| Author | Message | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 377 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ric, You are right. I agree with you that it is useful that if you use the term, you have an explanation, because if you don't, people are highly inclined to misunderstand. Cult is not a word I like to use, but am prepared to use it if necessary in truthfulness and with explanation. In fact, I don't even think you need to use the word cult because when you explain what Adventism really is, I think that most educated people would likely guess that it was a cult. But if somebody didn't define it as a cult after my explanation, it really doesn't matter, because they have come away learning something about Adventism. That it is not a mainstream Christian denomination. After I explained my personal experience as a Seventh-day Adventist to somebody, he used the term fake Christianity. That was how he interpreted my explanation and I accept that. There was no need for me to say... and it is a cult.. In the workplace, I've worked with Mormons and JWs and knew them as people. Religion and politics are things you must be careful about in some audiences. I'm not going to give definitions of why I have certain political preferences in the office amongst my coworkers with opposite views. Just as we need to respect those individuals of various religions regardless of what we believe under certain circumstances. That does not make me deceptive that I'm not purging my beliefs in every audience. We could get ourselves into real trouble if we did that, couldn't we? So, if I am a Christian and I disagree with someones sexual orientation, does that make me deceptive if I don't want to announce my beliefs in any audience? Obviously everything I say to my husband I should not say to my kids. That doesn't make me deceptive. Personally, I did not get involved with JWs or Mormons or Catholics because I heard the "C" word. It really had more to do with something not being right, I knew they were NOT mainstream Christians. And the Adventists, well, at first, I thought they were mainstream Christians. And eventually, I thought the Seventh-day Adventist church was even closer... and closer... and so much closer!! to the TRUTH than those other, so called, mainstream Christians... Warnings are definately important. About Rick Warren. I read a write up on MacGregor Ministries on him at this link: http://www.macgregorministries.org/cult_groups/pdlwarren.html | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 194 Registered: 7-2005  |
I had been quiet for some time, and this thread growed rapidly. I have trouble with keeping the pace (smile). I must also give some answers. Stan, Thanks for the counsel to leave adventism, because in my country adventism is cultic. But it was a time when in USA adventism was cultic, was the same as it is now in my country. And now adventism in USA is different by adventism in Romania because members who found the gospel choosed to stay, not to run from adventism. If they choosed to run, the adventism in USA will be the same as in Romania today. The american members who now are part of the evangelical movement in adventism choosed to stay in adventism when adventism was as bad as in my country. You have today a better view of adventism because people stayed in adventism, choosing not to follow your advice and run from the cultic environment. I struggled in the past few weeks with the question: am I not stupid to leave adventism? After all, there are churches in adventism in USA in which the grace is preached, and the gospel is taking roots. If more and more people will knew the gospel here, in Romania, in 10 or 20 years, we will have an evangelical movement in my country. With some patience, after 10 years, I'll have here in Romania adventist churches who preache grace, and with hoy and gladness I will be proud to be part of them, and more, to be one of the "evangelical adventists" in Romania who stayed and contributed to the transformation of the church. Why should I leave, and upset so many? Why should I leave and pay such a high price? So, I believe that if the SDA church is not a cult, not a monolith, the clever option is to stay in it's ranks, not to run. It does not justifies the high price to run, and after some time to find a church, a place where grace is preached, when the majority of members are born again christians. Simply, it does not pay to run, if you can find a spot, an isle of grace in the middle of legalism. There is ne fundamental reason which I discovered. Remember what apostle Paul said to those in Ephesus
