decieving as many as he can, and God's church cannot afford to play nice while souls die in ignorance.

God's church for this day and age has been called to warn those denoms who have accepted the influences of the Harlot called the RCC. 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.

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. Christ said the following: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; in somuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

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

Bless.