| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1631 Registered: 3-2005 |
Melissa, I agree. As I said previously, I feel like suddenly I am defending Adventism. It definitely appears that "B" is from the cultic branch of Adventism. You have seen the dark side just like I lived it for so many years. Ellen White taints the entire thing. So, from a technical theological purist standpoint, I would have to agree that most of Adventism teaches a different gospel. However, my only contention is that as MacArthur says, there still remains a small number in SDA, a remnant as he says, who have still not bowed the knee to Baal. They have not crossed the line into a false gospel--maybe they are confused on justification like much of evangelicalism, but they are not heretical. The evangelical SDA gospel does not fit my understanding, but are they outright heretical, and are these people lost? I will stick with MacArthur's opinion on that. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2005  |
I will introduce one who was fooled about adventism, he stated this is clear terms. He's the most known former adventist, DM Canright, in 1859, by historic adventists, of course. Nobody was evangelical in these days. He wrote this in "Seventh Day Adventism Renounced"
What's interesting is the fact that even the pioneers where willing to say that the belief in the visions of Ellen White, the belief in adventism as the only true church, are not a test, with other words, there are not required to be a member. Well, if all this stuff is not a test of fellowship, I guess we may apply even to the pioneers the label evangelicals. They appeared so generous! | ||
| Cw Registered user Username: Cw Post Number: 53 Registered: 4-2006  |
Colleen, I have learned lately that SDA does in fact apply different definitions to some of the words we use. You mentioned "fulfill". In one of the few discussions D allowed me she said "Christ came to fulfill the law" which I know came right out of J's mouth. However, she used it like she was saying the word "enforce". I had to shake my head at that. And Stan, I feel I offended you in saying I was disappointed in Walter Martin's chapter on SDA in Kingdom of the Cults. At the time I bought the book I knew nothing of SDA doctrine because I am not a Former. However, I knew enough (perhaps the Holy Spirit alerting my parental responsibilities?) to be concerned about my daughter seriously dating an SDA member. Having always been a Walter Martin fan he was the first authority on the subject I thought of. I was looking for ammunition to use in my prayers and in any future discussions with my daughter on the subject. I knew there should be major concerns but I didn't know what they were. Martin eased my mind in that I may not need to worry about my daughter's salvation if she goes SDA but I was disappointed that he gave me none of that ammo. I have since learned that there is plenty to pray about in attempting to keep my daughter out of SDA. But I have gotten that info largely from this forum and web sites that this forum has led me to. Dr Martin was your friend and I look forward to meeting him. I apologize if it sounded like I dissed him. CW | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 386 Registered: 10-2005 |
Jackob, I flabbergasted at the similarities and absolutes of Adventism when I first read the testimony of DM Canright. I mean, he spoke in 1859 of my experience in the 1990's. One thing that jumped out at me in his writing was how believers went to study to become Adventist ministers and came out unbelievers. Can many of us, as non ministers even, relate to that as well? I know that many people in Adventism really love God. But I don't think any human is strong enough to overcome the spiritual forces therein. We are nothing without the complete and total surrender of ourselves to Jesus. If I bring Jesus down a little, like I did as an Adventist, then my mind is deceived. If I think I'm saved through keeping the Sabbath, then I've brought Jesus to a lower place than He belongs. I think there is a much finer line than many Christians are willing to accept. I know I sound a bit like a broken record about the Armor of God because I do mention it a lot. But fundamentally, I know it is was what I lacked as an Adventist. The protection begins with believing and knowing we are saved. The raising of Jesus is most important. He alone is the reason for our salvation. That will protect our minds. And He will guide us in the building and strengthening of our Spirits. We musn't let down our guard. For example, I think that many Christians today get Saved and undertand the separation of the Spirit and get some of the Armor, but then lack understanding of what the bible is really about. And some might not pray and not have Faith, etc. In other words, how many evangelical Christians do we ourselves know that have this full armor of God and understand the importants of not neglecting what protects us? Fundamentally, I think I could say that there are Satanic forces at work in the lives of many evangelical Christians because they are not fully shielded or taught how to put the armor on. I think personally as an Adventist I had much less protection (if any at all) compared to evangelical Christians of other denominations that don't link law with salvation. Externally I didn't believe I did this, but internally I did think that I would not be saved if I didn't keep the Sabbath, or at least try. I believe that many Adventists want to know in their hearts how to protect themselves as do many non-Adventist Christians. As DM Canright said, he did not know better... and neither did I. We are in a lost world with Satanic forces working all around us. Where does our strengh come from. From Jesus. From Him alone. Not proper diets, having a certain amount of money, the perfect spouse, being smart or having good looks! None of it will save us. Lynne | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1386 Registered: 7-2003 |
