How Are "SDAs" Not In Harmony With The Apostles?

[guanophore]

While eisegesis is an error, there’s no evidence that Sola Scriptura is in error, so your second question cannot be answered because it assumes facts that aren’t in evidence. I don’t assume.

Well, sure you do! Since Sola Scriptura itself is not found in scripture, then you must base your belief in it on an extra-biblical source. This practice, in itself, defies SS.

You should ask yourself: if baptism by immersion is an error then why were they doing it as late as when the Tower of Pisa was being built?

I am happy to concede that full immersion is the most appropriate form of baptism. This is the fullest reflection of the death and burial that it symbolizes.

 

[guanophore]

Labeling something as “odd” is an attempt to posion the well before an honest discussion on the subject can even start. Matthew 24:46 has nothing to do with this topic.

Ezekiel 18:20 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. …

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Only the righteous will be given everlasting life. The wicked will perish. In Semitic culture when you completely burn something it is said that you burned it forever, or “everlasting” or “eternally.” Just as the smoke ascends into the heavens eternally–which it doesn’t because of gravity, but they didn’t know about that.

How do you then dispense with the references that the unrighteous persist in eternal punishment?

 

[djconklin]

Since Sola Scriptura itself is not found in scripture, then you must base your belief in it on an extra-biblical source.

1. I don’t know who told you that Sola Scriptura isn’t found in Scripture, but they are mistaken.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1. I never use anything other than Scripture to define theology.

Originally Posted by djconklin:
You should ask yourself: if baptism by immersion is an error then why were they doing it as late as when the Tower of Pisa was being built?

I am happy to concede that full immersion is the most appropriate form of baptism. This is the fullest reflection of the death and burial that it symbolizes.

Very well put! Concise and to the point.

 

[djconklin]

In Semitic culture when you completely burn something it is said that you burned it forever, or “everlasting” or “eternally.” Just as the smoke ascends into the heavens eternally–which it doesn’t because of gravity, but they didn’t know about that.

How do you then dispense with the references that the unrighteous persist in eternal punishment?

I didn’t “dispense” with anything. I took into account the culture in which it was written. Note what I said above.

Also, the Bible very clearly stated:

Ezekiel 18:20 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. …

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Only the righteous have eternal life. The typical concept (from Greek myths by the way) that the wicked will be punished eternally is contrary to Scripture: it requires that they too be given eternal life.

 

[po18guy]

Labeling something as “odd” is an attempt to posion the well before an honest discussion on the subject can even start. Matthew 24:46 has nothing to do with this topic.

SORRY! I should have said that the “odd” teaching of soul annihilation was “aberrant”, “strange”, or maybe “far-fetched”. It was neither taught nor believed anywhere in Christendom until the SDA suddenly popped up in the middle 1800s America. You may twist scripture to the devil’s delight, as he is the master of it, but we’ll not discuss heresy here, except to correct it.

Ezekiel 18:20 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. …

Tell me, was Ezekiel separating the soul from the person, or using the term to describe a human? It this more twisting?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is most certainly twisting of scripture. Perishing is into the lake of eternal fire. Remember Lazarus and the rich man? The rich man was not annihilated, was he? He was suffering in a place in which no one could help him - for ever.

Only the righteous will be given everlasting life. The wicked will perish. In Semitic culture when you completely burn something it is said that you burned it forever, or “everlasting” or “eternally.” Just as the smoke ascends into the heavens eternally–which it doesn’t because of gravity, but they didn’t know about that.

Is this yet another area where the SDA cannot decide between OT and NT theology?

I know that you strongly believe in the SDA, and that you have been taught to hate the Catholic Church, but you must understand that no Protestant or Catholic agrees with your very recent, very novel fringe theology. Fact. Your church has no roots, You would be well advised to seek one which does.

 

[Matariel]

1. I don’t know who told you that Sola Scriptura isn’t found in Scripture, but they are mistaken.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

None of those verses you provided said that the Bible was the sole rule of Faith. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical…

1. I never use anything other than Scripture to define theology.

Hm… wasn’t it the holy Church that defined the canon of the Bible? I guess the S-DA accept that the Church infallibly set forth the canon-- except they reject some books from the OT.

Very well put! Concise and to the point.

Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.

 

[djconklin]

Matthew 24:46 has nothing to do with this topic.

You may twist scripture to the devil’s delight, as he is the master of it, …

No proof is offered that I have twisted Scripture.

Matt. 24:46 says “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” This has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. It isn’t me that is twisting Scripture.​

I am happy to concede that full immersion is the most appropriate form of baptism. This is the fullest reflection of the death and burial that it symbolizes.

Very well put! Concise and to the point.
Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.

I note the lack of proof from Scripture to make up that theology.

 

[guanophore]

1. I don’t know who told you that Sola Scriptura isn’t found in Scripture, but they are mistaken.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Sorry dj. You can repeat this verse as many times as you want, but it will not say SS. Jesus did not leave the precepts in charge. He commissioned people.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I am surprised you would use this, because it is the exact opposite of most SS people. You see that what made them more noble is that they “received the word with all readiness of mind”. This means that they had open minds and hearts to the Apostolic preaching. This is exactly what is rejected by the SS!

1. I never use anything other than Scripture to define theology.

Well, you are using the extrabiblical doctrine of SS to formulate your theology.

