From the bible, we can see that there was just a single church and God himself is not an author of confusion.So in my view as regards the Bible church, i belive God just wanted a single church and he'll save only members of this church.But its definitely not the catholic church cos the catholic church started very recently i.e 606Ad but the church christ established started in acts 2 which was estimated to be about 33AD so anyone who's not a memeber of this Church christ established may not see heaven or definitely will not see heaven.

Em. . .

Nowhere in the Bible does membership in any church guarantee salvation - including the one in Acts 2. How is a person saved? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).

So many churches today see themselves as the 'original' or 'true' church claiming ancestry back to the 'first beginnings' at Pentecost. Without having been born again (John 3:3-5) and lived a holy life (Heb. 12:14), there is no guarantee of an express pass into heaven.

Every denomination and church group have their problems. I will leave this advise for the moment: if your tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word.

the true Church is the entire Body of Christ; we are one body connected by our faith in Jesus. Even in the bible there were different churches in different locations and as we see in d letters to the churches in Revelations, each church had its own strenghts and weaknesses.

Well, in a sense there can only be one true set of beliefs, and I think that is what oghos2k might be appealing to. The scripture says there is one Lord, faith, and baptism.

Christ is coming back for a people who will not be decieved by false teachers. So obviously there has to be a body of believers who would have preserved the teachings of Christ and His apostles. I don't believe that Christ is coming to find His people scattered throughout different denominations, becasue that would mean that those christians would have had a difference in opinion about doctrines or truth.

What I do believe though is that in every denom there are God's people who will eventually come out and be apart of God's bible-believing followers. Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17)

Before Christ returns all of those people who are scattered in religious confusion will one day join God's true followers and would be in readiness and waiting for His second advent. This is what Revelation 18:2-4 says:

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The "her" is qualifying "babylon"

Ancient babylon as most would know was in opposition to God's will and ways. Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If you profess to be a true bible-believing christian then its your duty and obligation to search the scriptures so that you can fortify your minds against that day when miracles will be used by Satan working through these false churches to decieve those who didn't take the time out to study to show themselves approved of God.

The cement that will be used to hold these people in deception, sad to say, will be the false notion and manifestation of tongues, and miracles. Satan is already using these gifts in a counterfeit way to decieve, but unless we stand by God's "it is written" , we will be lost.

@Bobbyaf,

How did you connect babylon to the RCC? Please do not go beyond that which is written. Backing up your pre-conceived notion with scriptures does not make it right.

Bobbyaf:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

@Bobbyaf,
Thanks for your insightful post but it's lack of specificity is a minus. While you did not answer the question of the post with any "specificity", you did make "non-specific" references to one "RCC"? What specifically is "RCC"?, Redeemed Christian Church?, Roman Catholic Church?, Reformed Christian Church?, etc. What specifically are the ways by which this "RCC" is Babylon. Jesus Christ spoke in parables because the holy spirit was yet to come; now that we have the Spirit of God in us, there is no need to speak in parables, and we should speak with boldness backing it with scriptures.

But do not miss the purpose of this post; let us focus on the product of God's grace; Salvation by faith in the sacrificial death, burial, ressurection, glorification and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord is what defines the True Church of God. One Fold, One Sheperd. There is One Church, the body of Christ; and Jesus Christ is the Head!!

The true church is Christ himself.

Who will return for his members on the day of Judgement.

@ TayoD

@Bobbyaf,

How did you connect babylon to the RCC? Please do not go beyond that which is written. Backing up your pre-conceived notion with scriptures does not make it right.

Pre-concieved notions you say? How do you know it is pre-concieved? Why not simply ask me to back up my beliefs without being so pre-sumptious.

The Roman Catholic church , and its very name reveals such, that it is the beast of Revelation 13, and the Little horn of Daniel 7:25. Historically, and characteristically, the RCC fulfils exactly what both prophets have predicted about that religio-political power. Not only is this a well documented fact, but even our early reformers and founders of most of the protestant churches have always believed and accepted such an obvious reality. All it requires is an ardent search of history, and especially european history to see the obvious.

I am assuming you appreciate the term babylon, and all that it stands for, but you desire to know about how the RCC is connected with it. Let me explain.

A little history and bible study will help. You're aware that daniel had predicted that 4 world kingdoms would rule one after the other in succession. I am not here to debate that there were more kingdoms that ruled. I am simply showing how God's word stands accurate in its prediction.

Daniel recieved a follow-up revelation in chapter 7 which covered more details than that which was covered in Daniel 2 about the same 4 world kingdoms. In Daniel 7 instaed of just focussing on what would follow these kingdoms, being the everlasting kingdom of God, God went on to show him what kinds of powers would arise after the 4th kingdom. If you read Daniel 7, you will notice that Daniel somehow was transfixed on the 4th beast, and the little horn that rose from the 10 other horns. Listen to what he said:

7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

No doubt these 10 horns represented the 10 early european kingdoms that rose up after the 4th kingdom being Rome was destroyed. But Daniel saw an 11th horn that while it was rising it rooted up three horns, being three of the early european kingdoms that had come up. I will go into more details later.

