| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1158 Registered: 10-2004  |
By the way, Stan, I'm not sure if you've seen my post from last night from 9:02 pm, which was posted right before a post of yours--so I just want to alert you to it in case you haven't seen it.  Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2006) | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2005 |
Colleen, What do you think the ratio is of dishonest Adventists to decieved Adventists? I had never thought of "dishonest" as an adjective for Adventists. I always just assumed once a person was no longer decieved, they would leave. It just blows my mind that someone could stay within a church system knowing all of it's wrongs, and still promote the deception (especially in the case of a pastor or other church administrators). I know what you mean about different views of Adventism from Evangelicals. In my experience also, those who have been exposed to Adventism in some way or another tend to understand my "need" for FAF. Others, don't really understand the big deal, and think that we just need to "let it go" as if it was that easy. In fact, recently, I brought a friend to Trinity Church. He looked in the bulletin and saw the post about FAF Bible Study. He turned to me and said, "That's odd. Why not have one for Former Baptists, or Former Presbyterians, or other churches?" He didn't see that Adventists were more than "just another denomination". Adventists are very good at hiding it's true identity. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 164 Registered: 7-2005  |
My understanding is that if someone still believe ALL the teachings of adventism in their TRUE meaning, heís not a saved person. Stan, I have a practical question. Does your mother believe that you and her husband are APOSTATES because you are no more sabbatarians? If not, she is no more a historical adventist, because breaking the Sabbath is equal with apostasy. Even if she clings to IJ and other issues, she is no more a historical adventist. Why? I talked with my MD (Master of Divinity) adventist friend and pressed him to recognize that his belief that Sabbath is a moral command gives him no other option than to believe that only those who keep the Sabbath are true christians. Luther, Calvin, all are fakes, false christians, if sabbath is a moral command. I spoke only about the seventh commandment of Decalogue: ìYou shall not commit adulteryî, clearly a moral command. I asked him only one question: ìIf Luther lived his entire life breaking this commandment, sleeping with nuns, living in promiscuity, do you still believe that he was a saved person?î He choosed to mumble something, because he saw that if he answer ìYesî, he will be forced to recognize that Luther was not saved. After all,in his opinion, Luther breaked all his life the GREATEST moral command. He was in a worse moral condition than the licentious and promiscuous sinner. And he just evade the issue. Returning to your mother, Stan historical adventists believe that sabbath is a moral command, and breaking it is equal with living in adultery, or stealing, or lying. Living in adultery surely means apostasy. Because Sabbath is also a moral command, not keeping it itís apostasy. This is what the normal historical adventist believe. He really has no other way, as long as he believes that sabbath is a moral command, more, the MOST IMPORTANT MORAL COMMAND. If your mother thinks that you still love Jesus, even if you no longer keep the sabbath, she is no longer an historical adventist. She gave up some of the teaching of the church. This is my first point, you cannot be saved if you still cling to ALL the adventistsí doctrines. But I believe Stan has a good point about the fact that adventism itís not a cult like JW, LDS, and other groups. Why? There are no evangelical JW, or evangelical Mormons. If someone discovers the gospel and is born again, the cult eliminates him. The control of the hierarchy is absolute. This was the history of adventism before the death of Ellen White, and before the 1950ís, but no longer after this period. What I mean is the fact that a cult like JW and Mormons controls entirely what the members believe and practice. Nobody can disbelieve the prophetic gift of Joseph Smith and still be a member. He is forced to believe or is expelled. This is not the situation with the SDA church. They donít require members to ACTIVELY promote their cultic doctrines, or Ellen White. But JW are required to sell their church literature, itís a duty, a must, and nobody can be a member of their church without to be ACTIVELY implied in deception. I still ponder if being a member of SDA means to promote PASSIVELY deception. From what I see at this moment, being a member of a church doesnít mean that you believe all the pastor or church teaches. Perhaps the pastor believe and teach that Lordís day is the christian Sabbath. What you will do, do you leave the church, or stay in it? Do you put this church on the same level as SDA church? Do you leave for integrity? In short, I can say that at the doctrinal level, SDA is a cult, but itís not a full cult like JW and Mormon church. It was, but now itís not, at least at grassrootís level. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3720 Registered: 12-2003  |