I didn’t “dispense” with anything. I took into account the culture in which it was written. Note what I said above.

Also, the Bible very clearly stated:

Ezekiel 18:20 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. …

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Only the righteous have eternal life. The typical concept (from Greek myths by the way) that the wicked will be punished eternally is contrary to Scripture: it requires that they too be given eternal life.

It seems to me that the inhabitants of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are punished in eternal fire:

Jude 7
" Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Are you saying that the fire of hell is eternal, but the soul burns up?

Matt 18:8-9

8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and** to be thrown into the eternal fire.** 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Matt 25:41-42
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, **depart from me into the eternal fire **prepared for the devil and his angels;

Looks to me like the punishment is eternal too.

Matt 25:46
46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[Matariel]

I note the lack of proof from Scripture to make up that theology.

So what? Sola Scriptura is a false reformation-era idea.

The holy Church, which St. Paul says is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and which Christ promised that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against”, said it is just as valid of a baptism. The early Church used infusion (pouring) as a method of baptism also, in cases of lack of closeness to a spring or body of water, and in cases of the sick and bed-ridden. And the Bible doesn’t even specify what form is used. A lot of ancient Christian art shows pouring.

And besides, everytime you quote Scripture you’re conceding the fact that the Holy Spirit lead the Church to an infallible decision in defining the canon, so go figure.

 

[po18guy]

No proof is offered that I have twisted Scripture.

Matt. 24:46 says “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” This has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. It isn’t me that is twisting Scripture.​

I note the lack of proof from Scripture to make up that theology.

Well, you are just so eaten up with error that you are beyond reason at this point. I’ll pray for your enlightenment.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Not even close; you have been sorely misinformed–you should ask why? Is it ignorance on their part? Or, did they do it deliberately?

"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never [sic] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what ‘Sister White Said’ —‘Sister White said this,’ and ‘Sister White said that,’ and ‘Sister White said the other thing’. But say, ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.’ Spalding and Magan Collection

Iam sorry did you just cuss me out in tongues? for the mentioning of your founders and official start up dates, or are you another splinter group from SDA’s with a different second coming of Christ?

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin

1. I don’t know who told you that Sola Scriptura isn’t found in Scripture, but they are mistaken.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Sorry dj. You can repeat this verse as many times as you want, but it will not say SS. Jesus did not leave the precepts in charge. He commissioned people.

Oops! I didn’t notice that the cut-and-paste didn’t take. The 2nd should be:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The verse you clipped neatly undercuts your last sentence:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
No proof is offered that I have twisted Scripture.

Matt. 24:46 says “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” This has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. It isn’t me that is twisting Scripture.​

I note the lack of proof from Scripture to make up that theology.

Well, you are just so eaten up with error that you are beyond reason at this point. I’ll pray for your enlightenment.

ROFL!

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
I note the lack of proof from Scripture to make up that theology.

So what?

The point remains that there is no Scripture to support the claim: “Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.”

Sola Scriptura is a false reformation-era idea.

Nice try to throw me on the defensive.

But, you are in error:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[djconklin]

And besides, everytime you quote Scripture you’re conceding the fact that the Holy Spirit lead the Church to an infallible decision in defining the canon, so go figure.

No organization defined the canon. The church (the body of Christ) already knew what was accepted as Scripture and what was not. Peter even refered to Paul’s writings as Scripture.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Nice try to throw me on the defensive.

But, you are in error:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Please explain how you interpret SS from the single text you quote above.

And then everyone should read the entire chapter of Isaiah 28 for context. Here is more of that chapter which explains the quote above.

***Isaiah 28:9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.***

 

[Matariel]

The point remains that there is no Scripture to support the claim: “Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.”

Neither is there any Scripture to support that immersion was practiced exclusively in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t even give a form of baptism, so go figure. I also noticed you refused to quote or discuss the other part I typed about Baptism in my post.

But, you are in error:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

And where do these verses say the Bible is the sole rule of Faith? They don’t! As a matter of fact, the 2 Peter reference argues against Sola Scriptura, the “private interpretation” of Scripture, over and against the interpretation of Christ’s holy Catholic Church!

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
The point remains that there is no Scripture to support the claim: “Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.”

Neither is there any Scripture to support that immersion was practiced exclusively in the Bible.

Define “exclusively.”

My point stands–there is no biblical support fopr the claim: “Non-immersion baptism is just as valid though.”

The Bible doesn’t even give a form of baptism, so go figure.

The word “baptism” comes from the Greek “baptidzo” which was created/used by the dye makers for immersing the cloth they dyed into the dye. So, the form is defined by the word itself.

I also noticed you refused to quote or discuss the other part I typed about Baptism in my post.

I figured we’d clear some basic misconceptions first. Then we could move onto the more complex parts.

 

[djconklin]

the 2 Peter reference argues against Sola Scriptura, the “private interpretation” of Scripture, over and against the interpretation of Christ’s holy Catholic Church!

The RCC didn’t even exist at the time. It was the body of believers that defined the church–see Paul’s admonition in Col. 2:17b “but the body of Christ”–it was they who was to do the judging, not the outsiders who were harrassing them.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

** National Alert Announcement

Due to the recent economic crisis, bailouts, budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil, and the election of Obama, The Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.

We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. **