Post Number: 1011
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 6:36 pm: || |
Thanks Jeremy for that reference. Walter Martin, who I knew personally and even called in prescriptions for him once in awhile, did admit to Robert Morey one week before he died that he had been deceived and even lied to. He said that he should have never moved SDA from the kingdom of the cults. Unfortunately, there is poor documentation for this, as I only have Robert Morey's word and possible Doug Hackleman's statement. Unfortunately Hank Hanegraf has continued in the same vein of defending Adventism from its cult title. However, I recently heard Craig Hawkins who used to work for Dr. Martin say on a recent radio program that traditional Adventism with its belief in the I.J. and the authority of EGW as equal authority to the Bible is cultic. He went on to say that he doubted that those who hold to the 1844 hoax and IJ doctrine were truly saved. So there is some progress. Yes, I agree, obfuscation is a great word to summarize what these clever leaders have done.
Post Number: 446
|Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:12 pm: || |
Stan, you said, "I recently heard Craig Hawkins who used to work for Dr. Martin say on a recent radio program that traditional Adventism with its belief in the I.J. and the authority of EGW as equal authority to the Bible is cultic."
My strong opinion is that is the historic branch of Seventh-day Adventism which is properly termed a cult.
"Liberal" or "Evangelical" Adventism, such as that which permeates the Southern California area isn't really Seventh-day Adventism at all. Ellen White would be rolling over in her grave if she knew the goings-on within these "progressive" Seventh-day Adventist churches. They are SDA in name alone.
Post Number: 2931
|Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:50 pm: || |
True, Freeatlast--but what even they don't understand is that they are "owned" by Adventism. Even though they are not traditional, they do not experience the freedom of the gospel or the glory of a sovereign God.
If one were to ask them why they don't just go to church on Sunday--they might not be equipped to give a good answer, but they wouldn't be able to do it. They still believe they must cling to their belief in Sabbath or be guilty of rejecting God.
Further, although they distance themselves from Ellen, even claiming they don't need her, don't read her, don't "believe" all her stuff--their world view is still shaped by her, even if they don't know it.
I see So Cal Adventists as somewhat parallel with the Reformed Chruch of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. They have WAY backed of from traditional Mormonism, teach much more about Jesus, reject much of Joseph Smith's heritage, etc. They have really tried to appear more Christian. but are they still Mormon?
You bet. The same spirit claims them.
What I have seen in So Cal Adventists is that they know the concept of grace, and they often embrace what they know of it. What they don't know, however, is the justice of a sovereign God, and that lack dilutes even the grace they claim to understand.
They don't believe in the traditional IJ, but they do believe they are vindicating God to the questioning universe, and part of their vindication of God is honoring in their hearts (if not in their behavior) the Sabbath which is their "proof" of loyalty. They are equally loyal to the SDA church as those in the midwest enclaves. They do feel free to criticize the church, but let anyone around them LEAVE, and they close ranks. They believe the Bible is NOT inerrant (or, if they claim it is, they claim that God intended for those "mistakes" and "errors" to be there). They believe that Paul, especially, is difficult to understand, and his instructions must be filtered and adapted for today.
Even though they distance themselves from traditional Adventism, they also distance themselves from anyone who leaves the fold. They feel betrayed and confused just as surely as do those who are traditional.
There's something at work besides their declarations of belief. There's an identity that is bigger than official doctrines!
Post Number: 448
|Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 9:19 am: || |
A longer chain is still bondage.
Post Number: 1024
|Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:01 pm: || |
Belva referred earlier on this thread to Revival Sermons where many of us here on FAF used to post. That same thread Belva referred to is still active at www.revivalsermons.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=11493 which gets you to page 9 of that thread. It is unbelievable where Walk in the Light, (or rather walk in the dark) aka real name Larry Wicklund. Anyway, he is getting stronger on his antitrinitarian theology. Go to page 10 of that thread, and he actually says that to believe in the Trinity is to believe in the doctrine of Satan. He believes that Jesus is a created being. But the most interesting thing is that he affirms Jeremy's point that EGW was not Trinitarian in her beliefs. However a guy named Dedication keeps quoting EGW that she did believe in the Trinity. Very interesting discussion that is a must read to understand the cultic mentality of SDA traditionalists. I remember when we were posting, I thought I detected anti-trinitarian strains and confronted Colporteur and WITL, and they would never give me a straight answer. However, what is interesting, Pastor O'Ffill is now starting to confront this guy on his anti-trinitarian beliefs, and he is starting to sound more evangelical than he did before, as he is strongly affirming the Trinity, and the un-fallen nature of Christ. He seems to have changed just a little bit from before and if that is true, he deserves some credit. I find this very interesting to follow for those that followed those conversations we had last spring.