After Daniel was troubled in his mind about the whole vision he was given an explanation by the angel of prophecy Gabriel. But Daniel's concerns grew more as seen in these verses:

19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

So lets summarise what daniel desired to know more keenly:

1. He wanted to know more about the 4th beast

2. He desired to knw about the 10 horns

3. He desired to know about the 11th or little horn that had a man's eyes and mouth, and that which spoke bold words against God.

History and biblical scholarship, through God's leading, has confirmed that these 4 beasts all represent Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

History also reveals that the first early kingdoms of europe that started out as 10 are represented by the 10 horns of the 4th beast. No one dares dispute that.

Most if not all early reformers believed that the "little horn" represented the Roman Catholic Church. It is this religio-political power of which I speak. There were some basic things that were said by daniel that point to the RCC fulfilling the predictions, and these are:

Daniel 7:25
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; History revealed that millions of bible-believing christiasn suffered under the hands of the RCC, when she influenced the states that she controled to murder all those who opposed her religious dogmas. Between AD538 to AD1798 as brought out in Revelation 12, God's people suffered, but a remnant was always spared. (Rev. 12:17)


24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The RCC through its crusades completey destroyed the Herulean, vandals, and the Astrogoths who were part of the original 10 early kingdoms. Why? becasue they disagreed with her about the nature of Christ. They believed that Christ was not as equal to the Father, among other things they didn't have in common. It costs them dearly.


25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Who is as bold as the RCC in its religious claims? Its popes are infallible and are god on earth. Popes have even said that they have the power to forgive angels if they sin. There was a Time magazine report once that highlighted that Mary was now the 4th member of the God-Head. They have denounced the heavenly and priestly ministry of Jesus Christ through their earthly priestly ministry. Unless one's sins are forgiven by them they are not forgiven. Listen to what John says about the beast in Revelation 13:

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

By taking on perogatives that only pertain to God they have blasphemed. When a RCC priest can even think to literally convert the bread into the literal body of Christ at their mass services, what do you call that if not heights of blasphemy? Jesus Christ is our High Priest through whom alone we recieve atomement of the forgiveness of sins. Christ once said "call no man on earth Father", yet they persist in resisting the word of God.

The RCC has taught to change God's times and laws, but thank God its only a thought, because no one can change God's eternal laws. They have chipped out the 2nd commandments s as to bow down to the statues of Mary and the saints. The 1st and 2nd commandments forbid idol worship.

They have influenced the other protestant churches to keep the 1st day of the week instaed of the Lord's seventh day sabbath which is holy unto the Lord.

The 31/2 times that they would rule for before God slowed them down was fulkfilled between AD538 - AD1798 where it ruled for 1260 literal years.

Listen to John in Revelation 13:
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Daniel's 31/2 years = John's 42 months = 1260 years.

No other power fits the biblical and historical description other than the RCC. Today christendome is uniting with the RCC by keeping Sunday as the Lord's day. God is using His people to call all those who are in religious confusion to get out before the 7 last plagues begin to fall on babylon. (see Rev. 16)

Get out while you can. Time is running out.

mrpataki:

The true church is Christ himself.

Who will return for his members on the day of Judgement.

A bit philosophical there, I guess; but can't seem to find that taught in the Word.

****************************************************************
Bros Bobbyaf,

I have tried to carefully read through your input, but for love sake I am constrained to share these with you.

Bobbyaf:

What I do believe though is that in every denom there are God's people who will eventually come out and be apart of God's bible-believing followers. Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17)

Two things: (a) If in every denom God's people will come out and be a part of "God's bible-believing followers, will they come out of your own 'denom' as well? (b) Search out the meaning of 'christendom' and you will see that your idea is not substantiated by God's Word.

Bobbyaf:

Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If I am to take you seriously here, then I pressume that the "professed christian churches" includes the one you currently attend, yes? Else, it doesn't make any sense to be so broad as to miss the point and just about lumping up every church the way you did.

Bobbyaf:

If you profess to be a true bible-believing christian then its your duty and obligation to search the scriptures so that you can fortify your minds against that day when miracles will be used by Satan working through these false churches to decieve those who didn't take the time out to study to show themselves approved of God.

It seems to me that you really have a hard time getting to grips with the authentic gifts of God - especially the gift of tongues and miracles. Tell me, does your church believe God enough for the miraculous, or they are quite content with academic search of the Scriptures alone?

To begin with, there's no such thing as a "false church" in the Word of God. There are definitely "false christs" aided by "false apostles" and "false teachers" doing the work of "false prophets" - and texts abound in Scripture to the fact. Not one time did we read of "false churches" - and this is a coinage by legalistic and rigid men who see themselves alone as "bible-believing" Christians. All other groups are wrong but theirs alone.

Please my brother, I've been in that kind of movement before; and in the true spirit of love may I offer you to see things as God sees them. If you happen to be in one of these accusers of the brethren, please reconsider your persuasions - you might be more in need of God's grace than those we used to call "false churches."

Two things: (a) If in every denom God's people will come out and be a part of "God's bible-believing followers, will they come out of your own 'denom' as well? (b) Search out the meaning of 'christendom' and you will see that your idea is not substantiated by God's Word.

Put it this way you wouldn't be where you are today if you had reasons to believe that your denom was holding back on truth. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt. The same applies to me. It is for the same reason that I am a Seventh-day Adventist christian. I honestly believe to date that what it teaches as doctrines can be supported by scriptures. It is for the same reason you are where you are also.

