Which major Christian church in the U.S. is closest to the truth?

[Grailhunter]

The apostles taught that Christ “by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” ~Hebrews 10:14.

Just as a matter of discussion, what do you think perfected means here.
This verse is actually a mouthful, because of what it means.

 

[Brakelite]

That quotation proves nothing except that Ellen White knew how to use biblical words.

The issue is not whether she sometimes wrote about Christ, grace, faith, or imputed righteousness. False teachers often mix truth with error. That is what makes them dangerous. A cup of poison does not become safe because most of it is water.

You claimed opponents offer “accusations without evidence,” but the evidence is in the doctrines themselves. Scripture does not teach an investigative judgment beginning in 1844. Scripture does not make seventh-day Sabbath observance a test of Christian faithfulness. Scripture does not authorize Ellen White as a prophetic interpreter of the Bible.

Paul did not say to accept a teacher because some of his words sound orthodox. He said, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” ~Galatians 1:8.

The apostles taught that Christ “by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” ~Hebrews 10:14. They taught, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday…or of the sabbath days” ~Colossians 2:16. Ellen White and Adventism add doctrines and obligations that the apostles did not teach.

Quoting one carefully selected paragraph does not erase those errors. Stop asking people to judge Ellen White by her best-sounding statements. Judge every doctrine she taught by Scripture. When that is done honestly, her claimed prophetic authority collapses.

Okay. I'll let you start.

 

[rockytopva]

Spirituality... There is no intellectual formula. The Apostle preached faith in Christ only and the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles as he willed. There is no intellectual formula to spirituality. Intellectual formulas always lead to arrogance...

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. - 1 Corinthians 1:8

If you are without spirituality the thing to do is...

Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. - Isaiah 50:10

 

[Soyeong]

Of course Paul was not the enemy of God.
But as I posted Paul did not consider that Christians were under the Law
But pretty much the whole prims of Paul's ministry was about the fact that Christians are not under the law.
Whether it be the harassment his ministry received from the Jewish-Christians which lead up to the Christian meeting in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15 to the letter that James sent out acknowledging that the Gentile-Christians do not observe the Mosaic Laws.

If there was a king who gave laws to govern the conduct of the citizens of his kingdom who warned not to listen to anyone who speaks against obeying His laws and there was someone going around speaking against obeying His laws, then would this person be a servant or an enemy of the king?

According to Paul, those those who refuse to submit to the Law of God are enemies of God, so if you think that Paul spoke against submitting to it, then you should consider him to be an enemy of God. It is contradictory for you to hold the both the position that Paul was not an enemy of God and the position that he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of God. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that the whole purpose of Paul's ministry to teach that we are not under the Law of God, so then you should be arguing in favor of disregarding everything that Paul said in favor of obeying God instead. There are no conditions under which we should obey Paul instead of God. However, the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore did never spoke against anyone obeying what God has commanded.

 

[Grailhunter]

If there was a king who gave laws to govern the conduct of the citizens of his kingdom who warned not to listen to anyone who speaks against obeying His laws and there was someone going around speaking against obeying His laws, then would this person be a servant or an enemy of the king?

According to Paul, those those who refuse to submit to the Law of God are enemies of God, so if you think that Paul spoke against submitting to it, then you should consider him to be an enemy of God. It is contradictory for you to hold the both the position that Paul was not an enemy of God and the position that he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of God. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that the whole purpose of Paul's ministry to teach that we are not under the Law of God, so then you should be arguing in favor of disregarding everything that Paul said in favor of obeying God instead. There are no conditions under which we should obey Paul instead of God. However, the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore did never spoke against anyone obeying what God has commanded.

The multiple verse in post 132 prove that Paul not only said that the Laws do not apply to Christians and he included himself in on that.
Also post 132 points out the struggle over those that were harassing Paul's ministry saying that they had to follow the Law to be Christians and the meeting that settled it.