CW, I stayed in the relationship with B "wanting" to believe in Walter Martin's assessment in that book. I am now not sure I trust anything in it. It's too bad the latest version did little to correct the information Thanks, Stan. I wasn't trying to get into the point of the cult-label near as much as trying to define "when" an extraBiblical source moves beyond the bounds of "sola scriptura" as it seemed Walter Martin's point was it had to be greater than scripture, and I'm not sure I agree with that. I understand what you/JMac say about the remnant and have to defer to the knowledge of others on that as I have no personal guage. But on the issue of when EGW has moved from one classification to another in authority, that's what I question. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3920 Registered: 12-2003  |
Melissa, I understand your question, and it is good. Bait and switch is the name of the game. They do not tell their converts the whole truth, and they most certainly do not reveal the truth to "outsiders". Adventism claims that Ellen is not on par with the Bible, that they do not use her to interpret Scripture. My historic SDA family members claim all their beliefs are based on the Bible alone, that EGW is the "lesser light". Because they actually CALL her "lesser light", "not a prophet", "a devotional writer", "not the source of doctrine", etc., they feel comfortable BELIEVING she secondary. In fact, without Ellen there would be no IJ no matter how redefined, no "spirit as merely breath", no subsequent soul sleep or consequent confusion over the nature of Christ, no confusion over the new birth, no lingering view of the law as God's gift to us to show Him how much we love Him, no insistence on annhilation, no "great controversy" in which Satan makes accusations against God which MUST be answered and disproven and in which Satan shares in bearing the consequences of our sin, no insistence that Scripture is NOT inerrant and no need to try to disprove verbal inspiration. Without honoring Ellen as a source of doctrine there would be no need to teach that she was inspired exactly as the Bible writers are inspired, etc. The most evangelical of Adventists who embrace the idea of justification by faith through grace alone do so over the foundation of an Adventist worldview. They see the Bible as containing errors or outdated concepts; they believe in soul sleep and the spirit as merely breath. They are not clear about the nature of Christódid He or did He not inherit Mary's sin? Could He or could He not have sinned? If an Adventist becomes liberated from the overt cultic practices of Adventism, that doesn't mean he's liberated from Ellen. One may SAY that Ellen is "not a prophet", but unless a person comes to the conscious realization that she is a FALSE prophet, he will never see himself as he is from a Biblical perspective. Neither will he ever see God as sovereign over ALL and both merciful and just. So, Melissa, it is merely a word game Adventists play to say that Ellen does not interpret Scripture for them. OF COURSE she does! She not only interprets it, she adds to itóand superimposing grace over this skewed worldview and foundation does not bring Adventists freedom. Grace added to Adventism only creates, as Jackob so poignantly put it earlier, a longer chain which allows more freedom of movement but which keep the person bound in the same darkness and confusion. Only when a person renounces Ellen (and I use that word intentionally because just shoving her into the background does not free one from her) does he become free to begin to see the Bible as an entirely new book. Only then do all the heterodoxical doctrinesóand even many of the those that do not appear heterodox on the surfaceóbegin to appear false or warped. Ellen's authority is behind every speck of Adventism. Without her, there would be absolutely no distinctive church left and no need to be Adventist. When a person joins the Adventist church, even if he is not told about Ellen's authority, he embraces Ellen in reality. The church depends upon her. It is founded on false doctrines authorized by her visions, not on the gospel. The gospel cannot be added to her foundation and remain the gospel. Yes, I believe there are Adventists who are still in the church who are discovering the truth about Ellen and Jesus and Biblical reality. I believe that they will eventually have to leave, however, if they are willing to be honest about Ellen. One cannot embrace a false prophet and also live in the freedom of Christ. And while I believe there are some who are loyal to Jesusóeven if they don't really understand what it means to follow Himówho do not have easy access to all the information about Adventism and thus remain in the church, that loyalty is not because they learned the truth about Jesus in Adventism. It is because God grabbed them, awoke them to Him, and revealed glimpses of Himself to them through Scripture as they read. Even though without doubt they do not have an accurate understanding of salvation and of their rescue from certain death and conequent security, God reveals Himself to sincere hearts IN SPITE of Adventism. On its own, Adventism would, I believe, ultimately lead people into mental illness or agnositicism. Those who actually read the Bible and want to know Him, however, will find Him, and Jesus will lead them step by step into clearer knowledge of Him. (And Dennis, I loved your definition!) Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1233 Registered: 7-2003  |
