"SDAs should worship Allah"

[CoAspen]

.......and if that ain't enough, you will find no Fords in my garage! They are not mentioned in the Bible!!! Take that ...and...that! (sword fight)

[doug yowell]

it certainly gives the impression that either God is very changeable and contradictory, or people's ideas of God are.

Quote:

Both claims cannot be true-- one is a lie. And the Bible teaches that God cannot lie.

But God can send out lying spirits to do the lying for him. Which one of those claims is true?

Apply the latter of your above options and I believe you'll find the answer to your last question.If God exists and,as He claims, He creates and sustains all life in the universe. If he is truthful,as He has claimed, about not being willing that anyone should die eternally,and has proven that He is willing to bear with the evils that His creation has inflicted upon Him (and themselves),and has patiently not brought that judgement on that creation, then what reason do we have for thinking that God is somehow less morally understandable than we are? Christ claimed to be the perfect image of God,the Creator,the Truth, and the only accurate way of knowing God. If Jesus did exist and the record of His life is true then what does one find objectionable or inconsistent about His life? "You have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

[Guest]

To say and assume that there can ONLY be one inspired Holy Book is like saying, "i will only pick and choose the verses that corresponds to MY worldview. The rest are demonic."

[Woody]

.......and if that ain't enough, you will find no Fords in my garage! They are not mentioned in the Bible!!! Take that ...and...that! (sword fight)

Good One CoA

[Dr. Shane]

God is three (only that's never explicitly mentioned).

This seems pretty explicit to me.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

God is three (only that's never explicitly mentioned).

This seems pretty explicit to me.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

It's widely believed that this verse was added later; it's at least questionable enough that I wouldn't want to use it as a proof text.

But not even that verse is explicit enough to keep people from coming up with not only Trinitarianism but Arianism, Docetism, Tritheism, Semi-Arianism, Modalism, and any number of different ideas about God.

[Dr. Shane]

I believe in Sola Sciptura and can certainly not write off a verse as it being added later. If I am going to start picking and choosing the verses that I want to use to support doctrine and those I don't want to use, I am not going to have a firm foundation for my faith. I will be blown back and forth by every wind of doctrine. That is a place that I never want to go. I plant my feet firmly on the Word of God as the inspired Scriptures and only rule of faith.

The doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the Gospels in the teachings of Jesus Himself. However 1 John 5:7 states it explicitly. Those that embrace Sola Scriptura cannot get away from that.

[SivartM]

"Sola Scriptura" as it is used by most people should be "The Protestant Bible (not the many other canons), as my church interprets it, alone, and also with my personal preferences, cultural norms, and traditions".

Since there are many, many other churches with very different doctrines who also espouse Sola Scriptura, I don't see how the foundation is as firm as it's purported to be. Besides, I could stand firmly on any belief system, and not allow my beliefs to be questioned; is that the sort of attitude that you like to see in people you witness to? If not, why have that sort of attitude yourself?

You may think that you look at the Bible objectively (and be amazed at how nobody else does), and interpret it honestly, but anyone who studies psychology and sociology knows that it's not that simple. I don't think that I come to my own beliefs through pure reason; I'm a very irrational person in many ways, as are most humans, and that probably includes you.

[John317]

Right on SivartM. GOD meets people where they are!

Of course God meets people where they are. That means, for instancce, that God "winked" for a time at some of the wrongs that people did, such as having more than one woman at a time for sex. He allowed David and Solomon and Abraham to have "wives." But God never commanded them to do those things. Yet in the Qur'an, Allah instructs men to marry two or three or four women at a time.

Women

[4.3] And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Allah tells men that they can "exchange one wife for another":

[4.20] And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

Allah tells us that men are "a degree above women":

[2.228] And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Allah says that men are charge of women because Allah made them to excel women; Allah also tells men to beat their wives until they obey their husbands:

[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Allah tells Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends:

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[John317]

"Sola Scriptura" as it is used by most people should be "The Protestant Bible (not the many other canons), as my church interprets it, alone, and also with my personal preferences, cultural norms, and traditions".

Yes, we don't accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, and even the Catholic Church acknowledges that those books are different and in some ways inferior to the books found in the Hebrew canon. The Apocrypha are never used or quoted by Christ or the New Testament writers; they were never a part of the Old Testament canon; they contain teachings that contradict the canon; they were written at a time when they themselves concede that God had no prophet; they contain exaggerations and inaccuracies; they teach that angels of God lie.

Have you read Tobit and Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Worthies? The Catholic Bible tells its readers that that 2 Maccabees is unreliable and that other parts of the Apocrypha are not true.

These are just some of the reasons that Seventh-day Adventists and all other protestants don't accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon. There are other important reasons, but these should suffice to show good cause.