 

[Soyeong]

The Gentile-Christians took the helm of the church and made the Lord's Day Sunday the weekly day of worship.
The meeting in Chapter 15 of Acts and the letter issued by James made it clear that the Gentile-Christians were not going to be following Mosaic Laws. And Paul made it clear that Gentile-Christians are not under the Law

No one has the authority to change God's commands or to countermand them. I don't think that it makes sense to interpret the Jerusalem Council as ruling that follower of Christ shouldn't follow over 99% of what he taught and even less sense to think that is what they ruled and then to think that we should follow the Jerusalem Council instead of Christ. Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believes or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being an non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow. It was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

2nd Corinthians 3:7-8

The fact that the Law of God brings death to those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for refusing to submit to it.

Galatians 3:12

In Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessing of the Law for lawfulness and the curse of the law for lawlessness, so being redeemed from the curse of the law is setting us free to enjoy the blessing of lawfulness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Law of Moses but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20)

Galatians 3:1-5

The Spirit has been given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32), so while it is true that we can't earn the Spirit as the result of our obedience to God, that does not mean that we are not required to obey Him.

Galatians 5:4

God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to His law all throughout the Bible and even Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against obeying God and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we believe the Gospel of Christ. In Psalm 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, so that is what it means to be under grace and it would be absurd to think that he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.

1st Corinthians 9:20

Paul equated the Law of God with the law of Christ by saying in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God but under the Law of Christ.

Romans 4:15

The fact that the Law of God brings wrath for those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for refusing to submit to it.

Romans 6:14-15

Romans 8:2

Romans 7:6

Romans 7:8

In Romans 5-8, Paul described the Law of God as being something that is the good that he wanted to do in contrast with describing the law of sin as being something that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which clearly does not describe the good that he wanted to do, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in contrast with saying that the law of sin held him captive, and it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:6 as if Paul delighted in being held captive to sin, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh and he said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death, so the law of sin and death does not refer to the Law of God. Romans 7:8, It is the law of sin that took the opportunity through the Law of God to cause coveting to increase and sin would be dead apart from the law of sin causing us to sin.

2nd Corinthians 3:3

Changing the medium upon which the Law of God is written from stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs us to do. For example, the command to keep the Sabbath holy written on stone has the same content as the command to keep the Sabbath holy written on our hearts.

Galatians 4:21

Galatians 3:10

According to Deuteronomy 27-30, the way to be blesses is by relying on the Law of God while the way to be cursed is by not relying on it, so it would be absurd to interpret Paul as quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing the opposite of that passage. The fact that cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything in the Book of the Law means that we should continue to do everything it it in order to avoid being cursed, which is why those who rely on works of the law instead come under that curse.

Galatians 3:24-25

Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after the purpose of a tutor has been fulfilled would be missing the whole point of a tutor.

Galatians 5:18

In Galatians 5:16-23, Paul contrasted the desires of the flesh with the desires of the Spirit and everything that he listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Law of God while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. The desires of the flesh causing us not to do the good that we want to do is how Paul described his struggle with the law of sin in Romans 5-8. In Romans 8:2-8:7, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God, so the law that we are not under when we are led by the Spirit is the law of sin and death, not the Law of God. The Law of Moses was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it would be contradictory to interpret Galatians 5:18 as referring to the Law of Moses as if we are not led by God when we are led by God.

Galatians 2:16

The Law of God was never given as a way of earning our justification even as the result of having perfect obedience, which makes it that much more true that we can't earn our justification as the result of obeying works of the law.

Galatians 2:21

Again, the Law of God was never given as a way of earning our righteousness. However, if someone returns to the lawlessness that Christ gave himself to redeem us from (Titus 2:14), then that would also be treating Christ as if he died for nothing.

Hebrews 8:13

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involve following the Law of Moses, so the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that we should not continue to obey the Law of Moses.

Romans 3:20

If you agree that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin and that we should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey it.

