Say a phrase, and you are saved...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So are Adventists cult members too?

It's not a "symbol".
You could possibly say it symbolizes something but that does not automatically relegate to to a mere symbol.
And you ignore the "mandatory" part, which creates a wide chasm between Adventism and your cult.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's absolutely false, I've never heard anyone affirm that. In fact the inverse, that if there is no conviction and fruit of repentance in a person's life that moat likely means they were never born of the Spirit to begin with.

Think whatever you want.
This statement makes no sense to me.
What is it that you believe is false?
Do you think "fruit of repentance" is sinning, then feeling bad about it?
So according to your theory, bearing fruit requires constant sinning.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So are Adventists cult members too?

It's not a "symbol".
You could possibly say it symbolizes something but that does not automatically relegate to to a mere symbol.
And you ignore the "mandatory" part, which creates a wide chasm between Adventism and your cult.

It depends. I agree its mandatory for people who are converts already. I see nothing in the text that indicates it's mandatory t be born again of the Holy Spirit. So again, it's something redeemed people do, not something someone does to be eligible for redemption or that facilitates redemption.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That's absolutely false, I've never heard anyone affirm that. In fact the inverse, that if there is no conviction and fruit of repentance in a person's life that moat likely means they were never born of the Spirit to begin with.

Think whatever you want.
This statement makes no sense to me.
What is it that you believe is false?
Do you think "fruit of repentance" is sinning, then feeling bad about it?
So according to your theory, bearing fruit requires constant sinning.

You invented that theory and attributed it to me. That's a straw man.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It depends. I agree its mandatory for people who are converts already. I see nothing in the text that indicates it's mandatory t be born again of the Holy Spirit. So again, it's something redeemed people do, not something someone does to be eligible for redemption or that facilitates redemption.

This is all doublespeak full of cult invented terminology.
Maybe you are referring back to an earlier conversation you were having with someone else.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Those are common Christian theological terms.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Those are common Christian theological terms.

Even if that was so, they are redefined to fit your cult's philosophy.

it's something redeemed people do, not something someone does to be eligible for redemption or that facilitates redemption.

You have that completely wrong.
Being redeemed by definition is a transaction. The only place in the New Testament that describes "redeemed people" is
1 Peter 1:18
You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors you were ransomed – not by perishable things like silver or gold,

Then goes on to describe the process, "For you have been born again . . ." having said, "Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth . . ."
The people become redeemed through a process that was described by Jesus and passed down, "but the word of the Lord endures forever. That word is the good news that was announced to you."
If you think there is another way to be redeemed, it is not described in the NT.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So are Adventists a "cult"? See last two quoted texts from their statement of faith on Adventist.org. I see nothing to disagree with them about on salvation or baptism.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There is no "official statement of faith" on that web site.
It briefly sketches out some of the highlights of the most fundamental beliefs.

reply to post by jmdewey60


"Fundamental beliefs" = Statement of faith

Here is the link so you can answer the question:

Adventist.org.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"Fundamental beliefs" = Statement of faith

I already said you were wrong.
You can't make yourself right just by saying you are.
I am an Adventist so I know what the belief is.
Baptism in absolutely mandatory.
It is not just symbolic but the mechanism for redemption.
If you want to keep your sins intact that is your business.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Fundamental beliefs" = Statement of faith

I already said you were wrong.
You can't make yourself right just by saying you are.
I am an Adventist so I know what the belief is.
Baptism in absolutely mandatory.
It is not just symbolic but the mechanism for redemption.
If you want to keep your sins intact that is your business.

Now that's really funny, I have linked 4 quotes now, with sources, the last being a 'fundamental belief' on Adventist.org, and all YOU have done is 'make yourself right by asserting that you are'... without any sources,.. then have the nerve to make that accusation of me. What ridiculous hypocrisy, bravo.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Except that the Bible says neither one of those things. The word "grafted" comes up in Romans 11 where the branches cut off is Israel and we are grafted into the tree of God's blessing, replacing Israel.

Romans 11:18 "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root,BUT THE ROOT THEE."

Ephesians 2:12 "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

Israel was never replaced. He was warning against boasting that since the branches were cut off, we are now replacing them as "the Church" when in fact he even mentions that if Yahweh did not spare the natural branches He might not spare you either. The root of the faith bears you, not the other way around. Now through the Messiah, the gate of the sheep, we who were once Gentiles can be grafted in to the olive tree.


This is not my opinion or any other man's doctrine. This is strictly Scriptural and the definitions are defined by Scripture. By the way, if there was no New Testament, what Scriptures does the New Testament refer to at the time of writing? The Old Testament and the Torah. Torah is simply "instruction." The New Testament is inspired Scripture, but at the time of writing keep in mind that the Bereans were called to search the Scriptures to find out if "these things were so." It stands to reason that the Scriptures would then be the Old Testament. Not a stretch at all.

Now a word to everyone else:

Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Galatians 3:14 "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Galatians 3:15 "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

Notice that in these verses in Galatians that Christ redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law or instructions not the actual instructions. Also make note here that the Law does not dis-annul the covenant with Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed. Does this in any way state that because the inheritance was given by a promise that the Law is abolished? No, all it states is that the inheritance was by a promise, not through the Law making it not of promise. Believers in the Messiah worldwide must understand the Apostle Paul in context or we will never reconcile the seeming contradictions that would not even exist if there were no denominational biased interpretation of Scripture today.

