Post Number: 1024
|Posted on Sunday, June 02, 2013 - 7:38 am: || |
I believe the subject of the Richard Bennett at Berean Beacon has come p before. He is a former Roman Catholic priest who left Catholicism for the Gospel. He is to Catholicism what Dale Ratzlaff is to SDAism.
But one thing that concerns me: On his website he quotes something from LeRoy Froom, the SDA theologian. The thing he quotes is about the history of the papacy, which I agree is a wicked institution because it teaches against the Bible. But it bothered me nonetheless.
While certainly not everything Froom ever wrote was wrong as even a broken clock is right twice a day, my concern is that Adventists twist even history to fit their anti-Gospel doctrine. And especially with the history of Rome, SDAs like to twist the historical record as an attempt to get dates and events to line up with prophecies in a way that makes the SDA church out to be God's final church, His special end-time message, and the culinination and completion of the Reformation.
Were someone to catch that quote and then want to research Froom and his writings further, they might go down a bad path.
Am I being over-sensitive here? What are your thoughts?
Post Number: 2014
|Posted on Sunday, June 02, 2013 - 8:03 pm: || |
I think you have given an excellent example of why we also can't blindly accept all the comments of someone who points out an error of SDAism. The could be right in that one case, but wrong on so many other issues.
I don't think you are being over-sensitive. If nothing else a good historian would want original sources not something from 20th century.
Post Number: 14461
|Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 2:04 pm: || |
Bskillet, I agree. You are not being over-sensitive. If someone is a member of a cult, there's no excuse for using their scholarship to explain anything...except, perhaps, certain inside aspects of their own cult.
LeRoy Froom was one of the three Adventists picked by the General Conference to dialogue with Walter Martin in 1955. Froom along with WE Read and Roy Allan Anderson were the three who deliberately deceived Walter Martin about Adventist soteriology and the nature of Christ by carefully parsing and choosing their words so he would understand them to mean something different from what Adventism actually believed.
For someone to use Froom as evidence against the papacy is, in my opinion, to use an unreliable source. I wouldn't trust anything Froom said that derives from the Adventist worldview...and we know Froom's view of the papacy was shaped by The Great Controversy.