Besides, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations, because that would include the one that is truly His chosen. God already has His true believers here on earth who have continued from the traditions of the apostles. All you need to ask for is proof, and I am more than prepared to give you such.

If I am to take you seriously here, then I pressume that the "professed christian churches" includes the one you currently attend, yes? Else, it doesn't make any sense to be so broad as to miss the point and just about lumping up every church the way you did.

I wouldn't be arguing the point if I thought that was the case would I? Its because I am prepared to defend what I believe why I am able to state the case with an open mind. Everyone who belongs to a denomination has already assumed that it represents God's truth. That assumption which is quite reasonable would have been based on what they were led to believe as truth. As to whether a denom's teachings are supported by the bible or not is quite a different matter. That same principle would also apply to me also.

When I talk about professed christian churches that is exactly what I mean. The scriptures make it clear that many will be decieved. The many of course are found in those denominations, and hence false churches, that fit the description of holding false doctrines. You see if there is a false christ, then there will be followers who are false too. Those who are decieved by false teachers are themselves false also, and will in their attempt to witness to others definitely spread erroneous doctrines too.

It seems to me that you really have a hard time getting to grips with the authentic gifts of God - especially the gift of tongues and miracles. Tell me, does your church believe God enough for the miraculous, or they are quite content with academic search of the Scriptures alone?

That would depend on what you use to define what you consider authentic gifts. So far you've only given your personal views on one, being that of tongues, albeit not from a biblical point of view.

Don't forget I am a christian who happens to believe in both the use of tongues and miracles. The only difference is that I am aware that Satan can work miracles too. How else would these false prophets be able to decieve many if they couldn't counterfeit miracles? It is for this precise reason why I am taking the position I have taken for 30 years now as a SDA christian.

To begin with, there's no such thing as a "false church" in the Word of God. There are definitely "false christs" aided by "false apostles" and "false teachers" doing the work of "false prophets" - and texts abound in Scripture to the fact. Not one time did we read of "false churches" - and this is a coinage by legalistic and rigid men who see themselves alone as "bible-believing" Christians. All other groups are wrong but theirs alone.

As I said above if there are false christs then their followers will be false, hence false churches. The point I was making though isn't dependent on whether technically false churches aren't found in scriptures. This by the way wasn't meant to be legalistic. I am not comparing who is more righteous. As I have said before there are christiasn in all denoms, but not all denoms have truth in its entirety. It so happens that I believe that my being a SDA christian is in keeping with the belief that of all denoms so far, the SDA church comes closest to what the apostles believe, and what Jesus expects of His followers. If anyone is prepared to do a doctrinal comparison, including you, then feel free to pose whatever questions that come to mind. I am all ears.

My response was always in keeping with the topic, and more so in the light of bible passages in which Christ Himself says that there is one fold and one shephard. He has other scattered sheep outside the fold that He must bring in.

You can't get it any clearer than from the Master Himself, can you?

Please my brother, I've been in that kind of movement before; and in the true spirit of love may I offer you to see things as God sees them. If you happen to be in one of these accusers of the brethren, please reconsider your persuasions - you might be more in need of God's grace than those we used to call "false churches."

Thanks for the advice, but that is not my approach, so rest assured. My job is to tell it as it is without being too offensive.

shahan:

A bit philosophical there, I guess; but can't seem to find that taught in the Word.

****************************************************************

Which of my statements are you referring to as been philosophical?

@Bobbyaf,

It doesn't seem that you're consistent in your persuasions. Here:

Bobbyaf:

What I do believe though is that in every denom there are God's people who will eventually come out and be apart of God's bible-believing followers. Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17)

. . . and then here again:

Bobbyaf:

Besides, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations, because that would include the one that is truly His chosen. God already has His true believers here on earth who have continued from the traditions of the apostles.

So, on the one hand, you do believe that God's people will eventually come out from every denom; but on the other hand, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations. Quaint.

What this sounds like is as Shahan has put it: some men are persuaded that everyone else is wrong except them.

shahan:

. . . legalistic and rigid men who see themselves alone as "bible-believing" Christians. All other groups are wrong but theirs alone.

This is all the more evident in the way you have been made to see Christians in other denominations, though you little realise it yourself. Here are a few lines to that:

Bobbyaf:

As I have said before there are christiasn in all denoms, but not all denoms have truth in its entirety. It so happens that I believe that my being a SDA christian is in keeping with the belief that of all denoms so far, the SDA church comes closest to what the apostles believe, and what Jesus expects of His followers.

Okay, there are Christians in all denoms - and that includes your own, yes?

Furthermore, not all denoms have the truth in entirety - including yours again, abi??

It's so easy to see others as being so far from the truth while claiming that the "the SDA church comes closest" to what the apostles and Jesus taught and believed. If other churches do not bend to the rules and doctrines of the SDA, then they are far away from Jesus Christ, hmm??

You may think SDA says it all. It would rather help our faith to rejoice in what God in His sovereignty is doing in many non-SDA churches.

@Bobbyaf,

It doesn't seem that you're consistent in your persuasions. Here:

I am not so sure why you're saying that.

So, on the one hand, you do believe that God's people will eventually come out from every denom; but on the other hand, it is obvious that God's people could not have come out from all denominations. Quaint.

