Archive through April 09, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » CULTIC SIMILARITIES » Archive through April 09, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 647
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The comparison of Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910) is a most eye-opening study. The following is a short list of their commonalities:

(1) Both women wrote that the Bible is a sufficient guide to eternal life.

(2) Both women suffered ill health and physical frailty during much of their lives.

(3) Both women grew up in New England.

(4) Both women were founders of a unique, new religion; namely, the Church of Christ, Scientist and the Seventh-day Adventist churches.

(5) Both women benefited immensely from their writings in a financial manner.

(6) Both women left a legacy of a large publishing empire.

(7) Both women were deprived of early formal education due to poor health.

(8) Both women still have publications that are revered by millions around the world--one is considered the "Pastor" and the other as the "Spirit of Prophecy." Both are read from the pulpit regularly and studied passionately by their devotees.

(9) Both women employed numerous staffers (i.e., secretaries, gardener, carriage operator, assistants, cook, etc.). EGW had 16 and MBE had 24. Of the two women, Mary Baker Eddy had the higher income.

(10)Both women lived the life of the rich and famous (i.e., travel, nice homes, etc.).

(11)Both women grew up in conservative, Christian families.

(12)Both women contradicted themselves in advocating para-scriptural writings.

(13)Both of their churches have a so-called "Church Manual" that empowers a hierarchical, organizational structure.

(14)Both women had control over their church's doctrinal and operational affairs.

(15)Both churches have a historical background in having "Reading Rooms" to advance their cause(i.e., the Millerite "Reading Rooms" that were established in several Northeastern cities).

(16)Both women discovered and advocated a unique health message beginning in the 1860s.

(17)Both women experienced widowhood.

(18)Both women advocated various health information that modern medical science does not support and even considers harmful or dangerous in many ways.

(19)Both women died at about the same age.

(20)Both women taught "another gospel."

(21)Both women had homes that are now on public display with tour schedules.

(22)Both women are still known around the world with their writings translated into many languages.

(23)Both women remain firmly entrenched in the minds their zealous devotees.

Dennis Fischer
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 330
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 11:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis - An interesting comparison. Here are a few things that Christian Science teaches.

Holy Spirit. Christian Science teaches that the Holy Spirit is Christian Science. -- "This Comforter I understand to be Divine Science" (Science and Health, p. 55). It is the unfolding of the thoughts and infinite mind of God (pp. 502-503). [cf. Jn. 16:13-14] Thus, God, the Holy Spirit, cannot indwell a person (Science and Health, p. 336).

Salvation. Since Christian Scientists do not believe that sin is real, they, therefore, see no need for salvation in Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, Christian Scientists still teach a salvation based on works -- and contrary to even their own teachings, a salvation through victory over suffering and temptation. [HJB]

Hell. Christian Science denies the existence of hell and eternal punishment, and, therefore, there is no devil (Science and Health, p. 469). Hell is defined as "mortal belief; error; lust; remorse; hatred; revenge; sin; sickness; death." They believe that hell is a self-imposed "mental anguish," emanating from the guilt of one's imagined sin.

Here is an interesting link about the group:

http://www.watchman.org/profile/ChrSciProfile.htm

They teach sin is an illusion. If Mary Baker Eddy ever sinned, her followers believed it to only be an illusion. Or is that delusion?
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3700
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 12:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fascinating list, Dennis, and interesting insights into CS, Lynne.

Colleen
Lindylou
Registered user
Username: Lindylou

Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2005


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 9:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are also some interesting comparisons between Joseph Smith, Mohammad and EGW! :-)
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1500
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 3:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis,

Thanks for those comparisons. And I fully agree with them. And, yes, I believe that both women taught a false gospel. However, there is still one little question that nags at me once in awhile, and we were discussing some of these issues last night in our post-FAF Bible study dinner last night.