To bea true witness for Christ is like being a witness in the court. You are bound to speka "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" It's not sufficient to speak only the truth, to preach only grace, not to mention Ij, or Sabbath as a requirement. Not, a witness must speak the "whole" truth, like Paul spoke the "whole counsel of God". In this way he was innocent of the blood of all. To be an evangelical pastor in adventism and speak the whole truth it's impossible. Also a member who speak the whole truth will loose his membership. Only being quiet about IJ or Sabbath or other things, someone can remain and be an evangelical adventist. This is the problem with cults. Cults are organizations in which the cult leader is the final authority. What he or she said or believes and teaches cannot be contradicted. To be an evangelical adventist someone must find a way to harmonize his beliefs with her beliefs. He is under obligation to pay somehow hommage to Ellen White, not speaking the truth about her, to be quiet about the truth about her, and the facts that her writings contradict the gospel of grace. If an adventist pastor, no matter how gospel oriented is in his beliefs isn't preaching the whole counsel of God, he put the authority of his guru above the authority of God. He actually is enforcing the cultic mentality, even if unconsciously. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 195 Registered: 7-2005 |
Of course, there are pasotrs of members who actually believe that they can reconcile Ellen White with the Bible, or, if they ignore her, this is not a problem. But if they arrived at the conclusion that something must be said about Ellen White, investifative judgment, sabbath keeping, they are not allowed to challenge these things openly, they will loose their jobs. The same cult control: don't challenge the authority of the leader. If they respect the authority of the leader, fine, they are under the authority of Ellen White. The SDA cult is still intact. Nothing changed fundamentally, only at the surface. The cult control is absolute, the wolf has only another skin. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1616 Registered: 3-2005 |
Wow, this thread just keeps going, and it took time to catch up from yesterday. Dennis, Thanks for finding the good news that Des Ford left the SDA church. Colleen, There was a question you raised on post number 3890 on the previously archived section, about the fact that your ministry would not have a reason to exist, if SDA was just another Christian church. I would agree with you. But, I don't see those of us who are protesting the blanket cult label are even suggesting this. All I am saying, is why not be careful about the blanket broadbrushing with regard to SDA? Yesterday, I proposed something that seems to be a reasonable approach, and I wonder what you think of it? I was taking John MacArthur's approach listed at www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-24-11.htm as an example. MacArthur is consistent with his belief that anyone who denies the doctrine of Justification by faith alone is teaching a false gospel. So it appears that he is dividing Adventism into two camps, cultic, and Christian. That seems to be a reasonable approach. I am perfectly OK labeling the historic (R/S) branch of Adventism as a cult. That is the branch it seems from where you get most of your hate mail. It seems that attacking that brand of Adventism as cultic, or a cult is perfectly legitimate. So, concentrating your energies on historic Adventism would obviously be very credible. However, when we broadbrush all of Adventism as evil, and say there is nothing good in Adventism, then I have a serious problem. That is where credibility becomes a big problem. Since leaving Adventism 24 years ago, I have heard hundreds of good evangelical sermons. In fact I am sure if someone here were given a tape of a sermon, and if you didn't know it was SDA, you would say that was a good sermon. I have heard better Bible teaching in evangelical SDA churches, than I have heard in those churches that are so-called evangelical. If we hold to MacArthur's definition, and the Biblical definition of what separates false teachers from true teachers then the criteria is Justification by faith alone. Anyone who denies this Reformation and Pauline doctrine then is rejected as a false gospel and comes under the deserved ANATHEMA listed there. So, then, if SDA preachers are not preaching the true gospel, then they belong in the false gospel group of the rest of the cults. But, to be fair, then we would need to label much of what goes on today in the "larger body of Christ" as false, because many others deny the doctrine of the imputed Righteousness of Christ, and deny the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. This is what makes the RCC a false church, or a "cult" if you want. But if it can be documented, that a lot of SDA preachers do understand the doctrine of Justification, and are preaching it, then, why not give more credit? Like Ric_b, I am concerned about some of the comments you made about what SDA pastors are teaching grace. I have heard Smuts Van Rooyen preach many sermons. If I listen with objective ears, and take away my anti-SDA bias, then he is preaching the true gospel of grace. What difference does it make that he is preaching this message in an SDA church, and on the Sabbath? He doesn't believe the Sabbath is binding any more than I do. I rejoice even more that he can preach this message in an Adventist (or should I say Satanic church? (smiley). If God is using him to reach people like me and my Dad, then I praise God. Also, I don't agree that these same grace oriented preachers don't know what it means to be born again. In other words, because they don't have the same view of the spirit as I do, does that mean they are not truly born again. God saves so many