| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5535 Registered: 12-2003  |
I've just got to share something I got from women's Bible study tonight. We're doing an OT overview, and tonight we looked at the idolatrous Northern Kingdom of Israel. One of the things I never fully realized before is that Israel's idolatry was not primarily polytheism. Jereoboam, the first king of the splintered-off Northern Kingdom brought idolatry to the nation, but here's what he did: he reinstated the golden calvesójust like the children of Israel and Aaron had tried to do when Moses was on Mt Sinai. Jereoboam didn't call the golden calves by their pagan names, thoughóhe told Israel the calves were Yaweh. In other words, he didn't try to convince Israel that they had new gods. Rather, he continued to tell them that they worshiped Yaweh, but he just identified the golden calves as the representation of Yawah. Ahab was the only king who took the nation into polytheism. He built high places to Baal who was brought to the nation by Jezebel. Jehu, however, killed Ahab and his family, and he destroyed the high places. He did not, however, destroy the golden calves. He kept them, still calling the Yaweh. Does that have a familiar ring? For example, Michael the Archangel is "just another name for Jesus", not really an angel; The Trinity is composed of three "divine beings" instead of One Being in three persons, etc. Here is what Elizabeth put onto a slide tonight showing the effects of idolatry: Idolatry: ï Distorts God's character ï Demeans God's glory ï Subverts God's authority ï Debases our humanity ï Substitutes dead wood (or anything else [Sabbath?]) for the living God I was quite amazed: all five of those effects are effects I experienced in Adventism. How does it seem to you? Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 724 Registered: 10-2002  |
I remember reading how Sennacherib (sp) of Assyria taunted the people of Jerusalem after Assyria had destroyed Israel. His commander told the people not to trust king Hezekiah when Hezekiah told them to trust God (the Lord - Yahweh), because, after all, "Hasn't Hezekiah torn down all of Yahweh's altars?" The confusion had not only prevailed inside Israel & Judah (that all of the idols were "Yahweh"), but it had even reached the foreign nations. Perhaps this is one meaning of what Paul quoted, "Because of you God's name is blasphemed by the Gentiles"? But also by Paul's time, when "Yahweh" came to peoples' minds (the God of the Jews), they might likely think of the Pharisees' behaviors & attitudes. And perhaps in a similar way today, non-Christian nations see the "Christian God" through the light of some of our louder mouthpieces in the United States.  Anyhow, of "idolatry", this is the passage which as spoken to me of the effects of idolatry: A basic principle in all matters of faith is that you become like the object of your worship. If you worship the living God, you start to look like Him -- you get filled with His love and see things through His eyes; you become that "light set on a hill" that Jesus talked about. But when you worship that which is not the living God (including ideas about God that are not living, but are dead man-made ideas about Him), then you become like the image you've set up. Idols cannot see, cannot hear, cannot smell, cannot walk, cannot speak. When we worship such things, we lose our spiritual "senses" -- we cannot see the things of the Spirit, we cannot hear the voice of God, we cannot smell the fragrance of Christ, we cannot walk in righteousness, we cannot speak the words that give life. We become numb in the Spirit. When God speaks, we will not recognize that it is His voice. When He works in front of us, we will not recognize that it was Him, but like the Pharisees, will seek to destroy His working. In wonderful contrast, "Our God does whatever pleases Him". He is not an image, but a real living person. If on earth we see a picture of a beautiful person, we can end up gazing at that picture too long. If we become fixated on that picture, even though the person walks in the room we may end up still glued to the picture. C.S. Lewis felt that God was the great "iconoclast"... the One who continually shattered his images of Him. God's reality works that way, breaking our images of Him. Someone once wrote about the mount of transfiguration, how when Elijah & Moses appeared and talked to Jesus, Peter suddenly wanted to build three memorials to them. We always want to set up camp when God does something (this is how denominations start and end up fighting with newer denominations). Peter saw those three on that mountain and wanted to set up house/camp there. But God had other plans for Peter. He wanted Peter to know His Son deeper, and to follow Him to the climax of His ministry, the cross & resurrection. The mount of transfiguration indeed seemed like the "peak" of Christ's glory (at least visually anyway). But God had a different "peak" in mind. Often this happens with us when we begin to learn things about God. I don't necessarily mean incorrect things, though it is true of those as well. We can make idols even out of correct things. Haven't we known people who seemed to know the "Word of God" very well but did not know the God of the Word? What Peter saw on the mountain was correct, but God wanted him to know Him more. We easily become satisfied and think we have "arrived" at a point where we can "set up camp". But God has a path marked out for us -- and often it's a humbling path, one that goes down the mountain and to the cross -- to death before the light of resurrection. As we embrace that, we walk closer with Him and know Him more. Sometimes in getting to know so many things about God, we feel like we're going higher & higher in knowledge, but we don't fully understand what's happening. God takes us on a humbling path where we can get to know Him better, where He breaks our images of Him and forces us to allow Him to be Himself. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 744 Registered: 7-2004  |
