| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 508 Registered: 7-2004  |
Clearly the discussion is not going to go away. It keeps popping up in different threads and discussions. I am tired of seeing the character, ability, and integrity of great men of God maligned because of their conclusions about SDAism. I am tired of inflammatory rhetoric devoid of supporting evidence. What I would like to see on this thread is a frank discussion of the evidence for and against concluding that SDAism is a cult. I will kick off the discussion. I believe that SDAism teaches another gospel. SDAism combines justification and sanctification and teaches that righteousness imparted to us is salvational. That our cooperation with God relative to this imparted righteousness determines whether we will be "fit for heaven." The whole concept of being "fit for heaven" is based on a righteousness that is present in us, not a righteousness that is credited to us in place of our own unrighteousness. So there is no doubt in my mind that SDAism teaches a different gospel than Scripture. Certainly none of the cults teach the true Gospel, and failing to distinguish justification and sanctification is a common trait of cults. But is this an error that in itself warrants classifying a group as a cult? And what other groups would be classified as a cult by this same description? Certainly Roman Catholicism would be included. But many of those most dedicated to teaching grace alone through faith alone have noted that much of Protestantism has shifted slowly back to the position of the RC church. Witness Rick Warren's statements about the importance of works. This teaching is alive and well in parts of dispensationalism, see for instance the teachings of David Needham. Should we conclude that anyone who is dispensationalist is part of a cult because this false teaching occurs commonly within the group? Look also within the Keswick perspective. This is not a view that is tied to a specific denomination or group but has influence over a variety of groups. Look at the holiness Pentecostals. Errors very similar to those in SDAism exist within the AOG church. It has a historical element with strong ties to this error, but also has prominent and influential individuals that speak against this error (such as Myer Pearlman). Where would you describe Wesley's teachings on this subject? Although I can point to elements that distinguish Wesley from SDAism here, there is no doubt that Wesley is much closer to SDAism than to Calvin and Luther. This confusion between justification and sanctification was common in the non-denominational churches that we visited in our area. When we left SDAism we thought that we would probably be most comfortable in a non-denominational church. But this error was more pronounced there than among "evangelical" SDA congregations. So I will repeat my question. Is teaching another gospel a sufficient reason to classify a group as a cult and if so what other churches or groups should we classify as a cult along with SDAs based on this criteria? | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 212 Registered: 4-2005  |
Rick, I agree with you. I think the Investigative Judgment and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary is a much more plausible point of serious biblical objection; however I still have not brought myself to call, much less believe Adventism is a cult. A sect seems more fitting to me. Yet, these two words are often used interchangably in conversations and quite loosely, which is unfortunate. To deny the finished work of Christ on the cross to me denies the authenticity of the Gospel. But the Pelagian mix with Arminianism seems to be visible throughout evangelicalism, and I do not recall hearing any of those main line churches being called cults or even sects. Jess | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 511 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jess. I am not specifically against calling SDAism a cult. What concerns me is being able to discuss coherently the reasons for or against that conclusion, and then applying that reasoning in a consistent fashion to other groups as well. I think some people are afraid that if we don't use the cult word it takes away from the very real pain and struggle involved in leaving SDAism. That somehow our experiences are not legitimate if we don't employ the word "cult". If cult is the best description, then we should be prepared to explain why. If it isn't, then we should likewise be prepared to explain why someone should be concerned about the false teachings of SDAism but still acknowledge individual SDAs as fellow Christians. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 397 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ric, I'm glad you are bringing this up. As you know, I have used the term Satanic Cult in the past. I would like to apologize for having offended anyone and to ask forgiveness. Obviously the Adventists do have much in common with other denominations and religious groups. I've seen how the RCC religion compares to Adventism in that I know many people who have become Agnostic and some who were very religious and mental. Certainly there is some non biblical doctrine in the Catholic Church, but I've known genuine Catholics who love Christ. Some people can find ways to define this religion as a cult, but Catholicism is not defined a cult. Yes, Adventism has quite a bit in common with how JWs and Mormons evangelize. But how can we also compare a lot of that to how we practice marketing in America? Is there not deception in marketing to make us buy things? Are we brainwashed in our culture on how things are marketed? Is there deception in that? Perhaps we should focus more on the bible and protect ourselves from financial ruin instead of attacking the companies that are practicing a legitimate business who aren't breaking any laws, yet perhaps deceiving us. Like Catholicism or Adventism, can financial ruin lead people to agnosticism or mental illness? And what about the Jews. Can't we somehow relate to the bondage of the law? Can