of us despite bad theology. The other issue that was brought up with regard to the Galatians preaching of Randy Roberts, is his SDA view of the Law. Many SDA pastors are trained in the Covenant theology stream, which in my view is unbiblical, but nonetheless, are we going to be consistent and label Sunday Sabbatarians who believe Sunday is binding as not really trusting in Jesus, because they keep Sunday? So, the book of Galatians is taught similarly as Roberts in the church Marti and I just started attending. Do I agree with it? No. But the overwhelming wonders of the Reformed faith counterbalance that. I rejoice that Randy Roberts would teach the book of Galatians verse by verse. I think some people even got saved during that series. How many seeker churches teach the book of Galatians verse by verse? Last night, Marti and I were discussing this issue of calling SDA a Satanic Cult. She was taken back that such terminology was being used on this web site. Her first introduction to SDA was "being told that she had the mark of the beast". However, she reminded me that some folks may not know what cult is until they have seen Mormonism or JWs. She reminded me that Mormons serve their church for two years, similar to the military. Also, automatically, they take ten percent out of your paycheck--talk about legalism. Marti agreed that Adventism was indeed cult-like in many ways, but not like JWs or Mormons, or Christian Science--this is not rocket science (smiley). I don't think we give enough credit to our evangelical pastors who see what is obvious to most (including the most learned scholars such as MacArthur, Samples, and Gary Inrig) that SDA does not equal JW. So, in summary, does it seem more reasonable to recognize the diversity in Adventism--realize there is a cultic branch that needs to be condemned in no uncertain terms, but at the same time, tone it down a bit with some of the broadbrushing as labeling everything SDA as satanic. This is how credibility is maintained. Jeremy mentioned that Hanegraaf does say that SDAs teach salvation by grace alone. The reason Hanegraf says this is because he has checked it out for himself, and actually listened to some evangelical SDA sermons. That is how cult apologetics is done. Ruth Tucker, another cult expert did the very same thing, but I am sure all these people are just deceived (sigh). Smuts Van Rooyen wouldn't last five minutes in a Kingdom Hall--that is just an established fact. Also, Colleen, I would like to get the name of that CMA pastor you quoted on another thread who said that SDA was a satanic cult? Jeremy does have a point, in that, that was the first time I saw it mentioned, when you quoted it. Now, I think it is fair to have this pastor issue the statement in print, and his reasons why. Then, the dialogue could be advanced. I doubt, however, he would print those remarks, because the CMA I believe is the same denomination Ravi Zacharias is from, and he re-wrote the book of Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, and there was no such refernce in there. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1617 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jackob, I just saw your post. I agree with much of what you say. I want to clarify my advice yesterday, and that is, you must listen to the Lord's leading about when to leave. I thought about my remarks a little last night, and it may be that you are able to witness where you are, and if that is true, then stay. But it might be better to find a good evangelical church, and still continue your friendship. At some point, we have to determine to leave. I don't see any chance of true reform in SDA, but it sure would have been interesting to see what would of happened if more people would have stayed. Stan | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 79 Registered: 7-2000 |
Jackob, your reasoning and deduction are right on the mark.Thank you for sharing. The SDAs boast about the unifying elements in the organization-Spirit of Prophecy(Ellen White) and Sabbathkeeping. To say the church is changing is a myth. Because there are a few "odd" or evangelical sounding SDA congregations in mostly the Western part of the USA does not mean the church is changing. The foundational beliefs of the organization remain intact and that puts and keeps SDA in the Cult category. I will persist in referring to Adventism as cultic I am not ashamed or angry for being deceived. God is Sovereign. The Holy Spirit draws us and is the one touching hearts and calling people into a saving relationship. I have a deep concern for lost people and look for opportunities to share the gospel. I do have a similiar concern for Adventist persons and long to share the joy I found in the Lord since being set free. As a believer I am obligated to do so with grace so the hearer will benefit. Thus,I have no fear telling the Adventist person the truth and calling Adventist cult even in conversation with such a one. I don't have to wear a muzzle. Besides, unsuspecting believers may get sucked into the deceptive and false teachings. I want innocent people to beware of ADVENTIST. The Lord has not laid it on my heart and I do not believe it is wrong or insensitive to say SDA fall in the category of CULT. In 