|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 19:02:58 GMT -5
www.apologeticsindex.org/s18.htmlGoogle says the part of the sources here is a former SDA pastor. Highlights Christian apologists and countercult experts disagree on whether or not Seventh-day Adventism (SDA) should be cpkmtyollified as, theologically, a cult of Christianity. Some state that while SDA includes a number of doctrines that are outside the mainstraim of historic Christian theology, Seventh-day Adventists do accept the essential doctrines of the Christian faith and should thus be considered Christians. For example, the late Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute said, ...it is perfectly possible to be a Seventh-day Adventists and be a true follower of Jesus Christ despite heterodox concepts... Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota), Updated edition 1997, p.517. (Note: See also this interview with Walter Martin. This is still the position taken by today's Christian Research Institute: Though several capable Christian scholars (e.g. Anthony Hoekema, J.K. van Baalen, John Gerstner) have concluded that SDA is a non-Christian cult system, CRI has continued to assert that this is not the case. We take this position based on the content of the doctrine which was stated in an official SDA publication (1957) entitled Questions on Doctrine. [...] Since SDA does accept the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity (The Trinity, Christ's true deity, His bodily resurrection, etc.) we do not believe that it should be cpkmtyollified as a non-Christian cult. [...] This does not mean that we endorse the entire theological structure of SDA, since a portion of it is definitely out of the mainstream of historic Christian theology (e.g. Sabbatarianism, conditional immorality or soul sleep, annihiliation of the wicked). Though we would adamantly disagree with Adventists regarding these above mentioned doctrines, it should be added that one could hold these views and remain a believing Christian. In other words, these doctrines do not secure or necessarily inhibit salvation. Source: Seventh-day Adventism">Christian Research Institute statement on SDA Others point out that SDA also also includes teachings that are contrary to the gospel, and are unorthodox in nature. Historically, evangelicals have had difficulty defining and categorizing SDA. Much SDA doctrine is biblically orthodox. Within its ranks are many true Christians, some even in positions of prominence. At various points in its history, most notably in the 1888 General Conference, the SDA church has been shaken by the biblical gospel. In the 1970s this became quite intense (Se: Paxton, Geoffrey, J., The Shaking of Adventism). Unfortunately, it produced a polarization. The church administrators generally became more entrenched in the unorthodox positions of traditional SDA, while some pastors and even whole congregations left or were asked to leave the SDA church ("From Controversy to Crisis," CRI Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 9–14). In official publications the SDA church continues to defend Ellen White legends, and maintain there was no difference in the degree of inspiration she received from that received by Bible writers (Review & Herald, 4 October 1928, p. 11; "Source of Final Appeal," Adventist Review, 3 June 1971, pp. 4–6; G. A. Irwin, Mark of the Beast, p. 1; "The Inspiration and Authority of the Ellen G. White Writings," Adventist Review, 15 July 1982, p. 3; Ministry, October 1981, p. 8; see also, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 125–30). In their June, 2000, General Conference they voted to more aggressively affirm and support the "Spirit of Prophecy through the ministry of Ellen White"(Adventist Today, [online: July 2000] ). They also teach a number of other doctrines clearly irreconcilable with the biblical gospel (see "Doctrine," below). So long as these things continue, evangelicals must persist in questioning the status of the SDA church organization in Christianity, and much more, her claim to be God’s only true, end-time "Remnant Church." [...] SDA teachings most clearly contrary to the gospel and unorthodox in nature are its insistence on water baptism as an essential prerequisite to salvation, its teaching about the end time significance of sabbath observance to identification of true believers, and its doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. Source: Watchman Fellowship profile of SDA In effect, Seventh-day Adventism's doctrines span the range from orthodox through aberrant, heterodox, sub-orthodox and heretical. For this reason, the publishers of Apologetics Index advice Christians not to get involved in Seventh-day Adventism, and urges those who are already part of the SDA church to instead seek out a church that teaches sound, biblical theology.
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 19:03:58 GMT -5
There also is a lot of confusion among Seventh-day Adventist themselves. Their problems are compounded by the fact that over the past two decades, deep divisions or factions have developed within the SDA. The Christian Research Institute states:
Those who follow Adventism closely know that the last two decades have been characterized by a deep internal conflict which has divided the denomination and left many Adventist [sic] disillusioned. Today, there are various divisions and factions within SDA. Some with that Adventism would fully enter into the evangelical mainstream, while maintaining certain Adventist distinctives. Others, the more traditional or fundamentalist Adventists often reject portions of Question on Doctrine and seek to hold on to several heresies which arose early in the Adventist movement, such as the investigative judgement, the sinful nature of Christ, and viewing Ellen G. White as the infallible interpreter of Scripture. It is the division of Adventism, who often refer to themselves as "the remnant church," or God's exclusive agent, that CRI would regard as being cultic. Some within this camp would anathematize all of Protestantism, arguing that as Sunday-keepers they will receive the mark of the beast just prior to Christ's second coming. Admisttedly, this is the extreme part of SDA, but nevertheless well-represented.