What this sounds like is as Shahan has put it: some men are persuaded that everyone else is wrong except them.

Wrong only in terms of doctrines, and teachings. So when you loosly use the term "everyone else is wrong" you are not expounding on my major point of doctrines. I hope you see the point I am making.

This is all the more evident in the way you have been made to see Christians in other denominations, though you little realise it yourself. Here are a few lines to that:

I see you're trying hard to put a label of legalism on me. As I have said before thats not my objective. I am simply saying that I believe that the SDA denom is the closest in doctrinal teachings when compared to apostolic christian tradition. Making that claim does not make me legalistic. It may come over as a bold statement, but so be it.

Okay, there are Christians in all denoms - and that includes your own, yes?

Furthermore, not all denoms have the truth in entirety - including yours again, abi?

Mine included. In other words the church that continues in the teachings of Christ and the apostles is still open to learning from further understanding of the word. No where did I imply that the denom to which I belong was perfect. I simply said that I believe it has come the closest to what I believe is in keeping with what Christ and the apostles have expected.

It's so easy to see others as being so far from the truth while claiming that the "the SDA church comes closest" to what the apostles and Jesus taught and believed.

Not once did I introduce a quantitative degree as to how far other denoms may be in their doctrinall position. Your use of the term "so far from the truth" is your concoction, not mine. Besides, it is easy for me to make that claim unlike those who would very much want to say what I was bold enough to have said. The sad thing is, is that those of you who are apart of a denom believes that that denom comes closest to what is taught in the bible, or else you all wouldn't be congregating there. All of us wants to be sure that where we congregate is where all truth is being taught. All of you who are opposing are guilty of the same thing you think I am doing.

If other churches do not bend to the rules and doctrines of the SDA, then they are far away from Jesus Christ, hmm??

Thats only in your head. I wouldn't be where I am if I weren't using the bible to measure the SDA denom. I have always used the bible to measure a denom, and thats how I became involved with the SDA church. Remember my friend that my denom believes that light has the potential to get brighter. The scripture says that "the path of the just is as a shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day"

You may think SDA says it all. It would rather help our faith to rejoice in what God in His sovereignty is doing in many non-SDA churches.

I am not implying that at all, but no doubt you would like others to see me in that light. I am not surprised. I believe that God can reach others in all denoms, because His people are still found everyhere, but more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings.

Bobbyaf:

Wrong only in terms of doctrines, and teachings. So when you loosly use the term "everyone else is wrong" you are not expounding on my major point of doctrines. I hope you see the point I am making.

I did not loosely use any term - in exactly the way you communicated your ideas was the same I highlighted them.

Bobbyaf:

I see you're trying hard to put a label of legalism on me. As I have said before thats not my objective. I am simply saying that I believe that the SDA denom is the closest in doctrinal teachings when compared to apostolic christian tradition. Making that claim does not make me legalistic. It may come over as a bold statement, but so be it.

No one needs to try half as hard as you have labelled others, and it shows from your inconsistencies that "all" and "every" denom is used conveniently about how others are wrong except the SDA.

Bobbyaf:

Mine included. In other words the church that continues in the teachings of Christ and the apostles is still open to learning from further understanding of the word. No where did I imply that the denom to which I belong was perfect. I simply said that I believe it has come the closest to what I believe is in keeping with what Christ and the apostles have expected.

Okay, yours included. At least, you're beginning to sound so unsure about your previous premise.

Bobbyaf:

Not once did I introduce a quantitative degree as to how far other denoms may be in their doctrinall position.

And what is the meaning of "closest" as used for your SDA denom if not categorically introducing what you're denying?

Bobbyaf:

Your use of the term "so far from the truth" is your concoction, not mine. Besides, it is easy for me to make that claim unlike those who would very much want to say what I was bold enough to have said.

Concoction or not, you've been classic in "concocting" several other things about others - and others have been bold to have said it, as again I am doing.

Bobbyaf:

The sad thing is, is that those of you who are apart of a denom believes that that denom comes closest to what is taught in the bible, or else you all wouldn't be congregating there.

That is indeed the sad thing, that you're a part of the SDA denom which "comes closest" to what is taught in the Bible - or else you wouldn't be congregating there. Keep introducing quantitative degrees and denying you ever did so.

Bobbyaf:

All of us wants to be sure that where we congregate is where all truth is being taught. All of you who are opposing are guilty of the same thing you think I am doing.

Don't make me laugh. Who is "opposing"? Have you not been "opposing" others and promoting your own as coming "closest" to the apostles? Right, we're all guilty - incuding you, since you admit you're doing the same thing. So, let's just say that every denom "comes closest" to the teachings in the Bible - and I'm sure you'll come back with another long epistle to show how guilty other denoms are, except SDA.

Bobbyaf:

Thats only in your head.  I wouldn't be where I am if I weren't using the bible to measure the SDA denom.

At least I have a head to think with and not wait for SDA to do the thinking for me, thank you. And what do you suppose others have been using to "measure" (quantitative degree again) their denom? Have they been using a magazine or newspaper?

Bobbyaf:

I have always used the bible to measure a denom, and thats how I became involved with the SDA church.

Keep "measuring" and come back denying you're introducing quantitative degree.