Not only are we not under the Old Testament Laws, the concept of Law is gone. The Mosaic Law was made up of 613 Laws, but still it was not enough to cover all the possible sins. If you broke one, you broke all of them and there was no forgiveness. Yeshua's teaching is matter of heart and mind, love God and love one another and do no wrong. In the New Covenant our sins are between us and Yeshua and if we confess our sins He if faithful to forgive us.

The fact that the Law of Moses does not list every possible sin does not mean that we should not refrain from doing the things that is does reveal to be sin. In James 2:1-11, he did not say anything about them having no forgiveness, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to obey the Law of Moses more consistently by not showing favoritism. It is contradictory to love God and our neighbor instead of obeying God's instructions for how to do that.

 

[Soyeong]

The multiple verse in post 132 prove that Paul not only said that the Laws do not apply to Christians and he included himself in on that.
Also post 132 points out the struggle over those that were harassing Paul's ministry saying that they had to follow the Law to be Christians and the meeting that settled it.

Insisting that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against followers of Christ following his example of obedience to the Law of God does not address the issue of why you are not arguing that we should reject what Paul said in favor of obeying God.

 

[Grailhunter]

No one has the authority to change God's commands or to countermand them.

Well Paul wrote or influenced 2/3 of the New Testament and he definitely said we are not under the Law, in very plain words. And post 132 proves it.
A good part of acts tells of the struggle between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians regarding observing the Law.
It is so clear that it is not even worth me debating.....

 

[Soyeong]

Well Paul wrote or influenced 2/3 of the New Testament and he definitely said we are not under the Law, in very plain words. And post 132 proves it.
A good part of acts tells of the struggle between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians regarding observing the Law.
It is so clear that it is not even worth me debating.....

While I agree that we are not under the law, Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law we are not under. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted the Book of the Law with "works of the law", and in Romans 3:31, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with Galatians 3:10-12 where he said that works of the law are not of faith. So it should be worth discerning which law Romans 6:14 is referring to out of all of the categories of law that he spoke about.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the topic that they were struggling with in Acts was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ. Even if it were true that Paul spoke against following Christ, then we should follow Christ instead of Paul.

 

[Grailhunter]

so it is important to correctly identify which law we are not under

Like I said the concept of the OT Laws are gone for Christians.
Some of the moral concepts are taught in the NT.
But no OT Law applies to Christians in the context Law.
Paul did not stipulate that we are not under some Laws and under some Laws....just Laws.
Look at what people call the Ten Commandments, sure murdering and stealing as sin come forward, but the Law against engraved images does not. The Gentile-Christians did not sacrifice animals in the Temple. For one the Gentile-Christians were not allowed in the Temple. Gentile-Christian chose Sunday as the Lord's Day. And their wives are not listed as their property.

 

[Soyeong]

Like I said the concept of the OT Laws are gone for Christians.
Some of the moral concepts are taught in the NT.
But no OT Law applies to Christians in the context Law.
Paul did not stipulate that we are not under some Laws and under some Laws....just Laws.
Look at what people call the Ten Commandments, sure murdering and stealing as sin come forward, but the Law against engraved images does not. The Gentile-Christians did not sacrifice animals in the Temple. For one the Gentile-Christians were not allowed in the Temple. Gentile-Christian chose Sunday as the Lord's Day. And their wives are not listed as their property.

Like I said, following what Christ taught is for Christians. It is contradictory for someone to want to be a Christian while not wanting to follow what Christ taught. Paul said that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20) and that we are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15). Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so you don't get to pick and chose which things that God has spoken that you want do follow.

 

[rockytopva]

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. - Galatians 4:19

 

[rockytopva]

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. - Galatians 4:19

A Christ like character is someone kind spirit, joyful, and loving.

 

[Gray_Joy]

If there was a king who gave laws to govern the conduct of the citizens of his kingdom who warned not to listen to anyone who speaks against obeying His laws and there was someone going around speaking against obeying His laws, then would this person be a servant or an enemy of the king?

