Friday, February 21, 2014

Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA), part 1


Note: This composition has been moved to the FaithSaves website.


The bottom of the completed work has updated links to the various parts that were originally posted here for those who wish to comment.



7 comments:

The Preacher said...

To Mr. Ross and others who believe his nonsense:

Either you or Ken is a liar, which one is it?

I just read everthing he just wrote and he layed out the gospel that I believed in September of 1980, and began it by writing:

"The Bible, the perfect Word of God, promises that “ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 Jn 5:13) and are in fellowship with God. You need to know four things:"

I KNOW PERFECTLY those four things and believe them as much as anyone else in the WHOLE EARTH, and persistantly preach them everywhere, therfore it is you who continually insists that if any man does not believe in YOUR version of the triune God, that a person is not saved.

Therefore, according to the written salvation truths based on Kent Brandenburg post, you preach another gospel as I have been saying all along. You are ADDING to the doctrine of salvation. I would take Galatians 1:9-10 very seriously.

Now it has been exposed that you may know that it is YOU, young man who is the liar and need to repent of your silly assertions of who is truly saved. Your to high minded and need to humble your heart and make it right in Christ.

We can have disagreements (Kent and I do), but when you "cross the line" that involves Jesus Christ and the gospel that I also preach, then you need to be rebuked publically before you continually damage others with your foolish understandings.

Therefore, young man, do right and it shall go well with thee. Correct you aberrent teachings of salvation and move on for God.

horace said...

Dear Messrs Brandenburg and Ross,

While this is not directly related to the main thrust of your blog post, I hope this is related enough that I may ask a few questions regarding some of the writings posted on Mr. Ross's site.

As indicated in this post, Mr. Ross has posted material on his website (which has been posted on this blog too indicating Mr. Brandenburg by and large agrees with those positions) that states that the Reformed denominations are really false religions that teach baptismal regeneration. Yet at the same time both Mr. Ross and Mr. Brandenburg has favourably referred to the Puritans (who accepted the confessions that are considered to teach baptismal regeneration). Does that mean that you believe that there at is the true gospel at least on some occasions in the Reformed denominations and that at least some of the Reformers/Puritans were saved despite belonging to a "false religion"? Now obviously we cannot judge the hearts of these men but we can tell from their writings whether they professed to believe in the true Gospel.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Ross finds it necessary to have a conscious salvation experience in order to be truly regenerate even though John MacArthur is referred to somewhat favourably (although obviously you disagree with him on many things) on here even though he has explicitly said he never had such an experience. Also there have been plenty of revialists in these denominations such as Edwards, Whitefield, and so forth who stressed conscious salvific experiences. Similarly I believe the Congregational churches of New England (at least until the Halfway Covenant) required church members to demonstrate such an experience before being admitted as members, so the Reformed view is more diverse than may be supposed.

Sincerely Yours,
Casey Cho

horace said...

Dear Messrs Brandenburg and Ross,

While this is not directly related to the main thrust of your blog post, I hope this is related enough that I may ask a few questions regarding some of the writings posted on Mr. Ross's site.

As indicated in this post, Mr. Ross has posted material on his website (which has been posted on this blog too indicating Mr. Brandenburg by and large agrees with those positions) that states that the Reformed denominations are really false religions that teach baptismal regeneration. Yet at the same time both Mr. Ross and Mr. Brandenburg has favourably referred to the Puritans (who accepted the confessions that are considered to teach baptismal regeneration). Does that mean that you believe that there at is the true gospel at least on some occasions in the Reformed denominations and that at least some of the Reformers/Puritans were saved despite belonging to a "false religion"? Now obviously we cannot judge the hearts of these men but we can tell from their writings whether they professed to believe in the true Gospel.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Ross finds it necessary to have a conscious salvation experience in order to be truly regenerate even though John MacArthur is referred to somewhat favourably (although obviously you disagree with him on many things) on here even though he has explicitly said he never had such an experience. Also there have been plenty of revialists in these denominations such as Edwards, Whitefield, and so forth who stressed conscious salvific experiences. Similarly I believe the Congregational churches of New England (at least until the Halfway Covenant) required church members to demonstrate such an experience before being admitted as members, so the Reformed view is more diverse than may be supposed.