Grace, I have no idea of the percentages of "dishonest" to "deceived". I do believe that most if not all the leaders/pastors are aware of the problems with Ellen White's plagiarism and the biblical problems with 1844 and all that implies. I suspect there are more "deceived" Adventinsts among the laity than among the heirarchy, although I can't truly separate degrees of deception out of the mix. I believe that even the dishonest ones, those who KNOW the problems but rationalize staying, are deceived to some degree. If they were not, many would be convicted that they have to leave. Jackob, for us, your question was exactly what Richard and I faced. We realized one day that if we stayed in the church, not believing the cultic doctrines but holding up the gospel torch as much as we could, we would be passively promoting deception. Our staying would be affirming the church and its doctrines and traditions. I was asked once what the difference is between Adventists and rigid Baptists, for example. The difference is that Baptists (and other truly Christian denominations) were built upon the true Biblical gospel. They may have had a few aberrant beliefs thrown in, such as baptism being a requirement for salvation, etc., but the foundation of the church is still the true gospel of Jesus. Adventism, on the other hand, was not built on the true gospel of Jesus. It was built on an invention (the IJ) designed to save face after an embarrassing failed prophecy. It was built around the revelations of a false prophet, and it modified the definnition of sin and the nature of Christ. While externally some Adventists may look a lot like conservative Baptists, still the Baptists are clear on what it means to be born of the Spirit and saved by grace alone. The Adventists are not. Their foundations make their underlying beliefs vastly different. Grace, your comments about the differing reactions from the JW, the LDS, and the SDAs(!) in your office is fascinating. I've never known anyone who experienced this close an interaction between former members of the three group before. What an interesting insight! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1160 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I have to agree with Jackob about your mother being a historical Adventist. If she attends church on Sunday, she obviously is not worried about the SDA teaching that worshipping God on Sunday is the mark of the beast. And also other things you have said in the past about your mother make me kind of confused about why you're calling her a historical SDA. Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1510 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jackob, I agree with your post 100%. My mother does believe the Sabbath is binding on Christians, but she has accepted the fact that my Dad, sister, and I have given up Adventism. My Dad does slightly disagree with my new slightly modified position, as he does believe SDA is a cult. But my mother goes with my Dad to his Sunday church and takes communion,--so Jackob, you are right, she technically is not a historic Adventist. Unfortunately she loves Doug Batchelor, but I am still confident that my mother loves the Lord Jesus with all of her heart. This could not happen if she was in Christian Science. Jeremy, As you probably know, we are not really very far apart. There is a terminology issue here that may just be a techicality. SDA IS A FALSE GOSPEL! EGW is a false prophet! Jeremy, Can you produce any written statements by Mark Martin definitely equating SDA with Christian Science, JW, or LDS? And, jeremy, I would love to see what Mark Martin thought of Chuck Smith's heretical teaching that Jesus rose from the grave in a different body than he was buried in? Does Adventism teach that doctrine? I am still in a state of shock from last night's live radio call-in show, that this is what Chuck Smith teaches. Chuck Smith also believed that Katrina was God's punishment on a gay pride parade, and most of his audience clapped. Chuck Smith also endorses Dave Hunt's book which calls Calvinism a false gospel. I don't think Mark Martin believes the same way Chuck Smith does, but if you have access to Martin, I would sure be curious to know. My overall position on Adventism has not really changed. It is a denomination that was founded on a false vision, and a false prophet. I saw the very worst side of Adventism as a kid growing up, and I praise God for his mercy in calling me out of this false system. I re-read the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism, and compared them with Christian Science primary belief system. There is no way my conscience can allow me to say that Adventism is just as bad as Christian Science. And Jeremy, if Mark Martin will admit this, or any other former SDA pastors including Dale Ratzlaff will come on here and say that SDA is just as bad as CS, then I will reconsider. At this point, I am comfortable with Dale Ratzlaff's more moderate and intermediate position, and I stand by his quote on page 335, "Contemporary Historic Adventism may be cultic, but not to the same DEGREE as many other cults." Now, why does Dale's quote produce so much controversy? Of all people, Dale has seen the very worst of what Adventism is. And maybe he has changed his position since writing his book, and I would be open to hearing differently. But Ric_b said it best. The word cult is not in the Bible. But false Christs, different gospels, false teaching are all warned against in the Bible. So, whatever label, I believe it is Biblical to say that Adventism is another gospel, and that EGW was a false prophet. So for now, I will leave it at that, and let God sort out the different DEGREES of falseness there is. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1511 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I was posting at the same time you were. As I said, my Mom is historical in the sense she loves Doug Batchelor, and believes Ellen was a true prophet, but you are right, she can't be historical SDA in the truest since of the word. Stan | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 416 Registered: 7-2004  |
Stan, for what it's worth, here is a link to Chuck Smith's teaching on 2 Corinthians 5 and specifically how he sees the resurrection. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/chuck_smith_c2000/2Cr/2Cr005.html This link came from a discussion on CARM where someone is saying Chuck Smith is heretical because he believes in replacement of our bodies instead of resurrectin of our bodies. Best I could tell, Chuck is saying he expects all resurrected bodies of believers to be improved, and not exactly what went into the grave. It would be hard to argue with that. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan, One thing I must say about Adventism as I've heard before in this forum ** The Seventh-day Adventist church is "worse" than JW, CS and Mormonism. ** I was not raised in the church. Many people, such as myself, were deceived into believing the "Seventh-day Adventist Church was NOT a cult" like the others. Bringing people to Christ only to turn them away from Christ through counterfeit doctrine is satanic. Does greater deception equal less cultic? Snowboardingmom made a good point that perhaps if you were raised JW you would think that religion was less off the wall than Mormonism. If you were raised Mormon and had family you believed to be saved in that group, what would you say to that. I don't think you would want to call Mormons a cult. Nor do Adventist want to believe their doctrine in any way can be connected with David Koresh. Clearly, the Davidians are a cult as well as ALL subgroups of the Seventh-day Adventists. Why is it that the Seventh-day Adventist church keeps escaping that label? A good counterfeit? A lot of money? Good marketing? Of course David Koresh had a low IQ and many Adventists are educated and logical (as most people who fall for cults), and cannot equate themselves with him. However, we can't deny the fact that David Koresh believed in Ellen White and followed her much more closely than the Seventh-day Adventist church, though the Seventh-day Adventist church endorses Ellen White, pushes her writings and continually looks to her writings for inspiration. We have certainly been brainwashed to believe we were not in a cult. Definately the whitest of sheep. Definately the most dangerous. It's like walking into a Christian Church (because it was advertised as such), but really finding out that it wasn't real. It was a facade, a facade for a cause that you don't believe in. But the logic, the sublimal messages just keep flashing and soon you embrace the cause you don't believe in. Of course, you cannot call this a cult because it has just enough Christianity in the bait, in the look, in the feel.... to make it not look like a cult. Counterfiet, yes. False, yes. You know the saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, isn't it usually a duck? Lynne | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 791 Registered: 1-2003 |
I am posting on revival sermons...the SDA have said the spirit is no more than the personality, while another said it is simply breath. There is more to the spirit than this...can anyone help me? I know it's our spirit that returns to God...why? Because once our spirit is reconnected to God by the Holy Spirit indwelling in us...it cannot die. I do not believe the dead know nothing. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 165 Registered: 7-2005 |
Colleen, I recognize that you have also a good point when you compared the adventists with baptists, and their roots. I try to understand: the church even in it's actual sanitized IJ theology just validate it's unchristian origin, and this is a lie, because the church has not a christian origin. Is this what you mean? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1161 Registered: 10-2004 |
