I believe I had mentioned this earlier - that we not only cannot keep His commandments but we are not saved by trying to keep them. There is no salvation by trying to keep the commandments. But I also have mentioned and given the 5 verses above that came out of the mouth of Jesus Himself. He did not tell us to keep His commandments for salvation, but He did tell us to keep them, if we love Him, we will keep them, etc. So, what do you do with these 5 verses? Do we obey Jesus or decide we do not need to keep them?
Adventists, Ellen G. White, failed prophecies and scripture
- Thread starter pinebeach
- 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.
I've answered that already. You don't have to like the answer, but I'm not going to repeat myself.
An antihero is "a central character in a story, movie, drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." So, an antihero is characterized by what he lacks (heroic attributes) rather than what he is against even though, characteristically, he is opposed to, or against, the hero. That's just the inherent dynamics of that relationship. So then, when one characterizes another who might lack every other thing but lives by Christ an antichrist, is the same as calling a hero an antihero.
And this is the example sentence offered with the definition of 'antihero':
"with the age of the anti-hero, baddies and goodies became less distinguishable from one another"
Jesus said, "Keep my commandments..." of which one is, "If you ask anything in my name..." and if I ask anything while I'm working on Saturday, do you really think that He would say, "Forget it, sinner! How dare you even approach me while you have a bundle of sticks in your arms on this day!"?
John 15:16 is written within the context of "No Greater Love" (keeping in mind Who actually openly and publicly displayed this sort of 'no greater love') and I couldn't help but note what the very next verse, John 15:17, might say sans the added punctuation (by educated guess however authoritative).
...whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you[.] This is my commandment to you [:] Love one another [.]
I mean. The sentence structure of "Love one another" is a command so it would seem to go without having to say it. But if it was Jesus' intention to summarize a vaguer commandment, "Ask the Father in My Name," by clarifying it with ", this is my commandment(.)" The, even though the answer of the request might be "No.", He certainly wouldn't say, "Sinner! The gall of you for asking!"
And this is the example sentence offered with the definition of 'antihero':
"with the age of the anti-hero, baddies and goodies became less distinguishable from one another"
Jesus said, "Keep my commandments..." of which one is, "If you ask anything in my name..." and if I ask anything while I'm working on Saturday, do you really think that He would say, "Forget it, sinner! How dare you even approach me while you have a bundle of sticks in your arms on this day!"?
John 15:16 is written within the context of "No Greater Love" (keeping in mind Who actually openly and publicly displayed this sort of 'no greater love') and I couldn't help but note what the very next verse, John 15:17, might say sans the added punctuation (by educated guess however authoritative).
...whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you[.] This is my commandment to you [:] Love one another [.]
I mean. The sentence structure of "Love one another" is a command so it would seem to go without having to say it. But if it was Jesus' intention to summarize a vaguer commandment, "Ask the Father in My Name," by clarifying it with ", this is my commandment(.)" The, even though the answer of the request might be "No.", He certainly wouldn't say, "Sinner! The gall of you for asking!"
Obeying commandments is characteristic of those who are saved. The reason this is true of saved individuals is because God has changed them. He has given them new hearts and spirits, and placed His Spirit within them...Ezekiel 36:26-27. This is what causes them to obey. It is an internal operation of God that leads to external practice.
No one is obedient because they endeavor to be obedient. One is obedient as they walk in the Spirit. We work out what God is working in...Philippians 2:12-13...as our hearts and minds are stayed upon Him.
If one's focus is obedience, sin will follow. If one's focus is Christ, we walk in the same power that raised Jesus from the dead, and walk in holiness. We can do nothing apart from Christ. As we abide in Him, He lives in us. We keep His commandments effortlessly simply because He is leading us in paths of righteousness. Read Psalm 23 afresh and ask God to lead you this way.
Romans 11 presents a unified vision of God's people that transcends mere ethnic lineage. The central thesis is that the true "Remnant," the Body of Christ, and the Church are defined not by national identity, 'ethicity' or geography, but by faith in, and the indwelling of His Spirit.
The Remnant Defined by Grace and Faith In Romans 11:1–5, the Apostle Paul explicitly refutes the idea that God has abandoned His people. He asks, "Hath God cast away his people?" and answers with an emphatic negative. To prove this, he points to himself—a Jew who has believed—and references the Old Testament concept of a "remnant" chosen by grace. Paul states, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5, KJV).
The defining mark of this Remnant is their acceptance of the "faith of Jesus." Consequently, the status of being part of God's chosen people is contingent upon belief in Christ, not birthright.
