| Author |
Message |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 575
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |     |
I think that we are far better off allowing those who have never been SDAs to make statements about whether SDAism is a cult. If we have the opportunity to provide information that would help them make their conclusions from a more factual basis all the better. One nonSDA conclusion has more credibility than a hundred formers (not that it should, it is just a reality).
We must; however, keep in mind that there is no one definition of what is a cult. Before we jump to conclusions about the label anyone selects, we should look at their definition. That can explain many of the differences of opinion. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:18 pm: | |
And Jeremy I don't necessarily disagree with you, but apparently you would not agree with Dr. Reagan (Correction, it was Reagan's 11 page article about SDA that was featured on Mark Martin's website, and Reagan also featured Martin in a special blow-up section) and his evaluation that SDA is correct on the Trinity.
By the way, where can I find Wiebe's new book?
I agree, that that comment by Mark Finley does redefine SDA and puts them out of any consideration of being an evangelical church. Such statements are antithetical to the gospel.
I am probably less sympathetic toward SDA now that I have just had another experience posting on another SDA site. Between Revival Sermons and Heavenly Sanctuary, I think O'Ffill is closer to the truth than some of those Maxwellians, but they are both far from what the Bible teaches as truth.
Stan |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 34
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:42 pm: | |
Re: Mark Finley's quote
So keeping Sunday is the counterfeit? What do they consider people who keep the Sabbath (Hebrews 3-4) everyday? I'm assuming they are still Babylon because they don't keep the Sabbath like they do, but just wanted to ask in case I am wrong.
Re: Trinity
Growing up I was so confused about the Trinity and remember changing the words of the Holy, Holy, Holy song because I thought they were wrong. Now I don't remember if it was the old version or the new version though :p |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:52 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
Elmer Wiebe's book can be purchased through Amazon.com at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597813311/qid=1152909367/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9837304-9087119?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
(EDIT: I just noticed that the above link is for the hardcover edition, the paperback edition is available here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597813281/ref=ed_oe_p/104-9837304-9087119?ie=UTF8)
But Elmer told me that a revised and updated version of the book was about to be released, so you may want to write to him at the email address listed on his website (http://www.cultureshocksolution.org/) and ask him about obtaining a copy of the revised version.
There was one statement in Dr. Reagan's article that I found to be very interesting. He wrote:
"The majority view among contemporary cult-watchers is that it is a cult."
I just found that interesting, because I had been under the impression that it was the opposite.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 14, 2006) |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 561
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:57 pm: | |
Yes. According to SDA doctrine, 'keeping Sunday' is a counterfeit, one of the three great deceptions that are filling the Christian world at the present. I couldn't find the quote that refers directly to that at this moment and I'm in a hurry so I'll look for it again later, but in looking I found this one. Any comments?
quote:Then I saw those whose hands are engaged in making up the breach and are standing in the gap, that have formerly since 1844 broken the commandments, and have so far followed the pope as to keep the first day instead of the seventh, and who have since the light shone out of the Most Holy Place, changed their course, given up the institution of the pope, and are keeping God's Sabbath, would have to go down into the water, and be baptized in the faith of the sanctuary, and keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Spalding and Magan Collection, page 3, paragraph 7
|
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne
Post Number: 468
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:21 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Can anyone who is or was Adventist say they don't know what you stated?
"instead of "decision night" being a decision to trust Jesus' blood to save you, it is instead a decision to make a commitment to keep the seventh-day Sabbath to save yourself!!"
What I was taught was, the other Christians teach, "to trust Jesus' blood for salvation." Yes we know that. Now, grow up and continue to mature in Christ. Learn more about what the bible says. Grow in Christ.
Scripture is taken and used out of context, like James 1:4 "Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
This is one of many ways they get the Sabbath message into people.
Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
All of this surrounds the Sabbath, not Christ, as other Christians are taught.
I have never known anyone in the church that was an Adventist, liberal or not, say they don't know this simple truth. We must keep the Sabbath, it is a test of our faithfullness to Christ.
I now understand the peace that I felt as an Adventist was only an improvement from my old nature that came from keeping the law. Like when you don't smoke you feel better, when you don't sin you feel better, when you are nice to people you feel better, when you eat well you feel better. Add it all up and you will have more peace and feel better than you did when you smoked, ate more unhealthy food, or habitually didn't get a good nights sleep. Legalism does offer peace. Don't break the law (like speeding) = don't go to jail... you will feel better. You will have a certain peace that you didn't have when you were in jail. You will have peace because you are free, that is your freedom is from not being in jail.
