Are Seventh Day Adventists a cult?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yogosans14
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, and if we are under attack then must be doing something right....lol I haven't been called a demon lately so I guess that is good....getting a little break.... I am really so glad that not all of my Christian brothers and sisters are so Judge Mental toward us..... Thanks for those of you being kind.
Real trufers.......... I was online looking for a church when I ran across several forums and blogs declaring that The Vineyard was a cult you needed to stay away from. Thank God for those haters, or I might never have taken a look to see what they were talking about.

As it turned out, everything The Official Vineyard site (and also on the one for my local congregation) listed nothing but EXACTLY the way I feel about everything Spiritual. Been there about four years now, and it just gets better all the time.
 
What? Now your going after my Colts? What is this attack Blond Day? I thought it was Valentine's Day..... Where's the LOVE people? lol

No way, you're a Colts fan???!!
They knocked the Broncos out of the PO's

Sorry.
About the slam.....and the fact you're a Colts fan.:(
 
I think that people in the SDA are sincere about loving God and try their best to serve Him. But the doctrine they teach is in error as it is works based.
Why don't you try that again?

The doctrine they believe is not what you believe..... and that is really all you (or anyone) can, in all honesty, say about anything anyone believes. It might be a shocker, but none of us knows what God knows..... we've just convinced ourselves we do.

Why don't you go to church on Tuesday? Seriously, think about that.... you probably have no answer.
 
Last edited:
No way, you're a Colts fan???!!
They knocked the Broncos out of the PO's

Sorry.
About the slam.....and the fact you're a Colts fan.:(

I was born in Muncie Indiana YES I am a Colts fan.........I don't know much about the game but I am a Colts fan anyway...I don't know who anybody is either too many details.....I just see men running after a ball knocking each other down and there's something about downs and then kick the ball.....touch downs are really good.... Come on I'm Blond what do you expect?
 
Thanks for the Valentine wishes. A Valentine for you too...from the Blond.


Thank you

love-of-christ-550x320.jpg
 
"Bring accusations." Isn't that what Satan delights in doing?

Yea, on the other hand, those who know the truth should expose error. I don't mind the accusations, they present the opportunity to examine the issues more closely for all those actually seeking the truth.
 
If people would just read their Bible and attend Bible classes, I think God made it pretty simple what we are to do, but people make it complicated by implementing their own ideas and create division. Read and obey the bible, simple.

Good advice. There is nothing wrong with listening to what others have to say, as long as you judge there words by the word of God and not the other way around. It is highly likely that God will reveal things to others, which He has not revealed to us. We can learn much from each other in the body of Christ, but we must always be diligent to compare all to the word of God for authenticity.
 
Time to address the opening statement I guess.

Ellen White founded the Seventh-day Adventist church and members must vow
to believe that she was a prophet! From the 27 Fundamental beliefs, #17 "The gift
of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying
mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White.
As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of
truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction."
Ellen White did not found the SDA Church, but was one of many involved in the same. As far as I know, none of our doctrines originated with her, though her prophetic gift was employed by God as we believe, in confirming certain points under question while our founders were studying the word for truth. The vast majority of what we believe, was believed by countless Christians before us.

William Miller, a Baptist preacher, introduced our future founders to the biblical prophecies concerning the 2300 days and the cleansing of the Sanctuary. The event he predicted (the second coming of Christ), not having taken place as predicted upon the date predicted, led our eventual founders to the conclusion that no prophecy bypasses our Lord’s teaching that no man knows the day or hour of His coming. All predictions that claim either, are to be consider false. We may see the signs of His coming, but no one knows the day or hour of that event.

After re-examining the calculations of William Miller after the disappointment of his failed prediction, our founders could find no fault with those calculations. They therefore diverted their attention to the event predicted, as to what it might be since it most obviously was not the return of Christ. Three men in particular, Hiram Edson, O. R. L. Crosier, and Dr. F. B. Hahn, were part of a group intensely praying and studying this issue. Their conclusions eventually became the doctrinal belief of the Investigative Judgment of the SDA church. EGW’s prophetic gift did not originate this doctrine, or any other, but only confirmed that which had been determined by others who studied the scriptures concerning these things. As already stated, most of what we believe was already believed by countless Christians who had studied and determined these truths long before we ever existed. So to was it, with the Investigative Judgment Doctrine, and that which is connected to it. The Investigative Judgment, and our belief that we have been commissioned to give the Three Angels Messages of Revelation 14, may be the only doctrines that were not believed before us. Though the latter is not really a doctrine, but a rather a conviction.