we call them a cult because they don't teach a certain way? We know there are genuine Christians in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Even if I agree that historical Adventism is a cult, few Adventists in my experience over the last 20 years, are like that. I've seen many real Christians in the church and I was one myself. And if some breakaway groups that are true cults like the Onenes Pentecostals can rightly be labeled that, that doesn't make all Pentecostals a cult. Even if the Pentecostals had a cultish beginning. I guess that is how we can compare the Adventists to the Davidians in a way. It is a false attack to call Christians and Catholics that are consistent with 1 John 4:2 in their teachings, a cult. Even though Mark Martins website www.sdaoutreach.org shows the attrition rate of Adventists second next to JW, that doesn't make Adventists JWs. It can, however, tell us something is wrong. And he does not write on his website cult, cult, cult. I agree that someone coming out of Adventism, such as myself when I first started reading Mark Martins website, is best served by not personally attacking the church with such words as satanic or cult. Walter Martins book, The Kingdom of the Cults, only has a special section on Adventism, and he does not call them a cult. And I now think that the revised edition of his book prayerfully remains the same. I cannot call the experts deceived. However, Walter Martin did in fact write about the Adventists in the book, so that does not exclude them from his scrutiny. But Walter Martin did not call the Seventh-day Adventist church a cult as he did with the other groups in the book. When I started chatting on this board, I was often directed to relevant scripture. Hearing the word cult did persuade me to be more upset with the Adventists and I had a much more difficult time with forgiveness than I do now. The bible does tell us we need to forgive because we have been forgiven! It does not serve Christians well in my opinion to use labels like whore, dyke, satanic. It isn't denying the truth either. If one wants to open the bible to a verse that says homosexuality is wrong or prostitution is wrong, lets direct people to the scripture so that they can process out of their lifestyles in their own time without attacking them. I was a Christian as an Adventist and I believed this as an Adventist as well. Think about it, can someone come to Christ as a homosexual and still be forgiven and saved even if it takes time for them to process out of their lifestyle? We are all forgiven sinners. None of us is any better! I can also rightly state that the entertainment industry is satanic, idol worship and cultish. But really, who is going to listen to the problems I see in the entertainment industry. If there is a show that I am against having on the air during school hours because I don't want my children to watch it, is anyone going to listen to me if I make general statements calling the entertainment industry satanic? For those of us who have watched Gilda Radner on Saturday night live, she was the Church Lady. The skit made fun of people who always blamed every bad thing on satan. She jokingly and rightfully labeled everything a little off as satan, satan, satan, satan, satan. Between every sentence she acknowledged satan in everything. I want to speak now about Christ and raise Him up. I feel so much better when I do that. I feel good when I raise Christ, not Satan. I don't have the time to look at Wesley, Calvin or the writings of Luther in depth and make comparisons. But in answer to Rics last question, I don't see how teaching another gospel is sufficient reason to classify a group a cult. Lynne | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1249 Registered: 10-2004  |
Here is what the cult experts say:
Christian Research Institute:
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 12, 2006) | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 398 Registered: 10-2005 |
Jeremy - I see that the Apologetics link you have names Jehovah Witness, Mormons and Davidians on it. Not Seventh-day Adventist or Catholics. If you are saying Seventh-day Adventists must be called a cult by those definitions, then in a different, yet same way, you must say Catholicism is a cult too. Tell Apologetics to put Seventh-day Adventist there and the Catholics too because they don't fit grace alone. I think that is why many are leaning that Adventism is cultish, perhaps more so than Catholicism. By definition, I can blame them for being deceptive, for being works oriented, but can we really call the whole Seventh-day Adventist Church and Catholic church a cult? I honestly must tell you that I cannot feel comfortable now making the statement that the Seventh-day Adventist church is a cult. I would say they have much false doctrine which did not work through my experience. Lynne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3937 Registered: 12-2003  |
Here is a statement from the Biblical Research Committee's 1989 document, "Doctrine of the Sanctuary", pp 223-224: "Seventh-day Adventists recognize in Ellen G White an authority in doctrine and life that is second only to that of the ScripturesÖ.The Seventh-day Adventist church holds the writings of Ellen G White in the higest regard as a source of doctrinal understandingÖ.Some Adventists have inferred that in Dr. [Desomd] Ford's view, Ellen White's authority does not extend to doctrinal issues. On this point the Seventh-day Adventist postiion is that a prophet's authority cannot justifiably be limited in that way." (This quote is quoted from Russell Kelly's book "Exposing Seventh-day Adventism". An exeprt from his book will appear in the next Proclamation. The focus of the next issue will be Bible inerrancy.) We're in the proof-reading stage of this next issue, and Dale Ratzlaff and I talked this morning. He was amazed at this quotation and said he was going to include it in his next revision of "The Truth about the Truth of Seventh-day Adventism". He said he had never seen this quote before (the Biblical Research Committee, by the way, is sponsored