Since I left SDA about 24 years ago, it seems that those of us who left then did so because we recognized that SDA was un-biblical, but, probably because of my close friendship and teaching under Dr. Walter Martin, we did not all agree that SDA was as bad as Christian Science, JW, or Mormonism. However, a breakthru book for me was Anthony Hoekema's book "Four Major Cults", which included SDA, JW, LDS, and CS. This respected Reformed scholar did recognize the cultic spirit of Adventism--but, if you read his book, he seemed to hedge his bets a little, in that he acknowledged that Walter Martin did have a point in saying that Adventism did at least have a lot more things in common with true Christianity, than the other three groups did.

This represents the dilemma that I sometimes have, along with many other evangelicals today. Even John MacArthur who calls Catholicism "a front for the kingdom of Satan", stops short of saying this about Adventism, even though he was very enthusiastic about one of his parishioners, Geoff Drew, coming to our FAF alumni weekend and giving his testimonial.

Why this reluctance, even among the former SDA pastors such as Dale Ratzlaff, to officially come out in print and call Adventism a cult like Christian Science? In "Cultic Doctrine of SDA", he stopped short of even calling traditional SDA a full blown cult.

I confess, that despite my strictest SDA upbringing which was definitely cultic--and my own Dad who brought me up in this system now fully recognizes the spirit of Adventism and the spirit behind EGW--but why do I have just a slight reluctance to equate EGW with being just as bad as Mary Baker Eddy?

If an objective observer who had no SDA background came on the scene and compared EGW's "Desire of Ages" (assuming that she wrote it, and clearly she probably didn't) with Mary Baker Eddy's major works, would they really find any resemblance in teaching? This is an honest question that I have, and still do wrestle with, when people ask me a question like this.

In other words, I know of many people who have come to a saving knowledge of Christ by reading Desire of Ages. There is just enough scripture and truth presented in that book for God to work sovereignly on the hearts of the unregenerate to bring them to faith. But, I would challenge anyone who would claim to have come to a saving knowledge of Christ by reading Mary Baker Eddy's books. This is where I see a dissimilarity between the two women. Maybe I am wrong about this, and I am open to someone saying otherwise.

Also, as far as the medical aspect of MBE vs EGW, I have to confess to being very biased in favor of EGW. I benefited from a great medical education at LLUMC. My grandfather was a medical missionary of the SDA church to the Amazon river, and I know that he is now with the Lord--much to his surprise! There are no great medical universities started by Christian Science. This organization is still a laughingstock in the scientific world. Loma Linda is still a highly respected medical school renowned around the world.

Please, don't anyone think I am being weak on SDA. Having said the above, this may represent why SDA is so much more deceptive than MBE and Christian Science. The closer to the truth an organization is, then the greater potential for deception. MBE is so clearly off the wall, that it seems to have less potential for deceit. It only takes a little leaven to spoil the whole lump.

Anyway, Dennis, I would like to get your thoughts on the dissimilarities mentioned above.

Again, false teaching is false teaching, and it doesn't matter what brand of any teaching that it is, whenever the gospel of sovereign grace is compromised. Any gospel which injects works, or free will even in the slightest as opposed to free grace is still not the pure gospel. However, God is still very gracious, and He saves sinners despite false teaching, and He saves them despite bad theology, and I believe He saves to the uttermost, even those who are trapped inside false systems.

Stan
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

The problem with Ellen White is that what she taught is actually in the Bible. I mean, she taught Old Covenant. Old Covenant is really taught by the Bible. It's a system of works who never worked in the real life. God Himself instituted this system to teach people the impossible way of dealing with God.

God also teached grace. But the difference betwen them is clearly seen only in the NT, Galatians especially. Even now, many authentic christians who still believe that the NC is the same as OC, just improved. This is also the SDA position.

So, if we go back in time before the cross, the SDA teaching fits with the Old Testament teachings. It's like saying that SDA needs just to make an improvement, like the chosen people, Israel needed just to accept Jesus. This is why I believe we have a real hard time of clasifying SDA with Roman Catholicism.