Legalism offers peace and serenity in a lesser way than does complete and total surrender to Christ and acceptance of His sacrifice alone for our sins.
==================================================================================================
It has been my experience with my last church that was Pentecostal that the doctrine and most teachings I believe to be accurate, but the culture and actions of some in the group were contrary to the doctrine of their denomination.
Unfortunately, the Pentecostal culture sometimes in practice, does not support official doctrine within their denominational groups. Not reprimanding leadership that are highly prosperity oriented, in ways that the bible and even their own doctrine clearly teaches is wrong.
And like when a parent does not discipline a child that clearly needs discipline, allowing a child to do things that are taught by the parent to be wrong (like smoking), and not putting a stop to it, is like saying it is okay. That is not legalism.
The Adventists are uniform, denominational in their practices, and not autonomous. So there really isn't too much inconsistency - the Adventist churches must follow the official doctrine. So, for instance, the Adventist church will stop a church from conforming to Sunday worship because that is what they believe doctrinely.
But many Pentecostal denominational churches will not put an end to prosperity teaching or people calling themselves prophets within the churches, even if their official denominational doctrine opposes such practices. And because many pentecostal groups support and allow some unbiblical practices (not on paper though), I think this makes them deserving of due criticism.
Lynne
|
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:25 pm: | |
Stan, I agree with your point that we lose credibility when we say something is a position, and so many SDAs disagree with the statement. Even if you can show it is an official position, if the rank and file deny it in large enough numbers, how can you hold it? However, having listened to one for a number of years, what he denies in words, he lives in reality. He can claim "sundaykeeping" Christians are saved, but he wouldn't dare worship with them on Sunday. It has always been a great conflict, that doublespeak. When it boils down to what is important enough to change one's behavior, it seems the issue of the sabbath is the chainlink that keeps many loyal even if they disagree with many of the historic teachings, or even know what those historic teachings are. To my ex, the issue of the sabbath was more important than being a father to his son. He was quite adamant that it was a great conviction to him in his loyalty to God and he was quite "frustrated" at "Christianity" for following traditions over God's word. When I read what the word says about unity and division and some of those other "equally" Biblical teachings, it's hard to see how "they" can claim "we" are equal and in unity with them when there remains an us/them mentality. While you can get that from denominations not so plagued with error, I have never encountered an arrogance about "correctness" and superiority as I've seen in adventists in regards to their worship. It's a "they're Christians, but..." even for those who 'graciously' allow us to be genuine. I don't know if I'm getting my point across.
It is hard to share "facts" about adventism when each person defines their own reality of what adventism is. It discredits much good information when there is unnecessary inflamatory information. But to deny that there are factions that DO believe that perspective of adventism isn't accurate either. It is a hard topic to fully evaluate because the "members" seem so disjointed depending upon location and personal preferences and who's asking the question and what you're going to do with the information..... |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 276
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:39 pm: | |
I guess that we agree that before 1900 the adventism deserved the label cult, because the position of the SDA church was anti-trinitarian. The most influencing leaders and spokesmens were clearly anti-trinitarians: James White, Bates, Uriah Smith, Waggoner, and others. Long after the 1900 the trinitarian position was clearly stated, after battles in the underground. Before 1900 nobody challenged the anti-trinitarian position of the church leaders. The SDA position was clearly anti-trinitarian, and with the IJ and perfectionism, the church deserved rightfully the label cult, as the historic adventism today who is trying to keep alive the adventism which existed before 1900.
But the contemporary SDA church never recognized that before 1900 the church was a cult, that a gospel of works, perfectionism and anti-trinitarianism were the predominant beliefs in that period. The contemporary SDA church never rejected, never repudiated it's cultic beginnings. The contemporary SDA church is going to justify at any costs her past.
Before changing my mind and believing that the contemporary adventism church is no longer a cult, I'm waiting to see that the leaders of the church repudiate the past. I'm waiting for them to clearly draw a line: "We were a cult, we are no longer, we are now a christian church. We were anti-trinitarians, we are no longer." As long as the contemporary church says that the adventism before 1900 was evangelical, meaning, a christian church, which was not, I can rightfully conclude that the contemporary church identifies herself with the church before 1900, with a cult. And if she loves so much to identify herself with a anti-trinitarian, perfectionistic church, so be it. Before that blessed day, the SDA chruch deserves fully the label cult. |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 58
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:42 pm: | |
I have a question...
