Archive through February 11, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Needing some references! » Archive through February 11, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Tealeaves
Registered user
Username: Tealeaves

Post Number: 280
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I found out today that one of the other moms from my sons KungFu class is an SDA. Rather, she is a cultural SDA who is unfulfilled by her church experience, and unsatusfied with the SDA schools teaching judgmentalism and fear to her kids, so she home schools.
She found out that my husband is a former Adventist and had 100 sincere questions about the Sabbath, EGW etc.
So I am hoping someone here can direct me to some references that she could look at to explain the New Covenant. Preferably something that isn't boldly anti-SDA, but just really explains new Covenant Christianity. Then, if she wants to explore further about the IJ and EGW, I could give her some references on that later on.
And pray for her. It sounds like they really aren't happy with the church they are at, and they are very uncomfortable with judgmentalism and the spirit of fear in the SDA church, but they both grew up SDA, and don't really know where else to turn.
Thanks for any suggestions.
-tanya-
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1063
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tanya,

There is a wonderful short study called "The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ" that used to be on Ariel Ministries' website, but is still available from archive.org at the following address: http://web.archive.org/web/20041021012419/http://www.ariel.org/ff00006c.html It's by a Christian Jew and only mentions Adventism once, at the beginning.

Jeremy
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1305
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tanya,
Here are two very good references on New Covenant theology. These are totally separate from any anti-SDA baggage.
www.ptitx.org/News/whatis-NTC.htm
This is the clearest statement on what it is.

For much more detail go to the website that started New Covenant Theology, and that is John Reisinger. Here is a detailed treatise at www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index047.htm

Stan
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther

Post Number: 282
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 5:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some of my favorite articles are on the WCG site. There are studies about the ot laws, and the difference in the NC, how Christ is the fulfillment of everything, and on how to live by the Spirit. The link is http://www.wcg.org/lit/

I'll be praying for her!
Tealeaves
Registered user
Username: Tealeaves

Post Number: 281
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the info guys, I'll print it out and see what depth level she might get the most from.
-tanya-
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1312
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 9:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Esther,
That link to wcg does look quite good.

But I do need to bring something up regarding the WWCG. There are those in evangelicalism who are very skeptical about how evangelical the WWCG really is. One person who seriously questions the assumption of their evangelical status is Phil Johnson, an associate pastor to John MacArthur. He runs the Spurgeon Archives at www.spurgeon.org
and he has a section on that site analyzing different groups. One section he has is called "Really Bad Theology". And he puts SDAs and WWCG in the same category still. You can read his analysis at www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/realbad.htm
You will have to scroll down as the groups are in alphabetical order. But he cites one very troubling example from the official website of the wwcg. There is an article here www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/bestnews.htm

This article says that those who die without receiving Christ will get a second chance when they die. At that time, Christ will present Himself fully, and they will have a second chance to accept Christ.

This sounds like the same old recycled universalism to me. I also hate to throw cold water on what seems and is a great story in WWCG giving up their Sabbatarianism, but this official website belief really troubles me.

Stan
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3369
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 11:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I read what Mike Feazell wrote in 2001 on that link. Actually, while I don't understand what happens at death to be the same as the way Mike explains it, still it sounds to me very similar to C.S. Lewis's description in "The Last Battle", the final book in the Chronicles of Narnia.

Lewis describes a scene in which a pagan who had earnestly served a false god but with a desire to be true and and truthful and righteous is accepted by God because, God says, "You thought it was Tash [the false god] you were serving, but really it was Me." Lewis describes the pagan's joy and love of God when he meets him and realizes this was the One whom he had desired and wanted to serve although he had never heard of him.

We can certainly pick that scenario apart, but in reality there is much we don't actually know for sure about how God intervenes in the hearts of men and women. I've come to believe that God really does reveal Himself, His real self, to those who desire Him but haven't heard of him. I'm not ready, though, to call C.S. Lewis or Mike Feaszell and the WCG "universalists" in the same way I call certain Adventist pastors I've heard "universalists".

After speaking with both Pastor General Joe Tkach and Greg Albrecht, and after seeing the video "Called To Be Free", I have absolutely no doubt about the genuineness of their conversion.

I agree that there are troubling aspects to the WCG's understanding of salvation of those who "haven't heard", but on the other hand, I suspect this view might even change as they continue to study the word of God. I notice that this statement is five years old. I don't know that they have changed in their view, but I know that in the past two years so much of my understanding has shifted as I've studied Romans.