Bobbyaf:

Remember my friend that my denom believes that light has the potential to get brighter. The scripture says that "the path of the just is as a shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day"

And what denom doesn't believe that scripture regardless of what your denom believes??

Bobbyaf:

I am not implying that at all, but no doubt you would like others to see me in that light. I am not surprised. I believe that God can reach others in all denoms, because His people are still found everyhere, but more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings.

And what have you implied that is any different from what I've stated before? So, God can reach "others" in all denoms - but SDA, not so? Or, what are you meaning by: "more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings"?? So, where do others ought to be??

@ m4malik

I did not loosely use any term - in exactly the way you communicated your ideas was the same I highlighted them.

Yes you did use the term loosely, because I certainly didn't give the impression you were trying to give.

No one needs to try half as hard as you have labelled others, and it shows from your inconsistencies that "all" and "every" denom is used conveniently about how others are wrong except the SDA.

If anything you are the inconistent one, because my idea about there being one true flock is biblical. Even your use of the term "conviniently" suggest how you think of finding every occasion to accuse and label. I have already qualified my beliefs by saying that although there are christians in various denoms, there can only be one true flock in which there is a greater measure of truth.

Okay, yours included. At least, you're beginning to sound so unsure about your previous premise.

If you go and read carefully what I said from day one you wouldn't have to be showing your own uncertainties. My premise has always been the same, both in thought and expression.

And what is the meaning of "closest" as used for your SDA denom if not categorically introducing what you're denying?

There you go again, anyway closest means exactly that, closest.

Concoction or not, you've been classic in "concocting" several other things about others - and others have been bold to have said it, as again I am doing.

The only boldness you possess is to get people upset with your nagging and whining.

That is indeed the sad thing, that you're a part of the SDA denom which "comes closest" to what is taught in the Bible - or else you wouldn't be congregating there. Keep introducing quantitative degrees and denying you ever did so.

I am trying to make sense of the above.

Don't make me laugh. Who is "opposing"? Have you not been "opposing" others and promoting your own as coming "closest" to the apostles? Right, we're all guilty - incuding you, since you admit you're doing the same thing. So, let's just say that every denom "comes closest" to the teachings in the Bible - and I'm sure you'll come back with another long epistle to show how guilty other denoms are, except SDA.

Oh, now I know. Note the hypocracy people! He happens to believe the same thing, but was always afraid to express it, but now that I have expressed it he is angry.

Stop being silly. You know as well as I do that not all denoms will come closest to what is being taught in the bible. Notice again how you use words loosely. According to you you are sure that I "will come back with another long epistle to show how guilty other denoms are, "

You're always trying hard to make me look as if I am in judgement against others. Not only is your "inconsistency theory" ridiculous, but your ability to be honest becomes suspect. Instead of simply asking me what I mean, you pretend to be a mind reader. , you're comical.

At least I have a head to think with and not wait for SDA to do the thinking for me, thank you. And what do you suppose others have been using to "measure" (quantitative degree again) their denom? Have they been using a magazine or newspaper?

Did I say I waited on the SDA church to think for me? When I was 9 years old my diet changed by reading the bible without ever being taught by the SDAs. God was my teacher long before I found the SDA church. Pork, crabs, lobsters, etc; were no longer apart of my diet because God through His word taught me not to consume unclean flesh.

At least now your own words are coming back to haunt you. At least try to do justice to one's quote. Besides, if other denoms are using the bible then let them defend their beliefs, just as I am doing now. Its also obvious, that you were never trained enough to defend what you believe.

And what have you implied that is any different from what I've stated before? So, God can reach "others" in all denoms - but SDA, not so?

He is also reaching SDAs too, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe that the SDA denom comes clostest to what is required by Christ, just as much as you believe likewise but are afraid to confess it.

Or, what are you meaning by: "more can be accomplished by those people when they are where they aught to be in terms of sound biblical teachings"?? So, where do others ought to be??

Exactly that! My english is clear.

I'm sorry to come back and read your tale without answering my questions. Not surprising because you don't have any answers. I didn't try to make you look bad - you just did yourself - if you feel bad, and you can smile about that if it makes you feel better.

What you should understand, my dear, is that I'm not angry; and because you're unsure of yourself, you read me so. If every and all denoms do not "come closest" to your SDA, then you feel all the better to see them as:

Bobbyaf:

Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head.

. . . babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches.

So, the SDA is not a "professed christian church", no? Easy to accuse others, but yours "comes closest".

This is for you:

Rev.18:4
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The sooner you come out of religious confusion the better for you. Move away from the influence of Catholicism and go back to pure worship that requires total truth as God continues to reveal it to you.

Bless and have a happy sabbath.

I'm so sorry that you only lend credence to m4malik's rejoinders and weaken your own submissions. Where have you answered the questions he posed, or do I suspect that it's actually true you don't have answers after accusing others??

Hi shahan,

Please forbear, lest he thinks you're also angry and aggressive. The sad thing is, he who accuses others can't take the heat of his own accusations. If you can see that, point made.

@Bobbyaf,
Don't catch at straws, because you're not helping your own assumptions by supposing I'm Catholic or RCC. I only extend to you the warmth of seeing Christians in other churches as God sees them, instead of as SDA sees them. Shallom.

Well, what more can i say?

