Post Number: 322
|Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 10:12 pm: || |
I was looking online for something not related to the Adventists and this jumped out at me. Here is the link where there I found the following two articles: http://www.servantsnews.com/sn9611/s961119.htm
Friendly Arizona Sabbath Seminar
Dear Mr. Edwards,
Greetings from Arizona. Pastor Ivan Blake of the Camelback Seventh-Day Adventist Church provided the beautiful setting for a Sabbath seminar on the weekend of November 9-10 in the shadow of Camelback mountain. The co-sponsors of this activity were Mr. Blake and the pastors of the three Phoenix UCG congregations: Roger Foster, Jim Tuck, and Chuck Zimmerman.
The featured speaker was Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. His enthusiasm and zeal for God's Sabbath were inspiring. Mark Kaplan, a UCG pastor serving in California, also spoke. All speakers' topics were well received by those in attendance.
It was a great blessing to see our groups come together on our common ground. I pray that more such endeavors will be tried. I am a UCG member and I am very pleased in the willingness within the UCG to explore joint projects such as this. I do not know why I ever received The Servants' News, but I have gotten every issue and am constantly encouraged by your inclusion of tales of inter-Sabbatarian cooperation. Please continue doing the fine work of serving all of GOD's children. You are in our prayers.
Your brother in Christ,
Faltering Calif. Sabbath Seminar
Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi was surprised and disappointed at the UCG's home office lack of support for his October 18-19 Sabbath lecture. Dr. Bacchiocchi is the author of the book "From Sabbath to Sunday", and is finishing his book on God's Holy Days.
UCG's Home Office congregation meets in a Seventh Day Adventist's building. Dr. Bacchiocchi had been invited to speak there about his research on the Sabbath and God' Holy Days. He called the UCG pastor, Brian Orchard, to ask him to participate in the lecture and announce it to his congregation.
My wife and I went to the Friday night lecture and were told by Dr. Bacchiocchi that Brian Orchard had told him that he was "not supportive of this kind of activity." Brian Orchard also said that he "looks down on the Friends of the Sabbath."
This amazed Dr. Bacchiocchi because of how well he had been received by many UCG congregations this past year. He spoke fondly of how Mr. Dennis Luker had invited him to the Seattle area to speak to the UCG brethren there. The same was true with Mr. Chuck Zimmerman and Mr. Roger Foster in the Phoenix area; and Mr. George Crow in Houston.
The Saturday lecture was to start one hour after the UCG service was over, but just after the UCG service was over an announcement was made to everyone that the Seventh Day Adventists were having a lecture at 5 PM and everyone should leave in a timely manner.
óHarry Curley, Altadena, Calif
Post Number: 323
|Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 10:24 pm: || |
Forgot to include link to UCG website: http://www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm
Post Number: 1118
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 7:07 am: || |
Sabbatarians or not, why would SDAs want to have fellowship with a full-blown cult? We're not talking about a border-line sect that may or may not be Christian. We're talking about a group that denies the Trinity and follows the outright cultic teachings of Herbert Armstrong. It blows my mind that a day of worship could be grounds for fellowship with a group that is otherwise cultic by any Christian definition.
Post Number: 81
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:53 am: || |
I'm confused, The United Church of God,Seventh Day
merged with the UCG and they all keep the 7th day Sabbath? And why is it more of a cult than the SDA's? Peggy
Post Number: 1399
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:41 am: || |
Are you talking about the "Church of God-seventh day? Because if that is the organization you are talking about, then they may not be associated with Armstrong. I read the fundamental beliefs statement, and while they seem to affirm the eternal deity of Christ (which Armstrong did not), it was still difficult to say whether they are hedging on the Trinity. They don't mention the Trinity, and their belief statement seems quite vague and open to interpretation. I agree that on the surface it doesn't appear to much different from SDAs except for the fact they are still obviously keep the Passover just like Armstrong. I agree with Chris, it still looks like a full blown false gospel.