Even if they're "off" in this area (and I suspect they are--but then, CS Lewis probably was too!), I believe God will continue to teach them. I don't believe we need to doubt their salvation or fear they're teaching a false gospel based on what I've heard them say.

That being said, this situation brings to mind one of my convictions about cultic churches or members who leave cultic churches. I believe that the healthiest thing for people to do when they discover that they've been in a cult is NOT to worship exclusively with others who have also left the cult. People retain certain blind spots, sometimes long after leaving the cult, if they don't "cross-pollinate" with Christians who have not shared their cultic background.

I have thought that perhaps the WCG might have served their members better had they completely disbanded and recommended a number of different Christian churches for them to attend, although I do not doubt their salvation or that they understand the gospel.

I know how much my own understanding of Scripture has grown as a result of hearing Gary Inrig preach from week to week and of participating in Elizabeth's inductive Bible studies. I would never have understood many aspects of the "big picture" that I see now if not for worshiping with and studying with people who did not share my background.

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1313
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 7:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,
I just re-read the article. It doesn't just say those who have never heard of Christ that can be saved after they die, it just says those who haven't accepted Christ before they die will get a second chance. Hebrews 10 says it is appointed once for every man to die and then the judgment. I don't think they are expressing CS Lewis' view. I would want to be proven wrong about this, but that article is very troubling. In fairness, what would we say if we saw an article like this on an official SDA website?

I do agree with you Colleen that a cult can't be reformed. I don't doubt the salvation of Joe Tkach, but the best thing they could do would have been to disband as you say. I would hope though that they would repudiate this article. Because how comforting it would be to hear a gospel that you have a second chance after you die.

If you go to the article and the paragraph entitled "Good News" Then you can read that it says that the gospel is good news for everybody, not just for those who receive Christ before they die, but even for those who didn't receive Christ before they die. I am sorry if I am misinterpreting this, and I am open to evidence that they no longer believe this.

Stan
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther

Post Number: 283
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 7:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,
Thanks for posting those precautions. I have to say though that the wcg site was incredibly helpful to me while processing the whole demise of Adventism. I think Iíve read most all of their articles and find very little troublingÖin at least what they print. Especially their understanding of the laws and NC applications.

I donít know if I can agree that a questionable view of death labels them heretical thoughÖor even the same as SDA. Quite frankly, I went looking for a new commentary the other day and though John McArthurs was probably the best I saw, I almost took it back after reading his commentaries on certain texts in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians. He holds to a pretty strong view of the law (10 commandments) and in all the major areas where Iíd want to reference a view of the law, he is contradictory to how I believe. This is a fundamental problem with Christian churches. It is this precise problem that allows SDAís any grounds to stand on. But even despite this view, I donít think they are heretical. While Iím looking for a new church, I would appreciate one that understands the role of the law, but if God leads me to one that doesnít, I still find them Christian.

Anyway, I do appreciate your voicing your concerns, and maybe itís just that Iím not familiar enough with universalism to see the red flags. I just have appreciated what wcg provided me when they were definitely more Christian than I was while SDA.

Blessings
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther

Post Number: 284
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 7:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just read that particular article. I do see that it has issues, and that maybe their views on death are in question. I wasnít trying to say that they had all the answers. I guess Iím just past believing that ìscholarsî who write on theology have everything right. It seems like no matter where I go for resources, I have to pick and choose, and itís just become easier to do that than question the validity of everyoneís Christianity.

Thanks again for the warning
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1314
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 9:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Esther,
I certainly wasn't reflecting on your post. Your link was very good.
I just can't see how this other article is within the pale of evangelical orthodoxy, but I am open to hear an answer.

You mentioned John MacArthur's views on the law. Actually he is very new covenant on the Sabbath. He even endorsed Dale Ratzlaff's book "Sabbath in Christ"
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther

Post Number: 285
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 9:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan
I didnít mean to be reactive or defensive. I think maybe your observations about the problems with this article are right.

I was surprised about the MacArthur things too. I thought he was the one everyone likes so well, but when I started reading he kept saying things that infer the never ending of the law. I was really perplexed. But, I could be wrong, I will have to go look again this evening.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1067
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

John MacArthur seems to believe in the "9 Commandments." It seems he believes that the 4th commandment was a ceremonial sign of the covenant and was just for Israel, but that we should keep the 9 moral commands of the 10. Sort of like how other people (including SDAs) say, "the ceremonial law was done away with, just keep the moral law, the Ten Commandments." Only MacArthur at least recognizes that the Sabbath is not a moral law.