What an exciting subject, Stan, and very important. I have been blessed by Ellen White teachings about grace, but never felt comfortable to believe them with all my heart, because the Old Covenant passages contradicted what she previously said. This is just a starting point, I'll come back later.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1501
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 5:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Jackob,
Yes, I don't want to imply in anyway that I am sympathetic to the Galatianism that EGW taught. But to me the defining proof that SDA is false is the teaching that Christ started another ministry of atonement, and started the IJ in 1844. This is a false gospel!

I don't believe that Sabbatarianism in itself is as big a problem as the IJ. It is when Sabbatarianism is used as a test of salvatiom that it becomes an absolute different gospel.

While I don't agree with some of our Reformed friends about their Sabbath to Sunday transference, and Old Covenant beliefs, they still believe salvation is all of grace. RCC, SDA, and many Arminians still believe that man has to do something to obtain salvation.

Stan
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness

Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 5:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Two lines can appear to be parallel, but can be just a tiny measure divergent from each other. If one follows them both for a long enough distance, one can easily see they are not parallel. But if one sees only a small section of the lines, one can easily believe they are truly parallel. Or, one would have to have a very sensitive instrument to measure with accuracy the small section near them, in order to know the lines are not parallel.

So it is with Adventism. We find, after much study and intent measuring, that it is not true and straight with the Bible. This requires an 1) initial curiosity, 2) a desire for precision, and 3) a lot of time devoted to comparison.

Those who have all three traits listed above and who have come out of Adventism, have usually stayed in it for a long time while living with the cognitive dissonance required of this quest. I believe there are a lot of people still in Adventism who have this cognitive dissonance to varying degrees. Because of the great difficulty of disconnecting with such an all-encompassing organization, however, they choose to remain it it. The cost can be very high for those who persevere until they come out, as the posters on this board can attest.

Walter Martin, Dale Ratzlaff and others who have written about SDA doctrine may have felt it was better to step back from an all-out "cult" label for Adventism, because they are aware of how close it is to the real thing and didn't want to take a chance on repelling anyone from the real thing in the process.

Using this analogy of the parallel lines, one could assume that the longer someone stays in Adventism, even if they are aware of discrepancies, the harder it is to get them to let go of it. They have spent so much time repeating to themselves the attempts at justifying incorrect doctrine, that their spirits have become "calcified" and are no longer flexible to change.

My problem is that because Adventism is so close to the real gospel, I keep wanting to believe it's not really all that serious a thing that my husband is still devoted to it. After all, Romans 14 does say I'm not to judge him for his sabbathkeeping and dietary choices. Besides, he gave the correct answer to the question, "If you were to stand before God today and He should ask you why He should let you into His heaven, what would you say?" He answered that he is saved because of the works Christ did on his behalf. He fully grasps Galatians 2:20, that it is no longer he who lives, but Christ lives in him and the life he now lives, he lives by the faith of the Son of God.

And yet, he believes Ellen White is a prophet of God, because of her episodes of not breathing while in trance and holding the heavy bible in her outstretched hand for 45 minutes.



Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1503
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Excellent insight, Honestwitness.

Stan
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 331
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

Last week I listened to Chuck Swindoll on Counterfeit Communicators. He warned that counterfeit is meant to look like the real thing, like counterfeit money.

http://www.insight.org/broadcast/Message.asp?BroadcastID=1011714&BLength=1

Of all the groups you mentioned above, I think that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the best at passing off fake Christianity.

2 Corinthians 3

14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.



Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1504
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lynne,
I'll have to listen to that Swindoll sermon when I get a chance. But as much as I respect his ministry, he is one that will not name names. And I doubt he will admit that SDA is a false system. Everyone these days is politically correct, and they don't like to offend anyone. If you are not politically correct like for example Dr. Robert Morey, who does call Adventism by its right name, then someone like him gets banned from being on the radio. The station that he was on carries the "Voice of Prophecy" radio program. That would be a conflict of interest for that radio station to carry a ministry who would call Adventism a cult.