The Olive Tree: A Unified Body of Jews and Gentiles Paul illustrates the relationship between believing Jews and Gentiles through the metaphor of the olive tree (Romans 11:17–24). In this parable:
- The Root: Represents the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and the covenants of promise.
- The Natural Branches: Represent the Jewish people. Some were broken off due to "unbelief."
- The Wild Olive Branches: Represent the Gentiles who were grafted in contrary to nature.
This union is exclusive to those who possess "the faith of Jesus." Paul warns the Gentile believers: "Thou standest by faith" (Romans 11:20). If they cease to believe, they will be cut off just as the unbelieving Jews were. Conversely, if the natural branches "abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted in" (Romans 11:23). The ability to remain in the Remnant is entirely dependent on continued faith, not ethnic privilege.
The Failure of Ethnic Nationalism Without Faith The teaching of Romans 11 directly challenges the notion that any modern political state or ethnic group automatically constitutes the "Remnant" or the "Chosen People" simply by claiming the name "Israel." Paul makes it clear that physical descent is insufficient for spiritual standing. In fact, Paul notes that "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (a concept reinforced in Romans 9:8 and Galatians 3:29).
If a literal Jewish state or any group claims to be the remnant church based solely on nationality, geography, or the possession of the land, they contradict the explicit warning of Romans 11. The "broken off" branches were physically Jewish yet excluded from the spiritual blessings because of unbelief. Therefore, a nation claiming the title of "Israel" without the profession of faith in Jesus Christ lacks the essential element that defines the Remnant: the "election of grace."
The true "Israel of God" is spiritual. As the text implies, the covenant promises are fulfilled only in those who are "in Christ." Without the faith of Jesus, the claim to be the chosen people is void. The "Remnant" cannot be a political state; it must be a community of faith.
Keeping the Commandments and the Faith: In the context of Romans and the broader New Testament, these are not mutually exclusive but are deeply integrated. The "Faith of Jesus" is the means of entry into the Remnant, while keeping the commandments is the evidence of that faith working in love. = "testing WHICH spirit" ~> @Gideon300
Paul argues in Romans that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (Galatians 3:24), but now that we are saved by faith, the law is written on the heart by the Holy Spirit. The Remnant keeps the commandments not to earn salvation, but because they have been grafted into the tree where the Spirit flows. The "law of faith" (Romans 3:27) does not abolish the moral requirements of God but establishes them through the power of the Spirit.
Those who are truly part of the Body of Christ—whether Jew or Gentile—are characterized by a life that honors God. However, this obedience is the fruit of the "faith of Jesus," not the root. A person cannot claim to keep the commandments and thus be the Remnant if they lack the faith that connects them to the Root. As Galatians 2:20 states, the believer lives by the "faith of the Son of God," having been crucified with Him so that Christ lives in them.
The Indispensable Role of the Spirit: The condition for being part of the Remnant is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes in Romans 8:9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." This is the ultimate criterion.
No amount of ancestral connection to Abraham, no claim to the land of Palestine, and no self-identification as "Israel" can substitute for the indwelling Spirit of Christ. If a religious group or nation does not profess Jesus as Lord and does not have His Spirit living in them, they are, by definition, outside the Remnant. They may possess the name, but they lack the reality. The true Remnant, the Body of Christ, His Church is composed of those in whom "Christ is formed" (Galatians 4:19). Having His Spirit, Character, and Righteousness, which is obedience to the Father's Will, His Commandments.
Conclusion: The Spiritual Reality Over the Political and Religious Claims ~~ Romans 11 teaches that the Remnant, the Body of Christ, and His Church are one spiritual reality comprised of both believing Jews and Gentiles grafted together by faith. The "natural branches" that were broken off were those who rejected the Messiah, proving that ethnicity alone offers no safety.
Therefore, any modern political, national or religious entity claiming to be the "Remnant Church", God's "Chosen People" , or "faith based organization", is mistaken unless it meets the spiritual criteria established by Paul:
- Profession of Faith: An explicit acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, having come "In the flesh"
- Indwelling Spirit: The lived experience of Christ living within the individual through the Holy Spirit. Ref. Gal 2:20, ... where,
- The Righteousness of Christ: Manifested through the individual to the Glory of God, Revelation 14:6
- Faith-Obedience: A life where the commandments are kept through the power of the "faith of Jesus," and not by legalistic works.
‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ~~ Blessed Sabbath Folks !! ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡
Ya notice how my arguments and understanding of The Word are in direct opposition to Your religion and greeds of believing and promoting Satan's religion of DIS-Obedience to God ? You've inherited this propensity and desire to SIN, since the Great Fall from Eden, when Adam and Eve gave their allegiance to The Father of Lies, and you are STILL believing him.
Repent and be Babtized for the remission of those sins... Particularly Your Sin against God's Sabbath
Scripture only, following Paul's argument in Romans 9–11.
Romans 11:5 says:
To identify the remnant, Paul tells us explicitly by connecting Romans 11 to the history of Israel.
In Romans 11:1–2 he asks:
He then cites Elijah's complaint that Israel had rejected God:
God's answer was:
Then Paul concludes:
The parallel is clear:
- In Elijah's day, the remnant was the small number of Israelites who remained faithful.
- In Paul's day, the remnant is the small number of Israelites who believed God's promise in Christ.
This agrees with Romans 9.
Paul quotes Isaiah:
And:
Thus the remnant is not the whole nation, but the believing portion of Israel.
Romans 10 explains why most of Israel was not included:
Yet some Israelites did believe, including Paul himself.
Romans 11 then contrasts:
This verse defines the remnant even more precisely:
- "The election hath obtained it" = the remnant.
- "The rest were blinded" = the majority of Israel.
Therefore, in the context of Romans 9–11, the remnant refers to the elect Israelites who believed God's righteousness by faith in Christ, while the majority of Israel remained unbelieving.
Paul's point throughout Romans 9–11 is that God's promises to Israel have not failed because from the beginning there has always been a distinction between Israel according to the flesh and the believing portion within Israel:
Your still ignoring the context in both Romans chapters 9 and 11.
Who taught you to ignore the context in the N.T letters?
You claim to follow the scripture but you use an identical interpretation of the scripture, that the Catholics use.
They speak the same way you do they divide the law into commandments and ceremonial law, that is a fact.
I don't do that because I am not a Catholic but you do that.
You also constantly contradict yourself.
You say the law cannot save someone but then turn around and say we are judged by the law.
The investigative judgement!
The law will destroy you but the law cannot save you?
That is a major contradiction in your theology.
My understanding is that a false prophecy is when someone falsely claims God said something. If someone says, "Thus saith the Lord" followed by a message that God did not say, possibly including a prediction that does not come to pass, that would be a false prophecy. What Miller did might have been better described as teaching false doctrine using prophetic scriptures. If he wasn't claiming God said something God did not say, but was misinterpreting what had been revealed, that is a different category.
Here is my understanding of Seventh-day Adventists, and I am open to correction. I also understand that, as with Protestantism generally, there may be differences among individuals and groups who identify with that tradition.
As I understand it, Seventh-day Adventism is first and foremost a Christian movement that affirms the central truths of the faith:
First, that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God.
Second, that Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, came into the world to give Himself as the sacrifice for sin. He is Lord, Savior, and the only means of salvation.
Third, that the New Testament is also the inspired Word of God and gives the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, His death, resurrection, heavenly ministry, and promised return.
Now, beyond those central beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists hold other doctrines and interpretations, including their understanding of baptism, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the sanctuary, the judgment, and prophecy. Some of those interpretations I may agree with, and some I may question. But I would not place every prophetic interpretation or denominational practice on the same level as the gospel itself.
They are also no different from most Protestant groups in this sense: they have spent much time and effort attempting to read, study, and properly interpret Scripture. And I think we should all admit that interpreting Scripture, especially prophecy, is one of the most difficult tasks before us. There is no complete consensus even among brilliant scholars, theologians, pastors, and students of the Bible on many of the most important prophetic passages.
For example, the Millerite movement expected the return of Christ in 1844. They were wrong. That error came from an incorrect interpretation of Daniel’s 2,300-day prophecy, combined with a very sincere and intense hope that they would soon see their Lord face to face. Later, Seventh-day Adventists reinterpreted 1844 in connection with Christ’s heavenly sanctuary ministry rather than His visible return to earth.
Now, one may reject that interpretation. One may argue that Daniel 8 has been misunderstood. One may believe their prophetic framework is wrong in important ways. But that kind of interpretive error is not the same thing as claiming divine authority to change God’s commandments, forgive sin by priestly office, exalt an earthly religious head as God’s representative over the whole church, or place human tradition above the Word of God. That is the distinction I am trying to make.
If we were to place the central Christian beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists on one side of a page, and then place the major claims of the Roman Catholic system on the other, which one departs more seriously from the commands of Christ and the teaching of the apostles?