The seventh day Sabbath truth was introduced to us by a Seventh Day Baptist. It was confirmed through the study of the scriptures, and after already being accepted and believed upon the authority of the same, was confirmed also through the prophetic gift of EGW. This biblical truth has been believed and maintained since the time of Christ by countless Christians. It most certainly cannot be attributed to SDA’s as its originator. The opening statement of this thread therefore is obviously false. The best way to pass off deception is to connect it with a little bit of truth, and hope no one notices it alongside the same.

SDA’s believe EGW had the gift of prophecy, therefore yes, we do require our members to believe the same. What denomination does not require their members to believe what it does? No one has to join ours, and we do not believe all are lost who will not. Though we do believe that those who reject truth, are most obviously in danger of being deceived unto the destruction of their souls. Again though, what denomination does not also believe the same?

I will address the rest of the opening statement in the next posts.
 
The most potent blasphemy of Ellen G. White:
On page 481 of 'Great Controversy' (1927 ed.) Mrs. White says, "When Christ by virtue of His own blood removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who in execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty."
What does the Bible say?
1 Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
If a SDA follower believes Ellen G. White in the above statement, they are damned to hell. There is no hope for them.
Before we examine exactly what EGW said herself in more context, let’s consider the accusation itself for just a moment. Satan is not just the accuser of the brethren, he and his angels are those who continually work to tempt God’s own into committing sin. There are therefore two guilty parties involved in every such sin. The tempter himself, and the one who succumbs to the temptation. The true Christian who has confessed and repented of their sins, will have been cleansed from that sin by the blood of Jesus. This truth will be brought out when the books are examined, and God’s own will be exonerated and fully justified by their faith in the blood of Christ shed for them which they have appealed to during their lives. Thus will the record be set straight for all time concerning that which they accomplished during their lives, not at the time of this examination.

This examination however, will as already mentioned exonerate Christ’s true followers from all blame concerning that which they have confessed and repented of. Which very thing, will without question cast all remaining responsibility for sin upon the tempter himself, who alone still refuses Christ’s intercession on his behalf. Christ came to save us from our sins. He did not come to take the blame for them, God is not and never will be responsible for any sin. Christ voluntarily paid the penalty for our sins, that we might choose to die in Him by faith, that we might not have to die altogether for our sins. Thus fulfilling the demands of the law for us in both his life and death. Thus we are justified when we are in Him by faith, that is when He died on the cross. Thus we are sanctified when He is in us, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, not of our own. None of this includes or requires that God or Christ take on the responsibility for sin. God simply is not responsible for sin. In the end all responsibility for sin will rest upon sinners themselves who rejected the mercy of God through Christ, or Satan himself who also rejected said mercy, and also tempted as many as possible into sin against God. Satan though will suffer judgment for the part he played in all sin, including the sin of the saints which he did everything he could to bring about unto their condemnation. Which praise God, they were forgiven for through Christ Jesus their Lord and Savior.

This is what EGW was speaking of, not that Satan himself has paid in any way shape of form for the sins of the saved. As the following quotes from her clearly reveal.

[FONT=&quot]SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7A (EGW), Page 468[/FONT]
The Lord made a full and complete sacrifice upon the cross, the shameful cross, that [FONT=&quot]men might be [/FONT]complete[FONT=&quot] in the great [/FONT]and[FONT=&quot] precious gift of His righteousness[/FONT]. We have God’s pledge that He will bind men closely to His great heart of infinite love in the bonds of the new covenant of grace. All who will give up their hope of paying for their salvation, or earning it, and will come to Jesus just as they are, unworthy, sinful, and fall upon His merits, holding in their plea the pledged word of God to pardon the transgressor of His law, confessing their sins and seeking pardon, [FONT=&quot]will find [/FONT]full and[FONT=&quot] free salvation[/FONT].—Letter 148, 1897.