Stan
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 649
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

Yes, there are many dissimilarities between Ellen G. White and Mary Baker Eddy as well. However, in regard to the medical education given to LLU students, it is noteworthy that they have never really taught all of Ellen White's directives in their medical classes (e.g., physicians are only to treat their own gender, SDA physicians should charge alot less than their non-SDA colleagues, no quinine for malaria patients, no x-rays, natural water cures, no drugs, no meat for hospital patients, only two meals a day and no snacking between them, no pig skin for burn victims, ad infinitum).

My point is that LLU picks and chooses what they want to teach to their medical students from Ellen White. If they really followed Ellen White's directives by teaching them as coming directly from the throne of God, they would be viewed just as "off the wall" by the medical community as any other cultic group. Ellen White's dietary advice (i.e., two-meal-a-day regimen, etc.) would certainly kill off all the diabetics in our society very quickly--especially those who don't yet know that they are diabetic. Furthermore, LLU doesn't teach their medical students about the many dangers of feeding eggs to children, sugar and milk on their cereal creating alcohol, masturbation equals suicide, etc. It is largely by NOT advocating many of the SDA teachings that LLU is considered respectable today.

Interestingly, both the Seventh-day Adventist and Christian Science communities are strong advocates of higher education. CS members tend to be well-educated. It is indeed troubling to see many people with advanced degrees who are active in cults. Indeed, Satan is an expert in deceiving the sharpest minds.

Dennis Fischer
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3705
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 10:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was having an e-conversation with a recently declared "former" not long ago in which we discussed the fact that Adventism is just a "quarter turn" off from Biblcial Christianity, but if you follow that trajectory, you end up FAR from Biblical truth.

Dennis makes some excellent points; Adventists have re-written the reality of their heritage and of their "counsels". Loma Linda claims to be "fulfilling the vision", but Ellen's "vision" for Loma Linda was of a small sanitarium, far from a large city, where people would come and do the "water cure" and eschew medications in favor of that day's medical fads. Places like Uchi Pines (sp?) and Wiemar are far closer to Ellen's vision than Loma Linda and its medical school. If you've ever visited one of those places, you'll soon see how cultic the "blueprint" really is.

I firmly believe the reason Walter Martin and other Christians do not call Adventists a cult (although many do) is because of the corporate deception passed off on Martin in the 50's. Prior to Walter Martin's initial research, most of Christianity did think of Adventism as a cult.

The church has carefully sanitized its image and upgraded its vocabulary. Because the words about Jesus and grace are there, there are many who do accept Jesus as much as they know Him and, I believe, are saved. But an enormous number do not.

People who read what the church officially says without delving into Ellen's books will never know the truth about the church. (BTW, if you want some interesting reading about what the church leaders actually knew about and thought of Ellen around the time of her death, read the minutes transcribed of the 1919 Bible Conference. They're online. They KNEW she was likely a fraud, but they didn't want to throw the church into disarray...and lose the money, power, etc.)

Doctrinally, in spite of the apparently "kosher" statements about salvation and the Trinity and the role of Jesus, the words Adventists use do not mean the same thing as they mean to most Christians. We already had exhaustive discussions about how Adventism is cloudy on the true nature of Christ. We know that Adventism does not believe in a human spirit, and that misapprehension leads to an unbiblical understanding of sin and of Christ's sinlessness.

Further, Adventism does not just teach old covenant truth without the new. Old Covenant truth ALWAYS was to believe God and His promises, and that faith would be counted as righteousness. No one in the OT was saved because they honored the ceremonies. Those were always shadows; those were always about teaching people they were abysmal sinners. Everyone who has ever been saved has received eternal life because they trusted God even when He made no logical sense. (Think of the entire chapter of Hebrews 11.)