Even though the Worldwide Church of God claims to have changed from a cult to a non-cult, they still follow Armstrong's heretical doctrine of the fact that most people get saved after death--thereby contradicting Heb. 9: 27 directly. There is also evidence that even though they claimed to reject Armstrong as a false prophet, many of the leaders actually believe Armstrong will be saved. Also, even though they renounce Armstrong as a false prophet, there is evidence that eight years after they claimed to become saved in 1995, that in 2003, they sold their library of Armstrong's material to the Philadelphia Church of God for three million dollars! If they were truly born again and called Armstrong a false prophet, then why did they sell HWA's material rather than destroy these works of darkness? That three million dollars almost sounds like 30 pieces of silver to me. The evidence for these statements are posted at www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/behind.htm
I am only posting this so someone can check out these stories to see if they are true. I can't vouch for the credibility of this website, but because the topic of Armstrongism came up, I felt this topic needed to be addressed. I hope this info is wrong. But it seems that a sale of copyrighted material to a particular entity would only be a matter of public record. And, if it is true that they sold this demonic material eight years after claiming to become saved, does that change anyone's opinion on the reformed Worldwide Church of God?
BTW, That article posted above does confirm that the UCG is a spinoff from the original Armstrong cult.
The lesson to be learned for me is that it is impossible to reform a cult--a pig is still a pig.
Post Number: 324
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:44 am: || |
Yes, but why would they associate with the beast or those following the beast? Perhaps if UCG isn't making sense to some of the UCG members, maybe the Seventh-day Adventist church will make more sense. Does the Seventh-day Adventist church really care how it gets members?
I think the Adventist church is making a point to show everyone they believe in the trinity in order to not look cultic. They use it as a front in doctrine, but the meaning of the trinity is really different than what the protestant churches teach. Like the meaning of salvation. On the outside, since they use the same scripture as Protestant churches to look the same, they are using biblical doctrine to look Protestant, but they are not Protestant at all.
Let us not forget that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the Remnant. Accept their doctrine on Sunday worship or you will not be saved. Jesus will deny you. If you know that truth, because they told you and you deny it, according to them, you will be rejected by Christ.
Let's not forget that the word Protestant means Sunday worshipers, Mark of the Beast, according to Ellen White, church prophet and co-founder. We all know a time will come that those Protestants will persecute and kill Seventh-day Adventists as taught only to the "inner group" - the members of the church. It can be found in Testimonies of the Church below about the denomination name*.
We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
With what they teach, why wouldn't they fellowship with a group that is cultic by any Christian definition. What makes the Seventh-day Adventist church and the teachings of Ellen White any less cultic? Is the church less cultic because it is more elaborate, wealthier, astute, clever?
* Chap. 42 - Our Denominational Name
I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. Two classes were presented before me. One class embraced the great bodies of professed Christians. They were trampling upon God's law and bowing to a papal institution. They were keeping the first day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. The other class, who were but few in number, were bowing to the great Lawgiver. They were keeping the fourth commandment. The peculiar and prominent features of their faith were the observance of the seventh day, and waiting for the appearing of our Lord from heaven.
The conflict is between the requirements of God and the requirements of the beast. The first day, a papal institution which directly contradicts the fourth commandment, is yet to be made a test by the two-horned beast. And then the fearful warning from God declares the penalty of bowing to the beast and his image. They shall drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation.
No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Here is the line of distinction between the worshipers of God and those who worship the beast and receive his mark. The great conflict is between the commandments of God and the requirements of the beast. It is because the saints are keeping all ten of the commandments that the dragon makes war upon them. If they will lower the standard and yield the peculiarities of their faith, the dragon will be at peace; but they excite his ire because they have dared to raise the standard and unfurl their banner in opposition to the Protestant world, who are worshiping the institution of papacy.
The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord's quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God's law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I was shown that almost every fanatic who has arisen, who wishes to hide his sentiments that he may lead away others, claims to belong to the church of God. Such a name would at once excite suspicion; for it is employed to conceal the most absurd errors. This name is too indefinite for the remnant people of God. It would lead to the supposition that we had a faith which we wished to cover up.
Post Number: 3518
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:10 pm: || |
Samuel Bacchiocchi has written a book (mentioned in those reports you quoted above, Lynne) in which he makes a case for keeping the ceremonial feast days. He has admitted he wrote the book because he has an audience in the groups that spun off from the Worldwide Church of God. He wrote that book (pardon my bluntness) for money.
He himself doesn't have any problem speaking to a combined group of Adventists and UCG-ers because he can sell both of his books to them! He has a built-in market for his Sabbath book as well as his feast days book.
