| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3834 Registered: 12-2003  |
That's true, Mary. The January/February issue of Proclamation had an article that examined several traditional hymns and how they have been altered in the Adventist hymnal. It compares alterations and deletions in the 1941 and 1985 editions of the hymnal. The article is not a comprehensive discussion of altered Adventist hymns, but it examines a representative selection of songs. The amendments vary from shocking to subtle and carry significant theological messages. You can find this article, "Tell me the Old, Old Story...Uh, Which One?" in the online version of the magazine here: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JanFeb.pdf Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 208 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thank you Colleen and Richard for your information, Perfectly understandable. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1585 Registered: 3-2005 |
I think we should be happy that both the SDAs and Worldwide church of God at least did change to trinitarian after being fully in the non-Christian category. However, I would put SDA, WWCG, and RCC in the same category, as all teaching false gospels, but having true Christians in them because they at least are Trinitarian with orthodox Christology. All of them are false churches. Dennis is correct that you can't reform a cult. I have only slightly modified my position. I just don't think you can classify LDS, CS, JW the same as these other three seriously aberrant and false churches. The major reason being, is that you have to account for the number of true Christians within these type of organizations which are very diverse. LDS, JW, and CS are monolithic. Just try having Smuts Van Rooyen preach in a Kingdom Hall and see how long he would last. He would be literally dragged out. Walter Martin wore bullet proof vests when visitin Mormon country. He was welcomed with open arms to speak in SoCal SDA churches. Martin said that he knew he was meeting with Christians. But, he was allowed to speak--he wasn't censored. He firmly told what was wrong with SDA, and said they are in danger of becoming a cult if Ellen has the final authority. And many parts of SDA fit that description, but, not all. Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 677 Registered: 4-2000  |
Stan, Thank you for your comments. In regard to Dr. Walter Martin, I find it most interesting that he wore a bullet-proof vest in Mormon country. However, to their credit, the Mormons didn't pretend to be Evangelicals and deceive Dr. Martin. They didn't even write a special book to convince him. Oh yes, the Mormons don't come to our doorstep telling us that they are from the Home Health Education Service. We need to give credit where credit is due. Furthermore, the Mormons are not ashamed of their living prophet and their dead prophets. I applaud the Mormons for being fully identified when I respond to the doorbell. For example, across America, medical offices are not aware that they are a vital part of the local SDA evangelistic team. I have written an exposition entitled "REVIEWING THE TROOPS." As a former publishing leader, I would be happy to email it to those who request it. Adventism was founded on deception and they actively pursue the same stance today. Dennis Fischer E-mail: dennisfischer@neb.rr.com Yahoo Instant Messaging ID: nebraskan2 | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 76 Registered: 7-2000 |
So, Jeremy, are you going to post the findings from your personal research regarding the SDA's trinatarian teachings? It would benefit many of us. I thought I was taught trinitarian within SDA, however, there was much confusion about the whole topic within the church, I fear it is contributing to some of my anxieties. The Adventists teaching about everything is so convoluted, I don't think anyone will accuse you of being insensitive or harsh toward Adventistism if you lay out the findings. Often we want look back with nostalgia at the good ole days even within our family. However, it is just pure fantasy. Perhaps we are having to face some issues about our past or present ties to relations that are so grim, it frightens us to think we may be part of it, so we'd prefer to dismiss the reality and live in denial and or become defensive and protective of what we think was there in the past. I find that even after 7 years exiting SDAism, I am still untangling webs of deceits tied up and around my truth. So Jeremy, please post your findings. Thanks BMorgan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1207 Registered: 10-2004  |
Bmorgan, thanks for your comments. Mary, I found that first document by Gerhard Pfandl of the Biblical Research Institute a couple weeks ago, and the definition of the Trinity in that document does appear to be orthodox. There is also another document on the Biblical Research Institute's website from 1970 by Raoul Dederen from Andrews Seminary which also looks like it teaches monotheism. I do not claim that all Adventists believe in Tritheism. But I do claim that it is a foundational, widespread, and official Adventist teaching and that the official book explaining their Fundamentals (Seventh-day Adventists Believe... is Tritheisic. Now, just the other day, I found out that they have now released a recently edited version of that book, to include their 28th Fundamental, so there is the possibility that they may have changed the wording in the Godhead section (but if so, it was probably only to make it more ambiguous). The SDA's public statement in the 28 Fundamentals could be read as either Trinitarian or Tritheistic. Even Gerhard Pfandl, though, in the above link in Mary's post to an Adventist Review article, lists the following as one of the "Ten Big" issues that the Adventist Church is tackling: "Trinity--Is Jesus God from eternity, or did He have a beginning? Is the Holy Spirit a person?" But here are some examples of the Adventist doctrine of Tritheism: From the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' website, by Lester Bennett (D. Min.), in a document from the Sabbath School Ministries department entitled "Some Background for the SS Lessons on the Holy Spirit":
From the Introduction of the Oct/Nov/Dec 1998 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (the official SDA quarterly):
And the from the actual Lesson 3:
From an article by Ralph Larson:
The Adventist Review, the official magazine of the SDA church, published the following by Gordon Jenson, which, according to a historical SDA web site (http://www.restorationministry.com/tracts/are_sdas_advancing.htm), was "presented in the Week of Prayer readings, appointed to be read in all Seventh-day Adventist churches worldwide":
Then later in the article, Jenson wrote: "The divine Beings entered into the roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid." (Taken from http://www.presenttruth.info/newsletters/PresentTruth/2002/pt_k_nov02.htm) According to the above web site, Gordon Jenson "was the president of Spicer Memorial College in Pune, India." Retired Andrews University theology professor Samuele Bacchiocchi says:
Perhaps the most astounding statement of all that I've found is from a document by Mallam Tambaya on the official website of the West-Central Africa Division of Seventh-day Adventists which not only teaches Tritheism, but it even sounds like a "Oneness Tritheism" combining Oneness and Tritheism theology! Not only this but in this article and other articles on the official website of the West-Central Africa Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Mallam Tambaya uses both the Holy Bible and the "Glorious Qur'an" to present doctrine!
Apparently, the African Adventists believe in the Bible and the Qur'an alone, as interpreted by Ellen G. White!!!! Even the SDAs themselves, in an article published by Jerry A. Moon, Ph.D., Andrews University, entitled The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 1: Historical Overview, admit that:
For an examination of quotes from the official SDA belief book mentioned above, see this post here. For a bunch of Ellen G. White quotes showing she taught Tritheism, see this post and my next post after that one. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 28, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3851 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, fascinating. And thank you, Bmorgan, for encouraging him to share these. Thank you so much for sharing these quotes. the Q'uran reference is certainly shocking! I guess that might not be too surprising, though, since the Adventist position on evangelizing Muslims has been, according to past GC Muslim relations director Jerry Whitehead, to teach them about Jesus but not ask them to leave Islam. The premise, he stated, is that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. (This gets us right back to the Trinity question, doesn't it? Not to mention which sacred texts are authoritative...) I've been thinking a lot about my own perception of one God and three person these last two weeks as a result of this discussion. I definitely learned as an SDA that there is one God in three persons, and the example I remember hearingóalthough always with a disclaimer that it couldn't adequately explain the mysteryówas that of a family: one single entity with three different members, each with different "jobs" but a single purpose, desire, motive, etc. The "family" constituted the "same substance" which identified "God" in the three different persons. It was after I read the quote Jackob posted (was it early this week?) of the Christian and the Mormon missionary that I realized that in a significant way my view of God had been similarónot identicalóto that of the Mormon missionary. The Mormon viewed the "office" of god as ONE, and Father, Jesus, and the Spirit, were the three separate persons of the one "god". I realized that I had always seen God more or less as three distinct and separate entities mysteriously unified as one "God". Thus, while all three worked together, still they had their own distinct jobs and roles. Even though I had often used Hugh Ross's description of the three separate objects reaching toward me, connected out of my sight to a single Hand, to describe this concept of Trinity, I had still, from my earliest years on, understood God as functioning as three separate "people". About five years ago, as I was studying 1 Corinthians, I realized that the spiritual gifts are not simply "gifts of the Spirit" as I had been taught. They are the gifting of the entire Trinityóthe one God. 1 Cor 12: 4-6 clearly names all three in connection with the effects of the spiritual gifts. That came as a small jolt of surprise. As time has passed, I have found more and more instances of the entire Trinity being named when stating the work of God: Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:14; 3:16-19; 4:5-6; 