@ shahan

I'm so sorry that you only lend credence to m4malik's rejoinders and weaken your own submissions. Where have you answered the questions he posed, or do I suspect that it's actually true you don't have answers after accusing others??

His questions were off the mark, and totally irrelevant, but if you take the time to read diligently you will see the responses, besides, anyone with a logical mind could easily see through the point I was making. I spoke of my personal reasons for accepting the beliefs of a particular denom for the reasons I gave above, and in keeping with the thread topic.

I don't see why that should be a problem for you, or your sympathisers. All you guys are capable of doing is smearing people instead of contributing to thread topics. If you disagree then by all means say so, but don't accuse persons of being legalistic, or unkind to other persons who believe otherwise, just for accusation sake.

Hi shahan,

Please forbear, lest he thinks you're also angry and aggressive. The sad thing is, he who accuses others can't take the heat of his own accusations. If you can see that, point made.

@Bobbyaf,
Don't catch at straws, because you're not helping your own assumptions by supposing I'm Catholic or RCC. I only extend to you the warmth of seeing Christians in other churches as God sees them, instead of as SDA sees them. Shallom.

If you'd spend the time thinking before responding each time you read my post with such open bias you'd have been better able to make a more positive contribution, but alas your bias has blinded you.

@Bobbyaf,

When you set yourself as judge over others and dodge questions under the guise of "irrelevant" and "totally off the mark", it speaks volumes to the point already made that you really have no answers or simply can't read.

My questions should serve to the effect that I did not agree with your inferences; and I've offered informed reasons thereto. If you found them "unkind" and thought I was "smearing" you because questions were asked about your 'denom' SDA, then grow up and try not coming to a public forum to smear others first and be unkind to them. Otherwise, I find your whining irrelevant and totally off the mark.

Bobbyaf:

If you'd spend the time thinking before responding each time you read my post with such open bias you'd have been better able to make a more positive contribution, but alas your bias has blinded you.

No bother, I was only helping you remove the log in your own eyes before attempting the speck in others'. Just because we didn't fall for your polarization towards your denom SDA, we didn't make 'positive contribution' and have become blindly biased? Well, come back gritting about not being able to stand your own predilection as you've been unable to spend time thinking through before posting your blather.

@Bobbyaf,

When you set yourself as judge over others and dodge questions under the guise of "irrelevant" and "totally off the mark", it speaks volumes to the point already made that you really have no answers or simply can't read.

This proves how big a liar you really are. If you can show anything I have said in any of my posts to this thread that indicates that, then I stand to be corrected.

My questions should serve to the effect that I did not agree with your inferences; and I've offered informed reasons thereto.

I have no problem with one disagreeing, but when one begins to label persons as legalistic, as malik started doing, then one wonders who is judging who. Besides, your so-called informed reasons were off the mark comments that served to add more mis-understanding.

If you found them "unkind" and thought I was "smearing" you because questions were asked about your 'denom' SDA, then grow up and try not coming to a public forum to smear others first and be unkind to them. Otherwise, I find your whining irrelevant and totally off the mark.

In case you have missed what I said before, let me repeat for your hearing. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Just don't go mis-representing what I say. If you do not understand the point I am making be simply ask me what I meant before trying to read my mind.

There seems to be a clique on this board that when ever their ideas are challenged they begin to get personal instead of addressing the real issues. They conduct a smear campaign trying to make persons appear bad.

I don't appreciate such nasty behaviour coming from professed christians.

Bobbyaf:

This proves how big a liar you really are. If you can show anything I have said in any of my posts to this thread that indicates that, then I stand to be corrected.

Catch your breath - here it is:

Bobbyaf:

Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If 'Babylon' includes 'professed christian churches', why did you not answer the question earlier as to if SDA was also a 'professed christian church'? Now who's the lair, Mr. SDA?? This is why when you read with small brains, you get yourself officially promoted as Nairaland's biggest liar yourself:

nferyn:

Bobbyaf,

You have now officially been promoted to fountainhead of the "Lying for Jesus" society. Congratulations and a happy lying new year to you.

There you have it; and I don't envy you for that title at all.

Bobbyaf:

I have no problem with one disagreeing, but when one begins to label persons as legalistic, as malik started doing, then one wonders who is judging who. Besides, your so-called informed reasons were off the mark comments that served to add more mis-understanding.

I understand. . . you were served your own syrup and you couldn't take it, no? If you had not labelled others as 'babylon' and refused to answer a simple question thereto with regards to your own 'denom', we all would have had a good exchange of ideas and understanding. To you, others' inputs are off the mark - as if you could read in the first place.

Bobbyaf:

In case you have missed what I said before, let me repeat for your hearing. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Just don't go mis-representing what I say.

And just in case you are hard of hearing, be grown up when you address people and stop whining when you're served your own syrup.

Bobbyaf:

If you do not understand the point I am making be simply ask me what I meant before trying to read my mind.

And waste my time? How many questions being asked have you sanely replied to without dodging them?

Bobbyaf:

There seems to be a clique on this board that when ever their ideas are challenged they begin to get personal instead of addressing the real issues.

Are you describing yourself? Sorry, whine louder yet!

Bobbyaf:

They conduct a smear campaign trying to make persons appear bad.

Glad to know that's what you do - simply because you can't see on common grounds with others.