Post Number: 760
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:05 am: || |
Like you, I occasionally lurk on the site just because I'm curious to see if there is any growth going on and have been enheartened to see Pastor O'Ffill standing up to the traditionalists like Walks-In-The-Light. I'm also proud to see that a couple who post on this site have been able to remain under the radar and are continuing to post the truth via Scriptural references on their mostly Red Book site. Those individuals know who they are, but I refuse to rat them out by naming them. You never know who from there might be lurking here.
I say, lurk away. The people posting on this site have only one agenda, and that is to keep our focus on fulfillment of all the scriptures in Jesus. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to converse with so many people who are "Sold Out" to Jesus and who love his word. You people have helped me to keep my focus on the important things, namely bragging about what Jesus has done, and the fact that we don't need to put our trust and hope in a list of do's and don'ts--all of our doingness will get us nowhere, but our trust needs to rest on the completed work of savation through Jesus Christ. He is my Sabbath rest, my salvation through his death and resurrection, and one day soon I will stand at his right side because by faith I know that my salvation is secure. My Jesus has been the "first goer" and the "finisher" of my faith. He is the Alpha and the Omega. Forever, He is the Great I Am. From eternity to eternity, He is. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Post Number: 2030
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:33 am: || |
I, too, lurk on the R/S website. I have seen those who uphold the Bible and Jesus and I, too, will not rat on them. When I read all the stuff EGW wrote that is quoted there, it starts to sound confusing and I stop. I do not want to get pulled back into confusion.
God has a hold of me now and He is my everything. Jesus is my Sabbath Rest, everyday. I am so thankful for that. As Belva wrote, "He is the Alpha and Omega. Forever, He is the Great I Am. From eternity to eternity, He is." AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
He is so awesome.
Post Number: 761
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:09 am: || |
Please join me in prayer for "Dedication" as he posts on R/S with regard to the relationship between the Father and the Son as defined in scripture. He makes it clear that Jesus is "The Lamb Slain From The Foundation Of The World," and that Jesus was one with the Father in all things until the moment he was "begotten" of woman. That was the moment he became "The Son."
From what I've read so far, Dedication has a clear and true handle on the concept of The Trinity. He is locking horns with Walks-In-The-Light and our old friend Colporteur. Colporteur, due to his background of being formerly a Catholic, seems to have some difficulty accepting and using certain terms (like "The Trinity") simply because they are terms that were originally coined within the framework of Catholicism. WITL is obviously fearful of everything Catholic. He is the first to accuse people of being apostate or Jesuit. His responses feel almost superstitious, at least that is my take.
Anyway, I will always pray that clarity will have sway at R/S, so pray for Dedication as he is fighting the good fight. I don't think he/she will be banned from the site for taking the stand that he has because Pastor O'Ffill is pro-Trinitarianism, but when the discussions get edgy like this, the champions of Biblical faith that are posting on that site tend to get their wings clipped. The Truth needs to be available to those who are languishing within Adventism, and R/S is as good a place as any for this to happen.
Post Number: 1060
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:05 am: || |
For what it's worth, I think the KJV translation of monogenes (monogenes) as "begotten" in connection with Christ is an unfortunate mistranslation. Context dictates meaning. For example, in the context of John 3:16 "monogenes" is used to emphasize the uniqueness of Christ. In this context it means ýthe one and onlyţ or ýthe unique oneţ ˝ mono: ýoneţ and genes: ýof a kindţ. Nearly all modern translations (with the exception of the NASB which deliberately pays homage to the language of the KJV) translate ýmonogenesţ as ýone and onlyţ. So to argue over what ýbegottenţ means is the wrong argument. ItÝs irrelevant since itÝs a translation. What we need to examine is what the word ýmonogenesţ meant to the author and the readers. Rightly understood, there is no problem at all with applying the word ýmonogenesţ to Christ at anytime, before or after the incarnation.