5:18-20; etc. As I thought about this, I suddenly realized that if I no longer think about God as independant individuals, a whole lot of what Jesus said makes more sense without my viewing it as metaphor. For example, John 14:15-21 where Jesus says He would send the Comforter. "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day, you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." etc. I've always imagined that Christ is "in" me by means of the Holy Spirit being in me and thus making Jesus, who is "another person", real to me. Yet Jesus said not only would He be in us, but we would be in Him, and He is in the Father, and our lives are hidden with Christ in God, and we are sealed with the Holy Spirit... What I'm seeing is that I really haven't internalized Hugh Ross's hand metaphoróor some other similar way of thinking. I've imagined the persons "represent" each other, but I haven't really understood that by being sealed with the Holy Spirit, for example, I am actually connected to Jesus and the Father directly and not just "representationally". I really don't know how to explain what I'm realizing, but functionally thinking of God as One Individual in three persons (ie fingers on a hand) instead of as three separate individuals united as a family unit makes a significant difference. God is much more personal and powerful and mysterious to me when I think of Him as One instead of as three functionally distinct entities. Now, I'm not trying to unite the three persons into a single person. I realize they are different. I'm just saying, I have realized this week how subtley but powerfully I really did learn tritheism while being told I was learning trintiarianism. It altered my understanding of God's interaction with me and with the universe. Add to all this the lack of concensus on Christ's natureódid he or did he not have sinful flesh? That question has never been settled. You can't have a true Trinity if Jesus had sinful flesh. If He had sinful flesh, he was less-than-God; he is a weak Jesus. These are just my personal ponderings this week--they're probably a bit esoteric, but they've been really significant to me, and I feel I've gained a lot of clarity on this issue. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1211 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen, That is very interesting. I think that the fingers/hand metaphor falls short in that there would then be four "things": finger, finger, finger, and hand. In other words, in reality the three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) are the one being (God)--there is not a fourth "thing." If we said that there were only the three fingers and that these three fingers were connected to each other and were one "entity" (since God is one living being) sort of like the following maybe: /|\ (only imagine the lines actually connect to each other!  ), then I think it would be more accurate. But it's also important to note that each person of the Trinity, for example Jesus, is not just a "part" of God, but is fully God. I don't think any human illustration of the Trinity can be perfect.  Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 28, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1596 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree with your last statement Jeremy about no illustration being perfect. But as long as someone believes that there is One God, and this one God comprises the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct persons in the one God, then they are not heretical. I just can't see any point in trying to parse out the words in the SDA doctrinal statement and say that it is heretical---not when you have TD Jakes teaching Modalism, which is blatant heresy. The reason, the Trinity doctrine is so important is because the three distinct persons in the one God all have an interconnected role in our salvation. The Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Christ, as eternal God, went to the cross and not only made salvation possible, he guaranteed it by purchasing our pardon on the cross--not later in the Investigative Judgment! The Holy Spirit then seals the deal by guaranteeing our safekeeping perfectly and eternally. I praise God for this glorious gospel. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3857 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, I agree. I didn't mean to imply there really were four parts--or five! I think one of the most powerful things this thinking has made me realize is that when Jesus died on the cross, God literally lost part of Himself, not just "one of" Himself. I realize it's a bit of an esoteric discussion, as Stan mentioned, but I'm actually pretty overwhelmed at the difference this makes in my understanding of God and His interaction with me and creation and the church. Wow. Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 275 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree, Colleen...Wow! As I read through Chris's post a few weeks ago on the Trinity; and as I've been reading through this thread, I too am stunned at the lack of a 'grasp' I have on the Trinity. Obviously no one can understand its mystery, but we can apprehend what the Bible teaches. I've heard Hank H. say that for years. We cannot comprehend the Trinity, but we can apprehend it...in other words, we can read the Bible! Our very 'evangelical SDA' pastor (the last SDA church we attended) doesn't allow anyone up front to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. He requires (yes requires) everyone to pray to the Father. When I was instructed on this I was stunned. The first thing that popped out of my unthinking mouth was "Doesn't he believe in the Trinity?" Of course his answer is yes, but really, he can't believe in the Biblical teaching of the Trinity because then, as Colleen pointed out, he'd realize the Bible affirms the complete Deity of the Godhead. Well, I've probably shared that story before, but it still shocks me every time I think about it! And I don't tell it to assassinate that pastor's character, just to emphasize the confusion that the SDA teaching on the Trinity causes. Patria | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hello all! Back to the beginning of this thread... I clicked on the topic because my old mission director at Osaka SDA church used to have a real loathing of Spurgeon, viewing his teaching as basically the antichrist. At that point I hadn't the faintest idea who Charles Spurgeon even was! I skimmed Spurgeon's sermon and yes, (laugh), it does appear aimed at the EGW-headed movement! Especially the first part about God not dwelling at one specific place or group (a nudge toward the "remnant" flock). Reading a little further down the thread, I noticed a bit of concern people had about Charles Spurgeon and Charles Finney's views of salvation. It was noted that much of Christianity in America is based on works instead of grace. While the latter is certainly true (witness the 10 Commandment plaque-in-courthouses efforts), I wonder about some of the writers online who have criticized Finney so much. I might get myself into trouble here... Finney lived at a time when Universalism was the big challenge of the day, and he emphasized the points he felt would put a halt to it. Yes, this is partially the "context" argument I'm using. I think God raised up Finney for that time that he was in. Was Finney wholly correct? Of course not. He did the best with what he had, and I think that historical investigation makes it clear God was with him in his work. Now, before anyone cites EGW to nullify the "context" argument, let's be clear that EGW led people away from the Bible and the Gospel, and Finney on the other hand led people toward Christ and the Bible. Finney's main "work", perhaps, may have been a belief in the need for confession/repentance before coming to Christ. After that, what he said was constructed in such a way as to combat the threat of the Universalists of his day, and he did this with the knowledge & tactics he had learned in his former practice as a lawyer. I think in a similar vein is the book of James, which taken at the common person's glance does seem like it's contradicting Paul and the gospel of grace. At the same time, the same Spirit is speaking in both authors. What's the difference? Well, who are they talking to? Paul is talking to people who preached works. James is talking to people who were living against agape but claimed to belong to Christ. To that latter group, Christ's warnings of "Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' but do not do what I say?" would be very applicable. While they first appear to contradict, in later examination we find that God has indeed saved us wholly by His Son, but He has also called us into a life of agape love. At some point (and only He knows when) I think we *can* refuse Him and reject agape (and it's to this that the warnings in Hebrews & 2nd Peter apply). Mistreatment of the poor is one of the things that really angered God in the Old Testament, so is it a surprise to find such strong sentiment in the book of James? Paul would also blast it. I think that a possible answer to the James-Paul question is simply that they may not be speaking the same language. Paul's writings are talking of salvation by faith vs. salvation by works, and I think the context makes it clear that James is not out to contradict Paul, but rather to make sure people live in the spirit of agape love that Christ has called us to. In a similar way, I think Charles Finney was responding largely to the group of his day, to the needs of his day. And in another similar way, *we* (FAs) are responding to the needs of our day; we are responding to the false gospel of works that we learned in Adventism. If instead we were to be talking to groups of people who claimed to believe but used it as a license to live in terrible sin, don't you think we might emphasize other things for awhile? From what little I know of Finney, I've seen him always butting heads with Universalists and calling people to repentance. Oh, and if you read his autobiography, there's a funny meeting he had with *William Miller* of all people, trying to show him the error of his ways and calm the effects of the Millerite movement. One of our problems in Christianity down through the years is trying to iron out salvation into words, into a doctrinal list of what it is and what it isn't. But I think that salvation is a *living message*. That doesn't mean it changes, but our emphasis on certain parts of the Christian experience does indeed change depending on our times and who we're talking to. As a result it is possible that what one honest Spirit-filled believer says in one day might appear as heresy to another honest Spirit-filled believer on the other side of the world. Perhaps when these situations arise, it is best to "test the fruit" to see if the fruits of the Gospel do indeed follow. I think that in