I do not see Seventh-day Adventists teaching an infallible pope. I do not see them claiming one earthly bishop has universal authority over the church. I do not see them teaching prayers to Mary and the saints. I do not see them promoting image veneration, indulgences, purgatory, priestly absolution, or salvation through submission to the Roman sacramental system. I do not see them claiming that church tradition can stand alongside or above Scripture.
Those are not minor differences. Those are massive departures.
So, in my opinion, an incorrect interpretation of the 2,300 days in Daniel 8 is not on the same level as a religious system that claims papal supremacy, priestly power to forgive sins, authority over God’s commandments, prayers to Mary and saints, and salvation mediated through the institution and its sacraments.
One is an interpretive mistake concerning prophecy. The other is a system that has claimed powers and honors that belong only to God. That does not mean every Adventist interpretation is correct. It does not mean every SDA teacher is right. It does not mean we should accept their prophetic system without testing it. Everything must be tested by Scripture. But we should be careful not to place every religious error in the same category. A mistaken interpretation of Daniel is one thing. A system that exalts human authority over Christ, Scripture, and conscience is something far more serious.
That is why I see a major difference between a Protestant group that may be wrong on certain prophetic interpretations and a religious system that, over centuries, has buried the simplicity of the gospel beneath papal authority, sacramental control, prayers to saints, Marian devotion, image veneration, purgatory, indulgences, and tradition elevated above Scripture. The issue is not whether any denomination is perfect. None is. The issue is whether its errors are interpretive errors made while trying to follow Scripture, or whether the system itself claims authority that Scripture never gives to any man or institution.
Finally, on a specific note, if one were to try to interpret how the 2300 days prophecy speaks TO THE COMING MESSIAH (His first arrival), and not to a historic or secular event or even a heavenly event in the future (in relation to the time of the cross), they would indeed find its true prophetic meaning. Afterall, wouldn't it seem appropriate that the prophecies in Daniel should pretain to the most important event in the history of mankind - the arrival of the Messiah?
Glad your open to correction.
I disagree.
The SDA condemn the Christian world because the Christian world does not practice the sabbath day.
They believe they are the remnant church which is a tiny fraction of the Christian world.
They believe that sabbath keepers are the only ones that literally obey the fourth commandment and the only one's saved.
Jesus said to obey His commandments which they interpret as the law.
In Galatians 5, Paul warns the Galatians against touching the law at any point.
The law has nothing to do with Christianity.
The historical accounts in 1 Maccabees are widely used to argue against interpreting the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14 as 2,300 years (ending in 1844).
Instead, 1 Maccabees provides the historical framework showing that the prophecy was fulfilled as 1,150 days (2,300 individual sacrifices) between 171–165 B.C., culminating in the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and its subsequent rededication (Hanukkah) by Judas Maccabeus.
Key Arguments Refuting the "Day-to-Year" Mistake
Literal Fulfilled History:
1 Maccabees 1-4 documents the historical desecration of the Jerusalem Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This includes the stopping of the daily sacrifices, which lasted roughly 3.5 years, fitting within the scope of the 2,300 evenings and mornings (1,150 literal days of missed sacrifice pairs).
Definition of "Evenings and Mornings":
The text of Daniel 8:14 uses the phrase "2,300 evenings and mornings", not "days." Because the Jewish sacrificial system required a sacrifice every morning and every evening, 2,300 evenings and mornings equal 1,150 literal days of twice-daily sacrifices.
I do not see any difference between SDA, Catholics, Jehovah's witnesses, etc.
They all call themselves the one true church.
They all use the same story book.
T
Thaddeus
Guest
I would think catholics and sda have much in common:
CCC 2068, “The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.”
2069: To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.
They are still in use today. the catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments
The SDAs believe what they believe... and because they promote and teach it they are not doing anything wrong.
When people in the past stood firm for what they believed they were often killed, or persecuted and treated very badly by those that did not like the truth.
Should the SDA church change their beliefs and not share their convictions with the world because you don't like them?
The Holy Scriptures are the standard, not popular teachings or traditions.
T
Thaddeus
Guest
And yet, they do accept as christians people who do not follow a Saturday sabbath, which is surprising to me, according to their doctrine
Repent of your sin of sowing discord among the brethren. The Sabbath, as I have explained countless times, is of no account in the New Covenant. You do as you please, but your false accusations greatly displease God.
If you cause one born again believer to stumble, God holds you accountable. The way you regard those who are born again is the way you regard the Lord Jesus.
God's word has much to say about false teachers. None of it is good. You are the one who should be repenting.