So I guess he doesn't quite understand the New Covenant, and disagrees with Ratzlaff about the Ten Commandments being obsolete--although he does believe the Sabbath command is obsolete.

While I don't agree with his view, I really don't understand people who say that part of the Law ("the ceremonial law") was done away with and "the moral law" stands--I just don't understand these very same people criticizing people who teach the "9 commandments"--they're both teaching that part of the Law was done away with and part remains! So how can they say it is inconsistent for people to teach 9 of 10 commandments when they themselves break up the Law. They seem to think the Ten Commandments is one law, but the whole Torah is not.

I agree with Stan about that article at wcg.org--if you tell people that they don't need to believe in Jesus, then I would have to think that is a false gospel! He says that the rich man could have gone across the fixed chasm if he had repented--but 2 Peter 2:9 says that those who are in Hades are kept "under punishment for the day of judgment." It even looked like he was saying that even those who are cast into the Lake of Fire (after the judgment) will still have a chance to "get out of hell"--that the only reason they stay in hell is because they refuse Jesus' grace!

He even says that God forgave everybody before they were born and they already belong to Him and that everyone is in Christ. So no one faces the wrath of God for their sins. This is not the gospel.

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on February 09, 2006)
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 1285
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, I had the same impression of MacArthur. I recently printed out 4 or 5 articles from the site Stan had listed somewhere from the topics of sabbath and law and thought he seemed more confusing than I originally thought just reading the first article. I wondered if there was a progression in time, but haven't had time to check out the dating of the articles.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3373
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I confess I didn't read the linked article carefully. I read carefully the passage near the end where he talked about what people would experience when they died and saw Jesus and found out who He was.

Yes, I agree that there is no second chance after death, and to teach that there is is a heresy.

Actually, I found myself thinking that the underlying problem here is a lack of understanding God's sovereignty. I think that the WCG has a pretty good grasp of the essentials of salvation and that God is God and we are human. I believe, however, that the kinds of conclusions that include second chances after death stem from a lack of embracing both the reality that we can choose AND the reality that God chooses us.

If we don't hold onto the truth of God's eternal choice of us and His sovereign right to elect us at the same time we embrace the Bible's teaching about the role of human choice and Jesus' dying for the world, we arrive at heresy.

I'm reminded again of M. Scott Peck, the Christian psychiatrist's statement that truth is always a paradox (at least from our viewpoint). If we teach only half of the paradox, we teach heresy.

I believe, however, that the core of WCG is truly Christian. If we must conclude that only people with 100% correct doctrines are saved, then we would have a problem when we compare, for example, John Calvin with his view of law and Sabbath still being important and John Wesley with his strong belief in the primacy of free will. Those two were at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet I concede they were both dedicated to Christ and gave their lives in service to the gospel.

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1317
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,
Thanks for your clarification. I still have to ask you a question from your very last post. You mention John Calvin's view on law and Sabbath (and by the way, Calvin did not teach that the Sabbath was binding on Christians, he only said Sunday was a day of convenience to worship), and John Wesley (who I happen to disagree with strongly, but who still believed the gospel and is saved), but both of these men taught basically orthodox Christianity. Their gospel was believe and repent, to escape the wrath to come. There is no comparison to different views on election or Sabbatarianism, to views which teach universalism in it's most extreme sense as Jeremy pointed out above, and proclaim "Really good news", that guess what, Jesus is going to save everyone. If you don't believe it in this life, then, no problem, you get a second chance after death. Do you see what I am getting at? Different views on election will damn no one to hell, but the "gospel" as taught in that article above will definitely send people to hell, if they believe this good news.

With that article as their official statement of the gospel, how can we blame other objective evangelical scholars such as MacArthur's associate pastor for still calling WWCG a false religion. We have to applaud Phil Johnson for at least exposing Adventism in the same way.

I post this with no joy as I study in more detail the implications of the "gospel" presented above. I was excited to hear about the conversion of the top leaders away from legalism in WCG. I will now be praying in earnest that they abandon the terrible heresy of "post-mortem salvation". It may be that they no longer believe this doctrine and I pray that they have left it on their official web site by mistake. I think we have no choice but to keep their feet to the fire on this issue, and when this type of heresy is forsaken, then I will be able to recommend others to fellowship with them. But for now, I must reserve judgment, and wait for any further info on this that may be coming.