Because of his association with Andrews, I believe many Adventist churches which are a bit isolated find the presence of Bacchiocchi to be quite a feather in their cap. Associating with the UCG to sponsor his speaking event would be no problem for them, because they see the whole thing as an affirmation of the Sabbath. And Bacchiochi's presence would give official sanction to the event and would allay any niggling fears they might otherwise have. After all, the man the church acknowledges as an authority (or at least appears to acknowledge) is there!
I rememeber how easy it was to ignore or rationalize such compormise as an Adventist. What mattered was that the TRUTH as I perceived it had its day. Compromise was inevitiable.
Post Number: 618
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:12 pm: || |
The United Church of God is the largest offshoot of the old (pre-1995)Worldwide Church of God. They have a fair-sized church in Omaha--about 60 miles from my house. It is because of these WCG sabbatarian offshoots that Samuele Bacchiocci started observing some festivals besides the weekly Sabbath. He admits that they convinced him about observing some other festivals. He claims that some of his Andrews University colleagues have joined him in observing some Jewish festivals. Furthermore, he wrote two books entitled, "God's Festivals" (Book 1 and Book 2).
Dr. Bacchiocchi is a celebrity for both the Adventists and the United Church of God. His mission is primarily to promote the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Actually, to be consistent, I think Dr. Bacchiocci is on the right track to observe more than just one festal convocation. He really needs to keep all seven (see Lev. 23) if he insists on being under the Law. In legalism, there is always something more that one can do.
In awe of His grace,
Post Number: 3523
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 2:22 pm: || |
Dennis, thank you.
I apologize for being so caustic about Bacchiocchi. The fact that the reasons for keeping the Sabbath and observing the feasts mesh so well together certainly points out the ceremonial nature of the Old Covenant Sabbath. It was not in the "moral" category of murdery, theft, adultery, and deceit. It was in the category of the ceremonial Sabbaths which pointed toward Jesus.
Truly, as Dennis points out, if one keeps one of them, he actually should keep them all.
Post Number: 437
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 3:26 pm: || |
Colleen, I'm confused, isn't the Worldwide Church of God the church that the video was documenting and was being given out at the FAF conference?
Post Number: 436
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 3:41 pm: || |
The Worldwide church of God is the one the doumentary is about. If I understand correctly, the "United Church of God" is one of the many many groups of members from there who did NOT accept the change, and reorganized themselves.
Post Number: 439
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 3:58 pm: || |
Thanks Mary, I had a feeling I'd missed a turn there someplace.
Post Number: 1402
|Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:18 pm: || |
However, at the FAF reunion, a very clear disclaimer was issued by Mark Martin about that video. He was clear that the Worldwide Church of God is still teaching heretical doctrine such as that I posted above. Here is a link to the WCG official web site that documents the doctrine he was talking about. www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/bestnews.htm
My point was that it seems hypocritical to say that you have given up Armstrong's beliefs, but you still teach a doctrine he taught which directly contradicts the clearest statement of Heb. 9:27. Also, if it can be proven true that they sold the Armstrong literature so his heresies could be perpetuated, then I question if their conversion was really genuine.
Post Number: 125
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:20 am: || |
Bachhiocchi argues that the festivals were not completely fulfilled by Christ, and because there is a future fulfillment there are still binding on Christians. But this is only the logical conclusion of the doctrine of seventh day adventists.
Remember how they came to the date of 22 october 1844? The millerites said that Christ fulfilled only the spring festivals, but not the autumn festivals, like the day of atonement. But if their logic is true, they must face the fact that Jesus said
Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
What was not accomplished by Jesus is still in force, and we are guilty by not observing, let's say, the final festival, the Feast of Boots, because this feast comes after the day of atonement, the most recently feast accomplished by Jesus in 1844. The next feast must be still in the future, unfulfilled, and, of course, it must be observed.
I'm sure Bacchiochhi has a financial interest, but also he is in the line of adventists thinking.
Post Number: 126
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:49 am: || |
Richard, it was a very interesting dialogue about WCG at this thread http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/3910.html#POST51738 and
I'm very dissapointed because WCG retained it's cultic spirit, only changed it's clothes. From the article posted by Stan, http://www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/bestnews.htm, I can say that his author, Michael Feazell, still has a cultic attitude considering that he believes he has a better and superior view of the gospel than the protestant world.