1993, some months after David Koresh and the Branch Davidian were killed I read an interesting article in the Adventist Review. The author stated the church's teachings are breeding grounds for groups like the Branch Davidians because some of the basic beliefs of the church are cultic or encourage cult behavior. Even though I was a dye in the wool Adventist I was not offended. In my heart I knew it was the truth. However, I could not reconcile the cognitive dissonance that plagued my soul. When I grasped the true nature of the deception of Adventism after doing my own research from EGW' writings and reading Canright's book, I had a melt down. My words to my friends were; "I feel as though I had belonged to the Jehovah's Witness all my life," meaning I belonged to a cult. JW are worst than SDA, I agree. Their weird teachings are easier to spot. They are more exclusive as a group. They do not put an emphasis on diet, education, medical work or nature. However, the women are allowed to wear make-up and jewelry. The families I knew were not very friendly or sociable. 'Twas a group that was unattractive to me.. Oh, well. Why the insistence to be less definitive with the Adventist organization being cult? If Adventist is just an anomaly but the gospel of Christ if proclaimed clearly, why leave? It sounds like we are saying it is and it isn't at the same time. My problem is I like clarity. Erma | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 80 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan, I just read your posts. I don't like to join in discussions but to state a though or two. However, you may notice I am quite vocal about this one. Maybe too much. Sorry, but Stan, you seem to be arguing with yourself. Because there are a few pockets of teachings that are grace sounding in your part of the US, does not mean it is wide spread around the US or the world for that matter. Who knows Smuts Van Rooyen? How many people hear him. I know Dwight Nelson, Davidson and some others from Andrews U. are pastors heard in the wider Adventist circle. Their gospel sounding messages are the foundational soul of Adventism. Randy Roberts was my pastor here in Austin, Texas. He has ALWAYS preached good sermons. I don't doubt many people become believers hearing his sermons. However, I and many others remained as confused as a ball of string. The problem, there is always tension within the church about who is steering the course and who are liberals. There is a key the simple, average member can always revert to unlock the door. The guiding light-Spirit of Prophecy, Ellen G. White. The bottom line; Adventist teaching on a whole is deceptive, another gospel. The prophet, pioneer EGW was speaking in the name of the Lord, stating "she was told, she saw, God said" She is a false prophet, but her teaching are guiding the church. This alone makes the organisation a CULT. Lighten up with the R/S people. They are correct in their view and belief of Adventism. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1225 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, You wrote: "This is what makes the RCC a false church, or a "cult" if you want." How can you blanket-label the RCC, when they are more "diverse" than SDA??! What about all of the Evangelical Catholics?? What about all of the Christian Catholics, how can we tell those people that they are in a false church, when they believe the Gospel? How can we tell them that they are part of a group which is a "front for the kingdom of Satan"? Wouldn't that be "unfair"? (Regarding Smuts Van Rooyen): "He doesn't believe the Sabbath is binding any more than I do." You want me to email him?  If he were to preach that in an SDA pulpit--he would not last more than five minutes. And if he doesn't preach that, then many in his SDA congregation may just try to "reconcile" his teachings with their SDA false gospel. This is the problem that Colleen, Jackob, and I are trying to point out, with these Pastors preaching "grace" in an SDA setting. Stan, the difference between Sunday Sabbatarians and SDAs is that the SDAs mix the Sabbath with salvation. Even the evangelical pastors are not allowed to make a clear distinction between Sabbath and salvation/seal/mark of the beast--if they did they would be fired. "Also, automatically, they take ten percent out of your paycheck--talk about legalism." It is a known fact that the SDAs also do this with their employees. "Jeremy mentioned that Hanegraaf does say that SDAs teach salvation by grace alone. The reason Hanegraf says this is because he has checked it out for himself, and actually listened to some evangelical SDA sermons." "some evangelical SDA sermons" does NOT = the SDA church. Stan, if you're going to at least be consistent, you would have to denounce Hank Hanegraaff for "broadbrushing" the SDA church as teaching salvation by grace through faith! Regarding the "scholars," what about highly respected individuals such as Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Dr. John Whitcomb, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Pastor Mark Martin, etc.? Should their opinions just be automatically dismissed? I am very intrigued by your post earlier Stan, saying that Dale Ratzlaff is one of your "pastoral