Defense of Doug Batchelor/Adventist Misconceptions

[6YRSHOME]

Speaking of the Catechism, it can be noted that the authors thereof altered the 10 commandments significantly. The 2nd commandment:

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them…

That commandment is removedas the 2nd commandment and the 10th commandment is split in 2, making the taking of the Lord’s name in vain the 2nd commandment!

The issue of idols is addressed in the subject of the 1st commandment instead, and you may read:

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images.

(I hope this doesn’t break any forum rules, posting that much of the Catechism.)

So, with no Scriptural authority, a justification for graven images is made within the Church. While God ordained the making of certain images, he never gave us permission to make them out of our own will for ourselves or for the Church.

As a side note, the 4th commandment of Remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy; it becomes the 3rd commandment, and the explanation for the change of Saturday to Sunday:

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ’s Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106

So again, we have an internal justification within the Church for a non-Scriptural alterration. If there were a Scripture ordaining it, it would have been offered.

So, since I know that Catholics regard the Catechism as true and authentic, I thought I’d share what I have found in there.

Lastly, as another side note, I don’t know that much about “Mary Worship” in the Catholic church, but I have seen quite a few pictures of John Paul II praying and bowing before her. If one of you could explain the reason for this, how and why it is done, and the Scriptural backing for it, I will be satisfied, but I don’t understand it as of yet. And yes, I could research it myself, but I would like to hear from some of you as well. I wish not to create offense to any of you, but understand I have only quoted directly from the Catechism.

All of these issues have been explained numerous times on other threads. You may be able to find them using the Search feature. There are threads on Sola Sciptura, Sabbath vs. Sunday, Mary. I suggest that you read through some of those as they may answer your questions. You will have an easier time on this thread if you stay on topic and either do as I’ve suggested above or start a new thread for each new topic.
Threads have a way of going in numerous different tangents. I think the issue here is Doug Batchelor and his statements.

 

[St_Violet]

6YRSHOME,

The sources I am talking about areVatican-issued writings, and yes, including the Catechism. But your reminder is definitely germaine, and your point taken, because just the same level of prayerful inspection and substantiation should be made from all sides. It’s not easy for me to relocate the quotes that are in my mind, or that I have made reference to, but I will look for them, and when I find them, I will cite them, along with their author and issue date.

Speaking of the Catechism, it can be noted that the authors thereof altered the 10 commandments significantly. The 2nd commandment:

*4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them…*

That commandment is removedas the 2nd commandment and the 10th commandment is split in 2, making the taking of the Lord’s name in vain the 2nd commandment!

The issue of idols is addressed in the subject of the 1st commandment instead, and you may read:

*2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images. *

(I hope this doesn’t break any forum rules, posting that much of the Catechism.)

So, with no Scriptural authority, a justification for graven images is made within the Church. While God ordained the making of certain images, he never gave us permission to make them out of our own will for ourselves or for the Church.

As a side note, the 4th commandment of Remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy; it becomes the 3rd commandment, and the explanation for the change of Saturday to Sunday:

*2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ’s Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106 *

So again, we have an internal justification within the Church for a non-Scriptural alterration. If there were a Scripture ordaining it, it would have been offered.

So, since I know that Catholics regard the Catechism as true and authentic, I thought I’d share what I have found in there.

Lastly, as another side note, I don’t know that much about “Mary Worship” in the Catholic church, but I have seen quite a few pictures of John Paul II praying and bowing before her. If one of you could explain the reason for this, how and why it is done, and the Scriptural backing for it, I will be satisfied, but I don’t understand it as of yet. And yes, I could research it myself, but I would like to hear from some of you as well. I wish not to create offense to any of you, but understand I have only quoted directly from the Catechism.

-Matchbook

well you do acknowledge that Jews , Protestant and Catholics number their commandments differently right?, heck if you were to look at Exodus and Deut, they are both numbered differently

for instance

for the Jews the first commandment is :“I am the LORD your God.”

Protestants: I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Catholics: I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.

(This was typed from the memory in my head, correct me if I typed something inaccurate)

Second; the subject you brought up concering images, I know that In Deuteronomy 4:15-18 it tells us that since we have seen no form of God we should not make anything depicting him but since we acknowledge that Christ is God and walked among the earth and we even know that people have seen him, we now have ever reason to depict him in many forms of art.