Bobbyaf:

I don't appreciate such nasty behaviour coming from professed christians.

Neither do I envy your official title on Nairaland.

If 'Babylon' includes 'professed christian churches', why did you not answer the question earlier as to if SDA was also a 'professed christian church'? Now who's the lair, Mr. SDA?? This is why when you read with small brains, you get yourself officially promoted as Nairaland's biggest liar yourself:

I see your technicality Shahan. The fact that I am even making such a statement means that I have excluded my denom from babylon. Can't your logical mind see that? Do I have to spell it out for you? Isn't it obvious that because I am apart of the SDA church that I would naturally think it is not apart of babylon? Hahaha, , You guys never fail to amuse me!

And the funny thing is, is that you think the same way. If you didn't think that your denom was representing all that Christ expected, would you be there now? The fact that you on this board have disagreements with others about the matter of Jesus being God means that you would certainly not be found in such denoms that uphold that Jesus wasn't God would you? In your heart you're saying that those movements are based on false teachings.

I understand. . . you were served your own syrup and you couldn't take it, no? If you had not labelled others as 'babylon' and refused to answer a simple question thereto with regards to your own 'denom', we all would have had a good exchange of ideas and understanding. To you, others' inputs are off the mark - as if you could read in the first place.

Anyway you choose to put it, the fact is there is a babylon as spoken by the prophet John. The term babylon constitutes, whether you desire to accept it or not, false worship. However, I am not labelling others in the sense that you and malik think I am doing it. The SDA church doesn't need to take that overly-righteous approach, nor do I.

All I am saying is that not all denoms out there are teaching the truth as it is in Jesus. Those denoms happen to have people in them that will one day leave and join with the true bible-beliving christians who are prepared to go with Jesus all the way. I am not excluding you or Malik, or anyone else here on this board who happens to profess Christ. That was never my objective when I raised the issue of babylon.

With regards to my denom the SDA church, I am apart of it because of my conviction that it represents what God intends for His end-time church to be representing. I am also aware that there is a lot to be desired, and that we have problems just like anyone else, because when the rubber touches the road, we are humans, right?

So when I use the term we are closest I mean that when I compare biblical teachings, the SDA church's teachings are bible-based. All our doctrines can be supported by scriptures.

Am I committing a crime when I think or express how I feel?

Bobbyaf:

I see your technicality Shahan. The fact that I am even making such a statement means that I have excluded my denom from babylon. Can't your logical mind see that? Do I have to spell it out for you? Isn't it obvious that because I am apart of the SDA church that I would naturally think it is not apart of babylon? Hahaha, , You guys never fail to amuse me!

No, we are not amused; and just so we don't get you wrong or pre-judge your statement, it was rational that you said it in white and black. So, how does this take away from the earlier inferences that you make yourself a judge over others? Or, how does this detract from the statement by m4malik that only legalistic men see themselves as "bible-believing christians" and all others are wrong but them alone?

Bobbyaf:

And the funny thing is, is that you think the same way. If you didn't think that your denom was representing all that Christ expected, would you be there now?

I can think all by myself, thank you. And you're doubly wrong! several times I have offered like m4malik that we all try and appreciate other believers in every Christian denomination or every professing Church without pre-judging them. The only point of difference I made was:  if anyone's "tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word". That does not warrant my lumping them up as you did; and certainly God's Word does not do that at all.

Bobbyaf:

The fact that you on this board have disagreements with others about the matter of Jesus being God means that you would certainly not be found in such denoms that uphold that Jesus wasn't God would you?

And your point is. . . that I should have been in the SDA in order to understand the deity of Jesus Christ? Not even when you have not been able to defend His deity and humanity coherently.

Bobbyaf:

In your heart you're saying that those movements are based on false teachings.

When a person openly denies the deity of Jesus Christ contrary to the Word, I don't sit timid calling such as belonging to "babylon". I share with them by asking questions and not making it mandatory, or pressure them into being obliged to respond; or yet, I have sought to post my persuasions with Scripture.

Bobbyaf:

Anyway you choose to put it, the fact is there is a babylon as spoken by the prophet John.

I didn't deny that, did I?

Bobbyaf:

The term babylon constitutes, whether you desire to accept it or not, false worship.

Did I state otherwise?

Bobbyaf:

However, I am not labelling others in the sense that you and malik think I am doing it.

Oohh And you only just admitted to the same in your opening paragraph, buddy!

Bobbyaf:

The SDA church doesn't need to take that overly-righteous approach, nor do I.

I don't know about the SDA; unless they do exactly what you do, then they leave me no choice than to shrug about their overly-righteous approach, sorry.

Bobbyaf:

All I am saying is that not all denoms out there are teaching the truth as it is in Jesus.

No. . . but SDA alone, which according to you, "comes closest"?? Here we go again ***roles eyes.

Bobbyaf:

Those denoms happen to have people in them that will one day leave and join with the true bible-beliving christians who are prepared to go with Jesus all the way.

Applause! And these "true bible-beliving christians" are supposed to be. . . the SDA??

Bobbyaf:

I am not excluding you or Malik, or anyone else here on this board who happens to profess Christ. That was never my objective when I raised the issue of babylon.

Pardon? Did you miss something or you're hoping no one can read between the lines?