Colleen, can you give the Scripture reference where Jereoboam called the golden calves Yaweh? I couldn't find it in Biblegateway and suspect the name might be spelled slightly wrong. Very interesting! | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 745 Registered: 7-2004 |
Unless there's another place, I found it in 1 Kings 12:28. But it doesn't say what name Jeroboam called the golden calves. He simply told the people "behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt. Not knowing what the Hebrew word was, I would think "gods" gives the impression he is not calling the golden calves "God", but he's instead calling them polytheistic false gods and giving the false gods the credit for bringing Israel out of Egypt. 2 Kings 10:28, 29 tells about Jehu eradicating Baal from Israel but says he did not depart from the golden calves that were at Bethel. It says nothing about what he called the calves. I agree with the conclusions of the effects of idolatory, and that there is a huge problem to call something false or pagan "God" or "of God". But I just don't see the points in Scripture as stated. Maybe it's clearer elsewhere. (Message edited by Raven on March 13, 2007) | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 867 Registered: 8-2004  |
According to Strongs Concordance the word 'gods' (strongs #0430) in 1 Kings 12:28 is the exact same word translated 'God' in the whole first chapter of Genesis, for example: "And God (0430) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: . . ." Matthew Henry's commentary (public domain, found on Biblegateway.com) on 1 Kings 12:28 reads,
It's not surprising that Jeroboam would think to create an 'image of God' to be worshiped. It is only replicating what Arron did in the wilderness with the golden calf. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 869 Registered: 8-2004 |
I Americanized the spelling in the Matthew Henry quote. Tried to go back and note that by editing but couldn't because, according to the error message, that post isn't yet in the 'log'. And now the 'Last Day' button is not working either. Maybe it's just my browser again. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 746 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks, Mary. I wondered if it had to do with translation issues. Now I'll have to find out if it's the same Strongs #0430 in Exodus 32:4 where Aaron said the same thing about the golden calf, "this is your god". It's especially interesting because in verse 5 where Aaron talks about what they were to do with the golden calf, he says "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord." It turns out the next day's "feast to the Lord" was that of offering burnt offerings to the golden calf. Wonder why the translators differentiated between the two. Seems to be a clear example that God is not pleased when pagan practices are used in Christian worship. I'm thinking of such modern-day things as mandalas, labyrinths, etc. It's heard yet again today, "oh but we're interacting with God, not the pagan deities they were originally meant for..." Wonder why people often think they need tangible objects to interact with God. (Obviously we have tangible objects such as the bread and wine, but that was instituted by Christ Himself.) (Message edited by Raven on March 13, 2007) | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 871 Registered: 8-2004 |
Looking at the Strongs Concordance again, the word in 'These be thy gods' is #0430 (Elohiym) but the word in 'to the Lord' is #03068 (YHWH). Interesting! It does make you think! Mary | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5536 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thanks, Mary, for the Strong's references. Actually, the Biblical text does not explicitly state that Jeroboam called the calves "Yaweh", but the story does indicate that he subtlely interwove idolatry with the worship of the true God without explaining what he was doing. 1 Kings 12:26 explains that Jeroboam became afraid his people would "revert to the house of David" by going to Jerusalem to worship, since Jerusalem was the God-appointed center of worship to Him. As a solution, he set up two (as opposed to the less-convenient single site of Jerusalem) golden calves in the north and the south of the kingdom. He told them the calves were their gods who brought them out of Egypt. Israel knew that Yaweh had brought them out of Egypt, so it was a mixing of a forbidden pagan visual with a deeply ingrained belief in Yaweh that succeeded in drawing Israel's worship away from the true God without their having to tell themsleves they were worshiping a false god. The NIV study note on 12:28 says this: "two golden calves Pagan gods of the Arameans and Canaanites were often represented as standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their strength and fertility (see note on Jdg 2:13). Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt. Like Aaron (Ex 32:4-5), Jeroboam attempted to combine the pagan calf symbol with the worship of the Lord, though he attempted no physical representation of the Lordóno "god" stood on the backs of his bulls." So, what Jeroboam did, was to use the pagan symbol of their gods' strengthónot the symbols of the gods themselvesóand suggest that the Lord was on the backs of those calves as the pagan deities would have been represented. It was syncretismóa blending of pagan practices with true worship of Godóand syncretism yields false worship, false identity of God, false gospel, etc. It draws people away from Biblical truth. As part of her discussion with us, Elizabeth did say that she personally has a very cautious response to any visual representation meant to enhance the worship of God. She made the point you made, Raven, that bringing in icons, etc. has a tendency to move people toward idolatry rather than toward the true God. Colleen | ||
| Cortney Registered user Username: Cortney Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2006 |
Adventist also believe in annihalation, they don't belive hell is eternal. The bible through and through warns us hell exists and is eternal, the Adventist can't fully explain this belief to non-adventists, so instead they say 'a loving God would never allow someone to be tortured eternally'.Hell is mentioned in the bible more than Heaven,and I take the literal meaning of hell being eternal, I believe in the truth of scripture. In my own opinion, I believe they [Adventists] have created 'a God'in their own Adventist mindset, who would never allow anyone to be sent to hell eternaly. They basically created 'a God' in their own image to support their legilistic and dietary laws. Oh-and their manipulation and misuse of scripture. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1733 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree, Cortney, that it is idolatry, not to mention that their doctrine of hell is a serious heresy in and of itself. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1734 Registered: 10-2004 |
Speaking of Adventism's counterfeit Trinity doctrine, I found a couple of websites with some amazing admissions and points about the SDA "Trinity." This first quote is from the website of Adventist Laymen's Foundation:
Notice that they outright admit that the Adventist doctrine is tritheism! Unfortunately, the Evangelical world has been deceived into believing that the SDA church teaches the true Trinity doctrine--when nothing could be further from the truth. The second quote is from a website that has an article by an Arian-type Adventist, David Clayton:
I found these quotes to be incredible, and thought I would share them. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5569 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, these are so telling! I can't begin to thank you for finding them. Here are Adventists (admittedly not mainstream, modern, "trinitarian" Adventists) explaining the reality of Adventism's continuing heresy. It's amazing; the last quote has perfectly explained the problem: once again the church has come up with a definition which suits their own purposes and has given that definition an orthodox-sounding label to confuse the members and deceive the public. In fact, historic Adventism is not tri-theistic; it is Arian. Jesus was not eternal, in their understanding, and the Holy Spirit was simply "power" from God. Today's Adventism has created three "equal" gods, which are not the One Being in three persons the Bible reveals. In spite of the heated opposition, Jeremy, thank you for persisting in not letting us forget that even though th words sound right, the reality is that Adventism still doesn't teach the Trinity. An organization that was built on an Arian understanding cannot, without actually renouncing/repenting of that original stance, slip into orthodoxy without the origins continuing to color it. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1736 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen, actually what's so amazing about that first quotation, is that the author is a "trinitarian" SDA who admits that EGW endorsed the "tri-theistic" (his word!) view of the "trinity"! You're right that historic Adventism was not tritheistic. Early Adventism taught bitheism/two gods (the Father and Son as separate divine beings) and that the Father had a body like Jesus' body. Adventism has never stopped teaching those two teachings (they still teach them to this day)--they only added in a third god eventually (the "Holy Spirit"). The only other parts of their early teachings about God that have "changed" (or that they at least give lip-service to) are they now say that Jesus is eternal (starting in the 1980 Fundamental Beliefs) and that He is equal with the Father (instead of being a lesser god). In other words, at least a couple of their early foundational/Arian teachings (polytheism and the Father having a body) they have held onto and taught straight through--from day one to the present. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 20, 2007) | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 451 Registered: 7-2005 |
Committee, ok. Since Jesus made three attempts to persuade His Father to send Him as a sacrifice for sin, no doubt that this is a committee of Beings who are able to argue and persuade themselves, having different desires, which needs to be harmonized by a process of negotiation.