Is there anything in official SDA church doctrine that says a person cannot understand the Bible without EGW's writings? As I recall The JW's say that about the Watchtower and and of course the Mormon's say the BOM is "Another gospel of Jesus Christ".
I've always understood that one of the definitions of a cult is when a church insists that you need their "prophet" or writings in order to fully understand the Bible.
Leigh Anne |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 576
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:11 pm: | |
The best way to deal with SDA denials of church teachings is to continue to provide specific examples from SDA sources. I know the contents of the SDA church manual better now than when I was an SDA for this very reason. When we move from our opinions and memory of what SDAism teaches to verifiable source material, our credibility improves substantially. Jeremy (as well as others here) provides a treaure house full of referenced quotes. We can't argue someone into understanding the truth, but we can continue to provide verfiable, credible, evidence that may encourage people to look more closely.
Grace alone, you have a great comment. We should be wary of anyone who tells us that we need something or someone else in order to understand what the Bible really means. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4319
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:28 pm: | |
I've never seen such a statement in print, Leigh Anne, but I've heard it voiced many times. "Ellen White makes the Bible so much easier to understand...!"
Further, the doctrines are based entirely upon her endorsing visions. Her particular "views" generated all Adventist fumdamental doctrines. Even today, the church is careful not to word their modern statements in ways that could be seen to contradit Ellenóeven if they're said differently.
Colleen |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 60
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:06 pm: | |
Colleen and friends, it just makes my stomach hurt! It's such a pillar between the people and Jesus. For centuries the people had the law between them and God, so out of LOVE he sends Jesus to "cut out the middle-man" and bring a closeness between God and us. Now we have this wonderful direct line straight to God though His own Son. Then EGW (and others) come along and decide that there's no direct line and we really need the law in order to be closer to God.
That is so completely wrong. (And going backward!) No matter what, no one will ever be able to undo what Jesus did for us on the Cross.
I know this is nothing you probably haven't thought of before, but it's helpful to be able to write it out.
Leigh Anne
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:48 pm: | |
Everyone is making great points. But for me it is the diversity within Adventism that makes it so hard to broadbrush. The cult label belongs to so much of SDA, but then I hear a preacher like Smuts Van Rooyen at Glendale, then I have to pause a little. I still know plenty of SDAs who I know are Christians, and I could have fellowship with them. It was on Revival sermons that we ran across quite a few evangelical SDAs in contrast to the cultic SDAs. That is the only major difference between SDA and JW, is that there are more real Christians in Adventism than in the other false religions. This is probably due to the fact that at least on paper, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity are believed.
Jeremy said:
The majority view among contemporary cult-watchers is that it is a cult."
I just found that interesting, because I had been under the impression that it was the opposite."
Jeremy, that might be a misprint. I go to Christian bookstores a lot, and I have yet to find a book in the cults section where SDA is hardly even mentioned, much less a cult.
Stan
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:11 pm: | |
Leigh Anne,
I don't know if this addresses exactly what your question was asking, but here is a statement on the official Ellen G. White Estate website from the book by Herbert E. Douglass entitled Messenger of the Lord The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White:
quote:But if the Bible is ìthe only true guide in all matters of faith and practice,î8 why were the messages of Ellen White necessary? What is the purpose of her prophetic role?
She explained why her messages were needed: ìI took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept. But there are not many of you that really know what is contained in the Testimonies. You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made Godís Word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with Godís inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies.î9
Only when their purpose is clearly understood will Ellen Whiteís writings be properly appreciated. She explained why God saw the need to speak through her: ìTo bring the minds of His people to His Wordî10; to simplify ìthe great truths already givenî11; to call attention to ìBiblical principles for the formation of correct habits of livingî12; to specify ìmanís duty to God and to his fellow manî13; and ìto encourage the desponding.î14
In essence, the messages of Ellen White were given not ìfor a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth.î15
--http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt13.html
See also the following chapter of the book: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt35.html
Here are a few more links to check out that contain statements from SDAs about EGW:
http://www.bible.ca/7-WhiteInspire.htm
http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/sda_2nd_look.html
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egww/EGWWc02.html#c02
The bottom line is that they teach that Ellen White's writings are just as inspired and authoritative as the Bible, and they reject any notion that there are "degrees" of inspiration or authority.
Stan,
I think one major reason for the perhaps larger number of Christians being in Adventism as opposed to some of those other groups is the fact that Christians join the SDA church because they've heard that it is an evangelical church. Christians don't join some of the other groups, because they are properly warned that they are not Christian churches.