The following is in no way an attack on Dr. Martin. I respect Dr. Martin and his work greatly. Those who knew him say he had a knack for gently and lovingly reasoning with even those who he strongly disagreed with. It is obvious that he was a great man of God and cared deeply for both good doctrine and Christian unity. I believe it was his love for others and his deep desire for unity that contributed to his charitable assessment of Adventism. Having said that, my personal belief is that Dr. Martin's assessment of Adventism was overly charitable. Hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems to me that ultimately Dr. Martin did not do Adventism any favors in providing such a charitable assessment. In the 30 years or so between the 19920s and the 1950s there were a number of strong reforming forces inside Adventism that were working to turn the ship around, away from its cultic past and towards a more evangelical stance. After Dr. Martin's study of Adventism and his negotiations with a small group of SDA representatives two things happened: 1. The publication of QOD by the representatives who met with Dr. Martin created such a backlash within the rank and file of Adventism that it gave the hard-line leadership the popular mandate they needed to oust the reforming forces. 2. Even more importantly, the publication of Martin's study gave the hard-line leadership the widespread cover they needed to oust reformers while still being able to grasp the long coveted mainstream label. That external label covered the internal purges that would follow and hid Adventism's true core from the world. For the next several decades, up through Glacier View and the purges at Southern and Andrews, a program was implemented to require ministers and leaders to sign belief statements or face expulsion. Many who were teaching a straight Gospel message or could no longer teach one or more of the SDA distinctives were defrocked or fired. All of this has culminated in a re-entrenchment by hardliner leaders and a return to historic SDA distinctives as seen in recent statements by President Jan Paulsen and the EGW resolution at the recent GC conference. The forces put in motion by Dr. Martin and the representatives he met with set back Adventist reform by years. There is an argument for saying reform was nearly halted or even reversed. Simply put, I think it was much too soon to give Adventism a mainline label. It was much too charitable given the reality of milieu. Dr. Martin charitably gave the benefit of doubt to the evangelical pockets within Adventism, but failed to fully assess where the true core of power and political muscle lay. I think many make the same mistake today. Chris (Message edited by Chris on May 09, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 503 Registered: 7-2004  |
Chris, thanks for putting details behind my comments about trends. That is just what I was alluding to in my post above. And it is why I don't know that "fooled" is the right word to describe the reason for Walter Martin's assessment. It may have been an overly hopeful conclusion based on the trends that he observed. And I would agree that we need to evaluate those trends differently in 2006 than we would have 50 years ago. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1632 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Chris with much of your assessment. I only wanted to give my personal perspective on Martin. The big advantage for Martin not calling SDA a cult was this: More people read his chapter on Kingdom of the Cults, and left SDA because of it. This is something I observed first hand. The SDA church did a big favor in inviting Martin to speak. He really convinced a lot of people that night that SDA was really suspect. No offense taken Cw--Martin was not perfect. I agree he was overly charitable to Ellen White. And Melissa, I believe if he were alive today, he would say much of SDA has stepped over the line. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1387 Registered: 7-2003 |
You know, Stan, you mentioned that people read his chapter and left adventism because of it....and I'm really not trying to pick on you, but how many JOINED adventism because of this chapter or at least because he didn't define them as a cult? There are always two sides to that thought. It's certainly hind-sight at this point, but for those who have researched adventism before getting "too" deeply involved, and found such benign or charitable consideration, they stepped in perhaps trying to ignore their own personal red flags as CW mentioned. It is certainly a problem giving Dr. Martin too much power to influence their actions as well. For myself, I could find so little information on adventism in the local bookstore and wasn't yet "online", I really wanted to know what someone else "reputable" had found. It was one of the very few straws I could grasp at to try to explain their stance. Knowing what I know now, I agree with Chris' assessment. It's just a double edged sword in the respect of people leaving or joining as much of Christianity is completely confused about them now. I'm not sure that same confusion would exist had he concluded differently. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1234 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rick, I agree with you. I think Dr. Martin was partly evaluating a trend he was seeing and he rightly evaluated that trend as positive. The SDA organization really was becoming more evangelical in some of it's segments. I don't see anyway that Dr. Martin could have forseen the reaction of the hardline core within Adventism after QOD. In fact, I think he was rather suprised by it given an interview with him that I've read. Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Dr. Martin. I'm just saying that he was a very loving man who was very charitable and his charity and optimism may have had a different effect on Adventism than he anticipated. Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1633 Registered: 3-2005 |