[h=2]SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7A (EGW), Page 478[/h] Christ’s words on the mountainside were the announcement that [FONT=&quot]His sacrifice in behalf of man was [/FONT]full and complete[FONT=&quot]. The conditions of the atonement had been fulfilled[/FONT]; the work for which He came to this world had been accomplished. He had won the kingdom. He had wrested it from Satan, and had become heir of all things. He was on His way to the throne of God, to be honored by angels, principalities, and powers. [FONT=&quot]He had entered upon His mediatorial work. Clothed with boundless authority, He gave His commission to the disciples[/FONT], “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”—Manuscript 138, 1897.

[h=2]Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, Page 664[/h] Christ made a full and complete sacrifice, a sacrifice sufficient to save every son and daughter of Adam who should show repentance toward God for having transgressed His law, and manifest faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet notwithstanding the sacrifice was ample, but few consent to a life of obedience that they may have this great salvation. Few are willing to imitate His amazing privations, to endure His sufferings and persecutions, and to share His exhausting labor to bring others to the light. But few will follow His example in earnest, frequent prayer to God for strength to endure the trials of this life and perform its daily duties. Christ is the Captain of our salvation, and by His own sufferings and sacrifice He has given an example to all His followers that watchfulness and prayer, and persevering effort, were necessary on their part if they would rightly represent the love which dwelt in His bosom for the fallen race.

[h=2]SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6 (EGW), Page 1071[/h] (Romans 5:1.) Justification Means Complete Pardon—[Romans 3:24-26 quoted.] Here the truth is laid out in plain lines. This mercy and goodness is wholly undeserved. The grace of Christ is freely to justify the sinner without merit or claim on his part. Justification is a full, complete pardon of sin. The moment a sinner accepts Christ by faith, that moment he is pardoned. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to him, and he is no more to doubt God’s forgiving grace.
There is nothing in faith that makes it our saviour. Faith cannot remove our guilt. Christ is the power of God unto salvation to all them that believe. The justification comes through the merits of Jesus Christ. He has paid the price for the sinner’s redemption. Yet it is only through faith in His blood that Jesus can justify the believer.
The sinner cannot depend upon his own good works as a means of justification. He must come to the point where he will renounce all his sin, and embrace one degree of light after another as it shines upon his pathway. He simply grasps by faith the free and ample provision made in the blood of Christ. He believes the promises of God, which through Christ are made unto him sanctification and righteousness and redemption. And if he follows Jesus, he will walk humbly in the light, rejoicing in the light and diffusing that light to others. Being justified by faith, he carries cheerfulness with him in his obedience in all his life. Peace with God is the result of what Christ is to him. The souls who are in subordination to God, who honor Him, and are doers of His Word, will receive divine enlightenment. In the precious Word of God there is purity and loftiness as well as beauty that, unless assisted by God, the highest powers of man cannot attain to (The Signs of the Times, May 19, 1898).

More context surrounding the quote supplied concerning the accusation will be supplied in the next post, since this reply is already quite long. As the above quotes suggest, EGW did not believe or preach at all, that Satan paid for the sins of the believer. Instead of supplying more context, those interested may go to the following site for the entire chapter which was quoted from -

GC: Chap.28
 
There are two distinctive doctrines of the SDA.20 First and foremost is "The Investigative Judgment."
This is the unbiblical concept that in 1844 Jesus entered "the second and last phase" of His atoning ministry — the work of investigative judgment. Instead of returning to earth on October 22, 1844, as William Miller predicted, Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in Heaven and began a review of the works of all believers who have ever lived to determine how faithful they were to the commandments of God. "Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner."21
According to Ellen White, a person must believe this doctrine to be saved:
"All need a knowledge of the position [in the Holy of Holies] and work [investigative judgment] of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs for them to fill."22
At first I intended to demonstrate that our Investigative Judgment doctrine is indeed biblical. Having begun that endeavor, and considering the time element involved, I have opted to allow you to prove and back up your statement that the doctrine is un-biblical. You have made the accusation, if you don’t care to back it up by showing what is un-biblical about it, I should not like to waste the time explaining why it is to someone who doesn’t really care or want to hear such in the first place. So then, here we are, prove your point. Or are you just another one liner accuser, presenting someone else’s arguments and are therefore not even capable of backing up or proving the accusations that you make? What is un-biblical about the doctrine, please sir?