What do you think would happened if the Son had failed in persuading His Father? Jeremy, that's another situation in which those who are seeing adventists as different from JW or LDS, will have to think twice after reading your fresh information. A pleasent situation, I'm very happy because you have come with this fresh information. Maybe us, who are still thinking that the adventist church is on the same level as JW or LDS church will be less condemned and judged for our position. Jackob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5570 Registered: 12-2003 |
Interesting, Jeremy. I'm really grateful to you for your research into this subject. It needed to be done. Jackob, I agree. These facts about the true nature of the Adventist view of the Trinity are essential for people to know. The words have blinded people for a very long time, but the truth is that they are not orthodox. Its members do not understand Jesus to be equally powerful, eternal, etc. as the Father, and they don't usually understand the Holy Spirit, either. The unspoken but powerful notion that Jesus is somehow "less than" the Father in power and might and wrath but surpassing the Father in love and mercy and compassion and pity permeates Adventism. That is a heresy. Colleen | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 249 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow, Jackob--I actually remember reading that passage as an Adventist in school and being taught the idea of Jesus having to plead with the Father, but it never stuck out to me the implications of this type of idea and doctrine. Now, as I read it, I see how completely WRONG this idea is. What a thought! Gods who have individual desires, who have to be convinced (or come to an agreement like a voting commitee) of an idea like the plan of salvation before they can act on it?! When you combine that idea with the thought of them being unified, but individual, etc..., I can't help but get this picture in my head of a schizophrenic type of Godhead. So many different "voices", but yet one God made of three beings, all unique in their purpose and desires, trying to figure out how to function together. Oh my...that's some pretty messed up theology!! Then, you throw in the intense, anxiously awaiting angels, and it almost makes the whole thing comical! You're right, what would have happened if Jesus wasn't convincing enough to the Father? No wonder I always saw the Godhead as a heirarchy (even though word-wise I would have described them all as equal), with Jesus being less than the Father. I'm beginning to see more and more how Ellen White has an amazing way of subtlely weakening who Jesus is... Grace | ||
| Nicole Registered user Username: Nicole Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2006 |
colleen, when this information is presented to the "cult watchers" out there (meaning the legitimate ones) who are easily accessible on the internet, what do they say? do they redefine andventism as not just another protestant religion with some peculiar beliefs such as the day of worship? the SDA PR machine must be very complex and "on the job" to keep adventism looking so mainstream to the outside world. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5576 Registered: 12-2003 |
Nicole, good question. Hank Hanagraaf interviewed Mark Martin on his show in 1996. He promised to run a five-day serires devoted to exposing Adventism in February 1997, but it never happened. Richard and others we know contacted him, and he never explained why the series dematerialized. He sent out ann email "press release" stating that his researchers had interviewed over 400 Adventist scholars and pastors, and he was satisfied that they were a heterodox Christian church. (Well, if you get your info primarily from church leaders and teachers, why would you suppose you'd get the REAL truth about it?) I know more than one person wondered if the Adventists "got to him". I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. Other cult watchers do see Adventism as a cult. They are not as well-known as Hank Hanagraaf, but they do exist. There is one person in Southern California who works closely with another man located in the south of the USA. They travel frequently and hold seminars, etc, exposing Mormonism and JW's. Within the past three or four years they have become convinced that their work must also include Adventists. They have been in rather frequent contact with Dale Ratzlaff and also with us, and they are also in touch with Mark Martin. They operate completely independently, however. They are active in educating about Adventism in the larger community in various ways. So yes, there are some apologists who do see Adventism as being in a category similar to LDS and JW. And yes, the SDA PR machine is very "on the job". They consciously adjust their image and play up the parts that appeal to the public...like the hospitals/health care, vegetarianism, etc. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 452 Registered: 7-2005 |