I have a very fresh memory from my involvement with the 1888 message, as Robert J Wieland teaches it, a message 100% adventist. We consider our gospel better than those of evangelicals because:
1. We donít believe in eternal hell, in a God who tortures people.
2. We believe Holy Spirit is greater than the power of sin, and the believer can live a life of absolute sinlessness.
Because we have a better view of the gospel, what we called the adventist gospel, we pity those evangelicals who believed in eternal hell, and a weaker gospel. When I read the article, I smell the same pity for the evangelical word, but from another perspective. Actually I believe Michael Feazell is a universalist, even if he negates the idea that everybody will ultimately be saved. I think that he is not consistent with his premises, or deliberately lies about what he really believe. Iíll quote from the article. He actually scorns the idea of hell, saying that God doesnít torture people, because He is a God of love.
ÑWhen Americans gathered in churches around the nation on September 14, 2001, a day of mourning, they came to hear words of comfort, encouragement and hope. Yet, try as they might to bring hope to a grieving nation, a number of conservative Christian leaders unwittingly proclaimed a message that amounted to despair, hopelessness and fear for people whose loved ones had died in the terrorist attack without having first professed faith in Jesus Christ.
Many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are convinced that all deceased humans who didnít profess Christ before death, even those who never so much as heard of Christ in their lifetime, are in hell at this very moment, being hideously tortured in unimaginable agony by the God the same Christians ironically proclaim as compassionate, merciful, loving and full of grace.î
ÑAll humans are under condemnation because of sin (Rom. 6:23), but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ (same verse). Thatís why it is called grace.
In Romans 5:15, Paul puts it like this: "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one manís trespass [this "many" refers to everybody; there is no one who doesnít bear Adamís guilt], much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many [the same "many"óabsolutely everybody]" (Rom. 5:15).î
"But salvation is only for Christians," the fundamentalists howl. Yes, of course it is. But just who are "the Christians"? Are they only those who repeat after me the sinnerís prayer? Are they only those who are baptized by immersion? Only those who belong to the "true" church? Only those who are absolved by a duly ordained priest? Only those who have ceased sinning. (Have you? I havenít.) Only those who come to know Jesus before they die? Or does Jesus himself, the one into whose nail-pierced hands God has given all judgment, decide who is and is not ultimately to be included among those upon whom he will have mercy? And while he is at it, does he, the one who conquered death and grants eternal life to whomever he will, decide when he might bring a person to faith, or do we, the all-wise defenders of the true religion, make that determination for him?
Every Christian became a Christian at some point, that is, was brought to faith by the Holy Spirit. The fundamentalist assumption seems to suggest, however, that it is impossible for God to bring a person to faith after that person has died. But hold on, Jesus is the one who raises the dead. And he is the one who is the atoning sacrifice, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).î
Have you seen the pity and scorn the author has for evangelicals? He uses word like Ñall-wise defenders of the true religionî putting them in the same boat with cultic leaders who proclaim that only those in the Ñtrueî church are saved. He describes them as those who believe that God tortures people in hell. Read how he comments the parable of Lazarus, like seventh day adventist do, rejecting the obvious implications, but from another point. He has one point in common: he believe that the classic view of hell is incompatible with the love of God, and the God of evangelicals is a cruel God, who hates his enemyes, and hipocritically tells others to love them
"But the parable of Lazarus," someone will argue. "Abraham says that there is a chasm fixed between his side and the rich manís side" (see Luke 16:19-31).
Jesus did not give this parable as a textbook on the afterlife. After all, how many Christians would want to describe heaven as "Abrahamís bosom" with Jesus himself nowhere in sight? The parable was a message to the members of the first century Jewish privileged class who rejected their Messiah, not a portrait of the resurrection life. And before we take even that further than Christ intended, remember what Paul wrote in Romans 11:32.