by the SDA Church and promotes "the study and practice of Adventist theology and lifestyle as understood by the world church, as well as provide[s] theological resources for the administration and departments of the world headquarters and the church as a whole.") Dale said of this quote, "This actually puts them into a full cult and away from Protestantism." He then commented that as time has progressed, they have been retrenching and reasserting the historic bases of the church. Now, this remark of Dale's was in a casual conversation, and he would not call "evangelical Adventists" cultists. But members are NOT what determine whether or not an organization is a cult. The Christians we all know within the SDA church are not cultists. The church itself, however, must be evaluated on its own merits or demerits. Yes, there can be Christians who are inside cults! Again, I have no burden to speak of Adventism as a "cult". I just want us to see that the people we know and their relative understandings of the gospel DO NOT determine whether the church is a cult. And yes, I also consider the Catholic Church to be the largest Christian cult in the world. Its members are in bondage, even if they come to know Christ, and by being Catholic, they are still carrying around the ball and chain of the pope, Mariology, saint worship, works salvation, etc.ójust as Christian Adventists by definition and belief are still carrying around Ellen, some form of the IJ, salvational implications of Sabbath, soul sleep/no true human spirit, and a blurred view of Christ's nature. I'm saying this not to argue but to try to clarify that members' beliefs and the contents of some pastor's sermons do not determine whether or not Adventism is a cult. And really, what is the negative impact of recognizing that a great many people in the world are lliving in the deception of Christian cults? Of course, I would not premise my arguments against Adventism on the foundation of the label "cult". I would use the arguments you used above, Rickóbut I would always include Ellen as an argument against Adventism. She IS the foundation of the church, and any form of honoring or belief in her binds a person to subtle but profound deception that colors their lives in ways of which they're not even conscious. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 512 Registered: 7-2004 |
So Jeremy, according to the definitions that you have quoted and applied to SDAism--which of the following aren't cults and why: RCC, AoG, the wider Pentecostal movement as a whole, Dispensationalists, Kewickians, Free Methodists, Nazarenes, Rick Warren, and Wesley to name a few. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 513 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, that was only my opening salvo in the problems with SDAism. Certainly the role of EGW is a major consideration in what to do with SDAism. Is there a difference between an organization having a false teacher as its defacto leader and one having a false prophet? Does having or accepting a false teacher or a false prophet make an organization a cult? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 202 Registered: 7-2005  |
I will adventure to say that no doctrines per se make a church a cult, but another fact. It's the fact that cults use mind control techniques with persistence and tenacity, which prevents their members to freely evaluate their beliefs. All cults pretend to have a direct pipeline to God. Someone or some people are directly in touch with God, without mediation. In this way they have acces to a knowledge innaccesible to the normal believers. They can know the correct interpretation of the Bible without consulting the context, there is no need to give solid biblical proofs for something, only the idea that it is an information obtained from a "safe" source, is sufficient. Do you remember what adventists say in the fundamental belief about the Spirit of Prophecy? That Ellen White is an "authoritative source of truth"? Source, not interpreter. It's not something mediated, her authority is not derived, and also cannot be verifyed. How can someone evaluate a "source of truth"? Nobody can, simply because he has not the information necessary to evaluate the source. Because the information is available only for the source, only for the prophet, or only for the leaders from Watchtower. In this way, not only a false gospel is preached, but this gospel has a huge back up, because is sustained directly by God. This is mind control. It prevents people to think and evaluate freely what is presented. This is the trap of all cults, not only they have bad theolgy, but they have a theology which people will be afraid to evaluate and contradict. This is what is the sure mark of a cult. When I grew up in an adventist home, I sensed that adventists make claims which are not so evident. Like the investigative judgment, which I saw that is not so easy to prove from the Bible. I remember my feelings in the days of searching information in the Bible to find a solid foundation for the IJ. Because Ellen, the source, preached IJ, of course, it must be sustained by the Bible, and after some deep research I will find sufficient evidence to anchor my faith in the Bible. Did you see the order? First, I started with the premise that the Bible teached IJ, even if I saw it not clearly. On what grounds I was sure that the Bible teached Investigative Judgment? Ellen White, of course. And with perseverence I continued to study to find the proofs that must be in the Bible. I believe that many in the church are in the same situation. Even if they see clearly that IJ is opposed to the gospel, they remain evangelica, and don't reject in openly, because for some unknown reasons, the IJ can be harmonized with the gospel. After all, God is the source of the gospel, and God is the source of IJ. This is a cultic reasoning, and this is because the real foundation of SDA beliefs are the teachings of Ellen White. Without her inspired back-up, all the adventist will have is only sinking sands. Many see the insufficiency of biblical evidence for a solid belief, but being under mind control, they choose to believe rather Ellen White. In this case also, their actions speaks louder than their words. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 203 Registered: 7-2005 |