The crisis that exists within SDA today essentially centers around the investigative judgment, an unbiblical doctrine which severely compromises if not outright denies the biblical doctrine of justification by faith. Second only to the investigative judgment issue is the all-encompkmtyolping question of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen G. white. The controversy which has raged regarding the writings of Mrs. White has undoubtedly shaken the entire structure of SDA.
It is out sincere hope that this 5 million member church body, which has historically been a mixture of orthodox and heretical doctrine, will move toward a more soundly biblical position and away from the doctrinal errors it has held in the past. It is our hope that the leadership of SDA will lead its people out of all forms of legalism and into the liberty that results from being justified by God's grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9).
Source: Seventh-day Adventism
Discernment ministry Watchman Fellowship notes:
SDA teachings most clearly contrary to the gospel and unorthodox in nature are its insistence on water baptism as an essential prerequisite to salvation, its teaching about the end time significance of sabbath observance to identification of true believers, and its doctrine of the Investigative Judgement.
(...)
Other distinctive SDA teachings include vegetarianism and other ''health'' issues, and the doctrine of ''soul sleep,'' a misnomer for the belief that between death and resurrection one is essentially non-existent except in the memory of God. This is definitely aberrant from the Bible, but does not conflict the gospel. Much of the SDA health message may actually be helpful. But when, as is often the case, spiritual stigma is attached to non-observance of its asceticism, then the gospel is compromised (Gal. 2:11-16).
(...)
Even when speaking of being saved by the righteousness of Christ, Adventist writers refer to imparted righteousness, seldom to the biblical concept of imputed righteousness. Calling it ''Christ's righteousness,'' while insisting on the believer's perfection of character as a prerequisite to salvation, is at worst a thinly veiled works salvation, or at best an attempt to mix grace and works, something the Bible says is impossible to do (Rom. 11:6). Mrs. White's words are crystal clear - one will not be forgiven till all sins are eradicated from one's life and one's character is perfected. Precisely the same heresy is found (besides many others) in Mormonism. It is not the salvation by grace alone through faith alone offered in the Bible.
The error is compounded by the teaching that this latter day 1844 event must be believed in to exercise the proper faith necessary to be saved. When Jesus said on the cross, ''It is finished, '' i.e. completed, paid in full, it cannot be that there is yet another salvation event more than 1800 years later, just as essential to salvation as Christ's death on the cross, in which one must believe in order to be saved. This is clearly ''another gospel'' (Gal. 1:6-9).
[...more...]
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 19:06:18 GMT -5
It is, of course, always good to see people 'line up behind the Bible as their source of doctrine.' But Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, shows that the official line is quite different - emphasizing both the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White:
A further word needs to be said about our being "loyal to our heritage and to our identity." Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-day Adventism.
Take specifically our understanding of judgment and Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this.
Source: Perspectives on Issues Facing the World Seventh-day Adventist Church, by Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Adventist Review, from comments made at the May, 2002 SDA General Conference. Emphasis added by Apologetics Index.
Thus officially, Seventh-day Adventists rely on what they consider to be the 'inspired authorities', here identified as 'the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White.'
The SDA's reverence for Ellen G. White is problematic, to say the least:
Ellen White never held official title as the head of the church, but was one of its founders and acknowledged spiritual leader. She rather disingenuously declined to claim the title of "prophet," calling herself a "messenger" instead (Damsteegt, P.G., et. al., Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . ., p. 224). But she claimed to have the "spirit of prophecy," and that her messages were direct from God for the guidance and instruction of the church. With her knowledge and consent others called her a prophet, and even "the Spirit of Prophecy" (Barnett, Maurice, Ellen G. White & Inspiration, pp. 5–17). Having only a third grade education, Ellen White said for years she was unable to read, bolstering the claim that her beautiful prose was inspired by God. However, it has been discovered that she not only read, but plagiarized other Christian authors throughout virtually all her writings. The sad facts of this matter have been thoroughly and indisputably established in several books. (e.g., see; Rea, Walter, The White Lie; and Judged by the Gospel, pp. 361–83). Ellen White died in 1915 at age eighty-eight.