authorities." But Dale's pastoral authority is Mark Martin. So how do you know which pastoral authority you should listen to? (For those reading this who may not know, Pastor Mark is very firm in calling SDA a cult.) In other words, according to what you were saying about "pastoral authority," it sounds like Dale should be following Mark's "pastoral authority" and calling them a cult no matter what he personally believes. But I just don't see anywhere in the Bible where it tells us that we have to agree with, or accept, 100% of what our pastors believe/teach. Stan, do you know if the pastoral authorities you named (Walter Martin, Dale Ratzlaff, Gary Inrig) even agree with you on your idea of pastoral authority? Perhaps Colleen knows what Pastor Gary's view is on pastoral authority. But regarding Dale, he does say this on his website:
I do know that the SDAs sure think Dale thinks they're a cult. They sure don't see any difference between him calling them "cultic" or a "cult." As Patria mentioned, she wouldn't even read Dale's book because it's called Cultic Doctrine! If you want to talk about "inflammatory"--well just ask an SDA what they think about the title of Dale's book. "The Spirit Behind the Church" (video)--is that too "inflammatory"? By the way, in their response to that video that Mary linked to (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/video.html), the SDAs are proud of, and happy about, Walter Martin's conclusion of them. Is that a good thing? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 05, 2006) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1226 Registered: 10-2004 |
Here is what the SDAs say at the above website:
So the SDAs are using Walter Martin's conclusions to discredit the work of former SDA Pastors Mark Martin, Dale Ratzlaff (who endorses this video--he both appears in and sells this video), Sydney Cleveland, and others whose names I can't remember. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 05, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 494 Registered: 7-2004  |
What you might wish to notice, Jeremy, is that one can not believe Jesus Christ to be fully Divine and be a true JW, LDS, CS, or Spiritist. Therefore it is not possible to be a "Christ"ian at the same time as being truly any of these beliefs. But many would conclude that you can believe that Jesus is fully Divine and you can believe in the Trinity and be a true SDA. I am not suggesting that ALL SDAs have these beliefs correct or even that the SDA church doesn't teach conflicting and confusing views on these doctrines. But this is a distinction between SDAism and some of the other groups. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1227 Registered: 10-2004 |
But, Rick, even if I agreed with your above assessment (which I don't), can you believe the gospel (grace alone through faith alone) and believe in true SDAism? I believe the answer is no. But I guess maybe some think that false gospels are not a salvation issue. But if a false gospel can save a person why don't we start preaching a false gospel? In fact, maybe a faith plus works gospel is more attractive to people and would therefore save even more people than the true gospel! The bottomline is: If the SDA gospel does not lead people to eternal hell--then why condemn it? Why don't we adopt this more "attractive" gospel ourselves if it leads people to heaven?? Honestly, I really don't get it. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 05, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 495 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, I get really tired of your twisted claims and innuendos. Have you seen me say anything except that the SDA gospel is a false gospel? of course not, but you insinuate otherwise in an attempt to bolster your position. Come visit CARM and see just how much and how strongly I battle the "faith plus" gospel. Your accusations to the contrary are personally insulting. You strain all bounds of credibility when you suggest that it is not possible to believe in the Trinity and have an accurate view of Christ's Divinity as an SDA. And when we spuriously cast aside credibility we greatly reduce our ability to witness. Inflammatory language does not replace a credible presentation of the issues. I would agree with you that it is not possible to reconcile the true Gospel with the IJ/sanctuary doctrine. But among those who have abandoned this horrible doctrine there are SDAs who understand and teach the Gospel of imputed righteousness by grace alone, through faith alone. Once again, your blanket statements to the contrary diminish your credibility, and by extension, that of every other former as well. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1229 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, I was not accusing you of saying the SDA gospel is not a false gospel. I apologize if you took it that way. I was only raising a question about how we deal with the implications of it being a false gospel, since you did make it clear that it is a false gospel. Thinking back, though, there was a post of yours that sounded somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps you can explain what you meant, since I don't wish to misrepresent your view at all.