"Does greater deception equal less cultic?" Exactly, Lynne! That's what I've been trying to point out. Stan, lots of words are not in the Bible. The word Trinity is not in the Bible. The term "historical Adventist" is not in the Bible. That does not mean we should not use extra-Biblical terms. The term "cult" is in fact a very helpful term for us to use. As Colleen says, it is necessary to properly identify the cults as cults. The term "cult" is very helpful in scaring people away from Mormonism, Adventism, etc. Seriously. It is a widely-used term in Christianity and since SDA fits all the standard lists of characteristics and marks of a cult, they should be properly identified as such. Stan, actually according to Canright I believe it was, EGW/SDA started teaching that at the resurrection we get completely new bodies and when asked about Jesus, Ellen said that He "dropped it all" when He ascended! From what I read, it looks like Smith teaches that we get completely new bodies (and that the resurrection happens when we die!). But I don't know what He says about Christ's resurrection. Stan, you wrote: "I re-read the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism, and compared them with Christian Science primary belief system." That is not a valid comparison, Stan! The 28 Fundamentals are the deceptive, Evangelical-sounding statements published to make it look like they're Christian! I can't believe what I'm hearing you say, Stan. The official SDA beliefs are not what the 28 sound like they're saying--they're what the 28 are really saying if put in the Adventist definitions. And there are also some SDA teachings (Scapegoat, Michael, etc.) that are not even written in that statement, but which the church definitely teaches. And they don't say that they teach that there is no human spirit or soul. It just is not an accurate depiction of SDA beliefs, Stan! So we really should be comparing what they actually teach with what CS actually teaches--not just comparing certain "official" published statements that are carefully crafted to sound Evangelical! But the official SDA book explaining their fundamental beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists Believe..., does come clean with their doctrines more than the statement of fundamental beliefs does. But the 28 Fundamentals do state that EGW's "writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth." So we should compare EGW with MBE, which I did in my post last night. Anyway, I disagree with Ratzlaff's assessment of Adventism in Cultic Doctrine. And for some of the marks of a cult, he thinks the SDAs do not fit when they actually do. But why must we base our opinions on what other people believe/say? We all know Adventism ourselves and can come to our own conclusions without any "scholar" or pastor confirming it for us. Jeremy | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 417 Registered: 7-2004 |
You're right, Jeremy. It does look like Chuck Smith believes the resurrection happens when we die instead of at the Second Coming. That would be a false teaching. But I haven't seen anyone point out that problem before. Instead everyone is up in arms because he says we will have completely new bodies. The way I see it, of course we'll have completely new bodies (albeit recognizable), because they will be incorruptible. Chuck also points out that everyone has entirely different cells every 7 years, so if we have exactly the same body we went into the grave with, which set of cells will we be raised with? (I took his words to mean: If it's the set we went into the grave with, and that set is a 90 year old person, that would look vastly different than a 20 year old person). I guess that's why I have more lately assumed it really is only the spirit of a person who is that actual person. Our body is simply a tent (corruptible) or a glorified, incorruptible body at the resurrection. I also have not seen in Chuck's own words what he says about Jesus' resurrection. In the strictest sense, I guess you could say even Jesus was raised with a "different" body than went into the tomb. While the nailprints were still there, he wasn't a bloody mess as He probably went into the tomb. Also, was Jesus' body on earth physically like Adam's before sin or after sin? That has nothing to do with His sinlessness, but was it possible for Him to have a cold? I would think if He was subject to any bodily problems on earth before His crucifixion, His resurrected body is completely incorruptible as ours will be in the future. How much of these ideas going through my head are influenced by EGW teachings? As long as someone's teaching agrees with what the Bible tells us that we're sown corruptible and raised incorruptible, the resurrection happens at the Second Coming, and believers are never separated from Jesus, then what difference does it make how someone views the details of the differences between our corruptible and incorruptible bodies? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 166 Registered: 7-2005 |
Our dialogue here is very helpful to me for clarifying things. I was challenged to read again some parts of "Cultic Doctrine" and this is what I found. It's a comment which the author, Dale Ratlaff quoted
This is in line with Lynne post above. Evangelical adventists do not truly fit or belong. They are used only for a greater deception. It's something like this situation
