| Author | Message | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 333 Registered: 10-2005 |
The Seventh-day Adventist church brings many people to Christ, and the doctrine turns many of them away. This is Satanic. I have to agree with Patria in that we are talking eternal life here. There are many genuine Christian Seventh-day Adventist people. The same can be said for Catholics. It is the doctrine, not the people. Perhaps the difference here is that CS, LDS and Jehovah Witnesses doctrine is not fake Christianity. There is nothing Christian about it. So that is why they can be called a cult. Some Adventists and Catholics are saved Christians, truth sprinkled with error. It isn't all false. It is just that they have the disadvantage of not having the armor needed to withstand the devil. Even if they are saved, they are definately weaker than those who have been given proper armor as stated in Ephesians. And whether or not somebody like Chuck Swindoll is being politically correct or not in speaking against Adventism. It is his choice. Sometimes there is a time and a place both publically and in our personal lives as to what should be said for and against the Seventh-day Adventist church with regard to our own experience. I would not judge him for that. If he wants to speak against what a church stands for and not name names, I see wisdom in that. Seventh-day Adventists and Catholics are especially sensitive to the names of their churches since they have been taught those names bring truth for salvation. I would not have gone to a Sunday church where the Pastor spoke against Seventh-day Adventists. I went to Sunday churches as an Adventist and could sit and listen to a sermon stating everything that was wrong with the Seventh-day Adventist church, without the name of the church being used, and would be fine with it. But once you include that name, the Seventh-day Adventist church, I wouldn't stick around to get the message. I'm not saying I don't want the Pastor to know what a Seventh-day Adventist really is, I just think it is not always wise to come out and speak against false religions by name because how can those who are lost within other groups get exposed to the truth? Pastors can speak the truth without name calling. Sometimes that is the best way to go. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1153 Registered: 10-2004  |
I have not read this whole thread yet, but I just had to comment.  Stan, I must disagree with you. Have you checked out the web site that Tim Oliver of Watchman Fellowship (which you linked to) has about Counterfeit Christianity (that Heretic linked to before)? http://www.thinkabouteternity.org/ On that web site (and in the audio files on there) Oliver clearly calls SDA a Counterfeit Christian group and equates SDAism with LDS and other cults. And he doesn't even mention (or know about) some of the worst things! As Oliver says, "Seventh-day Adventism has probably succeeded better than any other counterfeit Christianity group at selling itself to evangelical Christians as one of their own. It has been said that they have the whitest fleece of any of the wolves out there." Any religion which teaches that Satan atones for our sins is a satanic religion. I'm sorry but I just can't in good conscience call it anything else.  (If anyone objects to my use of the term "atones"--that is exactly what both the Bible and EGW call the scapegoat "event.") Stan, are you really saying that there are zero Mormons who are Christians/saved/born again? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 09, 2006) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 650 Registered: 4-2000  |
Jeremy, Excellent points! This morning I was unexpectedly asked to give a 20-minute presentation on Adventism to our Sunday School class. I have done this before, but the class has new members joining regularly. Thus, our SS teacher felt that I should make another presentation for the benefit of the newcomers. I started out by talking about all the good things that Adventists do for people (i.e., their hospitals, welfare centers, Braille services, etc.). I also mentioned that most people in our Sunday School class probably would not be tempted to visit a Christian Science or Mormon Church very soon. However, I pointed out that Adventism is alot closer to the real thing than most of the other cults (akin to counterfeit currency). This fact makes them even more dangerous and deceptive to us. I also took questions from the audience for a few minutes. I let them know how Adventism had actually impacted each of their lives without them even knowing it. For example, I shared how Adventism changed the way Americans eat their breakfast, eat Little Debbie sweet cakes for lunch, etc. Yes, although I didn't mention this in my presentation, American males have never been the same after Dr. Kellogg's anti-masturbation crusade with Ellen White--resulting in circumcision becoming the norm in America. Furthermore, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has just been accepted into the Protestant Union in France