This is the unbiblical concept that in 1844 Jesus entered "the second and last phase" of His atoning ministry — the work of investigative judgment. Instead of returning to earth on October 22, 1844, as William Miller predicted, Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in Heaven and began a review of the works of all believers who have ever lived to determine how faithful they were to the commandments of God. "Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner."21

Where did you get the above quote? You gave no reference. How much of it are the actual words of EGW, and how much of it is the conjecture of the one making the accusation. You seem to have twisted her words and someone’s accusation into one statement. This is not indicative of something well researched, and or presented with clarity in mind. Do you intend to execute your arguments in such a fog, or are you determined to be clear and concise in presenting what is presumed to be the truth. The way a person presents their accusations, says quite a bit about their intentions. Please do give us quotes with references, and make a clear distinction between the words and thoughts of EGW and those of the accuser. If you will not do this, then apparently you have no real desire to arrive at the truth of the matter.

According to Ellen White, a person must believe this doctrine to be saved:
"All need a knowledge of the position [in the Holy of Holies] and work [investigative judgment] of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs for them to fill."22

Again, where did you get the above quote? Again, no reference. No way to go back and examine the context surrounding this one sentence quoted for the purpose of accusation. Never including context in the quotes of others you are making accusations against, is highly suggestive of the intent to manipulate the meaning of the words you are presenting. Therefore you allow the accused to speak for themselves as little as possible. What does this practice have to do with arriving at truth? I also noticed the sequence of numbers at the end of your accusations in order 21 & 22 highly suggestive of them being part of a list someone constructed. Have you simply copied and pasted the accusations of someone else’s list here on these boards as your own? Am I addressing you, or some anti-EGW internet site? Are you a go between, or do you possess some real knowledge of your own pertaining to the writings of EGW, and what is wrong with or about them? Have you ever read any of EGW’s books for yourself? I do not want to waste time arguing with ignorance. Thank you ahead of time for an honest answer to the above questions.
 
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin ... it will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357). Ellen G white ...false prophet
 
At first I intended to demonstrate that our Investigative Judgment doctrine is indeed biblical. Having begun that endeavor, and considering the time element involved, I have opted to allow you to prove and back up your statement that the doctrine is un-biblical. You have made the accusation, if you don’t care to back it up by showing what is un-biblical about it, I should not like to waste the time explaining why it is to someone who doesn’t really care or want to hear such in the first place. So then, here we are, prove your point. Or are you just another one liner accuser, presenting someone else’s arguments and are therefore not even capable of backing up or proving the accusations that you make? What is un-biblical about the doctrine, please sir?





Where did you get the above quote? You gave no reference. How much of it are the actual words of EGW, and how much of it is the conjecture of the one making the accusation. You seem to have twisted her words and someone’s accusation into one statement. This is not indicative of something well researched, and or presented with clarity in mind. Do you intend to execute your arguments in such a fog, or are you determined to be clear and concise in presenting what is presumed to be the truth. The way a person presents their accusations, says quite a bit about their intentions. Please do give us quotes with references, and make a clear distinction between the words and thoughts of EGW and those of the accuser. If you will not do this, then apparently you have no real desire to arrive at the truth of the matter.



Again, where did you get the above quote? Again, no reference. No way to go back and examine the context surrounding this one sentence quoted for the purpose of accusation. Never including context in the quotes of others you are making accusations against, is highly suggestive of the intent to manipulate the meaning of the words you are presenting. Therefore you allow the accused to speak for themselves as little as possible. What does this practice have to do with arriving at truth? I also noticed the sequence of numbers at the end of your accusations in order 21 & 22 highly suggestive of them being part of a list someone constructed. Have you simply copied and pasted the accusations of someone else’s list here on these boards as your own? Am I addressing you, or some anti-EGW internet site? Are you a go between, or do you possess some real knowledge of your own pertaining to the writings of EGW, and what is wrong with or about them? Have you ever read any of EGW’s books for yourself? I do not want to waste time arguing with ignorance. Thank you ahead of time for an honest answer to the above questions.
C'mon, now let's be honest. Each one of us is just, more or less, parroting someone who went before us, establishing the doctrine we have found acceptable for us to adopt.

To accuse someone of not coming up with totally original doctrine is a bit ludicrous. None of us saw things the way we do until we read (or heard) someone else first stating that they saw the Bible to mean this or that, concerning a certain area.