Jeremy | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 379 Registered: 10-2005 |
When I became a Seventh-day Adventist I was taught the true Gospel and believed it. I was first taught the NT and know now I was saved, even if I wasn't told that specifically. I could read the scripture and discern it and the presence of the Holy Spirit was real. Jeremy, if you believe in our assurance of salvation, once saved, always saved, then you undoubtedly must agree that I was brought to Christ through the accurate teaching of grace through the Seventh-day Adventist church. You would believe that I would not go to hell even if false doctrine eventually got into me kept me from doing the will of God, turning me rebellious against religion. Ric wants to witness to SDAs like myself, like how you guys witnessed to me when I came into this forum. He just believes being too harsh against the church will turn people like me away when we first come to this forum. He is right about that. I didn't realize that through my anger when I realized I was deceived by the church, but I can see that now. I agree with Ric and Stan when they say that the church and many of the people therein teach the biblical gospel accurately unlike the JWs and Mormons. In my experience, I would compare this experience to the purchase of a new car. The salesman and ads on television say the price is.... But you sign a contract that says the price is much higher and different than the ad stated. The SDA church hurts people. It is deep and painful because we are told one thing (grace) and many of us, fall for, and sign something else (the 28 fundamentals which clarifies it is actually works). Realistically, in many ways, this is how the world works. Just because the legal jargon appears diluted and is in small print, that does not free us from the consequences of signing a contract we don't understand. Clever marketing works and it is not illegal. It always hurts when you learn you have been lied to. When you are hurt by religion and have seen others hurt by it, you know the pain is much deeper than financial loss (for those not poor anyway). Because like when we are robbed financially, we feel like suckers, some people might say, "well, you fell for it." Stan, I do think the SDA church is a cult by definition, but not like the JWs or Mormons. However, because the Mormons and JWs aren't like the Peoples Temple or Davidians, does that now not make the JWs or Mormons a cult? I just personally see Seventh-day Adventist church as a Christian that undeniably functions like the cults definitively. Some people I guess just prefer to call that cultish. Perhaps that might make them Christianish, but not Christian. Satan wants us against each other. Only through the intervention of Christ can we have peace with one another. I'm glad to hear how many people are open here on this forum. It really makes me think about my experience. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1230 Registered: 10-2004 |
I went to CARM and a saw a thread which is entitled "Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?" I decided to check it out and see what people said. I was surprised at what I found. I found much more "inflammatory language" and "harshness" on there, spoken directly to JWs themselves, than you will ever find on FAF, or in any of our discussions with the R/S folks. Here is the thread: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=9068 Here is a sampling of some of the comments on there:
The JWs on there seem to be more civil and "Christian" than some of the Christians on there. I just thought that was interesting. And here are a couple more interesting comments from that thread:
Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1231 Registered: 10-2004 |
Everyone, I just wanted to let you all know that I will be "retiring" from this month-long discussion about whether or not SDA is a cult. I feel that I have said just about everything I can say on this topic. Rick, I am sorry for offending you. Stan, if I have upset you, I am sorry. As I hope you all know, that is never my intention. All of you, feel free to continue this discussion without me if you want, but I feel that one month of discussing this is enough, for me personally. I would like to focus my time and energy in other ways. God bless, Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 496 Registered: 7-2004 |
Lynne, I think you partially stated what my point has been. It isn't so much about being harsh or gentle, as it is being credible. If I discuss the ways in which I witnessed deception occuring in the church, that may not sound "gentle" all of the time. But I can describe those specific events and the impact they had on me and others. However if I state that all SDA pastors are liars, that is not based on any evidence and would damage my credibility in other statements. No one should fear posting their own experience, struggles or pain. We are here to support one another in those. Besides it is likely that for everyone of us who speaks up and describes what we have experienced there are dozens more with the same experience, the same pain, who will relate even if they never post a word about it. And we should boldly present the false teachings of SDAism. But when we do that, I believe we should focus on the evidence of what is false rather than on inflamming rhetoric. We must strive to be as accurate as possible, because as we see in the responses to the Spirit Behind the Church video, SDAs will use little errors they find to avoid addressing the big truths that are also present. We must strive to be credible as we point out the errors. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 196 Registered: 7-2005 |
