| Author | Message | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 1030 Registered: 7-2004 |
Richard, I want you to know that I was praying for your church as a result of your request. I'm not always good at posting that I am there, spiritually, for you. As mouthy as I get at times I'm really a very private person and when someone asks for prayer I hit my knees--without having to brag that I'm doing so. That is what I love about the real gospel is that there is no personal bragging involved, only bragging about Jesus. I pray that the results of that meeting have been/will be an honor to God. Please forgive me for not notifying you that I was there for you. You cannot look through your screen at me and see my nod of agreement. I'll try to be more responsive in the future. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 373 Registered: 10-2005 |
Perhaps it isn't a good idea to use the "C" word while an Adventist is present. Just as an Adventist wouldn't mention the Mark of the Beast and Sunday worship when someone is present that worships on Sunday. If a Sunday worshiper even looked at me as if they knew what an Adventist was, I was so fearful, I would avoid that person and that church and think there was something Satanic about them. I agree with Melissa. I was sucked into the Seventh-day Adventist church because my Christian/Protestant friends did not know they were a cult. I have health problems and both my friends and I thought this church was a Christian church that emphasized healthy eating. Now, I know there are people here who won't like what I'm going to say. But I am expressing myself truthfully. I'm not hiding my personal feelings. In my opinion, the Seventh-day Adventist church is worse than the Mormons, JWs and Catholics! Yes, worse. Why? Because I knew what the MORMONS, JWS and CATHOLICS stood for. If I knew "up front" THE TEACHINGS OF THE Seventh-day Adventist church, I WOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE A CULT and they would have been rightfully labeled that by me, my friends, my neighbors, my coworkers, my mother, other pastors, unbelievers and Walter Martin! Insensitive! Oh, the Protestants that worship on Sunday and know Saturday is the Sabbath are Satanic and are the ones guilty of the unforgivable sin against God. If Christ comes today and I do not repent of not keeping the Sabbath, or don't believe in it, according to the Seventh-day Adventist church, I am unforgiven! I am Satanic! That is what my Adventist friends now call me and Colleen or anyone who is, what they call, deceived! Again, the Seventh-day Adventist church has marked me as Satanic and I'm supposed to care about whether or not I'm calling them a cult? You mean I've wasted 20 years in fear because nobody wants to hurt the feelings, or step on any toes of Adventists! They only lie. They are only false. It isn't fair to say anything worse, especially since Adventists are so smart! And many times they are theologically and scientifically correct! So what's the big deal about the Sabbath and those cultish teachings? Here is what's wrong. Just put the writing on the Church door like Ellen White said so the Protestants can know what the Seventh-day Adventist church stands for! Of course the teachings make it a cult. I take it personal what has been done to my mind as a result of this desception. I was brainwashed and in fear and that is Satanic. But think about it. Why is it that Adventists can call non-Adventist gospel preaching protestants "Satanic" for the day they worship on? Is that really fair? Jesus is gentle and loving. But Jesus also gets angry and He is just. ============================================================ Romans 3 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 690 Registered: 4-2000  |
Stan, For the record, Dr. Desmond Ford is no longer a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He asked the PUC church to drop his membership shortly after his retirement. You can glean this information from his website at: www.goodnewsunlimited.org. Furthermore, the current director at GNU was delighted when I left Adventism. He too had suffered much under the SDA hierarchy while still in Australia. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 691 Registered: 4-2000 |
PS: After logging unto www.goodnewsunlimited.org, then click on ASK THE PASTOR and scroll down through a few questions and answers to get this good news about Dr. Ford. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1223 Registered: 10-2004  |
I just have to smile and shake my head.  I did a quick search and in the last ten months I had posted the term "Satanic cult" a total of zero times. Before this post, I posted it twice this week. That makes for a total of 2 times in the last ten months. Meanwhile, those who are supposedly against using this term have, collectively, used it many more times than that in just this one thread! I have to agree with Colleen's statement: "My experience has been that even the most gentle mention of a 'spirit of Adventism' or of the church being a 'cult' results in defensive outcries that far outweigh the original comments." It really bothers me that people aren't even reading/understanding the reasons we give for why we say what we do. Folks, it's not because we want to use "offensive language"! It also seems to me that some may not be understanding what Colleen means when she uses the word "spiritual." Not that I want to speak for Colleen (but I guess I will anyway since I think this needs to be