[Woody]

Quote:

" I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it." Ellen G. White Manuscript 4

[John317]

.......and if that ain't enough, you will find no Fords in my garage! They are not mentioned in the Bible!!! Take that ...and...that! (sword fight)

The reason that the Qur'an is not inspired by the God of the Bible is not merely that the Qur'an contains things not found in the Bible but because the Qur'an contradicts the Bible in very significant ways. Ellen White also mentions things not found in the Bible, so merely not being in the Bible is not reason enough to reject something.

The Bible itself teaches that if someone claims to be a prophet but teaches contrary to what God has previously revealed, it is because he is not a genuine prophets.

That is one test of a true prophet.

God does not reveal a teaching to one prophet and teach something altogether different to another prophet.

But if we accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as inspired by the same God, we would have to believe that God told the world that Jesus Christ is God and that He died on the cross for our sins, whereas God also told billions of other people that Christ was only a man and an apostle and that Christ was not crucified or killed on the cross. We would also have to believe as Muslims do that the angel Gabriel was referred to in the Qur'an as the Holy Spirit.

Have you studied the Qur'an and do you personally accept it as the inspired word of God? It claims to be "plain truth" and to be "Scripture whereof there is no doubt." It claims that Jesus Christ prophesied the coming of Muhammad, and that the Koran is more worthy of your trust than the Bible.

But is it? What do you think?

[John317]

Deleted

[Dr. Shane]

"Sola Scriptura" as it is used by most people should be "The Protestant Bible (not the many other canons)

[Guest]

Quote:

.......and if that ain't enough, you will find no Fords in my garage! They are not mentioned in the Bible!!! Take that ...and...that! (sword fight)

The reason that the Qur'an is not inspired by the God of the Bible is not merely that the Qur'an contains things not found in the Bible but because the Qur'an contradicts the Bible in very significant ways. Ellen White also mentions things not found in the Bible, so merely not being in the Bible is not reason enough to reject something.

The Bible itself teaches that if someone claims to be a prophet but teaches contrary to what God has previously revealed, it is because he is not a genuine prophets.

That is one test of a true prophet.

God does not reveal a teaching to one prophet and teach something altogether different to another prophet.

But if we accept both the Qur'an and the Bible as inspired by the same God, we would have to believe that God told the world that Jesus Christ is God and that He died on the cross for our sins, whereas God also told billions of other people that Christ was only a man and an apostle and that Christ was not crucified or killed on the cross. We would also have to believe as Muslims do that the angel Gabriel was referred to in the Qur'an as the Holy Spirit.

Have you studied the Qur'an and do you personally accept it as the inspired word of God? It claims to be "plain truth" and to be "Scripture whereof there is no doubt." It claims that Jesus Christ prophesied the coming of Muhammad, and that the Koran is more worthy of your trust than the Bible.

But is it? What do you think?

Very well put! If someone reads that, and still cannot tell there's a huge difference, then something is bad wrong.

[SivartM]

Yes, we don't accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, and even the Catholic Church acknowledges that those books are different and in some ways inferior to the books found in the Hebrew canon. The Apocrypha are never used or quoted by Christ or the New Testament writers; they were never a part of the Old Testament canon; they contain teachings that contradict the canon; they were written at a time when they themselves concede that God had no prophet; they contain exaggerations and inaccuracies; they teach that angels of God lie.

Have you read Tobit and Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Worthies? The Catholic Bible tells its readers that that 2 Maccabees is unreliable and that other parts of the Apocrypha are not true.

These are just some of the reasons that Seventh-day Adventists and all other protestants don't accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon. There are other important reasons, but these should suffice to show good cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

There are many different biblical canons that different churches use, which include many apocryphal works, and not only the Apocrypha that the Catholic church uses. The book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament, 1 Kings 22:22 says that angels of God lie.

[John317]

...Since there are many, many other churches with very different doctrines who also espouse Sola Scriptura, I don't see how the foundation is as firm as it's purported to be.

The different doctrines in the various churches are not due primarily to the Bible but to the history of the development of church doctrine. You'll notice that no two lawyers agree about the application and meaning of the same law and of the same law books. Disagreement is often due to other factors besides what is written. People have all sorts of motives, and these motives play a part in people's beliefs. Some people don't even want to believe the truth. Jesus indicated that the spiritual condition of the heart-- whether a peerson wants to obey God-- is the most important cause of someone rejecting or accepting the truth.

What "foundation" are you speaking of? If you mean the Bible, the Bible doesn't lose strength because of the rejection of the Apocrypha or even because there are many churches that don't agree doctrinally.

Originally Posted By: SivartM

Besides, I could stand firmly on any belief system, and not allow my beliefs to be questioned; is that the sort of attitude that you like to see in people you witness to? If not, why have that sort of attitude yourself?

That is not at all my attitude. I invite questions. In fact, that is what the Adventist Forum is all about.