Melissa, I don't see how anyone could join SDA after reading that chapter in Kingdom of the Cults. That chapter helped me and my dad personally see why SDA was wrong. I do see your point that he might have unwittingly played a role as an enabler. However, I still remember the night I first introduced Dad to Martin, and discovered he was processing out of Adventism, and Martin was thrilled and gave both of us a big bear hug, one month before he died. I thanked Martin that night for helping me and my Dad get out of Adventism, and he was elated. I know this is nothing more than personal emotionalism, but thanks for allowing me to share. Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 387 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan - I really like your point about people reading that chapter and leaving Adventism. It is good that you can see the light in why Dr. Martin did not put Adventism in the book as a cult. I think that you are right that more Adventists would be willing to read it if it didn't call Adventism a cult. And who am I to argue your own personal experience in that matter. Although I agree with everything Colleen said. I can also see in your experience with Dr. Martin how God can make something good in all of this and that is something we have a tendency to overlook. Even for many and most that believe that Adventism is a cult. Can't we see that it is really God who is in control? I think this is somewhat consistent with what Colleen is saying. As we were taught in Adventism, we always blamed Satan for having so much power and control over everything. And just maybe God has more control than we can fathom. As Ric has said, perhaps I cannot change my view and my emotions on what I experienced in Adventism. But I also don't believe I can make the assumption that Dr. Martin was deceived based on his experience with the Adventists and his understanding of the doctrine. His professional understanding of Adventism was not concluded without prayer and he knew the bible well. And sure, if he were alive now, he would have continued to have something to say about Adventism. But he is not alive now so we cannot put words in his mouth. I will respect him for what he wrote about Adventism and see the light that God has, and can put in that. I was listening to the radio today on a Christian station and somebody was talking about the DaVinci Code and how some Christians believe stuff in that novel as being true. He said that a person who wants to know if legal tender is counterfeit doesn't learn how to spot counterfeit money by studying counterfeit money, they study what is real so that they can spot what is counterfeit. With regard to Dr. Martin, we know that he knew the bible. Certainly Adventist doctrine just is what it is. He did see the good in the people that are Adventist and the deep sincerity in the hearts of many Adventists. Perhaps he wasn't deceived at all like Stan has said. Perhaps he prayerfully pondered his writing and opinion and God led him to conclude what he did. And truthfully, I think that we must respect such professionals such as Dr. Martin outwardly to other Christians without saying he was deceived, because in truth, that may cause us to sound less credible in making such an assumption. There is no question that the Adventist Church is deceptive. I heard on this same Christian radio station that spoke about counterfiet money, an ad came on for a Revival meeting next Friday night at an Adventist church. I heard it several times and had to stop and turn it up to be sure of what I was hearing. At first I thought there was going to be some concert at an Adventist church, and kept hearing the ad. But when I really heard the ad, it said it was a Revival meeting on a Friday night. We know what those revival meetings are about. Start with the Sabbath, continue for 14 days, some people sincerely seeking God will stay and come out brainwashed... We don't know how many Adventists work in that radio station or what sincere Christian at that radio station could be married to an Adventist.. Deceptions such as this are a sad reality. Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1635 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lynne, Thank you so much for your post. I really like the spirit in which you wrote that, and I agree with the content. I will get off my Walter Martin posting soon, but I wanted to re-iterate some points that Lynne made so well. Walter Martin was a trained expert in Satanic cults as well as all the cults. He wore his bullet proof vest in Utah, and he received many death threats from every other major cult. He never reported death threats from SDAs, but the hardline SDA(which I agree is a cult) really hated Martin, and they might have sent him death threats--which wouldn't surprise me. If you go on cultic SDA web sites you will find a lot of hatespeak directed at Martin, as well as hate directed at the leaders such as Roy Anderson and Leroy Froom (who Martin attested one month before his death, that these were indeed Christian men, who he had a deep love for). One thing must be said in all this. Why did Martin tell me that there was something about evangelical Adventism that was so different from the rest of the cults? Here was a man who knew Mormonism, JW, and CS so well. He knew the spirit that was behind them, but why did he sense a different spirit among some SDAs? This is why I can't for a moment label SDA exactly like JW. I