clarified ), but she is not using the word "spiritual" in the Adventist meaning of the word (which would mean...I don't know...not much...maybe "theological"--they really strip that word of any significant meaning!). When we use terms like "spiritual bondage" or "spiritual hold" we are talking about evil spiritual forces (Satan/demons). These realities behind the SDA church are very important. It's not just a "human" bondage--it is a very real demonic bondage and hold. God's Word makes this clear (see 1 Timothy 4:1-6, 1 John 4:1-3, Ephesians 6:10-16, etc.). Especially note verse 6 of 1 Timothy 4: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." (NASB.) Pointing out that these are demonic teachings and that there are deceitful spirits behind them (verse 1) is commended, not criticized, by God's Word (verse 6). There is much more that I could say, but for now, that is all I will say. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3899 Registered: 12-2003  |
Richard, I also prayed for you and your meetings. Great news about Des Ford! Thank you, Dennis. And yes, Jeremy, you did define my meaning of "spiritual" the way I meant it. I just want to add, however, that we have no reason to be ashamed, afraid, or embarrassed that we've been part of any sort of group with a spiritual hold on us. We are born into the "domain of darkness", as Colossians 1:13 calls it, and we are firmly in the grip of evil until God awakens us with His spirit and transfers us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. The fact that we have been deceived by evil should not make us feel "stupid"; it is the normal human condition. Praise God He has set us free through His Son! Colleen | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 489 Registered: 1-2003  |
Thanks Belvalew and Colleen, it can be very lonely at times. God is good and will ever be with us. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 261 Registered: 2-2005 |
Richard, I sent you an email on Tuesday addressing this. Did you not get it? It wasn't returned as undeliverable so I assumed you had. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2509 Registered: 3-2004  |
There is nothing I can do about what I was born into. The good thing to know is that I do not have to stay there. Thank you God for taking me out of adventism. You are awesome. Diana | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 490 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sorry Heretic, yes I got it and thanks so much for your comments about the discussions here. I believe your statement below. "Just keep your eyes on the Lord and incessantly seek the truth found in Scripture." Keeping my eyes on the Lord and seeking truth are my passion now as seek His face in all I do. In Christ, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 281 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen: Thank you for your kind words. It was truly a disappointment, but I am trusting that the little boy is in God's hands. Jackob: Shew!! I am so relieved. Thank you for clarifying and for your analogy. I really value your insights... Everyone: I am so grateful for a place to come (here) where we can talk about these things. It is truly a blessing. THANKS COLLEEN and RICHARD and everyone else involved in keeping this forum going. In Christian Love, Patria | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 321 Registered: 5-2004 |
I have not really wanted to chime in on this discussion just for the simple fact that we're not all going to see "eye to eye". But I don't think it's been an unhealthy discussion. Just like any family, we discuss and share all kinds of good things without any conflicts. But we're still allowed to discuss the things we may not always agree on and know that we're not judging each others hearts. Healthy growth comes from challenging ideas...whether or not the result is agreement. For those of you who teach in any capasity, don't you find that it's by challenging your students ideas that they evaluate them and grow? I really don't think that we can say that talking about contaversial things is detrimental. Now, personally, I do evaluate the denomination as a cult. Or at least cultish. This in no way reflects on how I view the people. I cannot judge their hearts and I know so many committed Christians who are adventist. God uses people everywhere, and His timing is now ours. I will still talk to anyone I can about the issues and problems with adventism, but I won't use the c word while talking to adventists. But's that what I hear everyone else saying also. Recently we met with some friends who've stepped out of the leadership position in a very progressive sabbath school group at PMC. They haven't dropped their membership or anything, just felt that they'd reached the point where they didn't qualify for leadership anymore. Most of the (this is a large group) class falls in the VERY evangelical side of adventism. They don't really know that much of the early side. In fact, many of the people in the group believe universalism, and the gammut of everything else that I don't even know the words for. Some don't even believe that the Bible is real. It's just a collection of folklore or parable type stories to learn. Some don't even believe that Jesus really died. And yet, the moment that my friends resigned and people found out that they didn't believe in the church enough to be leaders, EVERY ONE of their friends has given them the cold shoulder. They've gotten threats and painful letters, and some won't even talk to them, or turn and go the other way when they meet in town. These are people who I would classify as highly professional, successful, warm people...and quite frankly, I'm shocked because I considered them so progressive. They wouldn't react this badly to an immoral lifestyle, or alternative teachings...but to have issues witht the denomination. Something is just wrong with this picture. Patria, It's so sad that little boy couldn't become yours. It brings me such sadness that anyone would surmise that child would be worse off with you. But you are right, God will look after him. Well, thanks for letting me throw in my two cents | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 489 Registered: 7-2004  |