I rejoice that they have abandoned Sabbatarianism, and God may be doing a great work there. My prayer is that He complete this great work, and bring them to a better understanding of the true gospel.

Stan
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1069
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 8:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Did John Wesley really teach the gospel? Here is what he taught:


quote:

"God does undoubtedly command us both to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; which if we willingly neglect, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all: therefore both repentance, and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification. But they are not necessary in the same sense with faith, nor in the same degree. Not in the same degree; for those fruits are only necessary conditionally; if there be time and opportunity for them. Otherwise a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross[...]

It is incumbent on all that are justified to be zealous of good works. And there are so necessary, that if a man willingly neglect them, he cannot reasonably expect that he shall ever be sanctified; he cannot grow in grace, in the image of God, the mind which was in Christ Jesus; nay, he cannot retain the grace he has received; he cannot continue in faith, or in the favor of God."

--http://www.godrules.net/library/wsermons/wsermons43.htm




That doesn't sound much better than Ellen's gospel to me.

Jeremy
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1321
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It looks like Jeremy has caught me in an inconsistent statement above (smiley).

Yes, Jeremy, you are so right about John Wesley. And even though I believe he was saved (as does Charles Spurgeon, the great Calvinist who said that even though he abhorred Wesley's doctrine, Wesley was a greater saint than he was), but this is why it is so important to examine Adventism's roots in Wesleyan Arminianism. Arminianism was started by Catholics influencing James Arminius who then influenced John Wesley. Wesley developed heretical doctrines like perfectionism which Ellen White adopted, and Jeremy illustrated it so well above. This is why I am a Calvinist. There can be no mixing of grace and works. Salvation is all of grace.

But this does not mean that those who disagree with Calvinism are lost. There are many great people of God who were followers of John Wesley, and that is the point I was making above.

Well I was alerted by email today of an equivalent group to FAF that consists of former members of the Worldwide Church Of God, and is a support group for them. Some of you may find this interesting www.exitsupportnetwork.com You will find many similarities between former SDAs and former WCG. These folks also don't buy in to any idea that WCG is now evangelical. They are very similar to us who are upset that Walter Martin was deceived by SDAs, and they are saying that Hank Hanegraaf was duped by the deceptive tactics of the WCG leaders. Certainly the proof of this is the article posted above about a second chance at conversion after dying.

Stan
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 287
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan - That is an interesting link. I found these points interesting:

ALL BIBLE-BASED DECEPTIVE, EXPLOITIVE CULTS:

Say the leader is the "Elijah," "Apostle" "That Prophet," etc.

Preach that God's Kingdom or a New World is coming soon

Tell their members that they are the special "elect"

Proclaim that their "church" is the only one that has the "truth"

Use much fear, guilt, threats and phobia indoctrination to keep the members obeying and to keep them from leaving

Have "black and white" thinking and see situations as all good or all bad; a "blessing" or a "curse"

Believe that they are being "persecuted" if someone criticizes their group

Often states that "the end is near" with a focus on end time prophecies

All or Nothing Statements (from those that have "the truth")

They included Ellen White:

Ellen G. White - Co-founder of Seventh day Adventism:

"In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone."

Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1077
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I agree that there may be many great people of God who were followers of John Wesley, but I do have to wonder about those such as Wesley himself who teach people a false gospel, in light of Galatians 1:6-9.

I definitely agree that disagreeing with Calvinism doesn't mean a person is lost. In fact, many many Arminian, or Arminian-leaning, Christians do believe in justification by faith alone, and they do not mix faith with works for salvation as Wesley did. Many Arminian-leaning Christians (such as Baptists, etc.) even believe in eternal security.

That link to the former WCG site is very interesting, Stan. Thanks for sharing it.

I especially found this page to be very interesting: http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/holding.htm

It looks like Armstrong is the one who taught the "salvation after death" doctrine--and they have held onto it.

They have renounced a lot of Armstrong's teachings, though, even though they say he was a great Christian and won't say they used to be a cult. So I would still say that there is more reason to call Adventism a cult (they still say EGW is an authoritative source of truth), although it looks like the WCG has remained deceptive. It would be like if the SDA church made huge changes, but if it was like the WCG we would still call them a cult, probably. But what I'm saying is that Adventism hasn't even made any changes to their doctrines, and yet Christians still won't call it a cult!

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on February 11, 2006)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration