| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1627 Registered: 3-2005 |
cw, I just noticed your post from May 4 where you as a non-SDA former, said, what many of us are saying, that using inflammatory language such as "Satanic Cult" is offensive and about as intelligent as calling all non-Christians Satan worshippers. Thanks for pointing this out. I am not in sympathy at all with historic Adventism, and believe that segment is a cult, and there is a segment of SDA which is liberal and denies basic Christianity, but there is also a segment of Adventism that is still within the pale of orthodoxy. Stan | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 48 Registered: 4-2006  |
Thanks Stan. And it's not that I am never guilty of doing the unintelligent thing of putting some pretty tough labels on things. I am known to be pretty out spoken and it's harder for me to NOT offend than for me to do it. One of my current memory scriptures is EPH 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs----" That's not necessarily my style but I'm trying to make it so. Labeling SDA as a Satanic Cult is strong language. But then again, are not all cults an effort by Satan to separate us from the truth? You Formers (whom I have learned to respect greatly for your knowledge and honesty) would be better "equipped" to say if SDA is Satanic than I am. But I do know that scripture doesn't have much good to say about false prophets. And I don't get the imppression that we are going to find many of them in Heaven. Having said that, from what I gather there will be at least some SDA members there because I can't see that the doctrine in itself is damning. Some are surely saved by grace, am I right? Maybe EGW was-I don't know. If she was in fact a false prophetess I get the impression she pretty much sealed her fate though. I would be interested in what Formers think about that. CW | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1234 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, Calling a church "a front for the kingdom of Satan" is no different than calling a church "Satanic."  Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1628 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Cw, And I don't want to minimize the Satanic deception that SDA leadership has put us formers through. If you are not familiar with my background, I was raised in the very strictest form of Ellen White Adventism. My Dad said playing chess would send us to hell, and listening to baseball games was forbidden at times because EGW said competitive sports is wrong. But he raised me this way because he believed he was obeying God by listening to His prophets. My Dad by God's sovereign grace, has now rejected Adventism and Ellen White and is now going to a Sunday church, and even advertising that fact in an SDA oriented advertiser paper. I went through some of the deepest soul anguish with regard to SDA. I saw it at its most cultic angle. I experienced the liberal gospel at Loma Linda. But, I also have heard the gospel preached with clarity. If you were to attend an SDA church in Glendale pastored by Smuts Van Rooyen, you would see the Christian side of Adventism that I mentioned. Van Rooyen had one of the greatest influences next to Ford in my processing out of Adventism. It is this Glendale version of Adventism, that John MacArthur was exposed to, and that is probably one reason that a scholar of his integrity will not call Adventism a cult. If your daughter was marrying someone who was a Van Rooyen SDA, then you may not have had as much concern--but don't anyone misunderstand--I don't recommend anyone join the SDA church in any form! It is important to note that Adventism is very diverse. Ken Samples has identified about 4 or different kinds of Adventism. All Adventism is not the same or monolithic, but I suspect most of us on this forum (me included) have come from the cultic version of Adventism. That is why I have no problem calling that segment of Adventism a "cult" or false gospel--because that is what it is. I guess my concern about the inflammatory rhetoric would be the dangerous result of classifying all Adventism as a Satanic Cult, and therefore Satan-worshippers. I have really appreciated your insights Cw on this forum and have enjoyed following this difficult situation with your daughter. I am glad you are here, and will pray for your daughter, and if it is God's will, the conversion of a possible future son-in-law. About Ellen White--she definitely was not a true prophet of God--there is absolutely no reasonable doubt. But, when it comes to me judging her eternal destiny, I will let the Most Righteous Judge of all the earth do that. I will say, that my late dear friend Dr. Walter Martin read many more Ellen books than I did, and he read them in their full context. He did say that Ellen was in his opinion regenerate. I will defer to the One Judge. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1235 Registered: 10-2004 |
CW, Yes, Ellen G. White was definitely a false prophet who taught a false gospel, and Jesus tells us that false prophets are lost (Matthew 7:15-23), and Paul tells us that those who preach a false gospel are eternally condemned (Galatians 1:6-9). I don't see any reason to pick EGW out from all the others (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, etc.) and say that it doesn't apply to her. Also, EGW showed by her life (including her bigotry) that she was not a Christian. Jesus said that we will know by their fruits that they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Then there's also the issue of her spirit guide, etc., but I won't get into all of that right now. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 08, 2006) | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 49 Registered: 4-2006 |
Stan, thanks for your prayers for D, and for me as well. I agree with leaving final judgement up to the One Judge. I would not want that much responsibility or power. CW | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 83 Registered: 7-2000 |
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whywalter1.htm http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whywalter2.htm I think it is better to post the links here. | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2006 |