I think that obeying and hearing what the woman said someone can really find the way of salvation, because she pointed to Paul, to the true gospel preacher. This is a different situation than the hostility encountered in other parts toward the gospel. I'm still studying the subject, but I believe that adventism it's at the stage of sustaining the gospel and havin the results of people who are saved, but the church retained them for the sake of iamge, of not loosing people. The church tries now to combine two incompatible systems in a desperate attempt to revive itself, and look evangelical. I think that this is why somebody can be saved believing what adventists teaches, but the church is using him or her for deception. This is definitely a different tactic used by a cult to mask it's real nature. About the "Evangelical" books of Ellen White, they are all written after 1888. I believe that Ellen White sustained the 1888 message even if the new position about Galatian law was devastating for their theology (Canright was a casualty after the 1886 debate, he recognized that Waggoner had a good point, and Galatians has the decalogue in view, so he renounced the sabath and left adventism) For the sake of saving her face and the face of adventism, Ellen moved the church to, let's say more sounding orthodox doctrines. The changes began in this period and were aproved by Ellen. I think that I was wrong when I said that from 1950's onward the adventist church changed. No, the changes were initiated and the orthodox or almost orthodox doctrines with the gospel orientation were initiated by Ellen WHite near 1900. But if the initiative was of Ellen White, I believe that we have a real problem. This means that she deliberately created confusion, like Baker letter, to permit adventists, if they discover the gospel to claim that Ellen White believed like them. And she wrote deliberatle evangelical books, like Desire of Ages. In it she claimed that on the cross the atonement was completed. In such a way she deliberately created the posibillity for many to know the true gospel, and be saved, maintaining also her spiritual influence over them, and using them for her justification. I recognize that I'm shocked by this perspective. Why? Because if the above scenario is true, she was truly a medium, a psychic. Only a superior intelligence can orchestrate this thorugh her. Perhaps we subestimated her, thinking that she was only a deluded woman. I'm waiting reactions. What do you believe? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 458 Registered: 7-2004  |
Pheeki, For your discussion on our spirit, you may be able to use some of the texts and questions that I posted on CARM. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=106049&postcount=11 | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 167 Registered: 7-2005 |
With other words, the plan to have saved people in adventism is a plan orchestrated by the devil. It's his idea to not only make adventism look evangelical, but to prove by real saved by grace people that SDA is a christian church. I hope that what I just said it's not some sort of paranoia inherited from adventism. But seeing so much deception, I guess it's not so out of the track. I'm willing to change my perspective, keeping in mind that, like Collen said, because of our past, we are been more sensible to deception | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 335 Registered: 10-2005 |
Jackob - The Adventist experience: ...people are saved in Adventism, but they don't know their saved.... ....or newly saved people are turned off by the doctrine and turn away from Christ so they can't mature, therefore keeping them from growing spiritually and preventing them from doing the will of God... .......or prevent people from being saved entirely... This whole Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is cleverly made to disarm the saved!! And for those not saved, it works equally as well. Everybody gets deceived. It is a win win situation for the devil. It is all corrupt. The add-ons and unbiblical modifications to stated biblical truths makes it entirely wrong. Definately a spiritual battle. None of us can win this spiritual battle without Gods Full Armor. No matter how intelligent anyone is. Ellen Whites writing cause confusion. Confusion was the name of the last writing of David Koresh, who, like all but 7 of the people who died, were previously Seventh-day Adventists. Why was it that David Koresh "made sense to" and "recruited" Seventh-day Adventists? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1162 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jackob, I don't believe that EGW wrote any evangelical books. All of her books, including Desire of Ages, teach a false gospel of faith plus works. The 1888 message was nothing more than faith plus works. It was still a false gospel. But yes, I definitely believe that Ellen was more than just a deluded woman. She was certainly taught by demons as God's Word says in 1 Timothy 4. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1163 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, you might be interested in checking out the former Christian Science website at http://www.christianway.org/ This is a ministry run by Calvary Community Church, Pastor Mark Martin's church. I think you will find the discussion forum there very interesting. Here are some quotes from a thread entitled "How long ago did you leave Christian Science?"