Ellen actually taught a false gospel, not just old covenant theology. She taught that salvation was about becoming perfect. The Old Covenant was not about becoming perfect. She taught a Catholic theology of salvation.

There are many more subjective manifestations that convince me of the cultic status of Adventism as well. The spiritual warfare we encounter as a result of our involvement with FAF and Life Assurance Ministries is real. God is faithful and constant, but increasingly the true nature of the conflict is evident. Of course there is always opposition to bringing light into any darkness, but the reality of what the foundation of Adventism is becomes momre and more clear to me the longer I'm out of it and the longer I'm involved in this work.

I'll never forget the title of a movie I saw many years ago about a man put into the witness protection program. The name of the movie has often seemed like an apt description of Adventism: "Hide In Plain Sight".

BTW, Honesetwitness, your husband might be interested in the fact that Ellen did NOT hold that Bible up for 45 minutes. That story is completely aprocyphal, and I understand that even on the Elmshaven tour they no longer tell it. The proof of "visions" being from God is not the physical manifestation surrounding it. The Bible has never offered physical condition as a test of authenticity.

Colleen
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness

Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 6:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, can you give me a trustworthy, well documented source that clearly proves EGW didn't hold up the heavy Bible for 45 minutes? I'd dearly love to have something on that to show my husband. Although, as with so many other well documented anti-SDA facts, he may choose to disbelieve even that.
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe

Post Number: 218
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/agp/AGPc25.html

quote:

[273]

Another striking manifestation of supernatural power was the fact that during the visions, though they might last for hours, there was absolutely no respiration, even though words were spoken. So, says Daniel, speaking of himself while in vision, ěThere remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.î Dan. 10:17.

Immediately following these words is the statement:

ěThen there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me.î Verse 18.

So, in a number of Mrs. White's visions, there were manifestations of great strength. In fact, in a vision given to her at her own home in Portland, she picked up the large family Bible, weighing over eighteen pounds, and held it on her extended left hand for approximately half an hour.
These Phenomena Not Conclusive
[Top of Document]

These phenomena are here mentioned as accompaniments in this connection, but not as in and of themselves constituting conclusive evidence of divine power. Those who would accept such physical phenomena as the determining evidence may be deceived, for the enemy of righteousness may produce similar conditions in persons subject to his control.




http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Heavy_Bible.htm

http://www.ellenwhite.org/refute3.htm

quote:

SDA General Conference president A.G. Daniels knew Mrs. White for over forty years. Listen to the wise counsel he presented on July 30, 1919, at the "Conference on the Use of the Spirit of Prophecy":

Now with reference to the evidences: I differ with some of the brethren who have put together proofs or evidences of the genuineness of this gift, in this respect, - I believe that the strongest proof is found in the fruits of this gift to the church, not in physical and outward demonstrations. For instance, I have heard some ministers preach, and have seen it in writing, that Sister White once carried a heavy Bible - I believe they said it weighed 40 pounds - on her out-stretched hand, and looking up toward the heavens quoted texts and turned the leaves over and pointed to the texts, with her eyes toward the heavens. I do not know whether that was ever done or not. I am not sure. I did not see it, and I do not know that I ever talked with anybody that did see it. But, brethren, I do not count that sort of thing as a very great proof. I do not think that is the best kind of evidence. If I were a stranger in an audience, and heard a preacher enlarging on that, I would have my doubts. That is, I would want to know if he saw it. He would have to say, No, he never did. Then I would ask, "Did you ever see the man that did see it?" And he would have to answer, "No, I never did."

Well, just how much of that is genuine, and how much has crawled into the story? - I do not know. But I do not think that is the kind of proof we want to use. It has been a long time since I have brought forward this sort of thing, - no breath in the body, and the eyes wide open. That may have accompanied the exercise of this gift in the early days, but it surely did not in the latter days, and yet I believe this gift was just as genuine and exercised just the same through these later years as in the early years.


Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1505
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis,

Again I want to thank you for starting this thread. But, I have had to do some real soul searching because I have been forced to rethink some of my previous statements equating Adventism with Christian Science. Those are interesting similarities that you pointed out, but, then I was forced to think of the differences.

I want to thank Lynne for posting that link on Christian Science, and I will re-post it here. www.watchman.org/profile/ChrSciProfile.htm

If you go onto that link, and study what Christian Science believes, it is absolutely shocking. There is NOTHING in their belief statements that come even close to resembling what Biblical Christianity teaches. There is NO similarity to the SDA church of my youth. There is absolutely NO salvation for anybody who believes the doctrines of CS

Folks, I just have to answer to my conscience on this one. There is no way I can go on record on a public forum any longer and say that Adventism is equal to CS, JW, or LDS. I have to admit my previous errors in saying this.

There is a major difference with Adventism vs. the other three groups mentioned above, and especially with CS. Despite the fact that Ellen White was a false prophet, and taught a false gospel (I still firmly hold to this!), it is still possible within the framework of Adventism to come to know the Lord Jesus Christ in a saving relationship. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe any of the doctrines of CS and to come to a saving relationship with Jesus.

This is an important key difference between Adventism and CS and the like. This is why my friend Walter Martin could not bring himself to call Adventism a cult. This is also why Hank Hanegraaf believes the same.

Apparently, Dale Ratzlaff is of the same opinion, and now I have to say that my views are in line with Dale's as expressed in the book "Cultic Doctrine", and I will quote from his book;

P.333 A Word of Caution

"When evaluating SDAs...we should not make sweeping generalizations. I am often asked, "Do SDAs have salvation? The same question could be asked of any person of any denomination, and the answer should always be the same. Those who rely on the perfect life of Christ for their righteousness; who recognize that Christ died for their sins; who believe that Christ was raised from the dead for their justification; who believe that they are now, by faith, seated in heavenly places and are already victorious in Christ Jesus, have eternal life."

"Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone....." That is one of the clearest and best statements of the basic gospel that I have seen.

The point is, Dale recognizes that their are many SDAs that are evangelical who do believe that statement of faith. This kind of faith would be impossible to express in the context of CS, JW, or LDS. Adventism despite its obvious cultic characteristics and false prophet (who Ratzlaff does admit "has written many good things which are in harmony with the gospel and scriptures"), still has a basic framework where it is possible to hear the true gospel, which wouldn't be true in CS.

On page 335 of Dale's book under chapter summary

point number 8. "Contemporary Historic Adventism may be cultic, but not to the same degree as many other cults". This is the only explanation I can come up with regarding my Mother, who is a historical SDA, yet I know for sure she is saved. She could not be a believer in Christian Science and be saved.

But, what I said above in no way detracts from my zeal to be as committed in every way possible to exposing Adventism for what it really is. Adventism keeps even believers in bondage, and robs them from their joy of salvation. The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is a demonic doctrine which robs Christians of any true joy. Yes, Adventism, and the false gospel of Ellen White, 1844, faith plus works, Sabbath as a test for salvation make Adventism a false gospel.

I rejoice as I see people freed from this system of bondage. I am thankful for the opportunity I had to grow up Adventist, and see God's grace work so mightily in our family, and I praise God daily that this work of grace is continuing.

To God alone be the glory,

Stan
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar

Post Number: 246
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

I think you bring up a very important point. As formers, we need to be completely honest about what IS right within Adventism otherwise our witness will have no weight. In other words, in order to be taken seriously, we must present the evidence correctly and not make blanket statements. As you said, EGW wrote the Desire of Ages (or at least it has her name on it) and that's the first book ANYONE will mention when discussing the benefits of EGW.

Also, as Colleen pointed out, there are many who have come to Christ through the Adventist Church. I think I was one, though I'm not sure that the Jesus I knew, was the Jesus of the Bible. In any case I'm glad to be set free!

