| Author | Message | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 140 Registered: 7-2003 |
I just got my Christianbook.com catalog today and noticed that ìKingdom of the Cultsî has been revised and is now edited by Ravi Zacharias. Has anyone see it? Iím curious if they updated the extensive section on Adventism, especially since it was so soft before. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 187 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'v had the same question. I'm eagerly awaiting the answer. | ||
| Dennisrainwater Registered user Username: Dennisrainwater Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2000 |
ME TOO!! | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2003 |
If someone gets the latest edition I'd also be curious to know if a section has been added on Oneness Pentacostals yet. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 141 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here's the index: (source Christianbook.com look up the book name and it has some excerpts) 1. The Kingdom of the Cults 2. Scaling the language barrier 3. the psychological structure of cultism 4. Jehovah's witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 5. Christian Science 6. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) 7. Spiritism - the Cult of Antiquity 8. The Theosophical society (gnosticism) 9. Buddhism - classical, zen and nichiren shoshu 10. the Baha'i Faith 11. Unitarian Universalism 12. Scientology 13. the unification church 14. eastern religions 15. the new age cult 16. islam - the message of muhammad 17. the cults on the world mission field 18. the jesus of the cults 19 cult evangelism - mission field on your doorstep 20. the road to recovery. appendix section a. the world wide church of God - from cult to Christianity b. the puzzle of 7th day adventism c. swedenborgianism d. rosicrucianism bibliography scripture index subject index I read through the intro online and it didn't mention oneness pentacostals specifically. | ||
| Madelia Registered user Username: Madelia Post Number: 46 Registered: 2-2003 |
I just glanced through it at my local Christian book store and I didn't see anything new in the SDA section | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 28 Registered: 9-2003 |
Perhaps some of you knowledgeable falk should collaborate on an article about the culty aspects of Adventism, and send it off to the editor with a suggestion that he incorporate it in the next edition. From my inexpert outsider view, the most disturbing part of Adventism is its hostility toward other sects, esp. its conviction that the SDA church is the one true remnant church, and that all those who worship Jesus Christ our Lord on Sunday are dupes of the devil (how oxymoronic is THAT ?  ). That, coupled with the extreme pressure put on those who attempt to leave the SDA church, as represented in this forum... justify the cult label to me. | ||
| Rochelleradclif Registered user Username: Rochelleradclif Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2003 |
I wonder if there isn't some confusion in the Christian community as to what the term "cult" means. Since the term isn't in the Bible, it is hard for people to decide which religion should have that label. Is Catholicism a cult because it teaches things that contradict the gospel? I'm realizing that if I consider Adventism a cult because of Ellen White teaching that adds to the gospel, wouldn't I also have to consider Catholicism a cult because it teaches things that add to the gospel? I don't know anyone who considers Catholicism to be a cult, and maybe people are avoiding giving Adventism that label for the same reason. Is a religion a cult based on the gospel it preaches or is a religion a cult only when it denies the deity or humanity of Jesus Christ? As far as I'm concerened, believing that Jesus is the Messiah based on the Bible, but allowing other books or other people to determine what the gospel message involves is still deadly so far as that person's salvation is concerned. If feeling that Adventism is a cult will cause other Christians to become more sensitive to the spiritual needs of Adventists, then it is better to see Adventism as a cult, but if the term cult causes other Christians to argue with former Adventists about the term instead of discerning the needs of Adventist people in their lives, then it would be better, I believe, to deal with what the gospel is and is not based on the Bible and avoid using the term cult in the discussion. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2003 |
Rochelle, I've had the same thoughts. I personally see Catholicism as a cult also; it has an extra-biblical authority, and it also reverences Mary and even sees her as a sort-of demi-goddess. Did you know that to Catholics, the "virgin birth", which I always thought referred to Jesus' birth, refers to MARY? They came up with the explanation that in order for Jesus to be sinless and also her son, she had to have been conceived and born to a virgin. The Catholic church has such a long history and presence in the world, I'm sure most people would have trouble seeing it as a cult. It does, however, down-grade Jesus, exalts Mary to an interceesory position, and has a living Vicar of Christ on earth whose word is seen as God's word on earth. It also puts great pressure on its members not to leave and teaches the necessity of works for salvation. In my mind, it's a cult, and it does not teach the true gospel. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 190 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rochelle, this is a sticky topic becasue there really are no universally accepted definitions for the terms "cult", "sect", and "denomination". However, for a well (if not universally) accepted Christian definiton of a cult I would reference the standard text which is the book we've been discussing "Kingdom of the Cults" (KOTC). In KOTC, Dr. Walter Martin cites Dr. Charles Braden: "By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any grop so classified. A cult, as I dfine it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expresions of religion in our total culture." Martin goes on to add "that a cult might also be dfined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's mininterpretation of the Bible." This latter definition seems to be the primary definition used within KOTC. In the chapter on SDAs, Martin admits that if SDAs really believed that EGW was an authoratative source for doctrine on the same par with the Bible, then they would indeed be a cult. Martin concludes, based on information given to him by a small group of SDA representatives, that SDAs do not believe this. I leave it to you to decide if by and large they do or not. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 191 Registered: 7-2003 |
After posting I thought that rather than paraphrasing Martin's thought I would do well to take the time to find the actual quote. It can be found on pg. 551 of the 1997 edition of KOTC. Here it is: "If Seventh-day Adventists did indeed claim for White inspiration in every area of her writings, then we might well be cautious about having fellowship with them. However, this they do not do..." So what do you think? Did you grow up thinking that EGW's writings were authoritative in the areas she addressed: Diet, health, the testimonies, Biblical interpretation, end time events, Christian living, etc????? | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 29 Registered: 9-2003 |
I try very hard to respect the Catholic church, on the theory that God must have blessed the institution, given how many Catholics there are! That said, I have trouble with Mary's virgin birth. She MUST have been perfect, for Jesus to be perfect? Not necessary with MY God, with whom all things are possible. And if a child's perfection demands the parent's perfection, doesn't that imply that Mary's mother was perfect, and HER mother, and HER mother (etc)? We have to recurse the perfect back to Eve! It doesn't make sense. - Hoytster | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 9 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, Thanks for the quote from KOTC about Ellen White's "...inspiration in every area of her writings..." Indeed, Dr. Martin was deceived by the SDA apologists into thinking that EGW's writings were not completely viewed as inspired. Truly, no devout SDA would discard even the smallest of her books. On the other hand, SOLEMN APPEAL(1870) and APPEAL TO MOTHERS (1864) may be two notable exceptions for some embarrassed SDA readers. Officially, however, the SDA Church claims that all her writings are "inspired" whether published, unpublished, no longer being published, plagiarized, etc. Yes, to Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen White's writings are authoritative in every topic that she addressed. Her strange views are best characterized as being fanatical and/or overly obsessive. The product of a troubled mind. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2003 |
So true. I grew up believing EGW was inspired in the same way the Bible writers were inspired. I know my devout family members would never discard one word she wrote. Martin was indeed deceived. I think it;s significant that the Andrews press has republished Questions on Doctrine. Martin used to urge the church to republish it to confirm their insistence that they were part of evanglelical Christianity, but they wouldn't do it for years. Two things about this republishing seem significant; one is that it is not being published by an "official" church publishing house. It is published by the university--a fact which could give the church a loophole to claim the book is "unofficial". The second thing is that in the publicity put out by the church re: the book, it suggests that a few changes have been made. Exactly what those changes are I do not know. As Richard has so often said, the church is a moving target. No sooner do people focus on a problem they see than the church changes things to "fix" the problem. The core, however, remains the same. Colleen | ||
| Gatororeo7 Registered user Username: Gatororeo7 Post Number: 120 Registered: 4-2002 |
But isn't Andrews officially SDA sponsored therefore making the book official? Joel London | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 10 Registered: 4-2000 |