was involved in a prayer meeting that Walter Martin had before he went on stage at the SDA church one month before his death. Martin prayed with my Dad, myself, and some very bold SDA pastors and other members of that SDA church. I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit there that night, and Walter acknowledged that he was among brothers in Christ. But on that same night he issued bold challenges and warnings to cultic Adventism. I am just saying that I think we should be a little more gracious to people like Martin, and to some pastors still in SDA who I believe are preaching the true gospel--but I will admit, I do not agree with their Arminian slant on the gospel, but I believe it is within the pale of orthodoxy. Stan | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 448 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan, Evangleical Adventism is an aberration that is merely tolerated by the bulk of the churh. The reason for the tolerance is that the evangelical Adventists bring in money and work to put a 'nice' face on the Adventist church. The real SDA denominational system is a deceitful machine founded on the words of a false prophet. I stopped by my wifes SDA church today to run an errand for her. I paused to check out their new library and thumbed threw a volume of the E.G.White biography entitled 'The Early Elmshaven Years'. It was startling (and sickening) to read the account of Elder Ballenger and what happened to him. Elder Ballenger studied the Bible and the Bible only. His studies led him to reject the teaching that the veil into which Christ entered was only the 'Holy Place', and that the atonement began in 1844 instead of at the cross. He was criticized by the leading ministers at the 1905 conference and denounced by Ellen White. Why? Well, he was warned that studying for himself was dangerous, that he needed to listen to other more experienced ministers. He was also reminded that when the SDA doctrine was being hashed out, Ellen could understand nothing of the controversy or even understand the Bible. And yet, when a question needed to be settled, she received a vision that cleared up the question and established a point of doctrine. So, the doctrine comes from God and can't be disturbed. If that isn't cultic, I don't know what is. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1636 Registered: 3-2005 |
Loneviking, If you have been reading the posts, I did say that that segment of Adventism was a cult. I have studied that Ballenger fiasco, and it is sickening. I am contending that historic Adventism including Ellen White is cultic. I am not defending that! Is there anything heretical about admitting that there is still enough of the true gospel being preached in portions of Adventism, that still true Christianity can exist? John MacArthur says it does exist in a small group within Adventism. I am only asking about how fair it is to apply the cult label to the whole thing? I have not really changed my basic views on Adventism. I have only modified my views slightly, and allowing that the grace of God may be manifested among some SDA pastors that might give me pause in labeling all of Adventism a cult. Do I recommend that anyone become an SDA or stay in SDA? Absolutely not to the first question, but the staying part is of the Lord's leading. I can somehow imagine that God in His sovereign will, just might still be working in some segments of Adventism. I know that idea gets people very upset, and I have certainly felt the anger the last 3-4 weeks over this. Stan | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 449 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan wrote: Is there anything heretical about admitting that there is still enough of the true gospel being preached in portions of Adventism, that still true Christianity can exist? John MacArthur says it does exist in a small group within Adventism. I am only asking about how fair it is to apply the cult label to the whole thing? ----------------------------------------------- Stan, these so-called 'Evangelical' Adventists are NOT evangelical. You cannot call them Evangelical when they hold to a view of inspiration that is heretical, along with a hermaneutic that is also heretical and cultic. Both are direct products of Ellen White and it makes no difference what they teach---as long as they cling to those two errors and remain within the SDA church, they are something other than 'evangelical'. There is just no way that someone can honestly remain SDA and believe in verbal plenary inspiration along with the true Evangelical hermaneutic. Every SDA belief crumbles in the face of these two beliefs, which is what both D.M.Canright and Ballenger found out. Further, those SDA's who remain as so-called 'Evangelicals' while knowing the truth are aiding the deceptive practices of the SDA church---which are ingrained and systematic. So yes, the whole thing should be deemed as cultic. There is not one doctrine that hasn't been soiled by the influence and teaching of Ellen White. I get the feeling that your real discomfort comes on a personal and not a corporate level. I, like you and many others on this board, have known some very Christian, loving people who were SDA's. Some of these were relatives, of whom we have fond memories of. I have no doubt that I wouldn't be a Christian today if not for the influence of some of these folks when I was a teenager. That is why I would agree that on a personal (or perhaps interpersonal) level I wouldn't use the term 'cult' or 'cult member'. It does have a bad connotation of judging an INDIVIDUAL as to their walk and connection with God. However, on a larger stage when writing or referring to the corporate body, I would have no hesitation referring to the SDA church as cultic. Walter Martin made this same distinction in his book 'Kingdom of the Cults', emphasizing that a line has to be drawn between the cultic system and the person ensnared within. BTW---I'm not angry with you! I just think that this topic is important and I've seen folks who could have great influence (such as Hank Hanegraaf) waffle on this issue. When they do a 'no, doctrine isn't heterodox, but they aren't a cult'---what does that do to the 'faith once contended for?' Make it an option? Make truth relative? Create a second category of 'Christian'? I can't see any of these options being reconcilable with Scripture. Bill | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 389 Registered: 10-2005 |