after they sought this status for 13 years. Since the 1950s, Adventists have desperately tried to appear as Evangelicals. Jan Paulsen, the current GC president, even claims that the Adventist church is now a "mainline Protestant church." Indeed, they have no shame in masquerading as authentic Protestants. This morning our senior pastor publicly denounced the heresy of "open theism" during his sermon. Afterwards, I briefly asked him, "Are you aware of who started this "open theism" heresy?" He replied, "Yes, I do." Of course, this first became known through Richard Rice, the SDA theologian at LLU. Additionally, I shared how Clark Pinnock, the well-known Evangelical theologian, had accepted annihilationism while teaching at our Evangelical Free Church seminary in Deerfield, Illinois in the late 1970s. There are rumors, according to my pastor, that J. I. Packer is toying with annihilationism also. Hopefully, it is merely a false rumor. My point in all of this is to relate how important it is for us formers to expose the true colors of Adventism. Most people desire to be the captains of their eternal destiny. Submitting themselves totally to the mercy of God is too scary and humiliating for most people today. An easy, momentary "quick-fix" after a profane life is Satan's favorite view of punishment. Sadly, these liberal, false views (i.e., "the moral influence theory," etc. ) are gaining momentum in Christianity at large. In light of the times in which we live, with many false prophets, let us follow the example of the Bereans in searching the Scriptures daily. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 248 Registered: 3-2005 |
I just want to put another plug in for http://www.thinkabouteternity.org/ Jeremy talked about this in his post above. If you haven't listened to this presentation, PLEASE DO!! It is worth the time. He systematically points out how SDAs use the same words and yet pour different meaning into them. Patria | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1507 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I agree with the whole quote you mentioned on that Watchman site. You didn't finish quoting the whole statement. He also admits that the reason SDA is so deceptive, is the reality that they have more true Christians in it than any other group. He is saying exactly what I said above. There is just enough truth in SDA for many people to hear the true gospel and be saved. There is absolutely ZERO truth in Christian Science. Did you check out that web site Jeremy that Lynne posted. There is no way, I can in good conscience say that SDA is just as bad as CS. There is no evangelical scholar with any respected credentials who would say that. if there are, then find me one. I knew that I would be misinterpreted. I am basically agreeing with Dale Ratzlaff that SDA, while indeed cultic, is not as bad as these other groups. And Jeremy, I am saying that any mormon who believes Mormon doctrine is not saved. It is possible to believe SDA doctrine and be saved because, at least on paper, their doctrine about Christ, the Trinity etc. is orthodox. I know about all the discussions we had about do SDAs really believe in the Trinity, and I agree with you Jeremy, that they are probably tri-theists. But a large part of the so-called evangelical world also call TD Jakes orthodox when he believes in Modalism. I just wonder if there should just be a slightly different classification system. CS, LDS, and JW being outright non-christian cults, where SDA and RCC be given a slightly in between version which says they are definitely cultic, and they teach doctrines of demons, but there is just enough orthodoxy for many of them to become saved. Then you would have the orthodox evangelical churches in the other group. I am just not comfortable equating Adventism with Christian Science. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3713 Registered: 12-2003  |
I struggled for a long time ( a few years, actually) trying to balance the fact that I knew many Adventists who were saved, albeit still in bondage, with the fact that I had come to believe that it was a cult. I remember seeing a morning television show during this time, shortly after our "departure", in which a Mormon family was being interviewed. It was a large(!) family including multiple wives and children of widely varying ages. One young man in the family was engaged to be married, and the engaged couple was there. The host asked the young couple if they would perpetuate the "tradition" of multiple wives, and both of them were a bit uncertain but open to the idea. The girl even said that if the time came when that seemed to be the thing to do, they would. I don't remember what the host asked, but the young man said (I'm writing this from memory so probably don't have the words exactly) that all he knew was that right then, he just wanted to concentrate on his relationship with Jesus. I just stood there wanting to shout or ask him more questioins...but was left with a surge of adrenalin and the conviction that either that young man was