I would submit that the only reason we would want to see a post written only by the forum member is because we might think we can out-talk or out-write someone who has only written a few words in a post, rather than someone who has done massive research and written volumes on the subject.
 
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin ... it will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357). Ellen G white ...false prophet

A little more context emphasis mine-

After His ascension, our Saviour was to begin His work as our High Priest. Says Paul, "Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Hebrews 9:24. As Christ's ministration was to consist of two great divisions, each occupying a period of time and having a distinctive place in the heavenly sanctuary, so the typical ministration consisted of two divisions, the daily and the yearly service, and to each a department of the tabernacle was devoted.


As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf.


The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement.


In the great day of final award, the dead are to be "judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or
Page 358

cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.

As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation.


Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat.


Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle, and of the temple that afterward took its place, the people were taught each day the great truths relative to Christ's death and ministration, and once each year their minds were carried forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the final purification of the universe from sin and sinners.

As emphasized in the above, it is the record of sins that is blotted out of all memory. The subject is not whether the repentant has been forgiven or not, as EGW has stated many times over, they have. As the above clearly states, which I highlighted, the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent. When we confess our sins, we are forgiven of our sins. While Satan is alive and remains, there would be no good reason to remove the records of the sins of the penitent, our accuser will not forget them or stop his accusations. He and the records will disappear at the same time.

The rest of the chapter quoted from may be viewed at -

Patriarchs and Prophets
 
A little more context emphasis mine-



As emphasized in the above, it is the record of sins that is blotted out of all memory. The subject is not whether the repentant has been forgiven or not, as EGW has stated many times over, they have. As the above clearly states, which I highlighted, the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent. When we confess our sins, we are forgiven of our sins. While Satan is alive and remains, there would be no good reason to remove the records of the sins of the penitent, our accuser will not forget them or stop his accusations. He and the records will disappear at the same time.

The rest of the chapter quoted from may be viewed at -

Patriarchs and Prophets

So it takes pages to deny what the bible clearly teaches as truth? of course!

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
 
C'mon, now let's be honest. Each one of us is just, more or less, parroting someone who went before us, establishing the doctrine we have found acceptable for us to adopt.

To accuse someone of not coming up with totally original doctrine is a bit ludicrous. None of us saw things the way we do until we read (or heard) someone else first stating that they saw the Bible to mean this or that, concerning a certain area.

I would submit that the only reason we would want to see a post written only by the forum member is because we might think we can out-talk or out-write someone who has only written a few words in a post, rather than someone who has done massive research and written volumes on the subject.

Sorry my friend, you are mistaken. I have been doing this for many many years. It is the habit of many to argue things which they know little about. Those whom I have proved to be liars are quoted all over the internet by those who believe them without ever even examining the issues for themselves. Do you really suppose we can spread the lies of others while willfully remaining ignorant of the facts pertaining to issues with impunity before God? It will not be so. It is a sin to falsely accuse and lie about another human being. What do you think God's problem with gossip is in the first place?

Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 23:1 ¶ Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

De 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

Pr 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Pr 19:5 ¶ A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.

Pr 25:18 ¶ A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

Mt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Mt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

It is no small matter to bear false witness. Go to, and defend the same if you wish, I will give fair warning to all who practice such.
 
Sorry my friend, you are mistaken. I have been doing this for many many years. It is the habit of many to argue things which they know little about. Those whom I have proved to be liars are quoted all over the internet by those who believe them without ever even examining the issues for themselves. Do you really suppose we can spread the lies of others while willfully remaining ignorant of the facts pertaining to issues with impunity before God? It will not be so. It is a sin to falsely accuse and lie about another human being. What do you think God's problem with gossip is in the first place?

Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Ex 23:1 ¶ Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

De 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

Pr 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Pr 19:5 ¶ A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.

Pr 25:18 ¶ A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

Mt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Mt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

It is no small matter to bear false witness. Go to, and defend the same if you wish, I will give fair warning to all who practice such.
I say this sadly, but you must really embarrass other SDA's.
 
I have only been to one SDA church, but they seemed to at least TRY to fulfill what their web site says they believe in. Go to the St. Petersburg site, then open <ABOUT US>, and read the first thing in their little list (about the third paragraph down)

I see that coming from some SDA's here, but not so much from others.