In the parable, donít forget, the rich man was still unrepentant. He still saw himself as Lazarusí superior. He still saw Lazarus as existing only to serve his personal needs. Maybe it is not unreasonable to think that the rich manís persistent unbelief is what kept the gulf fixed, not some arbitrary cosmic necessity. Remember, Jesus himself bridges the otherwise impassable chasm from our sinful condition to reconciliation with God. Jesus underscores this point, the point of the parableóthat salvation comes only through faith in himówhen he says, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
God is in the business of saving people, not torturing them. Jesus is Redeemer, and whether we believe it or not, he is awfully good at what he does. He is the Savior of the world (John 3:17), not the Savior of a fraction of the world. "God so loved the world" (verse 16)ónot merely one out of 1,000.
God has ways, and his ways are higher than our ways.
Jesus tells us, "Love your enemies" (Matt. 5:43). Surely we believe he loves his own enemies. Or do we believe that Jesus hates his enemies while he calls on us to love ours, and that his hatred accounts for why there is a hell? Give me a break.î
Finally I have a personal experience which makes me cautions about the idea of all persons already being in Christ. This was EJ Waggoner ideas, which gave birth to his pantheism. All are in Christ, and Christ is in all. Perhaps Iím overreacting, but what Michael Feazell said sounds very closely with the same ideas. Letís quote hism again
ÑIn short, Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation, and he draws absolutely everybody to himselfóin his way, in his time. It might help if we could get our minds around the fact that there isnít anywhere to be in the universe except in Christ, since as Paul said, nothing exists that isnít created by him and upheld by him (Col. 1:15-17). Those who finally reject him do so in spite of his love; itís not that he refuses them (he doesnítóhe loves them, died for them and forgave them), but that they refuse him.î
To be consistent, when you said that all are in Christ because Christs upheld his entire creation, you must face the fact that you cannot distinguish between the saved and the lost. Our position in Christ is not a gift who must be received by faith, itís something inherent in the structure of the universe beginning with creation, because Jesus upheld the creation from beginning. We are saved because we have been born in this world. We have never been under condamnation because we have been from the beginning under the umbrella of justification. Jesus died for all men, and all men are already justified, and not under the wrath of God.
This is in contradiction with John 3:36 ìWhoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on himî
But with this teaching you end up also in pantheism. All are in Christ and Christ is in all. The Creator is one with his creation, consequently all his creation will be saved, all people. I donít want to be caustic with Feazell, I have been in his shoes, the only difference is the fact that I didnít believe in the immortality of the soul. But the same universalist flavour has been also my share, thanks to adventist 1888 message.
Post Number: 1408
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 1:10 pm: || |
Thanks so much for posting those quotes. I have to give you credit Jackob, as one who is just processing out of Adventism, you show a lot of discernment. Actually, I have to give you the credit, as you were the one to alert me about the persistent cultic aspects of the WCG--The message is clear--You can't reform a cult!
Post Number: 3527
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 7:32 pm: || |
Thanks, Jackob. You're right, Stanóyou can't reform a cult!
I'm not in a position to say that none of those in the reformed WCG are Christians. I know that sometimes it takes a long while for people to get all their doctrines "in a line" after discovering they are saved by grace. Feazell's article, though, is condescending and overtly teaches heresy.
I'm sure that there are many who've left the WCG who are born again. In fact, I've had calls and letters from some who get Proclamation, and they do know Jesus and actively teach the new covenant. I've had them absolutely rejoicing to me about the miracle of the gospel and the wonder of Jesus.
I'm not as "concerned" about the condition of the individualsówhich at any rate I cannot see as God seesóbut I am deeply concerned about these teachings of the church itself which still lead people astray.
I really believe that when people realize they have been in a cult, they should walk away and become involved in a Christian church which is Christ-centered and focusses on Biblical expository preaching.
Post Number: 224
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 9:37 pm: || |
For the record: what is the Scriptural foundation for stating that we cannot be saved after we die?
I'm struggling through this very issue right now and I'd LOVE some guidance. I see explicit textual support for some saved and some lost (anti-Universalism), but I haven't found explicit support for stating that there is no one saved after death.
Can anyone straighten me out?
Post Number: 1409
|Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:27 pm: || |
I agree with your post. A lot of people either in WCG or ex-WCG have been born again. I am strictly judging objectively an article on their official website that was written by the producer of the famous video. The more times I read that article, the more comfortable I am with some SDA literature. This is coming from someone who was brought up in the strictest form of SDA. But Feazell's article is frightful in its scripture twisting, and condescending and mocking attitude towards other Christians. I can see the spirit of Herbert Armstrong in that, just as I see the spirit of EGW in Batchelor's writings.
