The Criteria of Antichrist.

[mjrhealth]

It is clearly obvious you do not understand what you are saying.....In one statement you say upholding the law is opposed to Jesus and the next statement you say that the commandments of men are taught. I'm wondering if you understand the difference?
I would say you are as confused as our friend CoreIssue.

What is it Jesus said to the pharisees,

Joh_7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

what is Christ commandment,

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

and love doesnt desire to murder his brother

 

[quietthinker]

Because you let it out before.

Oh really !! I would challenge you to verify your statement!

 

[CoreIssue]

Oh really !! I would challenge you to verify your statement!

Challenge away.

Interesting that you haven't denied it.

 

[quietthinker]

What is it Jesus said to the pharisees,

Joh_7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

what is Christ commandment,

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

and love doesnt desire to murder his brother

What is your point in the above post mjrhealth? ....and by the way, does giving a new commandment nullify previous commandments?...it seems you think so.
Perhaps you could tell us what it is you don't like about God's commandments that makes you so opposed to them??

 

[quietthinker]

Challenge away.

Interesting that you haven't denied it.

You would make unverifiable statements then dodge and weave and attempt to shift the focus. I'm sorry, your approach does not resonate with the spirit of Jesus.

 

[mjrhealth]

What is your point in the above post mjrhealth? ....and by the way, does giving a new commandment nullify previous commandments?...it seems you think so.
Perhaps you could tell us what it is you don't like about God's commandments that makes you so opposed to them??

Show me where I am opposed to the law, they are a good thing they show the sinner what sin is, this bit

1Ti_1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

so which is it, are you a sinner under the law, which is not yours, or are you the righteousness of Christ by His works,

 

[Nancy]

I hold the same views as you. SDAs hold basically the same views as the Reformed Churches. But the Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, English Baptists, and Methodists among others have excellent teaching of the same. I'm Amillennial so I break off with SDAs at that point and don't look for a physical kingdom on earth. But believe the end of the world is next and looming.

What, may I ask do you see for the Christian Dave, when all is said and done? Will we have glorified bodies in Heaven? Spirits, like the wind on the New Earth? These are just a very few areas that are blurry to me and, I know everybody has some kind of stance here, lol. Will spirit just recognize spirit in Heaven? Like, will I recognize my saved loved ones who have passed on? Just some thoughts ♥

 

[brakelite]

But I didn't start this thread to discuss the law. It just happens that one of the criteria that directly identifies the Antichrist is that he would think to change God's laws. Ironic that we have here some who believe the law has ceased to be of any relevance altogether.

or are you the righteousness of Christ by His works

If someone has been filled with the righteousness of Christ, would they not be obeying the law as a result? What means this...Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[mjrhealth]

If someone has been filled with the righteousness of Christ, would they not be obeying the law as a result? What means this...Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

When a woman loves her husband all she will do is desire to show Him to the world, for her heart is only for Him, but when a woman desires another man because she desires him more than the one she is marrieds too, she will always show him, when her true Husband is not around, just like it says..

Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

and agn

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

but you have chosen the law as your husband and it the law you choose to show to the world, and because you have chosen teh law you must be obedient to the law.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband

it is your choosing, it is the doctrines of your religion that you choose over that from God, trying to justify a lie will never make it the truth.

 

[brakelite]

When a woman loves her husband all she will do is desire to show Him to the world, for her heart is only for Him, but when a woman desires another man because she desires him more than the one she is marrieds too, she will always show him, when her true Husband is not around, just like it says..

Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

and agn

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

but you have chosen the law as your husband and it the law you choose to show to the world, and because you have chosen teh law you must be obedient to the law.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband

it is your choosing, it is the doctrines of your religion that you choose over that from God, trying to justify a lie will never make it the truth.

That didn't answer my question. You are simply doing some scriptural gymnastics to box me into your preconceptions. The only reason this discussion ever comes up is because you are opposed to the Sabbath. If we preached against murder, adultery, covetousness, theft, idolatry etc, you wouldn't even blink. We would be doing the same as every preacher of righteousness since Noah. But the moment we include the 4th commandment, you start making excuses, and condemn Sabbath keepers as "working their way to heaven".
So how did you manage to stop breaking the commandments? By the grace of God or in your own strength? Have you stopped breaking the commandments? And if not, why not? What has Jesus done for you in this life? Taken away your addictions? Bad habits? Given you spiritual and physical health? Ordered your lifestyle that it glorify Him? My testimony is that He has done all these things for me, and more. I rejoice and praise Him for that, and give Him all the glory. What about you?