Loveviking, I'm not disagreeing with many of your points. I just wanted to add a few thoughts I had. Yes, DM Canright found out... He was an Adventist minister and was in Adventism for 28 years. It took time for him to process out of Adventism. He had to find out for himself through experience the problems in Adventism. Like fake legal tender, if we don't know what a real dollar bill looks like, how are we going to know better? That was a point DM Canright made, he didn't know better. We will find out at some point that a bill is counterfeit when we are shown the real thing. But Adventism unfortunately isn't that simple because it can take years to process out of. From a personal and not corporate perspective, I think that the true gospel is in the heart of some people in the Adventist church. Many of us were taught the true gospel in the beginning, even if it was taught in a diluted way. Even if at a corporate level we eventually learn it is really about baiting and switching. Could I have been saved and a Christian as an Adventist. My answer to that is definately yes because God knew I was sincere in my heart. But as far as being evangelical, can I say I really knew how to be evangelical? Well, yes, perhaps in a diluted sort of way, but yes. When I started with the Adventists I was taught to read the first four books of the NT. Can we blame people who fall for marketing bait and switch tactics for not understanding the contracts, though you need a law degree to actually understand the contract? And with regard to Adventism. I compare it much in the same way. Are you going to blame sincere Adventists for not having a theology degree because they don't understand the doctrine? I agree with Colleen that the doctrine eventually does lead to mental illness or Agnosticism. However, I could not judge anyone for staying in Adventism because everyone must process out at their own pace. As Colleen said, God meets us where we are. I married a non-Adventist Christian many years ago. He told me that he prayed for a Christian wife. What he got was a Christian wife that happened to be an Adventist. Personally, I remember feeling the Holy Spirit deeply in prayer and in prayer meetings when I was an Adventist. If there were non-Adventist Christians present such as Dr. Walter Martin, there would be no question that there was a presence and raising of Christ that you would not find with the JW, CS or Mormons. Further, the raising of Jesus might even be greater at times in prayer and groups within Adventist circles than in some non-bait and switch churches. I cannot deny salvation or the Holy Spirit in presence and in truth and it does exist within Adventism. God met me where I was. I could not understand what was wrong in the church and why there was so much Adventising over Evangelizing. Like many Adventists, I did not understand the whole picture. I didn't understand the church behind the church and the deceptions therein because it is a deliberate deception. Just as bait and switch in marketing, it always leads to a particular end so to speak. Because many of us learn through experience, sometimes many of us need to learn the hard way what works in our lives and what doesn't work. Think about it, how many times do many of us tell our children not to do something, but they must learn for themselves. If your argument is correct about Adventists being incapable of being evangelical, then you must place the same magnifying glass to every Christian in every denomination as to whether all of their practices and lives are really Christian. That sounds a bit too legalistic to me. Here is the definition of Evangelizing: To preach the gospel to. To convert to Christianity. Can we say this happens in Adventism? Yes, because that was what happened to me initially. Is it really fair for us to say that all Adventists, including pastors, are not evangelical then? Lynne | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1238 Registered: 10-2004  |
Lynne, their main stated goal, though, is actually to convert from Christianity. They themselves state that 96% or so of their "evangelism" is targeted towards Christians. To me, that sounds more like Islam than Christianity. Jeremy | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 390 Registered: 10-2005 |
Jeremy, Don't mistake me for justifying Adventism or its doctrine. I do see some truth in what you are saying. Yes there is that inner seed planted in Adventists about how important it is to share the Adventist message or get that message into the people we love. However, I don't think we can rightfully say that "they" (individual Adventists and pastors) are necessarily aware of this main goal of the GC and top leadership of the church. There are obviously spiritual forces at work here overseeing all of the deception. But isn't it true that it is really God that is greater? Is He not rescuing many of us out of Adventism? For clarification, who are "they" that you are speaking of? And where is that statistic coming from? Lynne |