The difference between a false teacher and a false prophet is between someone who pretends to have a correct interpretation of Bible by a deeper study o f it , and someone who pretends to have the interpretation of the Bible presented directly by God. The teacher received his message by the authority of the Bible, the prophet by the authority of the God himself, without mediation. The prophet is above the Bible, because the prophet is the inspired interpreter of the Bible. | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 478 Registered: 5-2002 |
Jackob, great posts! It is the fundamental presence of an extra-Biblical source of truth that distinguishes SDAism, Mormonism, JW, etc. as cults. Without Fundamental Belief #18, it would be alot more difficult for me to call Seventh-day Adventism a cult. Then again, without Ellen White, several other fundamental doctrines would vanish, as well as the entire historic Seventh-day Adventist Church. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 514 Registered: 7-2004 |
Is every group that accepts that teaching of a false prophet a cult? Or only those who accept that authority within their doctrinal beliefs? For example, if the Willow Creek Association invites a false prophet to speak and endorses that spearker, does that make them a cult? Does it mean that all churches that belong to this association are cults? | ||
| Lindylou Registered user Username: Lindylou Post Number: 151 Registered: 1-2005  |
Well said - Jackob and Freeatlast! Here's a simple definition from the dictionary: cult: a system of religious worship//admiration of, or devotion to, a person or thing, esp. as a form of intellectual snobbery. | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 479 Registered: 5-2002 |
I couldn't personally stretch so far as to say that a group's endorsement of a false teaching or false prophet automatically qualifies them as a cult in my mind. To me, that is more subjective and I'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis (i.e., how strong is the endorsement, is acceptance of the false teaching or prophet requisite to group membership, is the false teaching fundamental to the existence of the group, etc.). Regarding Seventh-day Adventism, the key words are "FUNDAMENTAL", and "CONTINUING and AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE". With those words, Seventh-day Adventism dives headfirst into cultic water. Orthodox Christianity must continue to reject any and all FUNDAMENTAL CONTINUING SOURCES of AUTHORITY besides the canon of Scripture. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3939 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jacob, you articulated those ideas so clearly. Your explanation is exactly the reason I believe Adventism is a cult. The doctrines aren't the foundational problem; the REAL problem is a false prophetóand you're right, Jackobóa prophet claims to receive revelation directly from God as opposed to a teacher who claims special insight into the Bibleóperhaps claiming God's revelationóbut teachers aren't likely to claim their info comes from visions and dreams. The most evangelical of Adventists is still influenced by the brainwashingóand as much as I hated that term for the phenomenon when I first began thinking about this subject after I left the church, that's what it isóthey cannot clearly consider the implications of their beliefs, their fears, their deeply non-rational ties to the church and to its practices. No matter how they disavow Ellen, they cannot call her a false prophet. They cannot risk leaving IN CASE the the church is right about the Sabbath. They can't bear leaving the culture. Etc. No, it's not the stated beliefs that are the problem. The problem is the mind control and the spiritual claim of the false prophet's deception on the entire church, historic, liberal, or evangelical. And you make a very good point, Freeatlastówhen one can finally call Ellen a false prophet, those heterodoxical doctrines disappear also. Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1388 Registered: 7-2003 |
Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. 11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point, but it seems that everyone acknowledges adventism teaches a false gospel. Yet, somehow that can be set aside and evaluate other teachings to somehow "redeem" it or make it less offensive? My Bible tells me that anyone who teaches a false gospel (and regardless of individuals within the religion, the official gospel of adventism is false) is to be accursed. I don't scratch my head on that one too much. I also think it is very easy to prove EGW meets the test of a false prophet. And again, regardless of individuals within the church, the official position is she is "the" spirit of prophecy. Jeremiah 23:30"Therefore behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who steal My words from each other. 31"Behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who use their tongues and declare, 'The Lord declares.' 32"Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams," declares the LORD, "and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit," declares the LORD. Can we "presume" from that passage God is against EGW? Surely she did those things. 