Jeremy |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 35
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:14 pm: | |
I've seen some SDA's question the validity of a particular scripture when it went against EGW or SDA beliefs.
Don't most Christians view the Bible as infallible? |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 61
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:34 pm: | |
Jeremy, all I can think of when I read your post is replacing the word "Inspired" with the word "Plagiarized". Just curious, how much of EGW's "borrowing" does the White Estate acknowledge?
Sorry if I got off track of the thread...
Leigh Anne |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:29 pm: | |
Leigh Anne,
Here is what the White Estate says about EGW's plagiarism: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html#faq-section-b4
I should add to my above post, that in reality Adventism places EGW above the Bible. They will accept EGW's contradictions of the Bible, but they will not accept the Bible's contradictions of EGW. They go with what EGW said.
In actuality, she is their final authority.
She basically claimed that her writings were above the Bible. Here are a couple of different quotes from her, which are kind of long but very enlightening:
quote:"I long daily to be able to do double duty. I have been pleading with the Lord for strength and wisdom to reproduce the writings of the witnesses who were confirmed in the faith in the early history of the message. After the passing of the time in 1844, they received the light and walked in the light, and when the men claiming to have new light would come in with their wonderful messages regarding various points of Scripture, we had, through the moving of the Holy Spirit, testimonies right to the point, which cut off the influence of such messages as Elder A. F. Ballenger has been devoting his time to presenting. This poor man has been working decidedly against the truth that the Holy Spirit has confirmed. When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after-suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.
Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat, till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed, even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death are to speak through the re-printing of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.
Elder Ballenger's proofs are not reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us what we are. We must be decided on this subject, for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth: we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for everyone to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part.
God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks. [1 John 1:1-10 quoted.]
I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name. We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present, claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit." (Manuscript Release No. 760: The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth, page 18, paragraph 6-page 19, paragraph 4.)
So she says that the Scriptures can only be used to agree with her "truth" which she received in visions. Her visions are the "foundation." The Bible cannot contradict her writings. She says that the Scriptures are to be respected, but not as much as her writings are. Her writings are above and superior to the Bible. Here's the other similar quote:
quote:"The truths given us after the passing of the time in 1844 are just as certain and unchangeable as when the Lord gave them to us in answer to our urgent prayers. The visions that the Lord has given me are so remarkable that we know that what we have accepted is the truth. This was demonstrated by the Holy Spirit. Light, precious light from God, established the main points of our faith as we hold them today. And these truths are to be kept before the mind. We must arouse from the position of lukewarmness, from being neither cold nor hot. We need increased faith and more earnest trust in God. We must not be satisfied to remain where we are. We must advance step by step, from light to greater light.
The Lord will certainly do great things for us if we will hunger and thirst after righteousness. We are the purchased property of Jesus Christ. We must not lose our devotion, our consecration. We are in conflict with the errors and delusions that have to be swept away from the minds of those who have not acted upon the light they already have. Bible truth is our only safety. I know and understand that we are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us, and ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of earnest, devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error.
As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.
All these truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His Word. Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in in these last days.
I know that the sanctuary question stands in righteousness and truth just as we have held it for so many years. It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know the truth become engrossed in collecting Scriptures to pile up around erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The Scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate error, but to strengthen truth.
So you see that it is impossible for us to have any agreement with the positions taken by Brother A. F. Ballenger, for no lie is of the truth. His proofs do not belong where he places them, and although he may lead minds to believe his theory in regard to the sanctuary, this is no evidence that his theory is true. We have had a plain and decided testimony to bear for half a century. The positions taken in my books are truth. The truth was revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, and we know that Brother Ballenger's position is not according to the Word of God. This theory is a deceiving theory and he misapplies Scriptures. Theories of the kind that he has been presenting, we have had to meet again and again.
I am thankful that the instruction contained in my books establishes present truth for this time. These books were written under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I praise the Lord with heart and soul and voice, and I pray that He will lead into all truth those who will be led. I praise Him that He has so wonderfully spared my life up to this time, to bear the same message upon the important points of our faith that I have borne for half a century." (Manuscript Release No. 760: The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth, page 22, paragraph 1-page 23, paragraph 4.)
In other places, she said that people had to both purchase and read her books in order to be saved.
Jeremy |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 63
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:00 pm: | |
I think I'll start my own church if it's that easy. It's the truth because I say it's the truth!
I liked this one "It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know the truth become engrossed in collecting Scriptures to pile up around erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The Scriptures thus used are misapplied"...
As my sister would say "The fox smells his own hole".