Joel, An SDA college or university press has a much lower status than a denominational publishing house. Although the Andrews University Press is fully Adventist, it is a significant notch away from being on par with a regular denominational publishing house. For example, the official SDA Church does not have representatives on the editorial or book department and/or committee of a college press. Also, many college presses are operated largely to help train pressmen, editors, writers, etc. Therefore, based on previous experience, the SDA apologists could likely say that QOD book was not officially sanctioned or commissioned by official Adventism. The SDA apologists of yesteryear stated that the book, QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, was not mandated or approved by the General Conference in session. This is the only official way that any doctrine can be changed or amended in Adventism. Actually, this technicality is correct according to their by-laws. Of course, Dr. Walter Martin and his Evangelical team were not aware that the the QOD was not official despite being written by the General Conference Ministerial Association. There are only two kinds of Adventists; namely, the deceived and the dishonest. Certainly, the SDA apologists will jump through many hoops if it will result in a favorable outcome for their PR machine. Remember that Dr. Walter Martin was a young, inexperienced cult watcher in the mid-1950s. He was an easy prey for the more seasoned GC leadership team. The bottom line is that the GC negotiating team knew what words and phrases the Evangelicals were looking for. They simply told them what they wanted to hear. Thus, they plainly lied in order to get off the cult list. The truth is that nothing was changed officially. This technical maneuver was used to quickly demote and discontinue publishing the QOD book. Sadly, the Adventists won the whole scenario by deception. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 57 Registered: 3-2004 |
They call themselves Christians and they lie so blatantly. Wouldn't this fall under the commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?" And they say we should keep the commandments, or do they mean only the 4th one??? I am being sarcastic and I apologize. It just puzzles me because so many people believe what the SDA church teaches. But then again it should not as they are human beings just like me and will make errors and will sin. Only they will not admit their error. Diana | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 322 Registered: 7-2003 |
I have often wondered if it was just B or a cultural aspect as well...I call it the symantical tightrope. If you ask a question, and don't word it just right, even if he knows what you mean, he will answer the question without really giving the information that is sought. An exaggerated example is: "Is the book on the chair?" answer "no". Now the book is on the footstool, but he has been honest in his answer to the question in his mind without giving me the information I'm really looking for which is .... "where is the book?" So, it's hard to trust conversations with him. He takes bearing false witness against your neighbor to literally mean in a court type environment and what he says about "Sunday keepers" and "Catholics", whether true or not, is not really bearing false witness against your neighbor. It is a symantical nightmare. I have tried doing it in reverse to see if he likes the outcomes, but I'm not that good at it and feel very dishonest since I know what he's asking. Yet, he always justifies his motives and his means. I understand the sarcasm, Diana. It's a form of speech I use to make points as well. Like I said, i don't know if it's B or a cultural aspect that tries to hide information for whatever reasons. Whatever it is, it seems dishonest by omission. | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 48 Registered: 7-2000 |
Melissa, I know exactly what you mean. I can give a really good example. "How much did you drink?" "I had a beer." (But this doesn't tell me how BIG the beer was). It's amazing what a deceitful web a person can weave with words...Some are masters at manipulation. Debbie | ||
| Debandhenry Registered user Username: Debandhenry Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2004 |
WOW, I have that book also, I got mine in June 1998, only 6 months after being baptized into the church. "The puzzle of Seventh-Day Adventists" Pg.'s 517-608. I was amazed that way back then we knew something was amiss but had to go through to get out and be free. I do not agree with the finding that this is not a cult, they "White Washed" the summorization of the SDA based on the false answeres given to the questions on the 17 Fundmentals of their doctrine. On page 518 middle page Quote "SDA today is much more a "church" than a "cult." How it maintains its status over the coming years will be determinded by how it continues to respond to the major tenets of orthodoxy while retaining it distinctives in minor areas. The questions they asked were addressed by the former vice-president of the GC on April 29, 1983. His answers were not the doctrines we were taught just b/4 our baptism in 1997. They did not change the thinking (rules)on EGW, Remnant, Death, Mark of the Beast etc. only reinforced this over and over with their bibles verses backing it up in each of the 3 churches we were members of in 3 different states and all 3 the same song! As my husband, a smart man says, "White behind, God forward!" I ditto your thoughts Debbie "Some are masters at manipulation". The book also has an excellent article on the "Word Faith" movement which I found educational, I was unaware of their true doctrine also, we really do need to watch for the wolves in sheep skins. God Bless, Deb | ||
| Kme Registered user Username: Kme Post Number: 45 Registered: 7-2000 |