122. The fine arts are rightly classed among the noblest activities of man’s genius; this is especially true of religious art and of its highest manifestation, sacred art. Of their nature the arts are directed toward expressing in some way the infinite beauty of God in works made by human hands. Their dedication to the increase of God’s praise and of his glory is more complete, the more exclusively they are devoted to turning men’s minds devoutly toward God. (Vatican II, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM , 122)

Heck even your own Church is gulity of depicting Christ.

Third: Bowing doesn’t always Indicate worship in fact people still bow in Japan which to them indicated a form of respect and honor not worship.

 

[FCEGM]

. . . I think the issue here is Doug Batchelor and his statements.

6YRS, I happened upon Doug Batechelor’s TV program just a few days ago and had to laugh at his claim that the likes of John Calvin, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc., were all “prophets” because they all saw the Catholic Church as the you-know what. To his mind, then, anyone who casts aspersions on the Catholic Church is therefore a true prophet of God. I guess if enough folks say it’s so, it must be so and those who say it’s so are all prophets. The intellect behind such twisting isn’t worthy of consideration no matter how long it spent in a cave.

 

[adventistnomore]

You make it clear through your own admission that the Catholic Church herself can do no wrong, and that the Papacy supports that too. It doesn’t matter if apologies are made for people or pastors or leaders in the church, if the church still claims its infallibility. Isn’t this only validating the very claim Ellen G. White made? She (The Catholic Church) still holds her actions as the church to be right and infallible?

You misunderstand “infallibility,” which extends only to the Church’s doctrines on faith and morals. The actions of its leaders or members, even when acting in the name of “the Church” are not infallible.

Also,

I really think you would benefit from reading the statements of the Vatican in defense of religious liberty, and read about its activities around the world to ensure the same (in Poland, Cuba, etc.). Start with “Dignitatis Humanae” (II Vatican Council); let me know what you think.

 

[Matchbook]

I happed across something that I could perhaps consider providential. I see that although my intentions coming here to defend my church are good, all that is produced from it are arguments, no matter how polite, and debating of doctrine, which I have not done my part to spurn in this thread.

So I came across a video of Doug Batchelor, online, a sermon he did in his church called “Are Seventh Day Adventist a Cult?” I watched the whole thing, 55 minutes I think. I think it’s safe to say he covers everything.

I know some of you might not want to spend your time watching this, but is it not better to watch this video than to spend time after time in threads like these or in public, with the mentality that SDA’s are a cult, when this video can either debunk that for you, or allow you to keep your belief on it? PLEASE DO watch this, I ask this only so that we can avoid too much quibbling, and then get to the meat of the issue, and if there are questions afterwards, I will respond if I am able. After all, coincidentally, this covers both the subject of Doug Batchelor and SDA cultishness all in one!

The link:

loudcry.org/main/video/Doug_Batchelor/SeventhDayAdventstsCult.divx

120 mb download

If this goes against forum rules, I apologize… I am in a real rush tonight, I have to leave, otherwise I would have read the rules to check about posting links.

 

[6YRSHOME]

Matchbook,
I don’t think that the issue is whether or not SDA is a cult. I think that many of us, especially former adventists, agree that the Seventh Day Adventists are a chrisitan sect. This is in agreement of the Catholic Chruches position.

That does not negate the fact that a great portion of what Doug Batchelor preaches about the Catholic Church is false. It is extremley anti-Catholic and paints a totally inaccuate picture of what our church teaches. It is in opposition to history and fact.

If you want to discuss these things, I will gladly do my best, as will other posters who are much more knowledgable than I, show you where and why we think he is in error.

By the way, have you read any of the docuemnts that adventistnomore suggested? Understanding and charity should come from both sides.

 

[Matchbook]

6YRSHOME,

You are bypassing the fact that thousands of people believe the SDAs ARE a cult, whether that impression comes from their own church, pastor, or something they hear on TV or radio. You’ll find such statements imbedded in the archives of this forum. Would you be willing to watch the video I posted?..or anyone else for that matter?

I have written down a few different documents, letters, and Vatican releases I have come across that I am going to read, now including Dignitatus Humanae, which I will read today most likely, and give a reply to if I have one to make.

I think we should look at the realism of our situation. Many of you think that I and the Adventists misunderstand the Catholic Church. Adventists and I believe you misunderstand the Adventist church. I expend my efforts inside and outside of this forum to garner a better understanding, so as I have posted this video, which, after my viewing, I believe would be edifying to any of those who watch, NOT because I believe it to be a means of converting others or coercing into different beliefs, but because it should be edifying in such a way as to dissolve MANY misconceptions that have been stated against the SDA church.

