| Author | Message | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 201 Registered: 2-2003 |
Oops, sorry that came out twice! Adrian | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 477 Registered: 7-2004  |
Adrian, I know many, many formers who are not Calvinist. And I have learned much from the discussions that have gone on here. I have been on the minority view on some points, and know just how strong the statements here can fly. But I believe that there is room for diversity of views here, and that many of the lurkers appreciate seeing the diversity and the discussion surrounding that. So let me assure you that even when I don't agree with your conclusions, I value having you here and providing your input. It is a place where expressing that diversity should be safe. Even if you support Rick Warren (gasp, smile). | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1566 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ah Rick! Not that Rick Warren topic again! (smiley face) There are times when certain truths about salvation become impressed upon the hearts. There is then a sense of great joy when we learn that we had absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. There is so great assurance in realizing that God chose us to adopt us into His family. Adoption is not something any child can possible choose. Niether can we choose to be born physically. Such a greater miracle than physical birth is spiritual birth when we are given new resurrected souls. But sometimes this great wonder and joy of discovering the great truths of the Reformed faith, and discovering sovereign grace, makes many of us sometimes so zealous (including myself), that there can then be a new spirit of pride, and then think that all those who don't see it our way are somehow not saved. I do agree, that logically mixing free-will with grace, as Luther says negates salvation by grace. However, God saves people despite their theology. I think this applies in many ways to us being former SDAs. I remember, when I came to realize that Adventism was built on a fraudulent foundation, and that Ellen was not who she claimed to be, well, I became quite sure that SDAs could not possibly be saved since they were all deceived. I doubted the salvation of my parents, as well as many former pastors. I have been doing a lot of praying and reflecting over my life in Adventism, and since leaving Adventism some 24 years ago. Maybe, I am just getting older (54years--old? (smiley), but, somehow I have a very clear memory of my childhood, which was the strictest of most any. However, despite the fact my Dad said listening to baseball games was a sin according to Ellen, he still clearly loved the Lord. But most all of the pastors I had in SDA churches growing up were much more liberal than my folks, and very few of them had the terrible spirit of Adventism that we all saw exhibited over on Revival sermons. That experience did convince me that that particular style of Adventism WAS EQUIVALENT to the spirit of Mormonism, JW, etc. And it is that type of SDA church which is very cultic that many have experienced. But at Soquel campmeetings, and Wawona summer camps, I can honestly say that the Spirit of Christ was clearly manifest. It was those experiences that kept me sane. Because, when I would return home, and go the Modesto Academy, then the spirit of cultic Adventism would rear its ugly head. So, for me, the Calvinist-Arminian argument is extremely important, but if someone disagrees with me, I am not going to say they are not saved. Also with Adventism--much of it is cultic and not Christian! I don't want to be misunderstood on this. If a person believes Ellen equals scripture, then I would question whether that person is really saved. If they believe Christ had a sinful nature, then likely they are not saved. If they believe that the Sabbath is a test for salvation, then Galatians 1 is very clear about that. But I know, and have met so many SDAs who are genuine Christians, and who are not trusting in Sabbatarianism, and who have given up Ellen White. They don't believe in Ellen. But, then, logically I guess they are not really traditional SDAs. I am just saying, that we need to be charitable towards our SDA friends. We need to be careful about judging whether they are saved or not. Romans 10: 9,10 gives a very simple test for salvation, and if a person is truly regenerate by being born from above, then they are saved. However, there is one trap about taking simple Bible verses out of context. And that is, they become a formula, and people are told that if they really believe this verse of scripture, then they are saved, even if there is no repentance. This is the other side of the coin. Much of seeker sensitive SDA churches and some of other seeker churches in evangelicalism really teach an easy believism, that if you whisper this prayer, or raise your hand, then that assures you are saved. There is no preaching of repentance in many of these type of churches. (I knew this would get back to Rick Warren--(smile). But back to the Spurgeon sermon that was posted at the top of this thread. It is so great to read Spurgeon on the sanctuary. When I read EGW and Great Controversy on the sanctuary, I get this terrible feeling in my spirit. There is just no comparison to the great Charles Spurgeon. He was truly inspired of God in the Biblical sense, and if you do have time to read that sermon, you will be blessed! Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1195 Registered: 10-2004  |
"If they believe that the Sabbath is a test for salvation, then Galatians 1 is very clear about that." That would probably be somewhere around 99% of all Adventists. Just to get some hard membership numbers, as of 2004, the North American Division contains only 7.2% of all SDA members. The Southern California and Southeastern California conferences combined equal only 10.8% of the NAD membership and only 0.8% of the worldwide SDA membership. I'm just trying to get some proper perspective here, since sometimes it seems that we get focused on certain people/churches/locations, etc., and think it is representative of Seventh-day Adventism. But it really isn't. Anyway, I like what Timothy Oliver's site says about Catholicism and I think it is very applicable to Adventism, Mormonism, and other cults:
Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1571 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Jeremy that logically an evangelical SDA is an oxymoron, as well as an evangelical Catholic. As I have said many times, I believe RCC and SDA are both false churches with false gospels at their root. The Pope and Mary are mixed with all kinds of paganism, and John MacArthur is absolutely right when he says that the RCC is nothing more than a front for the kingdom of Satan. But, as Walter Martin said about both RCC and SDA. As long as at least as stated in their official beliefs, both of these "churches" at least hold to the basic beliefs of Christianity which include the Trinity and the eternal deity of Christ. So that, by God's grace, there is just enough truth taught in these false systems that some are genuine Christians. I do know folks who are Catholics who I know are Christians, and many SDAs who are Christians. It is because of God's grace alone despite the heretical theology that is at the core of both systems. That is the only reason most cult experts will not equate RCC and SDA with JW and LDS which blatantly deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. From knowing Walter Martin, he would tell me that he would have to wear a bullet proof vest when lecturing in Salt Lake City. If a person would spend time going to Kingdom Halls (JWs), and Mormon temples for any period of time, they would see the clear difference in these systems, than one would see in either RCC or SDA. Hospital chaplains have told me that they cannot possibly communicate with a JW, when they are hospitalized, because the JW will always refuse to allow the Christian chaplain to pray for them, wheras that is much less likely to happen with an SDA or RCC patient. But, Jeremy, I agree with what you have posted. I have read Tim Oliver's official posting on Adventism, and I agree with him. It looks like I am splitting hairs on this issue, but there are some major differences from RCC/SDA vs. JW, LDS, and CS. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3804 Registered: 12-2003  |
Adrian, you are not out of place here. We always welcome your thoughtful insights. By no means is everyone here Calvinist! I think many of us have been overwhelmed to discover that God, not our own free-will, is at the center of reality, and that He really is SOVEREIGN. Remember, we share the heritage of Richard Rice who "wrote the book" on the "openness of God". I have felt such relief to know that I am not ultimately responsible for my own eternity. This realization means that I am no longer defined by my unconquered sins. I am defined by Jesus! Wow--that perspective has changed my life! I understand your analogy of the free gift which you mentioned above. I am seeing my responsibilityóat least right now!óas accepting God's gift to meóand then, on this side of knowing I am saved, to offer myself as a living sacrifice to Him. This offering is not to keep myself saved; that God does. This offering is what the Holy Spirit reminds me to do moment by moment as part of learning to live with Jesus as His follower. He provides His power and wisdom and love, and because He lives in me, I can submit to Him and grow. Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 202 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks all, Ric, Stan, sorry I have never read any Rick Warren, though I have been given one of his books. It just got put on the pile. Though you are right on the need to preach repentance, and it certainly is often missing. Does this mean you like Finney after all (double grin)? Here is his autobiography if anyone would like to read what he says about himself, rather than just someone else's opinion: http://65.108.220.179/books/CHARLES%20FINNEY.htm Colleen, Hi, sorry I don't know Richard Rice either, I am not doing too well here! I think we have somewhat differing views on sovereignty, but I go along with being defined by Jesus and being led by the Holy Spirit. And I should just like to repeat what I have said before, that I think you are doing a great job with this forum, and I often appreciate the wisdom with which you answer people. I'm sure this has been a great blessing to very many people. And I'm sure you put up with enough flack too without needing any from me :-) As you may remember I am British, but I have been living in Hungary for 10 years now. My English friends tell me I have taken on the "Eastern European style" which just means I am more stroppy and argumentative than I used to me. It is not really me at all. You sort of need it in this country, or no-one takes you seriously. For instance, a guy turned up at our meeting today drunk, and kept on talking in a loud voice when the meeting started. When he was asked to be quiet, he said he was sure the Lord forgave him and just kept on going on. When he was asked again, he made a scene and had to be escourted through the door. You sort of get used to it after a while. After that, we had a great Spirit led meeting. I guess we are all so much influenced by how we have been taught and how we were raised. All the same, I suppose I have to come to the conclusion that we are saved by having a relationship with God through Christ and not by having perfect theology. (I am really interested in theology, but I especially love Spirit led meetings!) I suppose if we were saved by perfect understanding, then knowledge would save us, and that would be Gnosticism (though not like the 2nd century version). In response to the above, I also know Roman Catholics who are certainly saved (this is an RC country). I can't figure why they don't leave, but the religion does seem to have a very strong grip on people. I find the idolatry a great problem. Particularly as the Bible is so dead agin it. Anyway, just rambling again, Love to you all, Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1196 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I strongly disagree that Adventism teaches the truth about Christ, the Trinity, or the real Jesus of the Bible. But I have talked about this before, and won't get into it again on this thread. Regardless, I agree with those who place RCC and SDA in the category of the cults. Colleen, Wow, what you said in your post above about our "living sacrifice" made me think. Maybe that would be a good thing to ask people who believe that we must maintain our salvation by our own "living sacrifice": Are we saved by Jesus' sacrifice alone or are we saved by our own "living sacrifice" in addition to Christ's sacrifice? The book of Hebrews makes it so clear that we must accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice as sufficient for our salvation. But they usually say that they believe that, so asking them the above question might help them realize that they are adding their own "sacrifice" as necessary for salvation. They might try to get around it, though. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 23, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 479 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, I would agree with you that SDAism is probably more similar to RCC than to any other religious group. Which is rather ironic. I will also agree with you that SDAism teaches errors about Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation. Adrian, that was a great comment about knowledge not saving us. That is a common SDA error and one that I think we formers can be prone to as well. I know I struggle with it. But recognizing it as such has helped me to release some of that. Which is why it isn't as important to me that everyone agree with me 100% (I'm still working on how much they can disagree with me). Election/Free will is one of these areas for me. I feel rather strongly about the beauty, joy and comfort that I found in understanding election and monergism. I am often anxious for others to understand this in discussions. But I do not believe that our understanding of this doctrine is salvic. When it came up in our Bible study group, I tried to explain what the views had in common as well as where they disagreed. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1573 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I will acknowledge that I don't have a degree in theology. Maybe you have some special insight to share with us about how the view of Christ as stated in the 28 fundamentals, and the view of the Trinity is aberrant. Chris Lee, in his study of the Trinity did also say that the SDA view of the Trinity is orthodox. Even those scholars who did call SDA a cult, such as Anthony Hoekema and Robert Morey don't base their views on Adventism's faulty view of Christ and the Trinity. Hoekema, who was one of the most learned of the Reformed scholars looked very carefully at the scapegoat doctrine, and SDAs views of Christ and the Trinity, and did not call SDA a cult based on any of that. Hoekema said SDAs views of eschatology placed them in cult status. There comes a point where I will just have to say that I am not trained in cult apologetics. I was a close friend, and even occl a physician to one of the most respected cult experts--Dr. Walter Martin. There is a bad rap and some revisionist history going on about how Martin only made his assessment of SDA based on QOD alone. He spent at least two years reading all the major works of Ellen White, and concluded she was regenerate. He read all of Mary Baker Eddy's works and concluded she was as false as false could be. I will not make any judgment as to Ellen's relationship with the Lord. I will leave that to the most Righteous Judge. However, I have no such reserve when it comes to the outright deception and coverup with regard to the leadership of SDAs role in aiding and abetting the White Lie. Jeremy, I just find it hard to believe that so many of the brightest evangelical scholars and cult experts just don't see SDAs aberrant view of Christ and the Trinity. If you want to use the argument about the doctrine of the spirit, then I see your point. But, we formers are not the first ones to discover this fact. You could take this logic one step further and say that because Arminians believe that man's spirit did not really die completely in Adam's fall, and that man can somehow have some part in synergistically cooperating with God to help resurrect his own soul, then do you want to call that belief cultic? Also, Jeremy, does Mark Martin, Greg Taylor, or Dale Ratzlaff--all former SDA pastors agree with you that SDAs view of the deity of Christ or the Trinity is faulty. I know I am coming off as defending SDA and Ellen White. I am not. I do think however, it is very serious to accuse someone of having a faulty view of Christ--when most major scholars will disagree. I do know one thing for sure. My mother, who is a very strict SDA did teach me about the Christ of the Bible, and she also showed me the love of Christ. For that I will be ever grateful. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1197 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I just did word searches throughout Chris's thread on the Trinity, and cannot find any such statement. I only see statements from Chris such as the following:
Anyway, as I said above, I do not wish to get into a discussion about this, it just puzzled me as to what statement by Chris you were referring to. If you meant that other, earlier thread where a discussion of this took place, Chris said on there that he "recanted."  Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 23, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1574 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Chris made that statement on another thread called "Andrews University changeover", rather than the Trinity thread, so I stand corrected. Maybe Chris is reading this and would like to make a statement on SDAs official view of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Chris is more trained in theology than I am. But, I am curious, Jeremy, if one of the three ex-SDA pastors I mentioned above ever said in print that SDAs have a faulty view of the Trinity or Christ. I know for sure Dale Ratzlaff doesn't believe that, and I know he still stands by his book "Cultic Doctrine" where he clearly states that SDAs do have an orthodox view of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3809 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, I also agree that Adventism teaches errors about Christ, the Trinity and salvation. They are subtle errors in that they publicly state orthodox sounding words (at least for the past 26 years), but in practice, Adventists absorb the idea that the Trinity functions more as separate Gods--or that Jesus is a weaker, more loving "god" than the Father, and that the Spirit is a "power" rather than a person. Elmer Wiebe's new book, "Who Is The Adventist Jesus?" which he has recently edited and can be obtained through his website, http://www.cultureshocksolution.org/, is a most amazing, detailed, comprehensive collection of quotations of all the early Adventist writers and thinkers about each of the members of the Trinity and about the Trinity itself. This book shows how anti-trinitarian the early Adventists really were, and it also shows how, as the years passed, some of the men changed in their views slightly, especially in regards to Jesus or the Spirit. This early heritage still colors Adventist thinking, and despite upgraded definitions, in practice Adventists do not "see" the Trinity in a Biblical way. I know that I firmly believed traditional Christians definitions of the Trinity as an Advenitst, but after I finally understood the gospel, Jesus looked completely different to me, although I had trouble finding words to explain the difference. Bottom lineóthe major difference is his absolute sinlessness. He always seemed a bit "compromised" because of humanity when I was an Adventist. That human "compromise" made Him seem weak and more sympathetic to humans than the Father. I agree with those above who said salvation does not save us, nor does it define whether or not we are saved. While I have found, as Rick said, great comfort in discovering God's sovereignty, I also see plenty of places in the Bible which suggest, as Adrian said, that our salvation involves our relationship with Jesus. I see God as completely the sources of our salvation and our ability to say "Yes" to Him. I also see humans as intrinsically bound in sin and unable to have free choiceóhence the need for God to intervene and to bring us to a place of saying "Yes". I eally don't know exactly how it happensóI'm thinking there are details about all this that exist besides the classical Arminian or Calvinist positions. God is outside time, and I really can't explain Him in ways that make logical sense to a time-bound, three-dimensional existence. I'm more comfortable saying there is something about how everything "works" that I can't see or know than in trying to quantify it. If I firmly quantify it, it seems something is always lost. So, while I lean strongly toward a Reformed view of thingsópossibly because I was steeped in so much heresy regarding salvation and my own "sacred" free will, I see that there are other dimensions of reality that I can't actually see. I believe that Christ-followers who are born of the Spirit who are on both "sides" of this spectrum learn from each other in important ways. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 184 Registered: 7-2005  |
Jeremy is right about Chris position regarding the anti-tritinarian adventist beliefs, he agreed with Jeremy at this point, on Andrews University Changeover thread.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are minimized by adventists. This is the inevitable result of their law-centered theology New Covenant believers surrendered the control of their lives to the Holy Spirit. In their lives Jesus through the Holy Spirit is in charge, in control of their thoughts and deeds. This is sufficient for a holy living. How much can we ask? The same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead raised us with him to a new life, and His power and His guidance is sufficient for any christian. But for adventists this is not the situation. They never surrendered the control of their lives to Jesus, because they are still trying to regulate their behaviour after the external standard of the law. They are stil in control. They rule their life, with Jesus and Holy Spirit as providers of the power. The law-keeping is their centre of their "spiritual" life, and consequently their persons. When somebody introduce them to the real thing of Jesus as King of their life, and that the Holy Spirit is sufficient to control their life, they are full of doubts. They saw the Holy Spirit and Jesus as weaker than their will-power against temptations. I ask myself: if Jesus is Almighty God, Holy Spirit is Almighty God, how can someone believe that they can fail to keep the believers safe from a sinful life? How can the adventist believe that someone who is almighty can fail to rescue a man from temptation? Only if they believe that Jesus and Holy Spirit are less almighty (excuse my wrong use of words). | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 480 Registered: 7-2004 |