Post Number: 1015
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:30 pm: || |
Wow, I just took a look at the thread on RS, and Larry Lyons is way more upset with "guibox" for supposedly not believing in EGW and 1844 than he is with those who are attacking the Trinity. This shows what is most important to them: Ellen. She's even more important than God Himself, according to how SDAs will tolerate people attacking Jesus/God, but NOT dear "goddess Ellen." WOW!
And it looks like most of the others are tolerating it, too. Even O'Ffill is not banning Walk or making him stop, even though he said that attacking the doctrines of the church is not permitted. We'll see whether he'll let him keep posting or whether he'll ban him. So far, it looks like he cares more when EGW is attacked than when the Trinity is attacked!
I was a little surprised to see that O'Ffill does not believe in the sinful nature of Christ. But once again, even those Adventists which don't believe in it, tolerate this horrible heresy, and yet won't tolerate those who don't believe in EGW!
"sdazeal" mentioned a certain quote from EGW, so I looked it up. It seems like maybe I had seen this (or something similar) before, but...WOW!
"If man has in any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ, then Christ is not able to succor him when tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man capable of yielding to temptation and with the same aid that men may obtain, he withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered the same as we may conquer. . . . For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength and deteriorating in moral worth, and in order to elevate fallen man Christ must reach him where he stood. He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might sympathize with man and rescue him from the degradation into which sin had plunged him." (General Conference Daily Bulletin, 02-05-1893, "Extract From 'Temptations of Christ'," paragraph 1.)
Did you see that?! Ellen G. White said that JESUS had a deteriorated moral worth!!!
I also take the SOP quote that he inherited all the liabilities of fallen man, including "moral worth", at face value as well.
Why not call it what it is, BLASPHEMY, and REJECT Ellen G. White as a dangerous false prophet?!
(Message edited by Jeremy on November 21, 2005)
Post Number: 1016
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:45 pm: || |
Also notice that EGW defeats her own argument!
First, she says, "If man has in any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ, then Christ is not able to succor him when tempted."
But then she says, "For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength and deteriorating in moral worth..."
So if we have been affected by SIX thousand years of degeneration (as opposed to merely FOUR thousand years), then we would have "a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ"!!
Once again, EGW just makes no sense.
And God is NOT the Author of confusion!
EDIT: Thinking Ellen's statement through some more about "moral worth"--this would mean that anyone who lived before Christ (less than four thousand years of degeneration) had MORE "moral worth" than Jesus! Again, what utter blasphemy!!
(Message edited by Jeremy on November 21, 2005)
Post Number: 762
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:19 pm: || |
I thought I had posted this already, but it is not there. Chris, thank you for that translation! Actually "The One And Only" is such a wonderful way of looking at our Savior. He is a never before, never again person who was forever before and is forever again and forevermore. Given that as a description, every individual in the Godhead is described.
Jeremy, I also loved your mention of the irony of Ellen White contradicting herself all within the same paragraph. If you could graphically describe her double-speak, it would be a Mobious Strip! Nope, that is too orderly. Doesn't it make you wonder how and why people have been willing to swallow that tripe for so long?
Post Number: 16
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:50 pm: || |
I have been following that thread for several days. I could not believe it when those expressing anti-Trinitarian beliefs were defended as 'loving God's church' while the brother who was crying the alarm against this heresy was denounced as one who wanted to tear down the church because he questioned EGW and thought 1844 was a non-event.
I knew Pastor O'Ffill was in trouble the minute I read that he believes Christ had Adam's pre-fall nature...
I am ashamed to say it, but I used to believe that Christ had Adam's fallen nature, just as many on that board believe. Praise God I no longer believe that confused doctrine!
It really makes me wonder when Christians can spend so much time arguing about something like the Trinity just because 1) the RCC believes it, and 2) the majority of SDA pioneers did not...