For those who did not see the link or video description on page 3, it is a 55 minute video called “Are SDA’s a Cult?” by Doug Batchelor, in which he covers many of the misconceptions and our fundamental beliefs in what I would consider an elucidating way that may dispel some widespread myths. The link and download (110 mb) is:

loudcry.org/main/video/Do…ntstsCult.divx

Adventistnomore - I will read what you have given, thank you for sharing it. I’ll get back to you

**6YRSHOME **- The conception you’ve developed that the SDA teachings are anti-Catholic or misrepresentative is a reason why I exhort you to consider watching this. He addresses the misconception of Adventists as anti-catholic. Like I said, so much is covered.

FCEGM…I will write another post in response to your sardonic shpeel.

 

[Matchbook]

6YRS, I happened upon Doug Batechelor’s TV program just a few days ago and had to laugh at his claim that the likes of John Calvin, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc., were all “prophets” because they all saw the Catholic Church as the you-know what. To his mind, then, anyone who casts aspersions on the Catholic Church is therefore a true prophet of God. I guess if enough folks say it’s so, it must be so and those who say it’s so are all prophets. The intellect behind such twisting isn’t worthy of consideration no matter how long it spent in a cave.

FCEGM

First of all, I am put off by the disrespect you added in your post. But secondly, the TV program you mentioned by Doug Batchelor, you must not have been watching very attentively, because in every other program I’ve seen of him where he mentions Calvin, Wesley, or other reformers, he has NEVER called them prophets, nor should there be any reason why he would. If they were only studying the Bible and finding interpretations OF prophecy, there is no rational way to call them prophets; only reformers, if you choose to adopt that term for them.

I have only heard Mr. Batchelor refer to them as reformers, and state from their own writings that they all agreed in the interpretation of the beast of Revelation.

If you are absolutely SURE he used the term “prophets” for them, please pry your memory to remember what the name of the program was; Prophecy Code, Millenium of Prophecy Net '99, Amazing Facts, Here We Stand…? I have access to nearly all of his program videos, and can dig up what he said if need be, because I doubt strongly that he said that. I can also unearth PDF files of his programs where he has mentioned their names, and calls them reformers, not prophets.

My best assumption at this point is that you did not hear him correctly, based on the fact I have watched a great deal of his programs involving Wesley, Calvin, and he never uses the term prophets.

I feel that it is often errant statements like yours, even in something as limited as a forum, that fertilizes negative perceptions of people, like Doug Batchelor, in our church. If you are going to make the statement, please offer direct quotations if you can.

 

[6YRSHOME]

The conception you’ve developed that the SDA teachings are anti-Catholic or misrepresentative is a reason why I exhort you to consider watching this. He addresses the misconception of Adventists as anti-catholic. Like I said, so much is covered.

Oh, I didn’t develop anything. This is my observation based on what I know of history and the Bible.
So, yes to be fair I did listen to the sermon. Most of it is was a rehashing of SDA doctrine which, as you probably figured out, I believe to be false. (As I said most of this has been addressed on other threads. There are numerous threads on the sabbath as well as the state of the dead, EG White, and many others, so I won’t get into any of it here.)

The one blatantly false thing that he said is that God gave the eating requirements to Noah.

Genesis 9:3 *Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat. I give them all to you as I did the green plants. *

The clean and unclean were meant for sacrifice.

When I say his teachings are anti Catholic I mean that he teaches not just that the Catholic Church is wrong but that it is evil. On his Amazing Facts program he devotes 2 presentaions on The Bride of The Anti-Christ. And who would that be? The Catholic Church. And yes I listened to it. If that is not anti Catholic I don’t know what else you could call it.

My challenge to you, Matchbook, is to listen to his sermons, or any other adventist teaching and take a hard look at them in light of some serious historical study. I found that they didn’t hold up. And by the way, I was born and raised Adventist. Most of my mom’s family are still deeply committed to the SDA faith. I have heard the Anti Catholic teaching for most of my life, so it is not a misconception.

 

[djconklin]

From the first page of the thread:

1. Authoritative extra-bibllcal revelations: the ravings of Ellen Gould White (whose name adds up to 666) get called “spirit of prophecy”.

Ellen White is NOT authoritative in terms of doctrine. This is a common misnomer based on wooden, simplicstic and literalistic reading. EGW constantly point people to the Bible for their religious beliefs, not to her works.