Ric, I must repeat myself: do you believe that pastors are credible witness for the gospel? I mean: are they allowed speak the truth, the whole truth of the gospel? The court definition of a witness is clear: speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's not sufficient to speak only the truth, you must speak the whole truth. I don't say that some adventists pastors are liers, they may preach only the truth, but if someone believes that Sabbath is not binding, he will not preach that belief, that information, he will not give witness to this. In a court he will found guilty of retaining important information, and he will be accused of giving a false impression. Retaining some important truth he will lead the jury on a path which, if he had spoke the whole truth, will have been abandoned. He will be considered as guilty as telling a lie, because the result will be the same. Now, the result is the same for evangelical pastors, the people are still in bondage to Ellen White and the church. They are not entirely free in the gospel. Making a comparision, they have only a long chain, more space to move, but they are still in chains. They are not free. My experience with adventists is that I can speak as long as I want about grace, they will agree with me. But immediately when I present myself as one who is resting in the finished work of Christ every day, and to keep a day holy is not an obligation, they will become very upset. Even if I said that there is nothing wrong for someone to keep the sabbath as long this is his choice and doesn' judge others who don't keep it, the adventists will not be satisfied. We have here in Romania adventists who are freindly to the gospel of grace, who are a little open minded. Is it necessary to speak about the sabath, or IJ, or other false doctrines, for being a credible and efficient witness for the gospel? I believe this is an essential part of our mission, as talking about grace. If we are silent on this topic, we give a false witness, we give a false impression, if we believe that sabbath is not binding, the IJ is a hoax and so on. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 497 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jackob, I would contend that there are those who understand that the IJ is not Biblical but honestly believe that presenting the truth about salvation by grace is the most effective way of dispelling the errors of the IJ. I might not agree with them in that assessment, but it may be a very honest approach on their part. I will not judge these people or pastors in that regard. But at the same time I need to express my admiration of those pastors who have stepped away from jobs for the sake of the Gospel. These men are great witnesses to the importance of the true Gospel. Never confuse my desire to avoid judging those pastors who remain as diminishing the respect I have for those who have left. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 197 Registered: 7-2005 |
Ric, what is at stake here is not the sincerity of the pastors. The issue is the fact that the SDA church allows it's pastors to present the truth about salvation by grace. This is a fact that makes the SDA church different than JW or LDS, and this fact is used now to place the SDA church in another category than JW or LDS. With other words, Stan, you Ric and others (even myself for a time was inclined to do so) based on the fact that the SDA church gives her pastors this liberty to witness for the gospel, consider to be innapropiately, and a loosing of credibility to say that the church is a cult. Well, my point is that this liberty given to pastors to preach the gospel is not real, is just at the surface. The church doesn't permit anyone to be a credible witness for the gospel, to speak the whole truth. In this way the church prevents the people to hear the message of grace. Why? Because as long as it keeps it's pastors silent on topics as IJ or Sabbath keeping, the people will believe that IJ is truth, the Sabbath is still required, and so on. They hear just a partial message about grace, which on a practial level, as I said, is insufficient for many to arrive at a right decision. I'm reverting to the illustration with the court, in which the jury is composed of parishoners, and the witnesses for the gospel is their pastors. before a jury of JW, a JW pastor, if he knows the true gospel, will lie about the truth of the gospel. A SDA pastor will speak the truth of the gospel, but will not speak the whole truth. What is common is the fact that both, the JW and SDA will not hear essential information which is needed for a right decison. A part, actually an essential part is hidden in both cases. And the jury is lead astray in both ways. The result is the same, perdition. In this way both churches obtain the same results. Bot JW and SDA prevent it's members to hear the gospel of grace. I believe that both deserve the label cults, because both didn't allow their members to hear the gospel of grace. |