It seems to me that Heb. 9:27 is very specific. "It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment." Having been tutored in the past by Walter Martin, he would say that this is an airtight argument. It means just that. It doesn't say a second chance (or a first chance) for salvation. Feazell's argument trying to get around Hebrews 9:27 is just so weak.
I have spent a lot of emotional energy and time on this article and topic. I don't know what it is that produces such a terrible visceral reaction to what he wrote, but it just seems so cultic. I am still waiting for someone to come on the forum and explain if this doctrine has any precedent in Christian theology other than the cultic theology of Armstrong.
Post Number: 1412
|Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:23 pm: || |
I need to ask another question here. What if the article posted by Jackob referred to above showed up on the official SDA web site? Somehow, I can just see everyone coming on here in protest and having a forum field day with all kinds of references from the Bible showing that the SDA church had clearly fallen into further apostasy. Already, many of us are so critical of qualified universalists like Dan Smith of the La Sierra church, and the theology of Graham Maxwell.
But because a group can so easily fool people like Hank Hanegraaf (both WCG and SDA have done that), and they are very good at deceiving people with their slick P.R. machines (This is documented on John MacArthur's associate pastor Phil Johnson's web site--and isn't it interesting that Phil Johnson classifies SDA and WCG as equally really bad theology), then why are so many evangelicals--not just former SDAs--so quickly embracing this group as just another Christian denomination? I think for former SDAs, the appeal is the fact that they gave up Sabbatarianism and Old Covenant beliefs, and at least on the surface appear New Covenant. I admit I was badly fooled by the publicity and hype surrounding their video. But then after clicking on to their website, I was in for a big shock!
There are so many similarities between SDA and WCG. I left SDA for one fundamental reason, and that is their obvious and blatant contradiction of Hebrews 9:12, where Ellen had a false vision of Jesus going into the Holiest in 1844. It is true that most SDAs admit getting this theology from EGW.
But, how could I not be a hypocrite if I accept WCG as another Christian church? This doctrine they teach that only a few people are saved before physical death, and most will be saved after they die physically is blatant Armstrongism! It contradicts directly Hebrews 9:27. Does that sound familiar? WCG says on their video that HWA was a false prophet--that is great.
But, how can it be reconciled that now eleven years after they claim to have been born again, that they still teach Armstrong's gospel, and they ridicule other Christian churches for disagreeing with them? And, again, there is good evidence to show that in 2003--eight years after claiming to be born again--they sold Armstrong's false and demonic doctrines to the Philadelphia Church of God for three million dollars! Is their a disconnect here between a beautifully produced video, and what the fruits of their actions are?
Doug Batchelor has a wonderful conversion story. He lived in caves, and was addicted to drugs and alcohol, and by all appearances, he came to know Christ. Being an emotional person, I admit that his story would bring me to tears--in the same way the WCG video brought many to tears, but the producer of that video, Feazell, wrote that terrible article above in 2001--six years after conversion, and they still refuse to take the article off their website even after Mark Martin confronted them. This story was related by Martin on FridayFAF reunion meeting when he was issuing his disclaimer about the video. The only thing that bothered me about Mark Martin's disclaimer was the fact that he stated that it brought him to tears, and even though they still teach heresy, he thought the video was worth distributing at the FAF reunion. I just respectfully disagree with him. We never measure truth by some emotional response.
Both WCG and SDA have an abusive hierarchical structure of church government.
Both WCG and SDA deny the inerrancy of scripture.
Both WCG and SDA build their gospels around contradicting two different verses in Hebrews 9. And both of these contradictions compromise the gospel and therefore make them false.
Both WCG and SDA deny the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Both WCG and SDA have fooled Hank Hanegraaf.
I remember so well the story when Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse had an emotional experience and prayed with the SDA leaders and they both came away with an article declaring SDA to be Christian. Well, Anthony Hoekema did not buy it. He included SDA in his book four major cults--by doing an objective, not emotional evaluation of SDA.
In this case, Hanegraaf (who accepts SDA, WCG, and RCC as all being Chrisian) was clearly fooled. It takes an objective Biblical scholar like Phil Johnson of the John MacArthur church to expose WCG, SDA, and RCC as all false gospels.