Thanks Bmorgan. One of the first things I did when I began to be concerned about D was to get a copy of Walter Martin's KINGDOM OF THE CULTS. I am a fan of his and remember listening many a night to the Bible Answer Man on the radio with my brother as we fell asleep. But I was disappointed with his chapter on SDA because I was looking for far more than he gave. I wish I could find it right now for reference but we're still unpacking boxes from our move last year. It wasn't until I found this forum that doors began to open for more and more discoveries about SDA. One thing I do remember Martin implying in the book though is that there is nothing in the doctrine that PRECLUDES salvation, unlike many other cults who deny Jesus or have some other Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that they forfeit the joy of the assurance of salvation by tying themselves to rules and regulations that were made obsolete by the New Covenant. And the doctrine is arrogant in that it dismisses the rest of us Christians as not worthy. None of us are worthy-that's why it's called Grace. CW | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2006 |
Bmorgan, I found your post on the other thread after writing the above. Thanks. CW | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1629 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cw, I can only say from my 5 year friendship with Walter Martin, that he was a man of great integrity. My Dad and I heard him speak at an SDA church in La Sierra in May 1989, one month before his death. He was not censored. He spoke a strong warning to SDAs that they will become a cult if ellen White trumps scripture with doctrine. There is a large segment of Adventism who barely knows who Ellen White is. On those links to David Cloud's web site, he does quite a good job making Martin out to be some kind of less than careful cult apologist. I can personally attest to the fact that Martin read every major book by Ellen White, he thoroughly questioned many people. He did not just talk to the three leaders that were responsible for QOD. His associate was the late Donald Gray Barnhouse--an outstanding Bible expositor. He and Martin met with the authors of QOD, and they were both convinced after spending time in prayer and fellowship with these men, that these were Christians. If you want to say Martin was fooled, then OK, but to fool Donald Gray Barnhouse might be a different matter. These are just some of my personal recollections of what I remember about the situation. I will admit a lot of bias, because I heard Martin teach week after week, and he was very inspiring. Just my two cents worth... Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 383 Registered: 10-2005 |
CW, My experience with the Adventists remind me of the old Bait and Switch. The Adventist Church say they teach Grace alone - that is the Bait. But when you get involved, it is about works - that is the switch. I think you are correct about your observation of other Christians not being worthy according to the SDA doctrine. I think it has a lot to do with fear. If they can keep Adventists afraid of other Christians, then the true evangelical types, or those believing that, will be afraid of Christians, they will not leave the church. It does keep them in bondage. It really is another Jesus and a different gospel. I always felt I had to do something, like keep the Sabbath, in order to please Jesus. Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1630 Registered: 3-2005 |
Just to illustrate a point about David Cloud's website posted above. Try this link on the same web site and see if you are not reading a strict SDA website. This link talks about how evil mixed swimming is. www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mixed-swimming.html Wow, read this, and you think you are reading Ellen White! Why the double standard? This web-site has all kinds of other legalistic rules as well. Just go to the section on dress and you will see. I doubt seriously David Cloud can have much objectivity on Walter Martin, if these are his views on mixed-swimming. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1236 Registered: 10-2004 |
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/spurgeon.htm So does Spurgeon also sound like EGW, and lack objectivity? Jeremy | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 52 Registered: 4-2006 |
Stan, I don't think Martin was fooled at all. I'm the farthest thing from an expert on SDA as anyone on this forum. As Melissa says I am a never-waser in cahoots with formers. And the one thing I remember (I think) from Kingdom of the Cults is that there are some, or many, Adventists that are saved in spite of their doctrine. that sounds believable to me. I respect him greatly. And Lynne, I like the bait and switch analogy. From what I gather they talk one way among themselves but another way to us outsiders. They may have another way yet of talking to you Formers but you would know that better than I. CW | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3919 Registered: 12-2003  |
Bait and switch is a good description. Now, the word "syncretism" also applies in some areas. Some Adventistsóand not just from So Calóare developing a presentation that says we are justified fully by grace aloneónothing we can add. THEN they add sanctification, saying that the Holy Spirit writes the Law on our hearts (that's the 10 Commandments) and say that we now keep the commandments because we want to show God how much we love him, not because we need to in order to be saved. They then drive the point home that this observance is necessary by quoting texts such as the Hebrews "warnings" (ch. 10, for example) and clarifying that people can lose their salvation if they fall away from obedience. The fact is that these teachings are very confusing to anyone struggling to understand the new covenant. They never explain that the law was fulfilled in Jesus, and they never disavow the authority of Ellen or her suprious teachings including the IJ. They may re-interpret the IJ in more "grace-sounding" words, but they do not teach what the Bible really says. It's sycretism: mixing Adventism with classic Christian teachings and yielding a hybrid religion. I have a former Adventist in my women's Bible study group. She is a young woman who really knows the Lord, but Adventism is still confusing her. The "modern" syncretistic teaching is confusing to her, and she agonizes over whether God has led her out of Adventism to discover grace in order to lead her back in to keep the law in a new way. She is beginning to see the Bible through a new "window". She is starting to glimpse God's sovereignty and faithfulness, and texts are taking on new meanings when read in context. Yet the snycretism of mixing grace with the law resonate with all her old beliefs, and the resultant confusion and guilt are painful. The fact is, Cw, Adventism does not teach the true gospel. While people learn about Jesus and many want to know Him, their commitments to follow him are generally because of God Himself drawing their hearts to Him, not because they are hearing the word of truth. Just tonight after Bible study, three of us who have had backgrounds in Adventismóone who grew up Greek Orthodox and then became Adventist and finally found Christóall agreed: we always knew we wanted to serve Jesus, but we had no idea what that meant. He drew us to Himself IN SPITE of ourselves. We concluded that our desire for Him was an evidence of His sovereign calling and election more than it was the result of our indoctrination. He awoke in us a desire to belong to Him, and in His own time and unique ways, He drew us out of the darkness of confusion and transferred us to new life in Jesus. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 384 Registered: 10-2005 |