Source: Watchman Fellowship profile of SDA
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 19:07:57 GMT -5
The Clear Word Bible -
Note: Regarding the Clear Word Bible, referred to in the articles below, SDAnet declares:
''Out of his personal devotional life and study of the Scriptures Dr. Jack Blanco, chairman of the religion department at Southern College of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee, produced his own paraphrase of the New Testament. He undertook this project at his own initiative and was not commissioned to do so by any committee or administrator of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Though it was printed by the Review and Herald Publishing Association the issue of officially endorsing it has never come up in any church council. As such, it represents the effort of an individual Seventh-day Adventist to make the Scriptures more readable for himself and for those who choose to read it. As a paraphrase it is appropriate for ones personal devotional study. For detailed doctrinal Bible study the serious student will choose to use a more literal translation of the original languages.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not limit the various meaningful avenues through which its members study the Scriptures and we would hope that Dr. Blanco's significant personal effort would contribute to this purpose as well. Those who read it prayerfully should receive a blessing from it, just as they do from other paraphrases of the Bible. This Bible should in no way be considered an official Seventh-day Adventist Bible, nor did Dr. Blanco intend for it to be considered as such.''
Endorsement by Pastor Robert Folkenberg, at SDAnet
However, another statement at the site shows the Clear Word Bible, a paraphrase that includes the teachings of Ellen G. White, is widely used within the Seventh-day Adventist churches:
The introduction suggests that it is not for public reading in churches,etc., but what we are hearing suggests that it is already getting a fairly wide usage for that purpose, Sabbath School lessons, church school Bible cpkmtyolles, etc. IT has been advertised at least twice with a full-color full-page advertisement on the back of the Adventist Review, which includes endorsements from the General Conference president, Richard Davisson of Andrews University, and others. (These endorsements also appear on the back jacket of the book).
Clear Word ''Bible'' (sic), SDAnet
The SDAnet site also includes a letter from David Newman, editor of Ministry magazine (an SDA publication), citing his reservations regarding the Clear Word Bible:
(...) He makes it clear in the first paragraph of his Preface that "This is not a new translation but a paraphrase of the Scriptures. It is not intended for in-depth study or for public reading in churches." Unfortunately most people do not read prefaces so this very important information will be lost. Already I am hearing reports of it being used in the pulpit and as a textbook in teaching religion.
Second the author misunderstands the meaning of the word "paraphrase." A paraphrase is not a loose rendering of someone elses' words with added commentary. A paraphrase whether you use the dictionary definition or the definition used in active listening simply means restating the words of another in your own words without adding to or subtracting from the original meaning.
A cursory examination of the Clear Word Bible reveals the prolific addition of many ideas not found in Scripture.
Thirdly, where Scripture is ambiguous the author removes the ambiguities. One is left not having to make hardly any interpretations for him or herself. The author has done it for you. God evidently intended that each reader struggle with the text and decide personally how to resolve these ambiguities and tensions. Two quick examples come to mind. In 1 Cor. 15:29 we find the difficult phrase baptized for the dead. The author resolves the difficulty by telling us that being baptized in the hope of seeing dead loved ones is meaningless if you do not believe in the resurrection. Revelation 1:10 no longer has us puzzling over which day of the week the Lord's day is. The author tells us that it is the Sabbath.
Fourthly, the author has intertwined so much of Ellen White into his commentary that the general effect has been to canonize Ellen White. The author adds to Scripture in Genesis 2:25 by following Ellen White and saying that Adam and Eve were clothed with a garment of light. Daniel 8:14 is now clear that the judgment began after 2300 prophetic years.
Fifthly, the title chosen for this work is most unfortunate. This is not a Bible. It is a personal commentary on Scripture but it is not the Bible. Yet the title clearly identifies it as a Bible. It is really a specialized commentary on the Bible.
Sixthly, while the author says it is a paraphrase the format inside is not that of a paraphrase but that of the King James Bible. While most modern versions format by paragraph this "Bible" is formatted verse by verse so that it clearly looks like a traditional bible.
Seventh, I fear what our critics will say when they find how much Ellen White has contributed to this ''bible'' without any credit being given to her at all. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of this work owes itself to Ellen White.
[...more...]
A Letter From David Newman, Editor of Ministry Magazine at SDAnet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Protestant on Jun 25, 2004 19:52:24 GMT -5
Ahh so there is divisions among the ranks here. Those doctrines might not be mainstream but they are biblical and thats what counts. No its biblically accurate. Its your false doctrinies that are unbiblical. A contradiction . SDA is biblically sound. We arent heretical just because we rejects your false creeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jun 25, 2004 20:07:35 GMT -5
Protestant,
You say, "Those doctrines might not be mainstream but they are biblical and thats what counts."