There is no doubt in my mind that there are cultic elements to SDAism. The use of deception in attracting members, the use of fear and manipulation to keep members. The un-official shunning that occurs by some family and other members. These are not the actions of a "normal" church. This is clearly spiritual abuse. I don't think that we should engage in any behavior that masks our true beliefs and intents. I thnk it would be a mistake to only call SDAism a cult when SDAs aren't around. If we believe it is a cult, we should say so and we should say why. The issue with labelling it a cult is really based on how one defines a cult. SDAism clearly matches some of the defined characteristics. But it doesn't match all of them. I think that if those of us on any side of this discussion were to list the cultic attributes of SDAism, our lists would be very similar. It is only the conclusion that we draw from these attributes that is different. I used the "cult" word for some time after leaving to express the degree of bondage and the severity of the doctrinal errors associated with SDAism. Over the past months I have been considering whether this is the best term to express those. Colleen, I will respectfully disagree with you about this recent conversation. It did involve passing judgment on individual SDA pastors by making blanket statements about all SDA pastors. How many SDAs do you think first heard about real grace from an SDA pastor just like some of the ones that were condemned on this board? Jakob, I will disagree slightly with your analogy. Churches and pastors do not impart life. Only God imparts life. If God could use stones, which have no life, to proclaim His glory then it certainly seems possible that God can still use people; even people trapped in cultic churches. | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 491 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ric_b and others, I agree with you that there are cultic elements within SDAism. What I've .. (deleted). How can ... (deleted) it seems so blanket just like many Adventists have said about those who do not have the "truth". In Christ, (self censored, with a smile) Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 375 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ric, I had a couple of thoughts after reading your post. If we must label every element of a cult, we might find out how only cultish it is to be a Mormon as well. So are you saying across the line JWs and Mormons must have certain elements to be a cult and if they are missing a few of those elements, that should open us to the possibility that perhaps JWs or Mormons are only cultish too? Do you think that everything that makes the JWs a cult should be present with Mormons and vise versa in order for both of them to be rightfully labeled cults? Are Adventist pastors not deceived, or only some? And are only some Adventist members deceived? And if someone is saved because a Mormon quoted real grace, but institutionally supports the Mormon church, does that come from the Mormon or from God? Can that be said about an Adventist pastor or any pastor for that matter? When we learn about grace does it come from an institution, a pastor, a person or from God? Lynne | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 492 Registered: 7-2004 |
If we compared Mormonism and SDAism side by side in each way that they were cultic, I believe we would develop a longer and more certain list for the Mormons. This was one of Stan's points early on. It is also why some cult watchers who understand the errors of SDAism fairly well call Mormons a cult and don't apply the same label to SDAs. Since there is not one standard definition of what is a cult and what is not, I don't find the term itself very useful. I think we would all agree that Heaven's Gate and The People's Temple and such are "more cultic" than Mormons, JWs or SDAs. So where does one draw the line between cultic attributes and being a cult? Ultimately, we only learn about grace from God. Anything or anyone that was involved was only a tool. Without His Spirit working in us, we could not know this truth no matter who or how it was presented. There are SDAs, pastors and members, who I believe are currently trapped in deception and blind to the truth of the Gospel. There are SDAs who know the truth of the Gospel, know they should leave (may even have been called by God to do so) but hold on because of fear or self-doubts or any other number of reasons. There are also SDAs who know the truth of the Gospel who truly do not believe in their heart (I think "yet") that it is irreconcilable to teach the true Gospel and call yourself SDA. Perhaps these people have not yet been called out by God. I can evaluate what a person is teaching. I can not judge the heart or the calling of any SDA (pastor or member). I can't know if they are resisting God's call out. But I will give each one who proclaims God's grace without attaching strings the benefit of the doubt. (Message edited by ric_b on May 05, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3903 Registered: 12-2003 |