talking about something completely different from anything a Christian knows, or he knew enough of Jesus to want to know him. Clearly he was a practicing Mormon who no doubt would perpetuate bigamy and thus qualify many women for the celestial kingdom. My point is this: First, just because people claim Jesus and use the words we understand to mean people truly serve him does not mean they really know Him. Second, God in His sovereignty calls His elect wherever they are. He can pique a Mormon or a JW or a Catholic or a SDA or a Buddhist or Muslim conscience and awaken that person to want to know Him. Muslims have been drawn to call on Jesus just from what they read of Him in the Koran. Third: in this day of nearly universal publishing and internet access, people have access to the Bible. People in cults and people in no religion at all can find the real Jesus in the Bible IN SPITE of their circumstances. We have some friends who are former Jehovah's Witnesses. Their story is almost EXACTLY the same as ours. Although their doctrinal details are different, the experience of living in their church and culture and finding deep cognitive dissonance over the contrast between what they were taught about Jesus and Jehovah and what a Christian life was supposed to look like and what they actually experienced within the church caused them to pursue truth. After moving to different locations hoping to find a community that measured up to the standards they were taught to expect of a loving Christian congregation, they began to study the Bible. It was then that they found the problem: what they had been taught did not square with what the Bible said. They ultimately left the church and are Christ-followers today. Their dissonance, though, came about because what they had been taught about Christian life and community inside the Witnesses did not match with the actual pracitces of the Witnesses. God clearly called them and awoke their hearts to know Jesus while they were still Witnesses. It was what they learned about Jesus and living for Him inside that cult that caused them to look outside for the "real thing". The fact that people meet Jesus inside a cultówhether it's Mormon or JW or CS or SDAóshould not surprise us. The knowledge of Jesus is all around us, both in the unbiblical teachings of the cults and in the world in general. Further, the Bible is available to all these people; even thought the versions are, in some cases, altered, still the reality of Jesus is in the JW Bible, and Mormons use the Bible also and call it Scripture. The definition of a cult is NOT whether or not people can hear enought about Jesus to accept Him. Adventism certainly urges people to accept Jesusóand so does Mormonism. (Mormonism even teaches that Jesus died to save us from our sins.) What makes a cult a cult is its actual definition of Jesus, of the means of salvation, of the position of the cross, and of how much social pressure is put upon people when they leave. The fact that people come to know Jesus inside a cult is a direct result of God's sovereign saving grace. He can use absolutely ANYTHING to awaken people to Him, and He does. The deceptiveness of Adventism and the modern redefinitions of Mormonism, etc. simply hides the reality of the foundation of those churches. Further, that deception hides the continuing heresy espoused by those churches. I have come to believe a couple of things: first, if an organization masqueardes as truly Chrstian although it is built upon a false foundation and immerses people in "another gospel", building into them the fear that to leave is to lose their salvation, that is a cult, a false religion. To call it anything less is to perpetuate the public misapprehension of it and thus make it almost impossible for people questioning it to find Christians who will understand their dilemma and provide solid Biblical help and support. Second, God saves His elect IN their sin, IN whatever circumstances they're in. He extricates them in His time and according to His sovereign understanding of their own needs. As for Dale Ratzlaff's designation of Adventism, Dale often practices caution so as, to use his words, not to "cut off the ears of those who hear". He has a very good point. On the other hand, sometimes those to whom we speak are not those still inside the church. Those who leave see things from a completely different perspective, and the reality they see is much clearer than before they left. Those who leave must be both affirmed in their experience AND clearly see what they've left so as to resolve their own cognitive dissonance. Further, those outside the church altogether MUST be helped to see the true nature of Adventism, otherwise they are not able to help those inside who are struggling. Unless Christians understand Adventism has evil at the foundation, they will not see the need to help Adventists find freedom from their spiritual bondage. They will never recognize that the Adventists they know are actually in the midst of a true spiritual battle. Unless we accurately identify our "enemy", the accuser