You know Jeremy, in my efforts to read through these writings I get the "cult face", blank expression, glazed over eyes, mind drifts off. I don't know whether I just resent her so much and my heart is so hard I can't focus on the meanings, or if she was just so dramatic and long winded that I just lose interest. Either way, when I do focus in on the meanings her arrogance blows me over.
Do you think she was on some sort of a power kick, or I've heard some say that she was caught up in what others were saying about her.
I commend you on your knowledge of her writings and being able to retain yet discern! (And not get "cult face"...) I just don't know how you do it.
Thanks,
 Leigh Anne |
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne
Post Number: 469
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:24 am: | |
I told my husband that there was a bit of a controversy over whether Adventism is a cult or not. That some people in this forum disagree on the matter. My husband has been an evangelical, saved, Sunday worshiping Christian for over 25 years and has been married to me, an Adventist, for many of those years. I wanted to know what he thought. I said to him, after knowing what you know now about their teachings, do you think Adventism is a cult? He said definately. And I said, but not in the way like the JWs or Mormons. He said no. But he said he thought it was much worse, much more scary than JWs and Mormons, with regard to the deceptiveness of the church. He is not in any way attacking Christians within the group. He has been married to a Christian for many years who was Adventist, but who he knows now was decieved by a church. He was also deceived by the same church in certain ways. To him, he shared that he thought that was real scary.
Grace_alone - That was a good point. When I started with the Adventists, I always started reading EGW books, but never got through them. They were long winded and I often lost interest.
Lynne
|
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness
Post Number: 84
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:35 am: | |
Melissa wrote, " is hard to share "facts" about adventism when each person defines their own reality of what adventism is. It discredits much good information when there is unnecessary inflamatory information. But to deny that there are factions that DO believe that perspective of adventism isn't accurate either. It is a hard topic to fully evaluate because the "members" seem so disjointed depending upon location and personal preferences and who's asking the question and what you're going to do with the information....."
My thoughts: I recently watched a TV program on the Discovery Health Channel entitled, "I Am My Own Twin." The program documented a newly discovered medical anomaly called the HUMAN CHIMERA, which is a person whose body tissues contain two completely different sets of DNA. For example, if DNA testing is done on their blood cells, one type of DNA is found; but if testing is done on their hair, inner cheek, or sperm, another type of DNA is found.
The theory is that the person started out in the womb as two separate fertilized eggs, but very early in the development process the two zygotes merged, and the resulting fetus contained the DNA from both zygotes. Several cases of human chimeras have been documented in the New England Journal of Medicine. You may read details about one of them here: http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html.
What does this have to do with Adventism, you ask? Well, I believe the same concept applies spiritually to Adventism. Depending on where in the "body" one does one's test, one can find two completely different results. I have encountered cultic doctrines right beside Christian doctrines in Adventist literature, especially in the writings of EGW, and in Adventist people in the same local congregation.
The amazing thing about human chimeras is that they can live a completely healthy life, with no medical complications. However, there are times when their chimerism can cause problems. For example, crime scene evidence can give rise to false conclusions, based on the assumptions the investigators bring to their investigation. A perpetrator of rape could conceivably be aquitted, when in fact he is actually guilty.
I find it fascinating how similar Adventism is to chimerism. My own former SDA daughter-in-law, who was raised in a very strict, vegan SDA home, now struggles with anorexia and other difficulties as a result of her SDA indoctrination. Yet, my SDA husband truly understands being saved by grace alone, through faith alone.
So, I can agree with those who call Adventism a "Christian Cult," because, depending on where you apply your test, you get results that show it's a cult and you will get results that show it to be Christian. One might use the term "marbleized" for Adventism.
Honestwitness
|
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 562
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:11 am: | |
HonestWitness,
Thank you for telling about that program! That is such an apt way of describing what we find in Adventism 'Marblized! It is. It's kind of like the feet of the image in the dream Daniel was called to interpret 'iron and clay'.
Blessings,
Mary |
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness
Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:22 am: | |
Mary,
Yes, I, too, thought of that image with the feet of iron and clay. Weren't the feet the part of the body that received the smashing by the huge boulder that came from heaven?
HW |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 563
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:30 am: | |
Er, yep!
Mary |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4322
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:58 am: | |
Fascinating, HonestWitness. Yes, "marbelized" is a good word. Fortunately God knows His ownóbut Adventism really has a divided heart. The truth is mixed into the poison. It never becomes a true "solution"óbut the mixture as a whole is deadly.
Colleen |
|