How about, "Adam received 'the Law' from God."
or "Adam knew about the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
These doctrines of the SDA Church are neither mainstream nor Biblical. There is not one scripture to back them up.
TB
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 20:14:41 GMT -5
Protestant,
You say, "Those doctrines might not be mainstream but they are biblical and thats what counts."
How about, "Adam received 'the Law' from God."
or "Adam knew about the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
These doctrines of the SDA Church are neither mainstream nor Biblical. There is not one scripture to back them up.
TB Prech it, TB!! Ronda |
|
|
|
Post by Protestant on Jun 25, 2004 20:27:56 GMT -5
Protestant,
You say, "Those doctrines might not be mainstream but they are biblical and thats what counts."
How about, "Adam received 'the Law' from God."
or "Adam knew about the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
These doctrines of the SDA Church are neither mainstream nor Biblical. There is not one scripture to back them up.
TB having to enlighten your biblical ignorance is a full time job. They are not doctrines they are comentary on the bible. We have 27 fundamentals so if you feel upto it attack those. of course adam know about the plan of salvation. he was taught about the sacrificial system. When he left the garden of eden he wore coats of skins from the lambs sacrificed on the altar. the lamb slain from the creation of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 25, 2004 20:34:26 GMT -5
having to enlighten your biblical ignorance is a full time job. They are not doctrines they are comentary on the bible. We have 27 fundamentals so if you feel upto it attack those. of course adam know about the plan of salvation. he was taught about the sacrificial system. When he left the garden of eden he wore coats of skins from the lambs sacrificed on the altar. the lamb slain from the creation of the world. That is not what Genesis says.... Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Nothing about any sacrificial system in this verse. Give a verse that says God taught them a sacrificial system. There IS NOT one. Ronda |
|
|
|
Post by Ben johnson on Jun 28, 2004 3:23:45 GMT -5
What is "conditional immorality"?
I went to a "prophecy seminar" last week; turned out to be hosed by a local SDA church. They even sprung for lunch --- pretty well confirmed the Adventist-thing when there wasn't any meat in the lunch. And, I certainly mean no disrespect --- but --- there were several members who could have benefited from consuming less carbs. (Lunch was PASTA alfredo, PASTA shells & tomatoes, PASTA something else; bread with lots of butter, and garlic; and salad with full-fat dressing...
The stuff they said about prophecy ("rapture" and "end times") was pretty much parallel with what I believe; he had never heard of LaHaye's propensity to consider the "Falling Away" of 2Thess2:3 as "CATCHING away" (rapture!). He and I had disagreement about "WRATH" (orge) of 1Thess5:9 meaning "Hell" (Paul undeniably uses "orge" as "Hell" in Rom2:8; and 1Thess5:9 presents the identical "thesis/antithesis" of "eternal-life / Hell").
I once "hapkmtyolred" a young lady at the SDA booth at the state fair; but she knew all the right answers to God, salvation, Jesus --- so I left her with Col2:16-23. She asked, "What's it say?" I said, "Nope, you hafta read it yourself." And walked away.
That pkmtyolpage seems written for SDA's...
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntRonda on Jun 28, 2004 20:46:49 GMT -5
That is not what Genesis says.... Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Nothing about any sacrificial system in this verse. Give a verse that says God taught them a sacrificial system. There IS NOT one. Ronda Wonder why Gene hasn't produced the verses......Oh I know there are NONE> Ronda |
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Jun 28, 2004 20:52:58 GMT -5
Deut 5:1-3 (NASB)
Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.
2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. (emphasis mine)
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen on Jun 28, 2004 22:34:43 GMT -5
One of my best friends is SDA ... and she isn't all "talk" about what she believes ... she and her family WALK THE WALK. They worship Jesus Christ ... they follow their convictions.
They are definitely MY Christian brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Jun 29, 2004 11:14:16 GMT -5
One of my best friends is SDA ... and she isn't all "talk" about what she believes ... she and her family WALK THE WALK. They worship Jesus Christ ... they follow their convictions. They are definitely MY Christian brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. I agree with you. I have an aunt and uncle who are SDA's and they walk the walk also. They are not at all as legalistic and pharisaical as the ones that I see here, which makes me wonder if what they spout out is actually SDA doctrine. My aunt and uncle say that they celebrate the sabbath on saturday because that is when they believe they should, but that my celebrating the sabbath on Sunday is equally valid. We are both worshipping God, which is most important. |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 29, 2004 17:24:00 GMT -5
I've been curious about something for quite a while now...
Exactly HOW do you, Prot and Gene, "remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy?"
Thank you,
LJ
|
|