Stan, in regards to SDA views of Jesus and the Trinity allow me to share a couple of posts I have made on CARM recently (I'll include links for those who are registered there)
My contention isn't that everyone in SDAism teaches a false view of Christ and the Trinity. But rather that SDAism has a confused view that allows for the erroneous to be taught right along side the true. And both are treated as equally valid. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3812 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, you said that so well. Russell Kelly, who occasionally posts here, has very interesting insights into the nature of Adventism. Raised Southern Baptist, he converted to Adventism (because they had the best arguments for observing the 10 Comandments) and graduated from an Adventist university. He has since left the church, and he says he classifies them a "a false Christian cult" for two primary reasons: First, their doctrine of inspiration that adds Ellen White to the Bible and treats her writings with equal respect and reverence places implicates them. Second is their exclusiveness. They teach they are the only true church. Kelly observes that on one hand Adventism as a whole is retreating even more into their EGW-based beliefs, using her quotes in publications to support their doctrines. The church is controlled by those who reverence her. At the same time, they are increasingly posing as evangelicals, sharing hospitals and church buildings with their "enemies" who they believe will not be saved if they do not begin keeping Sabbath by the time of the second coming. They join local ministerial societies and pretend to be part of the evanglelical pastors in their areas. They sit on both sides of the fence in order to try to proselytize other Christians. Russ, if you check in, we'd love to hear more of your comments! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1576 Registered: 3-2005 |
Rick, I am in full agreement with your comments. You state it so well, and in a way that those investigating will want to investigate more fully. I think this discussion has been very healthy. Stan | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 203 Registered: 2-2003 |
Colleen, Could I just ask you about what you said SDAs believe on the Holy Spirit? I am at present collecting material for my college classes in systematic theology, and I like to present the students with a variety of views for discussion. One of the new classes I will have is pneumatology. Just a ramble again: I am sure I remember Gyula saying they were taught at the Christian Advent Fellowship Bible college that the Holy Spirit is God and also a person, using all the standard verses to support this. (On the other hand, they were definitely taught that Jesus had a sinful nature, based on typology taken from the bronze serpent Moses made in the wilderness). I know JWs believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and God's first creation, and also that the Holy Spirit is only a force (they use Acts 1: 8, "you will receive power" for that one). I also know JWs and SDAs had common roots. Just by the way of nothing, I remember I once got a phone call asking me if I would do some interpreting for a conference (I work as a translator, English teacher and interpreter). The person who asked was a member of an independent Pentecostal church and also an interpreter. The conference was held by the United Pentecostal Church, so I immediately expressed my concern, as they are Oneness people. She said, well they consider God to be "very much one" and the Adventists think he is "very much three" but it's no big deal, I work for all of them. Anyway, they did not get in touch, so I did not have to make the decision in the end, though I would not have been really happy doing it. What I was trying to say, is that is the present extent of my knowledge on the subject. If SDA's in general think the Holy Spirit is a force, that is a real problem. Any comments would be appreciated :-) Thanks Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 204 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ric, Just getting back to a post of yours a long way up. I am still thinking about a Calvinism discussion, but as usual time is my problem. I will hopefully get back to it in a few days. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1198 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, it's really not a matter of needing "theological training." If they teach that God is a group of three separate divine beings, they are teaching Tritheism. If they teach that Jesus has no human spirit or soul, they are not teaching the Jesus of the Bible. That is the antichrist heresy of Apollinarianism. (And that is just one of their many heretical teachings about Christ.) And I could go on and on, but I will refrain. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 24, 2006) |
