reply to post by troubleshooter
I asked you to consider a contempory declaration...
...and you go rushing back to your denominational corporate roots...
...and bolster it up with spin on 15th century theology.
You also accused Adventists of embracing Roman Catholic Soteriology, then said about 'subtle difference between their respective view of the Gospel of
salvation' between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Well if the differences are subtle generally then why are you so confident of branding Adventist
doctrine of salvation, which most closely follows that of John Wesley, as being no better than Roman Catholic.
You are really grasping at straws here to try and shoot down this end-time message about the beast's mark and how Christians can lose their salvation
over it if they show their allegiance is to someone other than God.
Most people reading the discussion probably would not know what you are trying to accuse me of here and the differences between doctrines of
salvation. That is why I added the table showing the differences between Calvinism, Lutherianism and Arminianism. All are protestant and Arminianism
is closest to and is the easiest to be backed up by the Bible. Wesleyanism is a variation on the framework of Arminianism and Adventism is closest to
being Wesleyan. If you're going to start accusing Adventist of being Catholic in doctrine then you better start telling that to Methodists,
Pentecostals, and General Baptists who hold the same Arminian salvation framework. As a person who isn't 'religious', what are you trying to promote
over Wesleyan salvation, is it Calvinism or Lutherianism?
I really don't know how a person can be an Adventist, study Adventist theology and drop it in favor for a framework of understanding salvation that is
now at odds with some of the most significant portions of the whole understanding of the Bible. Your 'Once Saved Always Saved' alternate theology now
can not explain the rebellion in Heaven and why we are here on this earth in light of free will. It now can not explain Hebrews 10:26-39, Hebrews
12:3-8, Hebrews 4:9, 2 Peter 2:18-22
2 Peter 2:18-22
Deceptions of False Teachers
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean
escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled
therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment
delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing
in the mire.
If people are 'once saved always saved' then why is God saying here that it would have been better is they had never known righteousness than having
known it then turned away from it. This passage along with those Hebrews ones destroy 'OSAS' and clearly show God is advocating for 'responsible
grace' like John Wesley and Ellen White advocate for.
Your theology can not explain:
If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and
burned. (John 15:6, Matthew 7:19, Matthew 3:10, Luke 3:9)
After being attached to the Vine (God), 'Once Saved Always Saved' theology says that no matter what you do from then on you are still going to Heaven.
Well then, what kind of 'life' is God suggesting for you if He cuts you (separates) from Him, says He will throw you in the fire and that it will be
worse for you than if you never knew Him? Is there any 'life' outside of God...no, so why do you vouch for this nonsensical alternative?
The main reason you have to throw out the Adventist interpretation of Revelation is not because you can show that the historicist approach is
inaccurate (even though it is completely evidenced and backed up fully, and how low a probability occurrence is that) but because the nonsensical
theology of OSAS prevents in your mind the possibility of any kind of event that would cause a 'believer' to throw away their salvation. Do you really
think that God is going to force someone to live with Him forever if they have now decided they don't want anything to do with God anymore? Does that
sound like God's character to you. If your theology can't explain the start of the cosmic conflict, or the end and many portions in between then it is
best to choose the theological understanding that is consistent with the Bible all the way through.
The approach by Wesley and White is synergistic, we don't have to have severe 'selective hearing' and conflicting messages that monergism has. Why
pick a formula that has perhaps 20% explanatory power now when you already had one that had 95-100% explanatory power, that's what I don't understand
with you. To study the 'gospel' and then go backwards in being able to explain it all now
Do you know the Spirit or is he still at the door knocking? (Rev 3:20)
Oh course I know the Spirit. The synergistic approach encompasses all aspects of the gospel, from beginning initial belief, growth, persistence,
spiritual maturity, and all nuances in between. OSAS only focuses on the front-end of conversion and basically has to say that sermons, prayer, and
growing in God is pointless. The message I am giving here is predominately for a Christian target audience presuming existing belief. The major aspect
of what I am saying to them with their existing belief is some things about God and how He wants them to worship Him that they are
forgetting/overlooking. 'Once Saved Always Saved' on the other hand has no emphasis needed on showing love or obedience to God now because they are
already home and hosed.
There is nothing wrong with the message I am saying here in this thread, as has been evidenced by the fact no one has got close or even attempted to
punch a hole into the supporting scriptures at all. The scriptures are clear, your framework for understanding them all now is convoluted. Choose a
framework that is less contradictory with the Bible as a whole!
Each of your major criticisms here:
- Sabbath lunar foundation
- Catholic salvation doctrine foundation (which is just disguised advocacy of the extreme alternative of the nonsense theology of 'once saved always
- That SDAs can't explain 31ad calendars ect
They are all explained and refuted. Not only are they explained but your alternative of OSAS is easily refuted while you won't attempt to argue
directly against Adventist supporting scriptures which are clear and plentiful. The case isn't falling too well in your favor...
13-7-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)