of the brethren, we will not be be able to respond in truly helpful ways, and we will not be spiritually armored to enter the spiritual battle of which we are unwittingly a part. Praise God that He alone is in charge of our salvation! Colleen | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 114 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stan, I, too, have had the same semantic struggles as you have and are having in defining Adventism (for 20 years), back and forth; comparing other religions, etc... For these reasons: 1. As Colleen says Richard says, Adventism is a "moving target"; changing its statements and meanings, but not really...well, what does it believe now? 2. Not all SDA's are the same; Conservatives, 'Lifestyle Adventists', Ultra-conservatives, EGW-fanatics, liberals, Righteousness by faith SDA's, Evangelical, and more. It's hard to keep up. 3. Many things depend on the local pastor, church board and the attitudes and atmosphere of the local church. 4. Each individual within Adventism is known within the depths of their heart and soul by God alone, not by me. 5. In general, the umbrella organization and the teachings under EGW are another Gospel, another Jesus and another Spirit, producing ungodly fruit and 'strange fire'. 6. EGW spoke about Christ. 7. EGW spoke about Christ, but then went off the rails. 8. Ellen's accompanying angel, guide, young man and her writing hand moving by itself (and other ookie things) are all too close to channeling and automatic writing for my spiritual conmfort. Some of the best advice I have ever read on this issue is what you posted 2 months ago; is that calling Adventism 'Another Gospel'--going by the criteria of scripture-- is more productive than saying a Cult. I marked that in my memory to hold as a principle for the future. I never got around to telling you this until now. In my mind, it is a matter of degrees. There are out and out small or huge Cults, like the major one Scientology. There are groups and organizations, which have cultic tendencies, using some of the same techniques (even unconsciously from habit)as Lifton's 8 criteria, and producing the same results and conditioning in people. At Wildwood, I would say they are a Cult. I have cousins, who get up at dawn to study Ellen's writings, not the Bible. I would say that they are in a Cult. I've known a few SDA's, who live and believe righteousness by faith as much as they know and they love and read scripture, yet are still in a mental bondage--with the sad life results-- because of the cultic tendencies, techniques and results of the organization and EGW teachings at church. There is no blanket classification for every individual in the Adventist church or all Adventist local churches. As the Holy Spirit does, I think we have to look at and pray for each individual one at a time, in a personal way, fitting them. And never, ever say the word "Cult" to them. It will only shut their ears and mind off. Speaking and knowing the Truth--Light shining out the darkness-- the real things, reveals the counterfeits more often. Not the other way around. The scriptural Gospel and prayer have the power of God; something transcends. When we speak of the counterfeits, it is only our own words and many SDA's (not all) blip out. This is what I have found and it is only mho. Also, the way a person experienced Adventism makes them see it a certain way in hindsight, as well--Cultic or just off a little. We each had different eras, homes, churches, schools, state regions and pastors. Each of these areas has the potential to be very cultic and spiritually abusive. Within each of these areas are wonderful people. Some of whom God used to help me on my journey to learn of grace, eventually. Again, I think 'Another Gospel' covers it all. Cathy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 651 Registered: 4-2000 |
Stan, Based on my comparison #1 alone, "Both women wrote that the Bible is a sufficient guide to eternal life," makes salvation accessible and understandable to BOTH groups despite the additional, distinctive heresies added. After all, CS people read the Word of God. Thus, the potential exists for either group to have members having a relationship with Jesus. Their greatest cultic threat is that their para-scriptural writings detract from the Bible and thereby becomes an irreconcilable dichotomy. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1154 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, CS is vastly different than LDS. Does that make CS worse than LDS? If so, should we not categorize LDS with CS? Just because the cults are different, they are all equally cults. In fact, I have come to see SDAism as the worst cult of them all. But the thing is, they don't have to be the same in order to be cults. But yes, I did look at that webpage about CS. They quote MBE about various things, including her saying that: "The Christ is incorporeal, spiritualÖ" while, "The corporeal [physical] man Jesus was human" only (Science and Health, p. 332). I could give you many quotes where EGW teaches that exact same thing as MBE! She says that only Christ's spirit (although she did not like to use that term for obvious reasons) was God (and even then He hadn't always been God and was a separate being than the Father) and that the man Jesus was not God. This is anti-Christ Gnosticism and a false Jesus being taught by both MBE and EGW. Also, regarding spirits: MBE/CS denies that anything is physical/material and says everything is spiritual. On the other hand, EGW/SDA denies the spirit/spiritual and says everything is physical/material. Which is worse? I would have to say that denying the spirit is even worse than denying the physical! Also the SDAs teach that when Jesus died He either ceased to exist or His "divine spirit" which inhabited the man Jesus survived and the man died (again, anti-Christ Gnosticism). They deny that Jesus had a human spirit/soul (the ancient heresy of Appollinarianism). That site says about CS:
EGW also said never to go to a doctor, then reversed that, but still said her whole life, no drugs! EGW also denies the atonement of Jesus on the Cross just like MBE--and worse, according to EGW, Satan completes the atonement for our sins!!! Also, they quote: "Universal salvation rests on progression and probationÖ. No final judgment awaits mortalsÖ" (Science and Health, p. 291)." Basically, EGW/SDA teachings. But, again, why does SDA have to be the same as CS in order to be just as bad? LDS, RCC, and SDA all teach faith plus works for salvation. That is all the same false gospel. I fully believe that EGW is just as bad as MBE. Here is something I posted recently on a Christian forum:
Also, I left out that they publish their own Bible, the Clear Word. If those above things do not make a church a cult, then what does? Stan, I really challenge you to come up with a list of things that make LDS a cult. And I am sure that I could show you that almost every (if not every) point is also taught by SDAism. So what if they use Christian terms and change the definitions? It's no different. That would be like a Muslim using the name "Jesus" for "Allah" and "grace and faith" for works. It doesn't change a thing. You wrote:
Yes, a Mormon must disbelieve Mormon doctrine to be saved. But I also believe that an SDA must disbelieve SDA doctrine (such as trusting in one's own righteousness/works) in order to be saved. T.D. Jakes may be called Christian, but that doesn't mean he should be. I guess the bottom line for me is that I do not see SDAism actually being any "closer" to the real thing--it just appears to be closer. In other words, a very deceptive counterfeit. Even if SDAism did really teach the Trinity I would have to still say that they are a full-blown cult. They match the marks of a cult. I do not want to misunderstand you Stan, and I hope you won't misunderstand me either. I understand that you believe EGW/SDA to be a false gospel and cultic, and I do think we are in basic agreement--my only point in the things I say above is to show how I see SDA to be a cult just as much as LDS and others. I would appreciate it if you would clarify this statement of yours for me though:
Wouldn't you agree, though, that we should not equate the free will "Baptist gospel" of salvation by believing in Jesus with the SDA false gospel of faith plus works? Just because they teach free will I don't think it should be called a false gospel, since they do believe in salvation by believing in Jesus. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1155 Registered: 10-2004 |
Wow, I think Dennis just summed it all up perfectly! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 09, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1508 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, Please, I respect your views tremendously. We are together on Calvinism. Let me state again. SDA IS A DIFFERENT GOSPEL! But I spent time today reading about Christian Science. It doesn't matter one whit that CS reads their Bibles. Their theology is so off the wall--no one could become a Christian by believing their doctrine. Cathy, I agree with your post 100 %. Colleen, I agree that God calls His elect form every false religion. He calls Mormons out of Mormonism, and he calls SDAs out of Adventism, and He calls Muslims out of Islam. But, let me ask you, is it possible for a person to stay in Christian Science and be saved? Is it possible for a person to stay in Adventism and be saved? There is a distinct difference between the two. Colleen, I know that you have been listening to Randy Roberts' series on Galatians. And I have seen you post good things about him. This is my point. Would you be comfortable saying Randy Roberts is just as deluded as a Mormon, or a CS, or a JW? Also, why would a great author like Lee Strobel, who wrote "Case for Christ" be comfortable coming to Randy Robert's church in Loma linda? There has to be something quite different--maybe it is just all deception. I am just waiting for someone respected in the evangelical community to call Adventism by its right name. I believe it is a false religion. Do I think it is as false as Christian Science? No. But I agree with all above that Adventism is based on a lie. 1844, and the Investigative Judgment is a doctrine of demons. Yet, I must account for the fact that as Tim Oliver on the Watchman site Jeremy mentioned above said, that it is counterfeit Christianity with more true Christians in it than any other group. That is why, at least for now, I have to accept Dale Ratzlaff's assessment as it is stated in his book. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3714 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, Stan, I would place Randy in a somewhat different category than "deluded". I do not believe he is deluded as we normally think of that word. I believe that because of the compromises he has had to make in order to reconcile the gospel with Adventism and remain the pastor of the largest SDA church in the world, he is closer to the category "dishonest". Dale Ratzlaff said, in a talk he gave in Redlands at Trinity Church about six years ago, that there are two kinds of Adventists: deceived and dishonest. That's it. While I believe God is working in Randy's heart, I do not believe I can place him in the "deceived" category. With a doctorate from Fuller Seminary, I know he knows the true gospel. I have to place him, for now, closer to "dishonest". His Galatians sermons support my evalutation. I want to state, though, that although this is how I see him at the moment, I am in no way casting doubt upon God's work in his life. As for respected evangelicals calling Adventism a cult or notóit will be very hard for them to call it a cult if they never know what it truly is. Those who read about it and question Adventist teachers and administrators will not learn the truth. Those who rub shoulders with Adventists professionally or socially will not learn the truth. I know several evangelical MDs who did their residencies or their medical school at Loma Linda. Those who went to class and mingled professionally question us "formers" as to why we have FAF, what the problems are, etc. They even gently argue with us about our stance. Those, on the other hand, who actually engaged in Bible study with Adventists during their student days see it completely differently. They support our group, sympathize, and actively evangelize Adventists. The reason most evangelical leaders will not likely call Adventism a cult is that they actually don't know what Adventists really believe because they've never grappled with the Bible with an Adventist. Their vocabulary sounds right; they don't see the problem. That being said, about an hour ago we received a phone call from someone who told us that at that moment, on a So Cal radio station, Pastor Chuck Smith, the founder of Calvary Chapels, was preaching against the dangers of Sabbatarianism. He was even saying that there is a Christian church that teaches that those who worship on Sunday will receive the Mark of the Beast. He was, of course, warning against it. Just to refresh our memories: Webster's Universal Collegiate Dictionary defines "cult" this way: n. 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc. 3. a. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist. b. the members of such a religion or sect. Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 13 Registered: 1-2006 |
Jeremy, I can't resist sharing this after reading your comment about the scapegoat. If there's any doubt about what we left behind when we left Adventism, here's a little reminder. As an SDA you probably heard that that it is our character (plus maybe some of Godís grace, if needed) that saves us--statements in SS class like "We do our best, and God does the rest". You can find striking parallels to this theology in the writings of Ellen White. Without wasting your time, here are three short quotations that summarize her humanistic theology: ìWhen it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as manís best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit.î 1SM 382 This teaches that Christís merit (or righteousness) is added to our obedience to make up the deficiency. ìChrist has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. . . A noble character is earned through the merits and grace of Christ. It is formed by hard, stern battle with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected.î COL 331 This teaches that itís not easy to attain perfection, but you can earn a noble character through Christís help. ìLet no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. The impossibility lies in your own will. If you will not, then you cannot overcome. The real difficulty arises from the corruption of an unsanctified heart, and an unwillingness to submit to the control of God.