Bobbyaf:

With regards to my denom the SDA church, I am apart of it because of my conviction that it represents what God intends for His end-time church to be representing. I am also aware that there is a lot to be desired, and that we have problems just like anyone else, because when the rubber touches the road, we are humans, right?

See? You come back full circle to the very same thing. So much for your denom the SDA, and I commend your appraisal of it. However, if all other denoms have problems like anyone else, are they also going to come out and join with the true bible-beliving christians separate from the SDA?? Or, those from the "professing Christian churches" lumped under "babylon" are going to come out and join with the SDA?

Bobbyaf:

So when I use the term we are closest I mean that when I compare biblical teachings, the SDA church's teachings are bible-based. All our doctrines can be supported by scriptures.

So are the teachings of many non-SDA churches. And this is why we appealed to you to be open and appreciate other Christians instead of lumping them one and all as 'babylon'.

Bobbyaf:

Am I committing a crime when I think or express how I feel?

Hardly. And I do not suppose we are criminals for doing the same? Cheers.

@ Shahan

No, we are not amused; and just so we don't get you wrong or pre-judge your statement, it was rational that you said it in white and black. So, how does this take away from the earlier inferences that you make yourself a judge over others? Or, how does this detract from the statement by m4malik that only legalistic men see themselves as "bible-believing christians" and all others are wrong but them alone?

Believing as I do does not necessarily make me legalistic Shahan. If Jesus said in matthew 24 that "many shall be decieved" why shouldn't I take Him seriously? I am aware through God's word that at all times we must choose to either accept truth, or reject error. In doing so one will always be in a position to be faced with descriptions like the ones placed on me by malik, because of a mis-understanding.

I see myself as feeling/being obligated, as we are encouraged in the SDA church to point out the necessity for us to not be part of religious confusion because the bible has called us to walk in the light and not in darkness, and there is no doubt that not all denoms are teaching the truth of God's word. Our job as followers of Christ is to ensure we walk in the light. Paul says if another comes preaching another gospel other than what is expected by Christ let him be accursed. Hence I have all rights to choose the denom I believe to be expressing God's truth as best as I am aware of it, and to say it loud and clear. Don't challenge my freedom to express, but challenge whether or not I am speaking the truth.

I can think all by myself, thank you. And you're doubly wrong! several times I have offered like m4malik that we all try and appreciate other believers in every Christian denomination or every professing Church without pre-judging them.

All that is good. As christians we can agree on those things we have in common, and render support in such cases, but we also have a duty to stand up for truth if we believe its not being emphasised, or being neglected. There will come a time when issues will be brought to the forefront that need clarification. My bible asks the obvious question can two walk together unless they agree? I am sure you already know the answer to that.

Truth must not be placed in obscurity in the name of being nice. Truth according to Jesus will at times separate family and friends. Its that serious. He warns that it can be an offence, but not a sin to emphasise it.

And your point is. . . that I should have been in the SDA in order to understand the deity of Jesus Christ? Not even when you have not been able to defend His deity and humanity coherently.

Let me put it this way. You'd have a clearer vision, but you are not doing so badly now. There is not much difference bewteen us on the deity of Jesus. Let me give you an analogy now that you have brought up this deity matter. I picture a king becoming a beggar. Yes he is a king, but he cannot expect to have kingly powers as long as he is a beggar.

Jesus is no doubt God, but He is not allowed to use that power as long as He is man. He must depend on His Father for all power before He suffers Calvary's death.

The only point of difference I made was: if anyone's "tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word". That does not warrant my lumping them up as you did; and certainly God's Word does not do that at all.

So how do you explain why there are so many denoms if there were no major differences in doctrines then? God's word says the following:

"broad is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that find it" The bible also says that "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet areRev. 20:10

There can be only two classes of people, those that are true and those that are false. When push comes to shove one must choose the way of the Lord, regadless of friends or family. There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings. Listen to that Paul says about the true believers.

Ephesians 4:11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Shahan this is war, and Satan doesn't wear pajamas. He doesn't sleep. He is bent on decieving as many as he can, and God's church cannot afford to play nice while souls die in ignorance.

God's church for this day and age has been called to warn those denoms who have accepted the influences of the Harlot called the RCC. Come out of religious confusion and separate yourself from pagan teachings, otherwise you will suffer the wrath of God when he pours 7 plagues upon all those who recieve the mark of the RCC, being Sunday observance.

That is why I use the term babylon. Its a combination of denoms that are set up in the name of unity to be used of the devil to decieve with their false miracles. Christ said the following: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; in somuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

Thank God the elect will have left the system long before. make sure you and malik leave before the 7 plauges start fallling.

Bless.

@Bobbyaf,

Anybody can quote scripture the way you do to support their group. I don't count as one of those seeking to do that. It's a complete waste of time. To assure you, I'm not a Catholic; and certainly not in 'babylon'. To make matters worse, nowhere in God's precious Word are Christians asked to be a part of the SDA. QED.

Celestial Church Of Christ(CCC) is the true church.The heavenly host came down to establish it and then went back.
Sue me,if you don't agree.

The true church hasn't got much to do with the various denominations rather a dedicated few who may or maynot belong to any of these assemblies. Church is the body of Christ as scripture makes clear & i think it will be grossly erroneous to undermine tis by defining church as any 1 of these denominations.