looking at Charles Finney's ministry, the fruits of the Gospel are obvious, even if in pinpoint particulars his statements don't seem to mesh with with we believe today. The solution maybe to leave it in God's hands and realize that we're not going to be able to doctrinally iron out everything that was right and wrong throughout the ages. (Ellen White, on the other hand, left a legacy of anti-Biblical writings and a wake of legalism & deception about her "gift") Above all we remember that God is an opportunist, and that He can use anyone to lead others to Him. And we remember that even we do not have the whole truth, but where it is obvious that the Gospel is getting stomped on, God does call us with Jude to "contend for the Gospel once and for all entrusted to the saints." I hope I haven't gotten myself into too much trouble with this. (^_^) | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 210 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jeremy, Thanks for those EGW quotes on the Godhead. Very interesting. It certainly does seem her views were somewhat, er, unorthodox. Hello AgapÈtos, Glad to meet someone who appreciates Finney, at leaast mildly! I have read both that he was an abominable heretic, and elsewhere that he made the most significant contribution to theology in the 19th century. I guess it does depend where we're coming from. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1600 Registered: 3-2005 |
Adrian and Agapetos, Thanks for your thoughtsabout Finney. Did either one of you read the article by RC Sproul that I posted about the Pelagian Captivity of the Church? Sproul documents clearly how Finney denied the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. If he did not believe that Christ paid the penalty of our sins on the cross, then by any evangelical definition, Finney is not a Christian. Now, EGW, depending on who she was copying, did at least give lip service to believing in Christ's substitutionary atonement. There is an excellent article by John MacArthur in his book "Ashamed of the Gospel", documenting step by step, the heresies of Charles Finney. This book is widely available, and not only does the book expose Finney about who he really was, but this book also exposes the fad-driven, market-driven church for what it really is. EGW clearly copied from Finney. I think jeremy could show us quote after quote showing that Finney believed the same false gospel of works EGW did. This can be documented so clearly. It was Finney who was responsible for the severely misguided altar-call system of evangelism we have today. He would say that he could get anybody to come to Christ if he preached his message correctly, and if he set the mood and lights appropriately, with the proper music "Just as I Am", then you could get most if not all to respond. This is why we see so many false conversions today. The emotionalism of the moment at a crusade, and the group following mentality, causes people to go forward. Some crusades even have "plants" where these people start the walk to the front. Then these people are told, that since they went forward at a crusade, then they are saved forever. There are some interesting statistics about what the "fruit" of some of these types of crusades are. Here is a quote from page 235 of MacArthur's book about Finney. "Finney became discouraged when his methods failed...He turned his energies to the development of his perfectionistic doctrines... A contemporary of Finney said this 'During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that Finney's real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by Finney himself that speaking of his converts "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" MacArthur goes on to say, that Finney believed his methods of evangelism would have worked if he HAD PUSHED THE DOCTRINE OF PERFECTIONISM FURTHER. I think as former SDAs (me included) can get so caught up in rightly being angry over deception of the church leaders regarding Ellen White--and I am still angry!. But at the same time, it is not true that the rest of the evangelical world is not teaching some of the same doctrines we see as false. And Finney was the poster boy for works-righteousness, and Ellen White only fell in line. To compare Paul and James in the same way as comparing Spurgeon to Finney, as both sides of the same coin, may be another subject for intense discussion. But Adrian and Agapetos, I appreciate you coming on to give me the chance to rant and rave (smiley)! But, seriously, for those of us who were burned so badly by EGW's perfectionism, that is why I come down so strongly on Finney. Because Finney is the source of most of the confused doctrines on salvation in America today. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1212 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I am quite surprised that you are taking the heresy of Tritheism so lightly. Did you read the quotes I posted above? This is the same doctrine as the Mormons' Tritheism. Are the Mormons ok all the sudden? Is their Tritheism legitimate? Take a look at the quotes Jackob posted above and see what the Mormons say they believe. The fact is, Tritheism is just as bad of a heresy as Modalism. At least TD Jakes believes that Jesus Christ is fully God. Tritheism says that He is only one of three "parts" of "God," and that He is only one of three gods. Here is how the official SDA quarterly defined the Godhead:
Here is the Mormon belief:
The SDA & LDS belief is the exact same thing. God is one being! God is not three beings. That is absolute heresy. I'm sorry, but I must call it like it is. The following statement is taken from T.D. Jakes' website:
And Jakes uses the word Trinity numerous times in this article, talks about co-existence, and even denies believing in Modalism. So does this mean that we have to accept him as a Trinitarian? His website also says:
So, if we criticize T.D. Jakes for using the word "manifestations" then we must also criticize the SDAs for using the word "beings"! We must be consistent or we lose our credibility. To summarize: 1. TD Jakes uses the word Trinity. TD Jakes denies the doctrine by going to the extreme side of "Oneness." 2. The SDAs use the word Trinity. The SDAs deny the doctrine by going to the extreme side of "Threeness." TD Jakes and SDA can use the word "Trinity" till the cows come home, but that still does not make them Trinitarian! The Mormons don't use the word Trinity, and so they get labeled a cult. TD Jakes and SDA are very clever. BTW, the reason why a lot of Evangelicals accept Jakes is not because they think Modalism is fine, but because he has deceived them into thinking that he does not teach Modalism and that he believes in the Trinity. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 29, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1601 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, No argument about a lot of what you are saying. I am not taking tri-theism lightly! If SDAs Mormons, or Jakes say it wrong, they are WRONG! (smiley)--Jeremy, you are great! Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1602 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Can you come up with any EGW vs Finney comparisons, if you have time? Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 1025 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm in a flabberghasted state at the moment. Here is a statement made by an Adventist minister, who is a regular poster on CARM, with regard to the Holy Place vs Most Holy Place and Jesus' ministry immediately upon his assention. "I agree that Jesus entered the most holy in terms of the earthly temple, but Hebrews does not say he entered the most holy in heaven. The earthly is being used as a parable by Paul. But in the reality Rev 4-5 does show us that Jesus went to the holy place at his ascension and was with the Father there." He is calling Paul's words in Hebrews a parable, and John's words in Revelation statement of fact. I may get my wrist slapped because of what I said after I read the post, but I told him that it was the most desperate, pathetic effort I had ever seen to try to validate Investigative Judgment. At CARM, one is not allowed to levy personal attacks. I suppose my response will have to be screened through a judgment call. Others were better at keeping their heads than I was, but then my wake-up call regarding Adventism had to do with IJ, and every time I encounter this type of scriptural hijinks it makes me crazy. I'm still upset and breathing hard. How dare he say such things! That is like calling black white, and white black! | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan, I am a little bit taken back by your comments above. I am very sorry but I have to disagree with you. I too am not angry anymore for being deceived by ADventism. I appreciate your confession about your conviction of what you must do or be in respect to your view of Adventism. However, I wander? Aren't you being a little subjective, or are you trying to convice most to see SDAism as being harmless. Moreover, we don't have to tiptoe around and be silent because our friends and relatives may be offended if we call adventism what it really is-CULT. Regardless of who says what; Walter Martin, Dale or anybody else, Adventists' teaching and culture are cultic. (I would unabashedly call it "doctrines of demons") You will have to be less critical (as you often are) of others, viz. Finney, T D Jakes and the RCC offenses regarding their false theology and heretical views if you want to be consistent and credible. Whether or not EllenWhite gave lip service to trinitarian views or followed lockstep quoting anybody's heretical views, she was a false prophet, very deceptive and is accountable for the havoc perpetuated within Adventistism. Sometimes anger is a good thing. It helps us face, confront and right wrongs. Let's be consistent and call EGW (Adventism)what it is-damaging falsehoods. Quite frankly, I'd prefer LDS and JWs. At least we KNOW they are openly erroneous. SDAism appears squeaky clean, but in fact full of dead men's bones. Stan, I am very sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you. Erma | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 683 Registered: 4-2000 |
Colleen, Your statement above, "...when Jesus died on the cross, God literally lost part of Himself, not just "one of" Himself." is excellent, biblical, and thought-stimulating. I also greatly appreciated the excellent study on the Godhead by Chris Lee. Erma, Your assessment of Seventh-day Adventism truly hits the nail on the head. I wholeheartedly agree that their masquerading or pretending to be authentic, mainline Protestants, even the "final link" of them, is most abominable and deceptive. There is absolutely no need to sugar-coat any false religious system--including Adventism. Jesus was certainly very forthright in denouncing the legalists of his day. Dennis Fischer |