 

[brakelite]

So, still two criteria to cover to make the ten I promised. But first, I want to answer the challenge that these views are simply SDA doctrine, and merely the false teachings of Ellen White. Such a charge reveals gross ignorance of the reformation. The reformation stood on two pillars. The first, was the 'solas'. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola Christus, etc . The reformers all had some slight differences of opinion regarding those things. But one thing they all agreed on, was the second pillar. The second pillar of the reformation was what bound all the reformers together. It was what gave the whole reformation its impetus. That second pillar was the affirmation from prophecy that the Catholic Church based in Rome, the system of the Papal power, was the Antichrist of scripture. This fact was not a Seventh Day Adventist invention. Tyndale, Wycliffe, Knox, Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Malencthon, and numerous others whose names are now forgotten, agreed on this. It isn't new. And all those reformers were Bible scholars. They didn't come to their conclusions lightly. It cost many of them their lives. KNos for example preached his very first sermon in Catholic Scotland on the subject of Daniel 7, precisely what I have been doing on this very thread. That one sermon began the reformation in Scotland which established a Protestant nation. To attempt to make the teachings on this thread 'SDA doctrine' and write it off on that account is short sighted, narrow minded, and to be honest, bigoted.

 

[mjrhealth]

That didn't answer my question. You are simply doing some scriptural gymnastics to box me into your preconceptions. The only reason this discussion ever comes up is because you are opposed to the Sabbath. If we preached against murder, adultery, covetousness, theft, idolatry etc, you wouldn't even blink. We would be doing the same as every preacher of righteousness since Noah. But the moment we include the 4th commandment, you start making excuses, and condemn Sabbath keepers as "working their way to heaven".
So how did you manage to stop breaking the commandments? By the grace of God or in your own strength? Have you stopped breaking the commandments? And if not, why not? What has Jesus done for you in this life? Taken away your addictions? Bad habits? Given you spiritual and physical health? Ordered your lifestyle that it glorify Him? My testimony is that He has done all these things for me, and more. I rejoice and praise Him for that, and give Him all the glory. What about you?

Rom_7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

so you may remain in the law and continue in your sin since you are trying to get your righteousness by the law, but all its is doing is killing you, and you desire we all join to teh law and die in sin with you. You do it with those in your religion, it is Not from Christ. and we will not participate in your sin..

Gal_2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

according to you He hasnt done anything still trying to save yourself by your flesh.

 

[brakelite]

 

[brakelite]

 

[CoreIssue]

So, still two criteria to cover to make the ten I promised. But first, I want to answer the challenge that these views are simply SDA doctrine, and merely the false teachings of Ellen White. Such a charge reveals gross ignorance of the reformation. The reformation stood on two pillars. The first, was the 'solas'. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola Christus, etc . The reformers all had some slight differences of opinion regarding those things. But one thing they all agreed on, was the second pillar. The second pillar of the reformation was what bound all the reformers together. It was what gave the whole reformation its impetus. That second pillar was the affirmation from prophecy that the Catholic Church based in Rome, the system of the Papal power, was the Antichrist of scripture. This fact was not a Seventh Day Adventist invention. Tyndale, Wycliffe, Knox, Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Malencthon, and numerous others whose names are now forgotten, agreed on this. It isn't new. And all those reformers were Bible scholars. They didn't come to their conclusions lightly. It cost many of them their lives. KNos for example preached his very first sermon in Catholic Scotland on the subject of Daniel 7, precisely what I have been doing on this very thread. That one sermon began the reformation in Scotland which established a Protestant nation. To attempt to make the teachings on this thread 'SDA doctrine' and write it off on that account is short sighted, narrow minded, and to be honest, bigoted.

View attachment 5152 View attachment 5151

So what?

The animosities that time carried over into theology.

Also true is that since they lived we have gain tremendously more information on manuscripts, languages and history.

The Catholic Church restricted ancient manuscripts to only certain high-ranking Catholics because it was so damaging to Catholicism.

They were also busy inventing false manuscripts and documents for their own benefit.

You want to act like these ancient people in sources are somewhat superior to what we know today.

Also true is that your filtering all what you're saying through SDA doctrine and excluding things that do not agree with you.

And you would really hold Calvin up as a significant source of truth?

And what was their Bible source at that time? Who wrote it from what manuscripts?

 

[mjrhealth]

@brakelite

Deny the truth all you like you remain in the law you remain in your sin. Your choosing who is your husband the Law or Christ, who is it, who is your first love the Law or Christ.

You can only choose one Husband who is it going to be.??