Rick, I think I'm a little confused about what you're asking. I don't remember passing judgment on SDA pastors in general. I did say, in general, that SDA pastors can't freely preach grace because if they did, they would lose their jobs. I also said that while they can awaken people to the fact that there is a way to be saved that is different from Adventism 's works, they still can't lead their congregations into freedom because they can't explain how the New Covenant replaces their core practices and beliefsóespecially Sabbath and the law. I also said I have heard Adventist pastors preach the gospelóspecifically Smuts Van Rooyen in a sermon several years ago in which he explained that the cross is what bridged our gap from sin to salvation. But even Smut Van Rooyen, in spite of his understanding of grace, is still endorsing Adventism and preaching the gospel in an Adentist church. It is the same dissonance that finally led Greg Taylor to leave. You can't preach the new covenant fully in an Adventist church. I first heard about righteousness by faith from Morris Venden at Walla Walla College in the early 70's. I was amazed and SO happy to hear it. Yet hearing it did not resolve my conflict. It did not remove my underlying conviction that I had to consider Ellen White's interpretations when I read the Bible looking for grace. It did not remotely make me think that the Sabbath was part of an old covenant. Further, none of the grace and righteousness by faith teaching that I heard (and I did hear plenty of it through the 70's and 80's) helped me understand that Jesus kept the human side of God's covenant with us. None of the grace teaching I heard helped me see that the new covenant was not simply an updated statement of the old covenant. I am not judging or condemning Adventist pastors. God clearly leaves may inside for many years sometimes exactly so people will hear something different from the old historic Adventism. But there comes a point when what they teach is no longer helpful. If they cannot lead their congregations to resolve their cognitive dissonance, they end up leaving them in confusion. It's like Greg Taylor said on Friday night at the FAF weekend. He said that he understood graceóhe taught grace. Yet he also believed he had to keep the law as well. He was in an irreconcilable tension because he was living in "spiritual bigamy". He was "married" to both Jesus and the lawóand that, he explained, is spiritual adultery as outlined in Romans 7. I know that for many years I struggled with understanding what to do about the Sabbath because it was the only comandment that it seemed the Holy Spirit didn't write on all Christian's hearts. I had no idea how to reconcile the law and the Sabbath and the "loyalty to God" issue with being saved entirely by grace. Having learned about salvation by grace through faith in an Adventist church I was left with new confusion. All through my 30's I struggled with Adventism and Jesus. I returned to Ellen White, reading Steps to Christ and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing along with my Bible. I prayed and prayed to know what was true. Knowing about "grace" gave me new things to think about, but it didn't relieve my guilt, my sense of needing to give Ellen a fair chanceóeven if she wasn't a full prophetóof balancing what the Bible seemed to say with what I knew Ellen said. I often feltr that even though I wasn't sure Ellen was "Right", still I couldn't throw out her opionion because she said "so many things right" and how could I know exactly which parts might not be reliable? Further, I knew the Bible had places we "explained away"; Ellen was inspired the same way those men were, so what to do? It wasn't until the early 90's when I finally decided I would read the Bible alone and began to pray for God to remove the Ellen White blinders (a concept I NEVER learned from any Adventist preacher, no matter how grace-oriented) that God's truth began to soak in. One last thing: no Adventist pastor is free to explain much less teach the new birth. In fact, I'll bet most Adventist pastors don't really understand it themselves. Most of them still understand conversion and the Holy Spirit' work as being mental, not spiritual. So, noóI can't remember ever judging Adventist pastors. I am clearly saying, however, that the church itself holds them in bondage. Those who are asking God to reveal Himself will begin to teach more and more truth, but they will inevitably be brought, in God's timing, to a crisis of integrity. What they do at that crisis point will have a lot to do with how effective their preaching will be from then on. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 376 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ric, I also agree that we should not use the "C" word around Mormons or JWs. It is insensitive. The Media will not call them cults in this age. But Seventh-day Adventists, JWs and Mormons will call Peoples Temple and dangerous cults, cults. Often the term cult is used for extremes, it does bring with it a red flag. Statistically, can we define what is dangerous to the soul and mind with groups that are only externally violent? And because the Adventist church has many Evangelical elements externally, does that make the Seventh-day Adventist church somewhat Evangelical? Because I say I'm an Evangelical Christian, does that make me an Evangelical Christian. My personal experience tells me that if I fall for one lie, I will fall for more. I've given Satan a little and when I opened the door to Satan a little, He is a thief and He will rob me and always take more... I've learned that I must be very careful about what I believe. And if my intuition tells me something isn't right, it is likely not my intuition at all, it is likely a warning coming from the Holy Spirit. When I look at the definition of what makes the JWs a cult and the Mormons a cult, I cannot help but define my experience in Adventism as such. The similaries accurately correspond. And the bottom line for me is that those elements are not present in the Grace based churches I've attended. In my experience, the Seventh-day Adventist church has more in common with Mormoms and JWs internally. However, externally the Seventh-day Adventist church looks and feels and speaks grace. Does that make them grace based internally? Do they speak grace internally, to the insiders, those brought into the truth? We know better. So a question I have is, can a church be both evangelical and a cult. Is that where the definition cultish comes from? Can we tell people we are believers and yet be unbelievers in are hearts? What would that make us, believers or unbelievers? Wolves in sheeps clothing. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 493 Registered: 7-2004 |
I didn't suggest we shouldn't use the cult word around anyone. I said that we should be willing to use the word regardless of the audience. If not, are we any less deceptive than SDAs who privately call other churches harlots and daughters of the harlot but who publically avoid such statements. I think that far more important than the choice of using the label (or any other label) is being able to describe accurately what we mean by that statement. Why, in your mind, is SDAism a cult? Would it change anything if I presented these same reasons as why I am opposed to SDAism without concluding that they are a cult? I think that part of the challenge is that cultic nature is a continuum. At one end you have the very bizarre, with little or nothing in common with evangelical Christianity. At the other end, you have a few cultic practices but other elements that are shared with evangelical Christianity. If we think of such a line, where does SDAism fit relative to JW's, CS's, RC's, LDS', WOFers, CoC's, Oneness Pentecostals or any other group you wish to mention with beliefs that depart from the mainstream? At what point on that line does something become a cult? We may all have different answers to that, which is fine. But we should be able to explain and consistently apply our criteria. Some wonder why I am so hard on Rick Warren when he has obviously had positive influences on a number of people. The reason is simple, I am applying the same criteria that I do in rejecting SDAism to his teaching and his use of Scripture. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1224 Registered: 10-2004 |
Exactly, Lynne. Having the whitest sheep's clothing of any wolf does not make you less "bad," it only makes you worse--more deceptive! Esther, you wrote:
Esther, that does not sound "evangelical" to me--in fact, it doesn't even sound Christian in any sense. Rick, You wrote: "The issue with labelling it a cult is really based on how one defines a cult. SDAism clearly matches some of the defined characteristics. But it doesn't match all of them." I believe that, in looking at the lists of characteristics and marks of a cult, both for sociological and theological cults, SDAism fits either all or almost all (depending on which list) of the points. I highly doubt that you could match LDS, JW, or any other cult to all lists perfectly. Stan, My above paragraph is also the answer to your question from several days ago, which I had not answered yet: "On what basis does FAF's consensus view call Adventism a cult?" Rick, you wrote: "If we compared Mormonism and SDAism side by side in each way that they were cultic, I believe we would develop a longer and more certain list for the Mormons." I would respectfully disagree. In fact, LDS and SDA are so similar that with almost any point you could bring against LDS as evidence that they're a cult, I could show that SDAism teaches the same thing (or something very similar). And even though they are not the same on all points of doctrine, that doesn't mean that the SDAs don't have different but equal (or worse) doctrines. I would appreciate it if someone could point out just a single point that the SDA church does not match, from the following list of 14 marks of a cult (which they gathered from six different sources): http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/marksof.htm Also, notice this very important note: "To be classified as a cult, not all of the following characteristics have to be present, but in most cases, in one form or another, all of them will be" I just don't see how anyone can deny that SDA totally fits the basic definition of a cult, according to all of the standard definitions/lists given by the experts, including CRI. Hank Hanegraaff says that SDA is not a cult because they teach salvation by grace through faith alone. But as we all know, that is just not true. Jeremy |