According to Paul, those those who refuse to submit to the Law of God are enemies of God, so if you think that Paul spoke against submitting to it, then you should consider him to be an enemy of God. It is contradictory for you to hold the both the position that Paul was not an enemy of God and the position that he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of God. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you think that the whole purpose of Paul's ministry to teach that we are not under the Law of God, so then you should be arguing in favor of disregarding everything that Paul said in favor of obeying God instead. There are no conditions under which we should obey Paul instead of God. However, the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore did never spoke against anyone obeying what God has commanded.

You're correct. The Apostle Paul did not teach against obedience to God's law.

Romans 7:12
"So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

 

[Brakelite]

Spirituality... There is no intellectual formula. The Apostle preached faith in Christ only and the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles as he willed. There is no intellectual formula to spirituality. Intellectual formulas always lead to arrogance...

Agree. Formulas lead to creeds, lead to qualifications for membership, lead to exclusivity, lead to persecution. One can follow that trail from the time of the council of Nicea in the creation and enforcing of the formulas for the Godhead.

 

[Brakelite]

A Christ like character is someone kind spirit, joyful, and loving.

The image of Christ is that character that expresses the fruit of the Spirit.

“22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. ”
Galatians 5:22-24 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

They are those who have partaken of the divine nature.

 

[Grailhunter]

Like I said, following what Christ taught is for Christians. It is contradictory for someone to want to be a Christian while not wanting to follow what Christ taught.

Yeshua did not teach the 3 in 1 God formula for the Trinity and of course the word Trinity is not in the Bible. What Yahweh taught was that Yeshua was His only begotten Son and said He was very pleased with Him. Yeshua said that the Father loves Him. Yeshua said that Yahweh was His Father over 50 times. He said that He did not do his will but the will of the Father. Yeshua said that He did not know the end of time but Yahweh did. At no time does anyone in the Bible say that Yahweh and Yeshua and Holy Spirit are one. Yeshua explained the oneness concept. Yeshua said that Yahweh was His God and He prayed to Him. The Apostles called Yahweh God and Yeshua Lord. The scriptures say that Yeshua ascended to the Father and sit on His right hand.

 

[rockytopva]

Yeshua did not teach the 3 in 1 God formula for the Trinity and of course the word Trinity is not in the Bible. What Yahweh taught was that Yeshua was His only begotten Son and said He was very pleased with Him. Yeshua said that the Father loves Him. Yeshua said that Yahweh was His Father over 50 times. He said that He did not do his will but the will of the Father. Yeshua said that He did not know the end of time but Yahweh did. At no time does anyone in the Bible say that Yahweh and Yeshua and Holy Spirit are one. Yeshua explained the oneness concept. Yeshua said that Yahweh was His God and He prayed to Him. The Apostles called Yahweh God and Yeshua Lord. The scriptures say that Yeshua ascended to the Father and sit on His right hand.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1 John 3:7

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. - Matthew 28:19

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. - John 14:26

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. - John 14:16

I see nothing wrong with asking the Father in the Name of Jesus to be led by the Holy Ghost.

Father... Son... Holy Ghost - Trinity.... Or whatever decent title you want to call it.

 

[Grailhunter]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1 John 3:7

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. - Matthew 28:19

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. - John 14:26

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. - John 14:16

I see nothing wrong with asking the Father in the Name of Jesus to be led by the Holy Ghost.

Father... Son... Holy Ghost - Trinity.... Or whatever decent title you want to call it.

Neither do I.

 

[Ziggy]

Just as a matter of discussion, what do you think perfected means here.
This verse is actually a mouthful, because of what it means.

Heb 10:14
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Gen 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Perfect:

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Mat 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

What does it mean to be perfect in God's eyes?

Abram walked with God. Noah walked with God, Job feared God.

So would that mean to be perfect is to walk with and fear God?

So by he , meaning Christ has perfected for ever those that are sanctified or set apart, consecrated, dedicated to God,
then those, meaning the sanctified will forever walk with and fear God.

And Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God took him.

That's how I understand it.
Is there another interpretation @Grailhunter ?

Hugs