| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 519 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy I would agree with Hank's assessment that SDAs teach salvation by grace through faith. But Hank's requirement is not by grace alone through faith alone. That is where I think SDAism, and RCism and others fall down. There is no denial that salvation is by grace through faith. But SDAs make additions to these. Furthermore there is a difference between saying that SDAism has cultic elements. There are ways in which I strongly concur that SDAism is cultic--giving authority to Ellen's writings, denying salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and their use of deception in promoting their church and their views. The question that I find hard to answer is whether there are sufficient cultic elements to warrant the conclusion that the church is a cult. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1261 Registered: 10-2004  |
Rick, If Hank did not mean grace alone through faith alone, then he would call them a cult, since his cult definition I posted above said grace alone through faith alone. Also, near the bottom of that article, he says, "the great majority of Adventist scholars, teachers and pastors that I have spoken with believe firmly in salvation by grace through faith alone." Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 704 Registered: 4-2000  |
Qweary, The Old Covenant tithing codes mandated tithe from crops and animals only. Sometimes due to hardship or transportation problems, the crops could be converted into money by adding a fifth part. Animals, however, were not allowed to be converted into money. It is most surprising to many people that a large segment of the Israelites never paid tithe at all (salaries were exempt). The non-tithers included farmhands, miners, lumbermen, fishermen, handicraft workers, librarians, retailers, manufacturers, day laborers, construction workers, military personnel, etc. Importantly, Jesus never extracted a tithe from his followers. It would have illegal for him to have done so. After all, He was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. It is impossible to tithe without the Levitical system being fully in place. This is the reason that Jews today do not practice tithing. Tithing never was for the Gentiles even under the Old Covenant. Tithe could only be received from the sacred land of Palestine. Thus, wisely, Jews today do not practice tithing because the Levitical system is not in place. Furthermore, there is yet another surprise that most Christians fail to understand. In actual fact, the Temple in Jerusalem did not get the bulk of its income for operation from the tithe that the Israelites gave on their farm produce and herds. There was another law that Moses enacted that provided huge quantities of money to Temple operations when the people were faithful in carrying out the Law of the Old Covenant. Moses also legislated that the Temple itself was to be (in a primary sense) funded from the giving of a half-shekel by every male in Israel above the age of 20 (Ex. 30:11-16). This half-shekel was to be given each year and it was to be sent to the Temple treasury no matter where Israelites lived in the world. A half-shekel would amount to about two days of work annually. Since in Roman times, there were 3 and 4 million Jewish males who would pay the tribute each year, this would amount to between $360 to $500 million U. S. dollars just for the half-shekel tribute alone. That is alot of money! After the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, the Jewish men were required to pay their annual half-shekel tribute to the Roman treasury instead. The New Testament shows a different set of legal precepts for financing Christian activities. True enough, when Christ was on earth he told his disciples that tithing was a doctrine still in force (even on the meagerest of substances), but this was before the ekklesia (church) was established. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus was not talking to the members of the Christian ekklesia. He was speaking to the Pharisaical leaders of the Jews. And why not? The Pharisees were still within the Old Covenant system when Christ made his remarks. Even the Pharisees felt they were obligated to accept the Levitical regulations and Christ simply called their attention to those requirements. Jews at the time were supposed to pay the tithe. Remember, while Christ was alive the Temple was still standing. The Levites and Priests were still performing their ordained functions and were then the legal recipients of the tithe. The New Covenant had not been introduced. Being under the Old Covenant administration at the time, it was only natural that Christ would tell the Pharisees to obey the law of tithing that Moses ordained. Indeed, before Jesus was crucified he even informed his disciples to offer animal sacrifices (Luke 5:14); to pay the annual half-shekel for the upkeep of the Temple (Matt. 17:24-27); and even to recognize the Scribes and Pharisees as sitting in Moses' seat and to do as they commanded (Matt. 23:2,3). All these requirements had nothing to do with the way the Christian ekklesia was later to conduct its activities. Only while the Old Covenant was in operation was it necessary to sacrifice animals, be circumcised, pay Temple tax, and (as Christ informed the Pharisees) to pay tithe. Jesus and his disciples were supported by private funds from those who believed in his mission. The Gospel breeds generosity wherever it takes root. Spirit-led or Grace-giving, not Law-based tithing, is the model for New Covenant believers. With Spirit-led giving, the Christian no longer yearns for the laws of Moses to finance the Great Commission. The New Covenant must be allowed to modify, interpret, or transform Old Covenant directives in a Christ-centered way. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 521 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, kindly recheck the definition you posted from Hank. It do not believe it contained the words "alone". Furthermore Hank has pointed out exactly what some of us have been saying in being hesitant to apply the label. There are SDA pastors who have this doctrine fairly correct. Now I'm not sure that the vast majority of ones that I have met I would say that about, but I don't know who Hank has met. The problem for SDA pastors come in trying reconcile this doctrine with (particularly) the IJ. It is one of the reasons that I think we heard so little on the IJ doctrine in the years before we left. I know people who aren't necessarily ready to reject the doctrine totally but also can't figure out how to reconcile it with grace alone through faith alone (the simple reason, you can't!). So instead of trying or openly examining the IJ, they just put it on the back burner and ignore it. Do they still have big gaps in their theology--absolutely! I am not trying to downplay those errors, nor the trauma that they cause to members. Dennis, should we conclude that all churches that promote tithing are cults? | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 705 Registered: 4-2000 |
Ric, It certainly is not the lone determining factor; however, it is often one of them. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1262 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, I'll post it again:
Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1649 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, You asked about Smuts Van Rooyen. You probably know that he was associated for years with GNU and Ford. I was at first taken back when I had heard he was pastoring this SDA church in Riverside, CA. My dad was processing out of SDA, and I would go with my parents for an extended period of time, and listen to his preaching. He had the doctrine of justification by faith alone down as well as any. There was no difference from going to that SDA church or the Seventh-day Baptist church. Van Rooyen has denied the doctrine of the IJ in many sermons. He has no legalistic view of the Sabbath. BTW, it is not heretical to give the view that you keep the Sabbath because you are saved, as Romans 14 clearly allows that. Also Dennis, RC Sproul teaches tithing and Sunday keeping as responses in obedience to the fact that we are saved. But does that make him a cultist? When I participated in a San Diego forum in '94, giving my reasons for leaving Adventism, I ran across some SDA pastors who were agreeing with me 100% that the Sabbath was no longer binding. I would give their name(s) except I don't want to incriminate them. They said they stayed to preach the gospel, actually hoping people would hear the true gospel. This is why it is grossly unfair to broadbrush all of Adventism. Historical Adventism is different--that was my dad, but at that same forum he gave his testimonial against that form of Adventism. Most of us agree that historical Adventism needs to be exposed, and I will continue to do my best to help expose it. I am only saying, let's be careful about what we say about evangelical SDA, as there is a significant segment. I think Hanegraaf said he interviewed something close to a hundred pastors, who apparently haven't bowed the knee to the false gospel of works salvation. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 522 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy as a reminder you posted:
I am having trouble finding the word alone in that statement. Perhaps you can understand my confusion? | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 706 Registered: 4-2000 |
Stan, All SDA pastors "bow their knee" to the 28 fundamental pillars of Adventism. They are apt to get a fussy feeling when they open their paycheck envelopes each month--especially since the SDA pay-scale is above-average for clergy in most denominations. There is no evidence that Smuts Van Rooyan has deleted the IJ from his local SDA church; after all, Seventh-day Adventist churches are not automonous or independent units of thought. Since Adventism is hierarchical, there is absolutely no compromise allowed on the 28 basic beliefs on a local level. Yes, I know the professors in the Religion Division at LLU have always maintained some form of liberal theology through the years. However, their aberrant "open theism" and "moral influence" theories do not directly oppose Adventism. In fact, the ideas of