That post sounds like an SDA trying to say the right things. But look at this post:
We really don't know how many Christians remain in CS, living with cognitive dissonance. There is another former CS member on that thread who also says that they became a Christian before leaving CS. Here is the link to the thread: http://www.christianway.org/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=218 And on another similar thread someone says:
Here's another interesting quote:
The rest of that thread is very interesting also, and someone else on there says: "I noticed that the CS church and branch church sponsored a lecture at Westminster United Methodist Church this past Sunday in Houston. I notice they occassionally list lectures at other christian churches on TMC lecture web site also. This is a shame!!" And then a CS member gets on and says he thinks that the ecumenism is great. Here is another interesting quote from that forum:
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3722 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, you said: "I recognize that you have also a good point when you compared the adventists with baptists, and their roots. I try to understand: the church even in it's actual sanitized IJ theology just validate it's unchristian origin, and this is a lie, because the church has not a christian origin. Is this what you mean? " Yes, that is what I mean. We realized that the church has never changed its doctrines, and underneath the exterior (and yes, Jackob, I believe also your assesment of the church using evangelical Adventists to swell their numbersónot to mention titheóand to help their public image) they still adhere to the original meanings of their teachings and still rob people of their joy in the Lord. What really pushed us "over the edge" was realizing we could never insist that our sons function with integrity if we stayed in a church whose foundational beliefs we believed were False. We had to leave in order to model integrity to our sons. Wow, Jeremnyófascinating quotes! Once again I am struck with how similar our experiences as former Adventists are with those of other former cult members. As Grace said (or words to this effect!), all these cults are cut out of the same spiritual cloth. It has been hard for me to see Adventism as an all-out cult, but my conviction has grown with time rather than lessened. Oh, and Jackob, I absolutely believe Ellen received her core messages from satan. As you suggested, no deluded woman with temporal lobe epilepsy and a third grade education would be able to craft such a clever, well-hung-together deception that formed such a coherent (albeit bizarre) theology. All the Adventist doctrines intertwine when you examine them closely. The IJ would not work without soul sleep; soul sleep is necessary in order to say man has no spirit; man having no spirit (except breath) is necessary in order for sin to be something we can "overcome" in our bodiesósort of like a physical weakness; man having no spirit is necessary in order to say Jesus had no advantage over us and we can do what He did; no spirit is necessary in order to believe Jesus inherited a fallen nature; the IJ and the incomplete atonement is necessary in order to say our salvation is not complete; an incomplete salvation and sin being physical is necessary in order to say our behavior contributes to our salvation; our behavior MUST contribute to our salvation in order for the Sabbath to be a final test of being worthy to saveóand undergirding all of it we must a weak Jesus who needs us to vindicate Him, who cannot return until we finish the work, who did NOT provide a finished work of salvation and thus give us Sabbath rest. What lies under all this "quarter turn off" theology? A fallen angel desperately trying to eclipse the eternal Son of God and take the final credit for deceiving millions of people into not recognizing the true gospel. Colleen |