Post Number: 487
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:52 pm: || |
Jeremy said, "Also notice that EGW defeats her own argument!"
Now, Jeremy, (he said, voice dripping with mock condescension) have you forgotten "the rules?!?"
If HRH EGW says "this" then later says "not this", you DO NOT call that "confusion."
Here is what you do:
When you want to claim that SDA's are "just the same as . . .", pick the one that agrees, then use it to dispute an claims about the other.
When someone uses that one against SDA's, use the other to dispute the first.
Post Number: 1017
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:58 pm: || |
Wow, I hadn't seen that "sdazeal" also denies that Jesus is eternal. I wonder how many SDAs believe that? Then again, I guess it was the official SDA belief until 1980.
And I just saw this very telling quote from "sdazeal":
She [EGW] did, however, say that the foundation of this church was formed in the first fifty years. The acceptance of the trinity as a fundamental belief came thirty years after that original fifty year study.
That is why I do not judge the Jehovah's Witnesses as being any worse off than the Evangelicals. To me, Presbyterians are just as cultic (Calvinites?) as JWs (Russelites).
Post Number: 364
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:15 pm: || |
The nature of Christ debate was one of the first major cracks in the armor for my acceptance of SDA theology. I had joined the SDA church believing that QOD was an accurate and accepted presentation of SDA doctrine and that the SDA views of Christ and His atonement were consistent with other Protestant views. It wasn't even so much that I learned about the controversy over Christ's nature, but the fact that such a divergent range of views was considerable acceptable within SDAism at the same time that little or no range of views was acceptable in doctrinal areas that were far less important and far less clear in Scripture (like alcohol consumption or the gift of tongues or what type of music is acceptable in worship). This mixed up set of priorities really troubled me. If there was one doctrine I would think was non-negotiable it would be the nature of God.
Post Number: 1025
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:22 pm: || |
I want to make one correction to what I said above, and I thank Greg for pointing out this discussion again and for the correction. The real name of Walk in the Dark (or light?) is Dennis Wicklund, and not Larry as I said above.
Ric_b, that is the rub with Walter Martin and Barnhouse and QOD. They were deceived, and Martin told Morey just before he died, that it was the nature of Christ argument that was misrepresented to him.
Post Number: 9
|Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:34 pm: || |
This thread at R/S is interesting as Dedication is a dyed in the wool Adventist- a pastors wife and church school teacher. She posts quit often on the atomorrow board as Ulrike You can check her website by going thru her profile at R/S.
Post Number: 451
|Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:50 am: || |
Sounds like he Walks In the Lesser Light to me.
Post Number: 764
|Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:01 am: || |
Did any of you notice sdazeal's reminder, or assertion, that as Adventists they believe Jesus to be the Archangel Michael. This means, according to sdazeal, that Christ's existence can predate the creation of the earth, but not necessarily predate the existence of God the Father, thus allowing for the Father/Son relationship.
Please understand that the paragraph I just wrote was difficult even to write, much less believe. At one time, while Adventist, I tried to convince myself that Jesus could be Michael and not really be an angel, that he could be the eternal one and yet hold the position of Head of all the angels. The term Archangel would thus only be an honorarium. I praise God that I've escaped that twisted thinking. I'm definitely praying for Dedication and for sdazeal. Zeal, most of the time, sounds like he/she has a better handle on Biblical truth, but in this one regard is solidly welded into Adventist thinking.
Walks-In-The-Light hasn't changed his MO since my first encounter with him. He would have been a good Nazi because he attacks first and thinks later. He is deeply prejudiced against anything Catholic; never mind that all of Christianity has its roots in Catholicism. It would be big mistake to throw out each and every doctrine held just because at one time the Catholic Church held to that doctrine. The Bereans had it right, trust to everything, but test it against the scriptures. If a theory doesn't pass that test, then throw it out.
Let's continue to pray for these people. This thread, by its very nature, is a wake-up call for the traditional Adventists and may provide a chink in their Adventist armor. I feel the Spirit of God on this discussion going on over there. He loves these people and is reaching out to them.