Drs. Maxwell, Provonsha, Rice, and others largely support the SDA system of belief (i.e., abortion, incomplete atonement, partnership salvation, etc.). Their continuous anti-gospel stance actually blends well with official Adventist dogma. It is merely dressed up in a fashion to appeal to the SDA intellectual community. Interestingly, these men have NEVER publicly attacked the Old Covenant practice of tithing in Adventism. In the eyes of the General Conference officials, this would truly constitute an unpardonable sin for any LLU professor to promote. It is one of their most cherished "sacred cows." The SDA hierarchy carefully picks and chooses what they will tolerate from their academic communities (i.e., Dr.Desmond Ford). It is safe to say that if Smuts Van Rooyan publicly proclaimed the identical message that Ford did, he would be likewise be defrocked. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1263 Registered: 10-2004 |
"I would give their name(s) except I don't want to incriminate them." Stan, thanks for proving to us that even these evangelical (maybe) pastors are part of a cult.  "This is why it is grossly unfair to broadbrush all of Adventism." Actually, I think you just showed with your statement above, that it is absolutely fair to speak of the SDA church as a whole. If it would incriminate the SDA Pastors who do not believe SDA dogma to mention their names, then the SDA church is a cult. And if any evangelicals in the SDA church don't want to be associated with a cult, then they should leave. As Dennis said, the SDA congregations are not at all autonomous. Dennis, You make very good points. Looking at Van Rooyen's church's website, they clearly reference Ellen G. White as a source of authority: http://www.graceunconditional.com/pages/calendar/calendar_categorylist.asp#BibleStudy Jeremy | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 209 Registered: 7-2005  |
I want to introduce the witness of a former adventist pastor who evaluate the possibility of staying in adventism and trying to produce a change by preaching the gospel. His name is Greg Taylor, and I quote from http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2004_JulAug.pdf When he discovered that sabbath keeping is not a requirement for christians, he started to ask himself some hard questions.
He recognized three facts: 1. If he does not speak openly about sabbath keeping as not being a requirement, this means that he tacitly endorse the teaching of the church, that sabbath keeping is a requirement. This will cause people to sacrifice their relationships, jobs, asking them to take a stept of faith which he was unwilling to take. 2. the easisest option is to remain quiet. 3. changing the system remaining quiet about sabbath is almost impossible, because there exist a theological substructure of the adventist belief system who remains intact. As long as this sbstructure remains intact, nothing changes. the gospel has no power to produce real change, only a n external facelift, only impression. Only "the the appearance of godliness, but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5) The cultic mentality remains intact. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2528 Registered: 3-2004  |
Each SDA pastor who knows and preaches the true gospel has to make the decision for themselves, as God leads them, whether to stay in the church or leave. God has them where they are for a reason, of which I do not know. Just like God had us, where he found us, for a reason. Some will get tired of fighting the system and come out and others will stay for whatever reason they may have, i.e., retirement, friends, family, etc. I cannot get inside their heads to know their reasoning, but God can and will do what is necessary for each pastor and each person. God brought each of us out. I know now how long He was working on me and it has been a long time. But He brought me out and I am so thankful. So, let us keep on praying for all Adventists in our weekly prayer circle. God is answering our prayers, in His time and His way. Of that I am positive. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 523 Registered: 7-2004 |
Diana, I agree with you completely. For us to judge what God has called someone else to do is very out of place (as long as their calling is consistent with Scriptural teaching). I have enough troubling always figuring out what God is calling me to do, to worry about what He has called another to do--or not to do--is just beyond me. I am so thankful that God gave me understanding and called me out. Even knowing grace and freedom within SDAism was still not as joyful and complete as experiencing with so many others since then. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1652 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis and Jeremy, I guess I am really pained by the spirit of constant attack that I see coming off your typewriters. Smuts Van Rooyen is a total hypocrite based on what you guys say. Here is a man that worked with Desmond Ford to help so many people bridge the gap out of Adventism--including me and my dad specifically. Have either one of you critics ever heard a sermon preached by Smuts Van Rooyen? I listened in an SDA church long after I was out of Adventism to Van Rooyen over and over again preach a pure gospel. If you don't want to believe, then there is nothing more to say. Somehow your credibility is lacking when you attack openly even a great man who preaches the gospel where he believes he is called to do it. There is just something harsh and strident about your rhetoric. I guess I just have to accept that some on here won't be happy unless SDA is referred to as a Satan worshipping cult. Jeremy, that website won't come up, but I suspect when I examine that web site closely, that I won't find anything that contradicts basic Christian orthodoxy. I fear for those of you who will even attack Van Rooyen--I have met him enough times and talked with him enough to know he doesn't believe the IJ, and even questions the Sabbath being binding on Christians. Diana, I really appreciate your contribution to this discussion. I always appreciate your spirit, and I will continue to pray for the Adventist church, and my family and friends who are still there. Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1247 Registered: 7-2003  |
I have my opinions as to the best technical theological classification of Adventism as a system. I don't think my opinions are unknown, but they are largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things. As I have thought about this in the last few hours it has really struck me what a diversion from eternal matters this debate is (and I include my own posts in this). Consider this; in today's world the greatest threat to the truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone is not any cult, sect, or denomination, but the dominance of relativity. While we pour much energy into stridently debating a technical designation, there is a world of lost people who believe that all roads lead to god, all the while rejecting the only one that does. Compared to this debate, how much time and energy have we put into dialoging with members of this forum who do not know the Jesus portrayed in the pages of scripture? I am not saying that this debate has no importance, but does its level of importance rise to the level of something we should divide over? Does its level of importance correspond to the energy put into it, especially when compared to eternal matters such as who the real Jesus is? There is another thread on this forum where more than one individual appeared to concur with the view that all truth is relative and individual. And yet I have seen precious few join in such an important dialogue. There are very few posts in comparison to this thread. In this thread the reputation of Adventism is at stake. In that thread the reputation of Jesus is at stake. Which deserves our greatest effort? Which debate has the greatest eternal consequences? Is anyone willing to sign up for a cease fire in order to pursue more important dialogues? For what itís worth, parties involved in cease fire donít agree to give up their positions, just to quit slugging it out for a time for the mutual benefit of all. Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1653 Registered: 3-2005 |
Amen Chris! Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2529 Registered: 3-2004 |
I second that AMEN. Diana | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 524 Registered: 7-2004 |
Chris, I didn't see this thread as the reputation of Adventism being at stake, but rather the reputation of the critics of SDAism. If our statements aren't reasonable, credible, and supportable our criticism of the SDA church are easily and perhaps rightfully dismissed. But if others see my statements for being credible and consistent as a defense of the reputation of SDAism I can certainly understand some of the venomous statements that have been thrown around. If your idea of a truce is to return to proclaiming SDAism a "satanic cult" unchallenged and to attack any person with the slightest difference of view in this regard as a traitor to the cause of formers, then no I don't believe I can participate in the forum and give inherent support to that through my silence. | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 86 Registered: 7-2000 |
Why protest so much? Why are we so prone to wander, to just have or see things OUR way, to BE always RIGHT, or to have the LAST word? Having the last word may hurt a person more than help his reputation and show him to be divisive. However, agreeing to be silent on this topic(proving Adventism:Not a cult) as Chris is suggesting and recommending, may show a bighearted, noble and wise person. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 525 Registered: 7-2004 |
This issue is that you and Chris are really only asking that one view be silent. You have asked for us to be silent about "proving Adventism: Not a cult", Chris specifically mentions defending the "reputation of Adventism". The appearance to me is that members here would prefer a forum where there is only one view that is acceptable to post, and that we should either conform to that view or at least stop posting about why we think that view is unreasonable. Would anyone care to explain how that is less cultic than the very behaviors we accuse SDAism of doing? |
