Leaderboard

Both of these teachings make direct attacks upon God's character and upon the Gospel. In short form...Immortality of the soul directly attacks God's truthfulness and trustworthiness by saying a sentient being already has immortality (aka, deathlessness, or more popularly, eternal life) - directly contradicting God at the very beginning. God stated to Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would die. In Ezekiel, God states direct twice the soul who sins shall die. Satan, from the beginning, said God was a liar - sin does not lead to death, but rather a life free from God. No angel had ever died; Adam and Eve did not die upon sinning, even though God said they would - therefore, nothing God says can be trusted. Immortality of the Soul, though, teaches we already have immortality - eternal life does not come at the resurrection, therefore, one does not need to accept Christ to have eternal life. At its foundation, this doctrine teaches a soul is both separate from the body, intelligent, and possesses eternal life because it is a permanent creation of God, and cannot be uncreated...the soul is as immortal as the angels. However, the Bible also says only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:15-16) - meaning even angels do not have immortality intrinsic to themselves, but must borrow life from the Source of Life, just as we do. Further, the Gospel states clearly that our hope of eternal life is found connected to Christ's resurrection - as He was raised from the dead, so to will people be raised from the dead. ONLY those who have accepted re-connection back to God will be raised in the first resurrection, where immortality will be put on us at that time. This teaching makes God into a liar, and does not require a cross/resurrection for eternal life. No cross means no belief in the name of Jesus is required for salvation. In short...Sunday Sacredness attacks the foundation of God's government by virtue of negating the one commandment which points the sinner in the direction of his Creator/Redeemer, Christ Jesus - the Sabbath commandment. Attacking the foundation of God's government - God says His Law cannot be changed; it is immutable. Even while here on earth, Christ declared God's law cannot be changed in even one tiny stroke of the word. Papal authority, one the other hand, declares that because they represent God on earth, they have the authority from God to change His Law - a matter that God the Son Himself said could not and would not be done. The Law defines both God's character and sin (transgression, or rebellion, against the Law). If the Law can be changed...then the definition of what is rebellion/transgression also changed. If what defines rebellion/transgression can change, then those choosing to rebel against God may demand the Law be changed to accommodate them. Attacking the Gospel - God created the Sabbath in the beginning, blessed it, hallowed it, and sanctified it. God says He rested that day from His creative labors - so resting from such labor is part of God's character...and thus, part of His Law. Hence, when God calls upon sinners to remember and keep His Sabbath holy...God is also simultaneously calling sinners to repent and be changed. Job 14:4 states NO ONE can bring what is clean out of an unclean thing. No sinner, being by nature unholy, can ever keep the Sabbath holy...unless that sinner is not first changed and made clean. The Sabbath commandment points the otherwise helpless sinner to a redeeming Creator, who can create the state of being clean, where before such a state never existed. In short, it is only through the redeeming power of God the Sabbath can be kept. That is why God refers to the Sabbath in Ezekiel 20:12 as His sign between Himself and themselves, so that the penitent sinners will always know it is God who sanctifies them - entering into God's rest brings with it salvation and sanctification. Sunday Sacredness takes that away, by stating it is the sinner's obedience to the transferred day of holiness that brings a small measure of sanctification. That is to say, Sunday is not a sign that our Redeemer God sanctifies us, but rather the sign of fallen man trying to sanctify himself and make himself acceptable before God. Sunday Sacredness teaches people to rest on a day different from the one God rests on - and by default, seeks to exclude such people from entering into God's rest. Sunday Sacredness is truly the sign of salvation by human works alone, as it denies God His work of drawing people into His rest. By seeking to exalt Christ's resurrection, Sunday Sacredness in reality denies the very reason the resurrection was needed - because God could not change the Law to accommodate sin, the death of a Redeemer was necessary. If the Law could be changed, why crucify God the Son first, then change it? If the Law could be changed, then Christ died needlessly. Both of these are in short form, but these convey the basics of why these two errors are so very profound in their impact. Blessings,

It is quite challenging when people imply creationists are mentally challenged. I did study evolution and never believed it even before I came to the Lord because it was not in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics. It is amazing how many words are used to reconcile the two, when true science such as the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry is much more concise. Ellen White said that God was not dependent on preexisting matter in creating the Earth btw and that geologists who try to determine the age of the earth without the aid of the Bible will be mistaken in their efforts.

You obviously believe some on this forum are opposed to food stamps or a safety net for those finding themselves in dire circumstances.I have never seen anyone here that believes that no family should be helped,have you? The author of the article spells out quite plainly the difference between those in true need that need a helping hand and those that abuse the system. We have a few neighbors that abuse the system and yes I believe they should be booted off and told to go to work,even part time would help. One young woman is one welfare .Two young children by different fathers,living with another man.He works at odd jobs when he isn't to busy doing something else. He owns a snowmobile,boat and motor and a large flat tv screen in three rooms. She spends a great deal of time sunning herself in a lawn chair in the summer.First before a life on welfare you do what you can to help yourself. Another neighbor on food stamps and receiving help paying for prescriptions and using the few remaining Dr's that will accept medicare only payment has a boat,motor,motor home,a motorized golf cart he picked up for 2,000.00 and a recent purchase of a 2500.00 large flat screen tv. Those receiving taxpayers money to live should be doing what they can to contribute as much as they can to help themselves. Maybe they simply can't and they should be helped,maybe the only thing available is a part time job that will not feed a family. Do what they can and use the aid from others to maintain their family. Welfare fraud and food stamp abuse is alive and well. That doesn't mean that all those in need using the system to survive are worthless or lazy bums.

And you believe they gathered together on the Sabbath for what reason? the seventh day is a Sabbath day of complete rest, an official day for holy assembly....Lev 23 God is Love! Jesus saves!