Sincerely Yours,
Casey Cho

KJB1611 said...

Dear George,

Thank you for agreeing with the post I wrote (as every Friday post is mine) above. I have the following five questions.

1.) The four things above included the confession:

The Son of God, who existed from eternity past with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the three eternal Persons of the one and only true God (1
Jn 5:7), took to Himself a sinless human nature, so that, although He was still 100% God, He became 100% Man as well. He lived a perfectly
holy life and then died on the cross, where His Father "made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him" (2 Cor 5:21).

That is, the four things included the confession that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, not God the Father. It includes the classical
doctrine of the Trinity confessed by NT Christians, Baptists, and all other saved people.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly confessed and defended the affirmations of your religious organization:

We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the
bodily manifestation of God Almighty.
(http://theanabaptistschurch.com/Articles_of_Faith_187H.html)

But Jesus Christ is not God the Father. That is idolatry.

The following statement about the Holy Spirit by your religious organization, George, is just bizarre:

2.05 As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Luke 24:37/ Matthew
14:26), we believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus Christ
which He gave up on Calvary when He died for our sins (John 19:30/
Matthew 27:50/ Mark 15:37/ Luke 23:46), and as the Holy Ghost (Acts
1:2-8) is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19).
These Three being One God, each exists eternally as God, and as the
manifestations of themselves in One as distinguished from the Other.
God is a spirit, and that spirit is the Holy Spirit, who was the
breath of life (Genesis 2:7) of Jesus Christ, who Himself was the
bodily manifestation of God the Father with the Holy Spirit breathing
within Him as the very Life of God. Though the Eternal God cannot die,
God the Father sent His Son into the world to do just that, yielding
up the ghost when He had finished His Father's work; upon which the
Holy Ghost of God became the working manifestation of God the Father
in baptizing believers into the very body of God, Jesus Christ the
Righteous (1 Corinthians 12:11-14/ Acts 1:5).
(http://theanabaptistschurch.com/Articles_of_Faith_187H.html)


The comparison of the Holy Ghost of God to the human spirit of a dead man is totally unscriptural and is idolatrous. Other serious errors are also found.

When I confronted you about these statements, you stated: "There is absolutely no problem with the doctrinal statement above."

The statements are simple affirmations of modalism. If you say that there is absolutely no problem with them, you are making an
affirmation of modalism yourself.

However, now you state that you "KNOW PERFECTLY . . . and believe . .
. as much as anyone else in the WHOLE EARTH" the classical doctrine of the Trinity affirmed in the post above.

So which is it--is Jesus Christ the Father in a body and the Holy Spirit the spirit of a dead man, or is the Trinity true?




KJB1611 said...

2.) You now stated that you "KNOW PERFECTLY . . . and believe . . . as much as anyone else in the WHOLE EARTH" the classical confession of
the Trinity above. However, you have previously called the Christian doctrine of the Trinity "weakness in the scriptures and misunderstanding of the Godhead . . . so ignorant of the scriptures .
. . mans [sic] confessions or what devils of men call themselves . . . doctrines of men."



So which is it? Is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity a doctrine of devils, so that your confession that Jesus is God the Father correct, or is the doctrine of the Trinity true, and your confession
that Jesus is the Father idolatry?




3.) You said that you agree with the post I wrote above in its doctrine of God and of the gospel, but you also say that what I write is "nonsense" and that I am "ADDING to the doctrine of salvation" in
violation of Galatians 1:9-10 and "preaching another gospel."

So which is it? Do you agree with it--and even "KNOW PERFECTLY" all about it, or is it "ADDING to the doctrine of salvation" and "another
gospel"?