I heard at our former church that the definition of a cult was generally considered to be a religious group not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity of which they did not! And I thought they said that originated with Dr. Martin, which is considered to be the leading authority on such assessments. They also said, and I believe I later confirmed, that the original beliefs of the SDA church were that they did not agree with the teaching of the Trinity doctrine and it was in effort to get the SDA church to be thought of as a mainstream Christian church that they in later years (more recent) accepted this and adopted the Trinity doctrine. FYE: The word trinity is not found in the KJV of the Bible. The capitalization of the pro-noun He in connection with the Holy Spirit is the arguement that was used against us to justify the Trinitarian teaching that there are 3 persons or PHYSICAL beings that make up the Godhead. (This was not an SDA church we were attending.) I certainly don't proclaim to be that well-versed in these subjects. Some of you theologians feel free to jump in here. I would really like to know. Kme | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 336 Registered: 7-2003 |
KME, the argument that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible is *EXTREMELY* weak to say the least. The word "Escatology" does not appear in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean that the return of Christ is not taught throughout scripture. We use many technical theological terms that are not found in the Hebrew or Greek as a short of short-hand for the concepts that are so clearly taught in scripture. If necessary, I am happy to post scripture on what the Bible teaches about the trinitarian nature of God, but in the interest of time, let me summarize the key tenants that the Bible teaches: 1) There is only one God. 2) The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. 3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally personally distinct. The term "Trinity" mearly summarizes these truths that are taught in many ways in many places throughout scripture. To deny the doctrine of the Trinity is deny one or more of these great truths clearly taught in scripture. | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 64 Registered: 7-2000 |
Kme, There is one specific place in scripture that pretty pointedly refers to the trinity (there are actually many more that directly imply as well), but this one scripture, I believe, is particularly compelling. It is in 1 John 5:7 (NKJV): "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (Remember that in John 1:1-2 it says "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." ?) And then in John 1:14 it says that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." ?) And then there's the time when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and the holy spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and God the father spoke to him--so you have biblical record of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit simultaneously present: Matthew 3:16-17: "When he had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'" (see also Luke 3:22 and Mark 1:10-11). There are many other references, but these are the easiest to find. Hope this helpful, Kme. Debbie | ||
| Kme Registered user Username: Kme Post Number: 46 Registered: 7-2000 |
This gets pretty deep. But I had always thought of the Holy Spirit as God's Spirit or God's thoughts being put into our mind. I really don't expect to see a 3rd physical being present in Heaven standing next to Jesus and God if you will. When I first realized the differences in these teachings, I was somewhat suprised by them. Being a "cradle" Adventist, I had not REALLY studied the Bible. But somewhere along the way had accepted teaching or just thought that the Holy Spirit was just that. His Spirit being one with God in mind. I don't question for a minute that it's possible for God to project, if you will, His Spirit in any form such as a dove or burning bush or thoughts that are not physically visible. Anyway, the text 1 John 5:7 is the most compelling to me for validating the Trinitarian donctrine. However, I'm still not sure that I believe that they are three separate physical beings like we think of. I hope I'm making sense. I'm going to use a very loose example, please don't take it the wrong way. I just don't think that when I meet the Godhead face to face that I will be able to hug three different beings. I think there will only be two. Yet I firmly believe that God speaks to us through His Spirit or thoughts, the Holy Spirit. Kme | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 339 Registered: 7-2003 |
Although I am a strong advocate for the Biblical Trinitarian view of God, I would gently advise against using the KJV or NKJV versions of 1 John 5:7 to support the doctrine. This text does not exist in this form in any extant Greek manuscript. It was added under duress to a Latin translation. The KJV translators merely followed the Latin manuscripts at this point. Modern tranlations based on the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts read as follows: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8 (NASB) This in no way invalidates the doctrine of the Trinity because the truths I outlined above are taught througout scripture. I really like your citation of Matt. 3:16-17. This verse really highlights the eternal personal distinctions within the Godhead. Chris | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 66 Registered: 7-2000 |
Chris, Yes, and Matt 3:16-17 is repeated, like I mentioned above, specifically in two other gospels, Luke 3:22 and Mark 1:10-11. Debbie |