If you take a look around, you will find that there are many Muslims that will kill people for questioning the veracity of the Qur'an or for showing disrespect toward Muhammad. You will also notice that in most Muslim countires, you don't have the liberty of publically teaching the gospel. In some you will be punished severely for teaching people the Bible in their homes.

I believe in freedom of religious expression, including the right of Muslims to teach the Koran and of people to do question the truth of the Bible.

Originally Posted By: SivartM

You may think that you look at the Bible objectively (and be amazed at how nobody else does), and interpret it honestly, but anyone who studies psychology and sociology knows that it's not that simple.

Objetivity, humanly speaking, can only be measured in comparitive terms. I doubt anyone is completely objective about anything. That includes psychologists and sociologists.

However, do you believe that we can only distinguish truth from error and lies if we are completely objective? I believe we have to profoundly want truth in order to find it. Jesus taught the same thing. He said it has to do with who our father is; whether we are children of God or children of the devil. This is the main reason that many people don't find it. See John 8: 42-47.

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. [43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. [45] But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [46] Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? [47] Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I don't think that I come to my own beliefs through pure reason; I'm a very irrational person in many ways, as are most humans, and that probably includes you.

Yes, I agree with you.

Some people are more rational than others, and some do make an honest, sincere effort to arrive at their beliefs on the basis of what is reasonable and true; i.e., the Bible.

[SivartM]

Jesus indicated that the spiritual condition of the heart-- whether a peerson wants to obey God-- is the most important cause of someone rejecting or accepting the truth.

[John317]

There are many different biblical canons that different churches use, which include many apocryphal works, and not only the Apocrypha that the Catholic church uses.

Name the churches and the canons they use.

But who cares what all the other churches do? Do you believe we should copy them or let their beliefs influence us to do or believe as they believe? For instance, do you think we should adopt the canon of the Catholic Church?

If you find that they have greater or better truth than the SDA church, I would encourge you to study their truths and adopt them if you honestly believe them.

Originally Posted By: SilartM

The book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament, 1 Kings 22:22 says that angels of God lie.

Paul quotes pagan poets, but that doesn't mean those poets are inspired or that they are part of the canon.

Ellen White quoted and used the writings of many non-inspired, non-canonical authors. It doesn't mean that those writings are all good or true.

The fact is that we don't know that the New Testament quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch. It may have but it also may not have. It is very possible that the book of Enoch and the book of Jude are using a third work, distinct from either of them. There is no way to be sure. But even it if is, it is no evidence that the book of Enoch as we have it is a work from God. It is not quoted as "Scripture."

About 1 Kings 22: 22, it is talking about the king's response to false prophets. God uses evil agents to accomplish His purposes, as He did in the book of Job.

Have you read the book of Tobit? See Tobit 5: 4ff.

[Dr. Shane]

So if someone disagrees with you, they are not sincerely seeking the truth.

[Dr. Shane]

This whole discussion comes back to the Biblical teaching of the Trinity. Muslims reject the concept of the Trinity. When we speak of the Muslim God and claim that it is the same God as the Christians and Jews worship, well,,, we have to say that rather loosely. We all claim to worship the Creator. And we all claim to worship the God of Abraham. However the Biblical concept of God is much different than the Muslim concept of God.

[John317]

Jesus indicated that the spiritual condition of the heart-- whether a peerson wants to obey God-- is the most important cause of someone rejecting or accepting the truth.

Originally Posted By: SivartM

So if someone disagrees with you, they are not sincerely seeking the truth.

I don't presume to know people's motives, and I don't necessarily conclude that someone disagrees with me beause they are not sincerely seeking the truth. You won't find anything in my posts about people not sincerely seeking truth because of a disagreement with me. I leave that to God to decide and judge. The Bible does teach, however, that people don't come to Christ and believe His word because they are unwilling to obey Him.

[SivartM]

Name the churches and the canons they use.

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

So if someone disagrees with you, they are not sincerely seeking the truth.

I think it is easier to have a healthy exchange of ideas if we do not personalize our questions or statements so. For example, the same sentiment above could be expressed with friendlier wording like this:

Am I to understand that those disagreeing with Adventist doctrine are simply not sincerely seeking the truth?

Originally Posted By: SivartM

But if someone comes to a different conclusion than you do, they cannot be correct.

Another way to word this might be:

Those that concluded differently than Adventist cannot be correct?

I have stuck my foot in my mouth many times and it normally happens when I don't proof-read my posts and ask myself how the other person(s) may take what I am posting. I need to be very careful when speaking in the second person in a dialogue with someone I am disagreeing with.

You are correct; please disregard my wording of those questions.

[John317]

But if someone comes to a different conclusion than you do, they cannot be correct.

No, of course not. I've changed my mind many times. I don't go by whether someone agrees with me but I look at their reasoning and the evidence.