2 Peter1:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. Didn't EGW at the very least endorse heresies, if she did not outright introduce them? Didn't they make their home in adventism based upon EGWs approval? There are many passages of scripture I could quote which speak to the unity of the body, and adventism as a corporate institute rejects the rest of us out here in babylon, even denying we are genuine Christians. Whether or not that is the official position of the church is probably debatable, but there is a position on adventist.org that asks the question "who is an unbeliever" and the official answer was any non-adventist. It is not merely whether we define adventism within the body of Christ, even if on the fringes, but they themselves don't define their organization as a "part" of "us". I guess if I'm prioritizing what are the main things, and looking at what scripture says about the main things, discarding disputable things and just general disagreement on the meaning of texts, adventism is clearly called "accursed" by scripture in its gospel presentation, and other false prophets mentioned in scripture are spoken of pretty harshly for doing the very things EGW has done. I realize B is one individual, however very early on in our relationship when I was struggling with "what" was adventism, I was looking at a book on cults (which did not include adventism). He made the comment that many considered adventism a cult, and if that's what defined a cult, he was perfectly content to be in a cult because he knew it had the "truth". For me, and I've said it earlier, I have no personal problem labeling adventism as a cult. I absolutely recognize Jackob's point of fear of leaving, though B will try to say methodists don't want to leave the methodist church, and baptists don't want to leave the baptist church, etc. It's all about making adventism seem not so different from real denominations. Personally, I've been in assembly of God churches, and I adamangly reject they teach another gospel. They teach salvation through grace by faith no works period. So, I'm not sure of the effort to make them look like adventism. Similarly, I've heard the same things out of Rick Warren's mouth, and read it in his books. His emphasis on works from my personal reading of his books is no different than what James says. But I'm not really going to defend either of those two to justify my perspective of adventism. My Bible calls them accursed purely because of their presentation of the gospel. And it doesn't seem any other characteristic can "balance" that out and make them "less accursed". But I don't apologize for using Biblical words for Biblically defined actions. They'd have to understand the gospel to understand how the religion perverts it, so it seems pointless to argue it. It's not that different from mainstream media questioning a Christian as to whether someone has to accept Jesus to go to heaven...and only those who have accepted Jesus will be in heaven. How can you make the answer to that question not sound negative in a secular world? But who here thinks you can get to heaven without faith in Christ? That is my opinion, nothing more. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1250 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, my point is that it seems that you are not being consistent. You say that we should not be "disrespecting" the cult experts. You say that Adventism teaches another gospel, but is not a cult. The cult experts say that if an organization teaches another gospel, they are a cult. So are you "disrespecting" the cult experts by saying they are wrong when they say an organization is a cult if they teach another gospel? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 12, 2006) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 698 Registered: 4-2000  |
If any group or person teaches a false gospel (anything Paul did not preach), they are to be "ACCURSED" (Gal. 1:8,9). This clearly includes many denominations, including Seventh-day Adventists. By the way, Paul said this TWICE to make sure we understand the serious nature of this matter. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 515 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, I have said we should not be waging personal attacks on the integrity and knowledge of cult experts. Suggesting that they have all been fooled but we are somehow better than that lacks all credibility. You quote these experts in their definition of a cult, then why not quote these same individuals on why SDAism isn't a cult? If I were to apply the cult label based solely and specifically on the portions of the definition that you quoted, I would also have to consider a number of others as cults. Would you care to weigh in on that? Melissa, you totally miss the point if you think that anyone questioning the use of the word cult for SDA is somehow trying to redeem SDAism. That has nothing to do with it. It is a question of being consistent and credible. BTW point 9 of the AoG 1916 "Statement of Fundamental Truths" reads "The Scriptures teach a life of holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. By the power of the Holy Ghost we are able to obey the command, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." Entire sanctification is the will of God for all believers, and should be earnestly pursued by walking in obedience to God's Word." While the AoG today may have changed from its roots, if we can not accept change in SDAism from its roots how can we be consistent and accept it from others? If the basis for considering SDAism a cult is that historically it did not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone and that currently it has a confused theology in this regard then have the courage to stand up and call every other church with this same error a cult. So Freeatlast, is Methodism a cult because it includes 4 sources of authority--the Bible, reason, tradition and experience? Furthermore can we realistically consider accepting the teachings of a false prophet on a case-by-case basis? Is there any way that doesn't just become calling those groups we like not a cult and those we don't like a cult? Dennis, I have said from the start of this discussion a month ago that we would do well to consider using the terms false gospel and false prophet. Both of these have Biblical definitions which we can discuss and defend directly from Scripture. Unlike the vague term "cult" which appears to be applied haphazardly. Furthermore the insistence on using the term "satanic cult" gives the impression of a cult group openly worshipping Satan. This is such a bold misrepresentation of SDAism that I think it is every bit as deceptive or more so than SDAism itself generally is. |