BTW, Bill Gates’s name adds up to 666 too.

 

[djconklin]

I can say from personal experience: I have heard many very pointed and vicious attacks on the Catholic church from the SDA pulpit, from the sabbath school quarterlies and teachers, and from evangelists presenting seminars.

Then those speakers don’t know the Bible or standard SDA teaching. The Bible says that in the last days:

Revelation 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

God does not save based on which denomination you belong to but on what and who you believe.

 

[djconklin]

When I say his teachings are anti Catholic I mean that he teaches not just that the Catholic Church is wrong but that it is evil. On his Amazing Facts program he devotes 2 presentaions on The Bride of The Anti-Christ. And who would that be? The Catholic Church.

Give me the link to those presentations. I’d like to hear it for myself. What you said he said doens’t sound like what I’ve heard him say in the past.

 

[MarysRoses]

From the first page of the thread:

Ellen White is NOT authoritative in terms of doctrine. This is a common misnomer based on wooden, simplicstic and literalistic reading. EGW constantly point people to the Bible for their religious beliefs, not to her works.

BTW, Bill Gates’s name adds up to 666 too.

From the OFFICIAL list of FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS listed on the OFFICIAL website of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . **As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested " (emphasis mine)

adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

So, they are an AUTHORITATIVE source of TRUTH and provide INSTRUCTION and CORRECTION but aren’t authoritative doctrine? Again, this is the official list of SDA fundamental beliefs on their own website.

Regardless of whether or not EGW and her followers believe her teachings are supported by the bible, it is her interpretations that are authoritative for the SDA church.

MarysRoses

 

[djconklin]

Hmmm, same post in two different threads!

Again, the SDA church doctrines are based solely on the Bible. Not the teachings of man.

 

[KJK80]

Hmmm, same post in two different threads!

Again, the SDA church doctrines are based solely on the Bible. Not the teachings of man.

You cannot prove the sanctuary message Biblically… You cannot prove that the Sabbath is appropriate for non-Jews to keep, Biblically. You also cannot prove HOW the Adventist is to keep the Sabbath (without personal interpretation) Biblically. Nor can you prove the remnant church theory, nor that the Sabbath keeping church is indeed this remnant. There’s a lot more. The Bible does not teach anything on its own. People teach… based on scriptures. The SDA church IS based on the teachings of man and their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Delraek]

6YRSHOME,

The sources I am talking about areVatican-issued writings, and yes, including the Catechism. But your reminder is definitely germaine, and your point taken, because just the same level of prayerful inspection and substantiation should be made from all sides. It’s not easy for me to relocate the quotes that are in my mind, or that I have made reference to, but I will look for them, and when I find them, I will cite them, along with their author and issue date.

Speaking of the Catechism, it can be noted that the authors thereof altered the 10 commandments significantly. The 2nd commandment:

*4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them…*

That commandment is removedas the 2nd commandment and the 10th commandment is split in 2, making the taking of the Lord’s name in vain the 2nd commandment!

The issue of idols is addressed in the subject of the 1st commandment instead, and you may read:

*2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images. *

(I hope this doesn’t break any forum rules, posting that much of the Catechism.)

So, with no Scriptural authority, a justification for graven images is made within the Church. While God ordained the making of certain images, he never gave us permission to make them out of our own will for ourselves or for the Church.

-Matchbook

Hi Matchbook,

Here’s a link explaining the division of the Ten Commandments:
cin.org/users/james/files/numberng.htm

 

[djconklin]

You cannot prove the sanctuary message Biblically…

Sure we can! God ordered the sanctuary to built back in the OT. SDA teaching simply builds and draws on that. For example, see pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

You cannot prove that the Sabbath is appropriate for non-Jews to keep, Biblically.

Well, if we can’t then why were most Christians as late as the 5h century (in Ireland and Ethiopia even later than that) still keeping the Sabbath? We got the message from the seventh-day Baptists. Where’d they get it from?

BTW, gentile Christians are grafted onto the stock from which the dead branches (unbelieving Jews) were shorn. Paul wrote about that in Romans 11:

verse 17
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

You also cannot prove HOW the Adventist is to keep the Sabbath (without personal interpretation) Biblically.

I can’t imagine why not:

Exodus 20: 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Lev. 23: 3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Nor can you prove the remnant church theory, nor that the Sabbath keeping church is indeed this remnant.