Those of us who have left know the difficulties we face/d in the process. It is NOT like switching evangelical Christian churches and experiencing some snubbing. It is outright hostility, anger, and accusational in nature. We have been told, more than once, that we have lost our salvation. So, I think we all agree that there IS a cultic nature to SDAism even if the cultic nature varies depending on what church you attend. What is it that gives it it's cultic nature? I believe the answer is the IJ and Galatianism.

So, what's my problem? Whether we label it a "cult" or not, people are potentially losing their eternal Life over it. I personally know (as most of us do) people who aren't just leaving SDAism, but leaving Christ altogether because they've been "duped".

To be clear...I'm agreeing with all of you. :-) I think it's really essential to be absolutely accurate in our presentations to our Adventists friends/family and to present the True Gospel in gentleness and Truth. It's so easy to get sarcastic because the farther away I get, the more silly the teachings of Adventism look.

And yes, SDAism works very hard to look evangelical. The problem they face, is that the Investigative Judgment is a fatal flaw to BEING evangelical. I agree Stan, it is truly the most cultic part of the SDA beliefs. Sabbatarianism is, in that sense only, a secondary issue.

By the way: I have a friend who says this: "don't ask if 'people' can be saved who attend church on Sunday"; rather ask "can YOU be saved if you quit attending church on Saturday?" That's a better question and brings the point to the forefront, that there's something off (1/4 turn :-)) with Adventism.

Loving Jesus!
Patria

Wolfgang
Registered user
Username: Wolfgang

Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan I too would not have known the Lord without coming into a SDA family by marriage,when I look into the eyes of my husbands grandparents I see Jesus,and it was thier unconditional love that broght me to my knees. and I would agree withyou on every point above.I am a very forutante blessed former,Dawn

Tealeaves
Registered user
Username: Tealeaves

Post Number: 304
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob,
you say above that what EGW taught, Old Covenant, was in the Bible.
I see it just a little differently. I think she took the Old Covenant, then twisted it, added to it, and indeed taught some completely extra-biblical principles, the most glaring of which was the Investigative Judgment.
It was like she expanded the Old Covenant both directions (stretching it from Moses backwards to Creation, and then forwards to present) then wrote in a completely different New Testament with Jesus in the starring role as a "divine helper" who could assist us in being perfect, but is still taking notes on our shortcomings so as to evaluate whether we deserve salvation.

She stomped out the most important detail of the New Covenant... the fact that Christ FINISHED the work of salvation on the cross. She has Him as some sort of divine assistant, being just a really great example of what we need to do to get off the "naughty" list. -- That really isn't Biblical at all, in my opinion.
-tanya-
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1506
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patria and Dawn,
I agree with both of you. But I am sure I will be interpreted as weakening a little. I am not. Like you Patria and Dawn, I saw the darkest side of cultic Adventism, yet I can still remember going to camp meetings and hearing the genuine gospel preached, and there a seed was planted. That would not have happened at a Christian Science reading room. But, at the same time, SDA IS NOT just another christian religion--there is a huge difference.

I just think the classification system has to be absolutely accurate in every way, and that is why it was a pleasure to re-read Dale Ratzlaff's last three chapters in Cultic Doctrine, along with Ken Samples introduction. (Samples, by the way works with Hugh Ross at Reasons to believe which is an excellent ministry). Samples says that the sanctuary doctrine and the IJ are antithetical to the gospel. So since this is true, I am determined more than ever to do everything possible to point out the error in Adventism.

I do need to say one more thing with regard to the medical work. I am not arguing with Dennis and Colleen about Ellen's faulty health message. Perhaps, I was just misunderstood. My only objective point is that Adventism has still produced a magnificent medical healthcare system around the world. I agree they don't follow Ellen's advice! Because if they did, they would not have a prestigious medical school. I just think it is only fair to say that Adventism has done great things in the world to relieve human suffering, whereas Christian Science has contributed NOTHING--nada--to relieveing any human suffering.

Stan

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