 

[brakelite]

Rom_7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

so you may remain in the law and continue in your sin since you are trying to get your righteousness by the law, but all its is doing is killing you, and you desire we all join to teh law and die in sin with you. You do it with those in your religion, it is Not from Christ. and we will not participate in your sin..

Gal_2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

according to you He hasnt done anything still trying to save yourself by your flesh.

Clearly you hope that is the case. Clearly you would very much like it if that were true, because if it weren't, you would have to be personally challenged on the subject, and we cannot have that can we. However, your persistent condemnation of my motives and character doesn't perturb me. I know in Whom I believe.
1 ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 

[mjrhealth]

Clearly you hope that is the case. Clearly you would very much like it if that were true, because if it weren't, you would have to be personally challenged on the subject, and we cannot have that can we. However, your persistent condemnation of my motives and character doesn't perturb me. I know in Whom I believe.
1 ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

and yet here you are dying in your sin unable to chose your husband.

 

[brakelite]

For what reasons did the reformers risk life and limb, (literally), in their damning accusations against the church which raised them? Nearly all the reformers were priests, with no intentions of forming new churches, but reforming the one they loved and held dear. Yet here they are accusing the very institution which educated and confirmed them in their faith, of being the dreaded Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Why?

Was it revenge for being excommunicated? No, they were excommunicated for the most part because of the accusations. Was it the worst insult they could come up with because of a personal grudge? Hardly. Or perhaps, as this author believes and will expand on later, was it because they were serious students of the Bible and saw unmistakably the fulfilment of the many prophecies regarding Antichrist being played out perfectly before their very eyes?

Core Issue would have it that they were ignorant of scripture, and that today we have more resources to study. Luther ignorant? He was a professor at the Wittenburg university, one of the more elite universities in Germany. Luther was much sought after as a teacher, being familiar with Greek and Hebrew, and eventually translating the Latin Bible into German, for which he was eventually tried. Mmmm. Writing off the reformation as a mistake and charging the reformers with being simple minded bigots with an axe to grind sounds like the kind of thing a Jesuit would be claiming in order to defend Catholicism. It is that kind of muddled thinking that is giving impetus to the ecumenical movement, and blinding people to the dangers that Rome presents to the world. It is typical dispensationalist thinking. Discarding the rise of the grossest Christian counterfeit in history as irrelevant to church history, and casting aside the reformation as a mistake, as if God had no hand in it, and didn't consider any of the aforementioned worthy of mentioning in prophecy.
Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

 

[CoreIssue]

For what reasons did the reformers risk life and limb, (literally), in their damning accusations against the church which raised them? Nearly all the reformers were priests, with no intentions of forming new churches, but reforming the one they loved and held dear. Yet here they are accusing the very institution which educated and confirmed them in their faith, of being the dreaded Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Why?

Was it revenge for being excommunicated? No, they were excommunicated for the most part because of the accusations. Was it the worst insult they could come up with because of a personal grudge? Hardly. Or perhaps, as this author believes and will expand on later, was it because they were serious students of the Bible and saw unmistakably the fulfilment of the many prophecies regarding Antichrist being played out perfectly before their very eyes?

Core Issue would have it that they were ignorant of scripture, and that today we have more resources to study. Luther ignorant? He was a professor at the Wittenburg university, one of the more elite universities in Germany. Luther was much sought after as a teacher, being familiar with Greek and Hebrew, and eventually translating the Latin Bible into German, for which he was eventually tried. Mmmm. Writing off the reformation as a mistake and charging the reformers with being simple minded bigots with an axe to grind sounds like the kind of thing a Jesuit would be claiming in order to defend Catholicism. It is that kind of muddled thinking that is giving impetus to the ecumenical movement, and blinding people to the dangers that Rome presents to the world. It is typical dispensationalist thinking. Discarding the rise of the grossest Christian counterfeit in history as irrelevant to church history, and casting aside the reformation as a mistake, as if God had no hand in it, and didn't consider any of the aforementioned worthy of mentioning in prophecy.
Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

I never said they were ignorant the Scriptures. I was dealing with what was available to to them at that time. But here you go again twisting what I said into something I did not say.

Their motivations were their own. That was between them and God.

It is a fact they were not familiar with ancient Hebrew. The discoveries of that language that time came long after they were gone.

Do you think Christianity is the only one who has had martyrs. Think again. Martyrs who believed in what they were doing.

So your arguments are kind of hollow when Trudy examined.

It seems like you can find nothing in the Bible support your arguments so you have to appeal to interpretation of history through your doctrine.