CW, Yes, you are correct about speaking differently amongst themselves. And in the presence of other Christians, the language often appears the same, but the meaning is understood differently amongst Adventists. It was my experience, I believe now, that I was saved through Grace in that I believed in Christ alone. I did what I was told because I did not want to be rebellious to God and the Adventists made sense to me. However, I now see it as a kindling of the fire (the Holy Spirit), and with the law, it put out the flame. What makes it really bad is that many, such as myself become discouraged and stop attending church. They have a high attrition rate. They teach that the Adventist church is the Remnant and us Adventists will be persecuted and killed by other Christians during the end times. Please note that there is always a paranoia in the church about the end times being, so close, anytime. It is damaging because when many people such as myself believe what they are taught, they don't think they can go to another church and be safe. I mean even if I didn't believe it on the surface, because I did attend other Christian churches, deep inside me, I did have fear. And for those who were not saved as Adventists, they too will not be able to feel safe getting close to other Christians which prevents people taught Adventism from learning or knowing the true Gospel. I was discouraged with the Adventist church and Adventists, so I stopped attending Adventist churches. However, I remained for many years in fear because of what I was taught. That is why I mentioned homeschooling earlier. I considered it myself and have friends that did it because rationally we felt it would somehow protect our children. It kept them safe from other Christians and the revealing of the truth is best done by the parents, because a parent knows when their child is ready to learn certain things if you know what I mean. But really, it is isolation. It is isolation from the community and even many other Adventists. Lynne | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 501 Registered: 7-2004  |
I have pondered the question of whether Walter Martin was "fooled" by SDAism. I do think that he saw many things clearly about SDAs. I think he saw a church with distinct "factions" some of whom accept the main tenets of the Christian faith. Looking historically at the SDA church it would have been easy to conclude that this was a group moving towards mainstream Christianity. The publication of Questions on Doctrines would only have supported the idea of this progress. I think for us now, it is important to also consider what has happened in the last 50 years. The "factions" within SDAism remain. Every indication would be that the leadership of the church have not moved any closer to mainstream Christianity and have likely moved back closer to historical SDAism. What could have looked like positive trends in the 1950's did not extend and continue. These factions within the SDA church are what make it difficult to label accurately. A label that clearly applies to "historic" SDAism may not apply well at all to "evangelical" SDAism. Yet these factions exist side-by-side. I am not suggesting that even evangelical SDAism does not have serious heresies that need to be exposed. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 696 Registered: 4-2000  |
Here is my definition of an Evangelical Adventist: "Evangelical Adventists" are those who write to their pastors to have their names removed from the membership roster. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 502 Registered: 7-2004 |
LOL Dennis. I agree at a certain level. But I also recognize that the theological and doctrinal decisions may preceed the action of membership removal by some period of time. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1383 Registered: 7-2003 |
I love that Dennis! Had to smile. Stan, I have a question: You said of Walter Martin "He spoke a strong warning to SDAs that they will become a cult if ellen White trumps scripture with doctrine." When B had his tyraid several days ago trying to defend EGW, I made the comment that the religion wasn't protestant because of EGW's writings. He said they don't consider them equal with scripture. While that point in and of itself is debatable, how highly does someone's writings have to be held to move beyond sola scriptura? He tried to say EGW is no more esteemed than Billy Graham's writings, but I told him no church has a goal to sell 10 million copies of Billy Graham's books. To me, it's a bit of a disingenuous distinction to categorize EGWs works as "slightly lower than scripture" so it can still proclaim "sola scriptura". To me, any writitngs, I don't care what plane you put them on in relation to scripture, but any writings that are considered authoritative (as opposed to informative, educated, but not directed by God's angel) debunk the notion of "sola" in "sola scriptura". My question isn't really to whether or not SDAs add her to equal scripture, as I'm sure the answers swing widely depending upon the individual, but purely on the notion that her writings have to be "above" scripture to make them a labeled a cult....in other words, isn't it a symantic game? EVERY SDA has heard EGWs teachings. If they haven't, I'm not sure you can call them SDA. She is not simply considered a human, fallible commentator, but she is considered as one setting the standards by her opinions (regardless of how she got them). There is no other individual writer in Christianity that I think you could safely say the same thing about...even if everyone has heard of Billy Graham, and maybe even heard him speak, that is not the same as selling his books as authoritative, regardless of the level of authority you give them. EGWs writings are considered "God inspired" at some level. Does it really matter where they rank it next to scripture, just that they put them both as "authoritative"? I hope that makes sense. |