Jeremiah 6:16 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

Does this sound familiar?

Matthew 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

Malachi 4:4 "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. "

This verse in Malachi is in the context of the Second Coming and the End of Days.

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Is the Book of Isaiah lying?

Re-examine what you think you know. Do not be like the hypocritical Pharisees of the time of Jesus. Let go of man made doctrines and traditions, and come back to the truth of the Word.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

The root of the faith bears you, not the other way around.

But you just make up your own definition for the root, ignoring the one that Paul gives in Romans 11.
The root is not Israel, that is God's goodness. Israel was the branches as so is that church, the difference is one was cut off, and the other grafted in.
What you try to do is make the tree Israel and ignore the cut-off branches, hoping people forget that part.

Malachi 4:4 "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. "

This verse in Malachi is in the context of the Second Coming and the End of Days.

There isn't a "Second Coming context" in Malachi. Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy. Jesus came and "Lo I am with you always", so there is no "returning" because he never left, spiritually.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Examine these next two verses:

Romans 11:23 "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

Romans 11:24 "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"

Notice how they can be grafted in back again into the cultivated olive tree. The olive tree is Israel, the cultivated being within covenant and the wild one being the exiles of the House of Israel and Gentiles to be grafted back in or for the first time.

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

Notice how the grafted in branches partake of the root of the olive tree. What is the olive tree?

Jeremiah 11:16 "The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken."

Jeremiah 11:17 "For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal."

Israel is the olive tree. All who are in covenant are Israelites, and all of the nations or Gentiles are not. There is no such thing as a Gentile Christian. It is an oxymoron.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

Notice how the grafted in branches partake of the root of the olive tree. What is the olive tree?

We are talking about Paul's analogy.

Jeremiah 11:16 "The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken."

Jeremiah 11:17 "For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal."

Jeremiah's analogy does not define the terms of Paul's analogy. Nor is he quoting Jeremiah. Also Jeremiah's main feature is the fire, where a broken branch is secondary and it does not say broken or cut off.

Israel is the olive tree.

Jeremiah says "Israel and Judah" so he is talking about the attacks from Assyria and Babylon that The Lord allowed to happen against those two kingdoms. Paul is talking about something else, the apocalypse of Jesus Christ, a completely different event.

All who are in covenant are Israelites, and all of the nations or Gentiles are not. There is no such thing as a Gentile Christian. It is an oxymoron.

Right, but it is a new Israel, a spiritual Israel based on the New Covenant, believing in Jesus, and not according to the old law of Sinai.

If the covenant at Sinai is done away with then why is the new covenant writing it on our hearts? In Christ we can partake of the promises to Israel. The goodness by blessing of the commandments inside the agreement is for all Israel. I do not nor ever advocate replacement theology. It is error. Error of the lawless. Animal sacrifice is not necessary with the Melchizedek Priesthood for it is our Perfect High Priest who is the sacrifice. Does that then mean that the whole law is done away with? No.

The administration is in Jesus not mere men. That is the change that happened in the Law. The fault was with the men in charge, thus the leadership is now perfect. The law is intact. Melchizedek was greater than Aaron. He paid tithes through Abraham.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

If the covenant at Sinai is done away with then why is the new covenant writing it on our hearts?

I don't think I said that. The cold hard truth is that no one can be saved by the old covenant, and it doesn't figure into the equation. There is a new covenant but it is really something else but just called that so people have something to reference it to. None of the language is literal. No one takes a stylus and carves letters onto your heart. We do not literally eat Jesus' flesh and Jesus does not literally take a container of his blood to a temple in heaven to offer it on an altar. Literal written covenants are obsolete, is the message, and we have something better, anyway that is not a tribe in a parcel of land but everyone on earth and then it will be a better place when people everywhere are righteous.

No one can be justified by the works of the Law for their salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith. However because of our salvation, we should follow the Law, not because it saves us, but because it is truth, freedom, light, and Yahweh's perfect instructions for all nations. Jews did not receive the Torah for themselves, all 12 tribes of Israel did. Judah is one tribe. It is also for mankind.

Numbers 15:15 "One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojournes with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as you are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD."

So yes, Jesus is our salvation, and only by faith in Him by grace are we saved, yet because we are saved we must follow the Law. Sin is breaking the Law. We are not to use grace as a license to sin. Therefore faith and works work together. How can we who have died to sin live any longer in it? So to be saved we do not simply say the so called "prayer of salvation."

1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

In other words, we believe by setting our hearts toward righteousness (keeping the Law) and with our mouths confession of our faith is not as simple as it seems. He who claims to be in Him must follow His example. He who says he abides in Him, ought to walk as He walked. Which is what? Obedience. Obedience to the Law as a result of our salvation, not that the Law is salvation.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

Do you somehow believe you are being Jewish by taking that sort of position?
Judaism believes they wrote the Torah and God reads it to know what to do.
So my suggestion is to drop that because I don't think you really know what you are talking about.