4.) You have thrown many bizzare insults at me in many different settings, accusing me of all kinds of things when you have never even met me. I have a "flawed and pernicious character," I am a "subtle
devil," a "pernicious and viile character," a "self-seeker" with "no Christian character any larger than a thimble" but am "rather like a woman that continues to run her mouth," etc. Since you know so much about me, and regularly call me "young man," can you please tell me how old I am? Surely if you know all these things about my character,
you can tell me my age. Thanks.




5.) It should be very easy to answer #1-4 above, since if you "KNOW PERFECTLY . . . as much as anyone else in the WHOLE EARTH" about the
doctrine of God and of the gospel, you are wiser by far than anyone else who has ever commented or written on this blog. However, if you can't answer #1-4--and you continue to refuse to answer the questions I asked you here:


http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/10/lets-be-very-clear-not-all-king-james.html

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/09/answering-david-cloud-on-church-pt-2.html

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-anabaptists-did-not-get-trinity.html



then are you sure that when "Mr. Ross and others who believe his nonsense"--which includes Pastor Kent Brandenburg, by the way--that
either I "or Ken [sic] is a liar"? Since, if you think Jesus is the Father, you deny the true Jesus and true Christ, perhaps it would be well to consider that the Apostle John calls such people "liars" and
"antichrists," and fear and tremble before the inspired epistles ofJohn, instead of slandering Pastor Brandenburg and me.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Horace,

Many Reformed confessional documents, and men like Calvin, did indeed
believe in baptismal regeneration, which is a false gospel.
Nevertheless, the merciful God is able to bring people to a knowledge
of the true gospel and to true salvation through His Word even in
denominations that officially confess something different. For
example, J. C. Ryle rejected and opposed baptismal regeneration
although Anglicanism very plainly taught the opposite; Ryle distorted
Anglican confessional documents to bring them into line with the true
gospel taught in Scripture, rather than distorting Scripture to bring
it into line with Anglicanism in the area of the gospel. Ryle, and
men like him, including large numbers of the Puritans, did confess a
true gospel and reject baptismal regeneration in a similar manner. Men
of English and Continental Second Reformation/Puritan stripe are more
likely to be genuinely converted than those who rejected such further
reformation.

MacArthur's lack of a conversion testimony is indeed most troubling.
At my church (Mukwonago Baptist in Mukwonago, WI), people who are
seeking baptism have to give their testimony publicly before the
church after receiving careful teaching from our head pastor and
having our head pastor and the membership committee, of which I am a
member, recognize that the person has a credible testimony of genuine
conversion. The church then votes on the person joining the church
upon their baptism. MacArthur would not be able to join our church
if, as it seems, he does indeed have no testimony of conversion.

You are correct that men used in true revival such as Edwards required
that people have a testimony of true conversion. You are also correct
that the Reformed are not monolithic. Nevertheless, they should all
reject infant baptism, examine themselves to see if they have a true
conversion experience and manifest the marks of the true saints of
God, and then be baptized into Bible-believing Baptist churches.

Thanks for the comment.

Kent Brandenburg said...

George,

We really don't "have it out for you." We aren't even really looking to pick you apart. We're concerned for you. I think you should listen.

I'm not going to approve any more of your comments unless they are your repenting of the false doctrine. Part of repentance is intellectual, having the right doctrine, and then believing it. Eternal life is knowing God, so if you don't know the God of the Bible, you don't have eternal life. I say this to many others when I'm talking to them. They would say they believe in Jesus and then I find that they don't believe the Jesus of the Bible.

When Paul knew he was wrong, he counted what was wrong as dung. Your next comment will need to count it as dung, or your comments won't be welcome here. None of us have been personally disrespectful of you, like you have been of us. That's not the issue though. I don't want you to be able to keep spouting your false doctrine here, even if I don't think anyone is listening to it.

Your position about the Bible is also wrong in a similar way and a tell-tale way.