î COL 331 This teaches that if you fail to remedy defects in your character 1) itís your fault, and 2) and you will fail to obtain everlasting life. If this is true, itís too bad for the saints in Hebrews 11ótheyíre lost. Fortunately, God does not mix his steel with our clay! It is by grace alone, through faith alone, that we are saved, not by works! Our good behavior, good deeds, etc, do not contribute to our salvation, do not make us worthy of salvation, nor are they mixed with Christís merits in some sort of an investigative judgment! Our good character does not earn us salvation, nor does a good character qualify us for salvation! When the believing Christian accepts Jesus as Lord, the Holy Spirit is given as a deposit, guaranteeing his inheritance! The believer, living a Spirit led life, finds himself living a life pleasing to God, not as a condition of salvation, but as a natural outcome of living a Spirit led life. Even so, his good deeds, good behavior or good character do not contribute to his salvation. SDAs attempt to bringing our own obedience into the judgment in an effort to impress God, as if Jesus' obedience is not quite good enough. Same as Cain's offering. It really is another gospel. | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 249 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy: You said this: "I guess the bottom line for me is that I do not see SDAism actually being any "closer" to the real thing--it just appears to be closer. In other words, a very deceptive counterfeit." Very well put. I couldn't agree more! I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but it is so true... I was recently browsing the E.G. White estate web site. I was shocked (I know I shouldn't be) to discover that they have an article linked called "The Dynamics of Inspiration" that was originally published in the Review in 1996, that says the Bible is 'imperfect'... I believe they're toning down the word 'fallible'. You've got to read it. Here's the link: http://www.egwhite.org/ Once you get to the web site (there's no direct link to the page); you have to click on "issues and answers", then scroll down to "How Does God Speak, the Nature of Revelation". Then click on "The Dynamics of Inspiration". Here's a little "teaser": "Because "everything that is human is imperfect,"[14] we must accept the idea of imperfections and mistakes in both the Bible and Ellen White's writings." In Christ, Patria Patria | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1156 Registered: 10-2004 |
Patria, notice that the "everything that is human is imperfect" is a quote from EGW herself saying that the Bible is imperfect. So of course they have to believe Ellen that the Bible is imperfect! Also, since she also talks about Jesus' humanity right before that, she is also implying that Jesus' humanity is imperfect, just as Mary Baker Eddy said, according to that website linked above on CS. Of course, EGW also says over and over that Jesus' humanity was sinful! Jeremy | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 251 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes, I just don't understand how anyone can buy into the idea that Jesus' humanity was imperfect. If that was the case, then we have no Hope. Our salvation hinges on His living a perfect human life in accordance to the Law. Patria | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1509 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, It is very interesting that you mention Chuck Smith, the founder of Calvary Chapel. I just called into KKLA 99.5 FM, and had a discussion with Craig Hawkins, who used to substitute host for Walter Martin on the Bible answer man. Hawkins does believe that those who believe in the 1844 doctrine are definitely cultic. But, he made a point about Chuck Smith that is very disturbing. He has documentation that Chuck Smith teaches that Christ did not rise from the dead in the SAME body that went into the grave. Smith teaches that Christ rose in a DIFFERENT body. The actual recording of my phone conversation on this topic of the resurrection which represents a heretical view, that I had with Craig Hawkins can be heard at www.livebyword.org Also Colleen I would like an answer to my question about whether a person who is saved sovereignly by God can remain a Christian Scientist and be saved? And can a person who is saved while an SDA, stay SDA and be saved? Is there any difference at all between Christian Science and SDA from a salvific standpoint? This to me is a key question in trying to differentiate Adventism from such grossly heretical groups such as CS, JW, LDS, and Islam? I think this is also the point that Ratzlaff is making in his book. There is bad theology, and there is badder theology, and baddest theology. (smiley). But in all this discussion, I think all of us on this thread are on the same team. I think our differences lie in the matter of degree that certain groups are heretical. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 457 Registered: 7-2004  |