Revelation 12:17
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.

The Bible does not teach anything on its own.

Who told you that?

 

[justinthemartyr]

As I was searching for some information on Google, I came across a very extensive thread called Doug Batchelor: His Catholic Church attacks. As a 7th-Day Adventist, some of the content disappointed me, understandably. I did not read the entirety of the thread, but I read many posts, and found that there were misconceptions abounding not only about Doug Batchelor, but the 7th-Day Adventist church.

I feel it is fair for me to write regarding this, not with an agenda, but for clarification, that, if any of you so choose, you can search for yourselves for the doctrinal or historical edification. I am here to clarify, not preach. I read the forum rules, and I see that long posts are frowned upon. I shall try my best to keep it succinct, but because a lot was discussed, there is much to clarify.

Clarification #1: "The Adventist Church is a cult! (do not listen to them)

Clarification #2: “The Adventist Church condemns/hates/puts down Catholics”

Clarification #3: “Doug Batchelor is a liar” “DB avoids mentioning affiliation with SDA church” “DB doctors/edits quotes!!”

I respect Doug Batchelor, but still see him as fallible along with anyone. But I have no doubt he is filled with the Holy Spirit. ?

All churches and religious organizations are cults. Go read what the term actually means.

The seventh day adventists are another religion, made by a man, not by the hand of God.
Jesus only built one Church and it was far from the seventh day adventist doctrinal system.
I highly doubt that the Pope was in any way including seventh day adventists when referring to those people calling themselves catholic, who killed other Christains. The seventh day adventists were not around in the middle ages, they are very late in christian history, which is just one more reason that they are not the church Christ built upon kephas.

I highly doubt that Doug batchelor is filled with the Holy Spirit. But that is just me. If he is not a part of the Church Christ built upon kephas(rock, peter) then it is impossible for him to be “filled” with the Holy Spirit, apart from the absolute and infallible Truth of the One Church Christ built which is Apostolic.

 

[KJK80]

Sure we can! God ordered the sanctuary to built back in the OT. SDA teaching simply builds and draws on that. For example, see pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

Wow are you serious? This would take a whole separate thread to discuss…

Well, if we can’t then why were most Christians as late as the 5h century (in Ireland and Ethiopia even later than that) still keeping the Sabbath? We got the message from the seventh-day Baptists. Where’d they get it from?

So because some people were doing something that makes it Scriptural… sounds good to me.

BTW, gentile Christians are grafted onto the stock from which the dead branches (unbelieving Jews) were shorn. Paul wrote about that in Romans 11:

verse 17
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Wow, that’s one way of looking at it… So you can track your family as to coming out of Egypt easily enough then? Or is that another metaphor?

I can’t imagine why not:

Exodus 20: 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Lev. 23: 3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Cool, so it should be easy enough to tell from what time to what time you are to keep the Sabbath, even on the arctic circle, right? Or is that taught to you somewhere by the church?

Revelation 12:17
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.

Hmm ok…well, that’s your interpretation anyway.

Who told you that?

It’s not all that hard to figure out… The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky, hit you on the head and tell you about the sanctuary message… trust me. Somebody taught you that…

 

[djconklin]

I agree it would take a whole thread to d\iscuss some things. But, since i havce shown that the sanctuary doctrine came from the Bible and not the teaching of man the point is settled.

So because some people were doing something that makes it Scriptural… sounds good to me.

They got it from the disciples. The Sabbath was never set aside.

Romans 11:verse 17
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Wow, that’s one way of looking at it… So you can track your family as to coming out of Egypt easily enough then? Or is that another metaphor?

Egypt is a metaphor for the land of sin.

Cool, so it should be easy enough to tell from what time to what time you are to keep the Sabbath, even on the arctic circle, right?

I don’t live there; but the natives who do could certainly teach you which day it is and that fact has no relevance for the claim that we can’t know how (vs. when) to keep the Sabbath from the Bible alone.

Originally Posted by djconklin
Revelation 12:17
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.

Hmm ok…well, that’s your interpretation anyway.

I didn’t write Scripture, so there is no private interpretation.

Originally Posted by djconklin
Who told you that?

It’s not all that hard to figure out… The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky, hit you on the head and tell you about the sanctuary message… trust me. Somebody taught you that…

As we can readily see:

The Bible does not teach anything on its own.

Who told you that?

my question had nothing to do with the sanctuary. Why didn’t you answer my question? Why the fast foot shuffle?