Not all Palestinians hate Jewish people, check this guy out! https://www.facebook.com/AdventistIsraelFriendship/photos/a.738770232854961.1073741827.738764469522204/757828464282471/?type=1&theater

Reflecting on this I can see her point that views on immortality can relate to Spiritualism. The fact is that we are totally reliant on the presence of God for life in His kingdom. There is no other way as Spiritualism suggests in so many different ways. As for the Sabbath and Rome, I have a different view yet not one that is in conflict. The Creation Science movement in Australia have a picture of the books of the Bible in the form of a castle and Genesis is the bottom brick/rung of the castle. They show the enemy attacking the foundation of the castle (Genesis) to bring down the whole castle. Many in the Creation Science movement claim to believe this, yet when questioned about why they do not defend the Sabbath from attack as its given to all of Creation in Gen 2:3. There is no answer. My view is that the attack on Genesis is designed to attack the Gospel by proxy for this purpose.

On political issues, I agree with you that our church as an organization should not get involved. I realize that often times the demarcation lines between justice and politics can be blurred. But the silence of the church on clear issues of justice/injustice detracts from her moral authority, imo.

Isn't this part this part of God's Good News? 6–9 “This is the kind of fast day I’m after: to break the chains of injustice, get rid of exploitation in the workplace, free the oppressed, cancel debts. What I’m interested in seeing you do is: sharing your food with the hungry, inviting the homeless poor into your homes, putting clothes on the shivering ill-clad, being available to your own families. Do this and the lights will turn on, and your lives will turn around at once. Your righteousness will pave your way. The GOD of glory will secure your passage. Then when you pray, GOD will answer. You’ll call out for help and I’ll say, ‘Here I am.’ Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: the Bible in contemporary language (Is 58:6–9). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress. Or as someone said, are we so heavenly-minded so that we are no earthly good?

Being involved with politics has been called "shoveling snow" because the impact of what is done doesn't last yet, someone needs to do it. When snow covers the driveway, someone needs to shovel it. Yet, the next storm is just going to cover it up again. So it is with politics. The ratification of the Bill of Rights and the emancipation of the slaves are perhaps the two greatest political achievements in the history of the United States. As significant as those achievements are, by themselves, they did not save any souls for the kingdom. Unless those living under the Constitution and those freed from slavery find salvation in Christ, freedom provides only temporary relief. Like shoveling snow, granting them freedom has no long lasting effect. I am not one that believes individual Adventists shouldn't be involved in politics if they want to be however I believe we have a much higher calling. I have donated money to pro-life causes that run crisis pregnancy clinics, to Greenpeace, and several poltical campaigns, however my time is much to precious to give them. I believe God has called me to do something much higher. I do take exception to church leaders, such as pastors and conference employees, getting involved with politics dealing with issues beyond religious freedom. I think as a church we need to set a clear example of what seperation of church and state are. Our members as individuals, and citizens of their repsective countries, are free to be civicly involved in the democratic process. Yet I think it a mistake to shovel snow when we gather together as a religious organization. I would never encourage the church, as an organization, to donate money to a political cause as I have done as an indiviual. In this instance we have the chaplin of the US Senate. He serves both Republicans and Democrats and is admired by many outside of the Senate in both public life and the life of the church. Now when he takes a position on a political hot topic (regardless what it is) he is going to lose influence with one group of people. Those whose admiration he retains, he would have retained even without taking the controversial issue. So he gains nothing. His ability to influence others for Christ is dimenished by getting involved with the muck of politics. Many believe this was a mistake Martin Luther King Jr. made as well. Dr. King had respect of many powerful people of all racial backgrounds on the issue of civil rights. After the passage of the 1965 civil rights legislation, he started to take political positions against the Vietnam War. His position on the war has since been proven correct but that didn't gain him anything. It actually cost him some influence. People that had repsected him for his position on civil rights started to lose respect for him when he became opposed to the war in Vietnam. When we focus on one thing as an organization - preaching the gospel of Christ. We can make a much greater impact for the kingdom of God. If we get bogged down into the abortion movement and other politcal hot issues of the day we will only cost ourselves influence and thus hinder the advancement of the gospel.

The whole issue is sad and to see Adventists get sucked into it is sad too. When I was in college a Hispanic friend of mine locked himself out of his Mercedes. His dad was a doctor and had purchased it for him. As he was trying to get the door open, the police stopped, handcuffed him, threw him down on the hood and took out his wallet. After running the plates they discovered the car was his. They took off the handcuffs and without apologizing asked, "What is a guy like you doing with a car like this?" I know that type of racism is still common today. I don't know why the minority leadership doesn't use those types of cases to lead a protest. Why do they use cases where the alledged victim was on drugs, acting out and having a criminal history? There are plenty of people like Rosa Parks still being victimized. As Adventists, we have a message and it isn't to campaign against abortion or racial profiling. Let people from other denominations fight against those issues. God has called us for a much higher work. Let us step up to the work He has called us to do and let others worry about "shoveling the snow" in this present world.

It;s interesting the different versions have different nuances. Conviction can mean a firnly held belief or we can be convinced, while evidence supports that belief. So faith brings conviction in regard to or provides evidence of the unseen. It's so ironic to me that Creationists are sometimes accused of being anti intellectual or unduly influenced by their early upbringing because I was raised by nonreligious parents and did not become a Christian until my early 20s. I examined so many different philosphies and found them wanting before I became a Christian. While I am well educated and come from a well educated family, maybe these accusations are something we need to expect in the last days as something scoffers will say. In Noah's day, they said it wasn't going to rain. Peter links not believing in the Creation and Flood with not believing in the second coming, particularly in the last days, and that is what we see. There is disbelief in a literal 6 day Creation, in a world wide flood, and in a literal Second Coming. 2 Peter 3:2 Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.