There is no Biblical description of a cult. But there are Biblical descriptions of another gospel, a false prophet, and doctrines of demons. The decision about whether to consider SDAism a cult lies largely in how we define a cult. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1157 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, if God can save a person while in a cult, well since you and I both agree that a person cannot lose their salvation, then yes they can remain in the cult and stay saved. Of course, a Christian would see right away that Islam is not Christian since it does not claim to be, but since the pseudo-Christian cults claim to be Christian, it may take a little longer for a person to see that they are not. Also, it may take longer for people in certain cults (SDA, perhaps) than others, based on how deceptive (not how much "better/good") they are. But God will lead the Christian in His timing. Christians can even be deceived into joining cults--and they may not even be aware of everything the cult teaches. Stan, I think you are misunderstanding what Tim Oliver is saying. 1. When he says that SDA has more true Christians in it than other counterfeit Christian groups, I don't think he is saying that this means they are not as bad as the other groups. I think he is only saying that this makes them appear more sheeplike, and makes them an even more deceptive "wolf." But I don't think he is saying they are "not as bad"--he still classifies them in the same group as the other cults. 2. In the audio files, he explicitly equates SDA with LDS. 3. He explains what he means about there being Christians in the SDA church, when he makes this clear statement after talking about how SDAism is false: "And as such, it's not inappropriate to consider such a church as a counterfeit Christian cult, nothwistanding the presence of some evangelicals within it who don't know enough to get out." I just transcribed that from this audio file, Part One of the files on the Investigative Judgment. If that statement is not clear, strong, and unequivocal then I don't know what is, Stan! Former SDA pastor J. Mark Martin, who pastors one of the largest evangelical mega-churches in the US, unequivocally calls SDA a cult. Doesn't his opinion count? Doesn't former SDA pastor Dennis Fischer's view count? MacGregor Ministries, whose area of expertise is JWs, says that SDA is one of the most cultic of all the cults. David Cloud says that SDA is a cult. Dr. Robert Morey calls them a cult. Dr. John Whitcomb also calls them a cult (according to this webpage). Stan, I just don't understand how you can say that nobody in the evangelical community says that SDA is a cult, just like the other cults. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2006) | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2005 |
In our small practice (where we work part time), we have only 2 staff members. Our receptionist grew up in a strict Jehovah Witness home, and our assistant grew up in a strict Mormon family. And then of course, you have my husband and I who grew up SDA. We often laugh at the irony of it. We're definitely an office with spiritual issues. All of us have left our former churches and beliefs, but only my husband and I are still going to church. Often times, we'll sit around and talk about our former beliefs, and family pressures during our lunch breaks (especially more recently since they have seen us transition out of SDAism and often ask us about it). It's striking to me how similar all three of our backgrounds are. Here's the interesting thing: my receptionist thinks that SDA and Mormonism is just absolutely out there, and thinks that JW's are the most grounded out of the three. My assistant thinks that SDA and JW's are completely off in their theology, and Mormons are the most "normal" out of the three. There is no doubt that they both feel that their religions have issues, but they also think their own religions are the most "right" (when comparing the 3) because it's the most familiar to them. That's what they grew up hearing all their lives, so it doesn't seem so out there to them. I have to say we are all really the same in cult value. It may seem like we aren't as far off as they are...but could it be because we're used to our crazy ideas? I know there have been discussions about the IJ being "way out there", but what about our Sunday Law theory? Or the idea that "playing cards" are from the devil, or angels leave us when we go to theaters? The list can go on and on... And although these may seem like milder issues compared with Mormons or JWs, they are still issues that form our social behavior, unhealthy family ties to the church, and create a picture of God or way to salvation that is just not Biblical. Because of that, I feel hands down, Adventism is a cult -- the same cultishness of Mormonism and JWs. I don't know anyone involved in Scientology. Maybe that will be our hygienist we're going to hire this summer . Just kidding... I do believe there are Christians within these faiths, that sincerely believe they are following Jesus with all their hearts. I agree with Jeremy, that God calls them out in His timing. From personal experience, I know there is a lot of rationalization in one's head that happens when one is exposed to the "real" truth. And this can take a long time to work through, especially since most of these cult faiths are so intertwined with family pressures, social behaviors and practices. |