It was Walter Martin who pioneered the view that adventism is not a cult. Hank Hanagraaf is continuing his work and will look like a traitor to his heritage which he received from Walter martin. Before Walter Martin there was agreement between evangelial about the true nature of adventism. Sadly, since Walter Martin gave the church such an undeserved gift, he allowed them to deepen the deception without being detected. Former adventists are victims of Walter Martin's evaluation, because they suffered from the hands of a cult which is more confident that it will escape without being detected. | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 137 Registered: 7-2000 |
I wonder! Often one gets the impression that the common, simple, ordinary, unschooled but discerning layperson should walk lock step with and never disagree or question the EXPERT Theologian. Makes me wonder more why God is no respector of persons. Even Walter Martin was deceived. Whoa! | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 737 Registered: 10-2002 |
Actually, in his later years Walter Martin did believe he was deceived by the SDA church, Bmorgan. If something doesn't line up with Scripture (such as the first 40+ years of Adventism), we shouldn't need "expert theologians" to tell us to be careful. | ||
| Nicole Registered user Username: Nicole Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2006 |
ramone, good point. i never knew who walter martin was until this forum, and it seemed like what he said was the end of the line, so to speak. but a lot of people unfortunately are not "discerning", and don't realize from the outside what adventism really stands for until they are perhaps deep into it. i can remember in college walking around florida hospital in orlando and people being so impressed with what a fantstic place it was for upholding christianity and promoting good health in their fellow man (vegetarian, no caffeine cafeteria which was quite good for hospital food). they didn't have a pictue of ellen white or the fact that the sabbath was binding posted or framed on the wall anywhere. this has nothing to do with the medical care, because this is a fine healthcare institution with top of the line clinicians, i am just referring to the "adventism" part. hopefully these "experts" can really do their job and list the facts so people can discern better for themselves. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 453 Registered: 7-2005 |
There is no proof that Walter Martin came to the conclusion that he was deceived. He made some reference to this fact as a possible situation, but he never endorsed it as a real fact. His book "Kingdom of the Cults" is still placing adventism in the category of non-cults. He made known in an interview which is available here that he wants to re-evaluate adventism, and he specifically asked three questions, which will make clear the true status of adventism. he received some answers for the first 2, but the third was never answered. The third question was:
If the answer is "no, Ellen is not an infallible voice", why Walter Martin had received no answer? The church kept silence about the issue, but at the same time they sacked Ford, and finally, years later, in 1989, when Martin died, said that Ellen's authority as a prophet cannot be limited regarding the theological issues, that she has theological authority (see the May/ June 2006 issue of Proclamation, the article of Russel Kelly, Bible Inspiration and Ellen White)When it really counts, when the Investigative Judgment became an issue for debate, Ellen White was used by the church to settle the issue. It's obvious why Walter Martin had received no answer. What's amazing is that Walter Martin formulated his questions in 1983, but he had not yet finished his re-evaluation in 1989, when he died. He acted as he received a satisfactory answer to the third question. Why he waited so long? He sensed that he was lied, but if someobody who is suspect, does not come with a straight answer, but keep his mouth shout, I think that his silence is a proof that he's guilty, not being open to that particular question. Walter Martin postponed his conclusion for 6 years after he asked the questions, until it was to late. I think that he wanted adventism to pass the test he gave, to look as evangelical, since he acted as he received a good answer to the third question. He acted as he received a "NO", calling adventism evangelical, when all proofs (Des Ford crisis and Walter Rea's) showed that Ellen is for the church the infallible voice, which must be defended at all costs. I think that Walter purposedly closed his eyes to the evidence, and let this unanswered question to have no importance in his re-evaluation of adventism. What I'm saying is that, according to Walter Martin's third question, third test, the SDA church is not passing it, and is definitely a cult. But because Walter Martin refused to act and pronounce SDA as cult, even when it became obvious that the church acted as a cult, acted as Ellen was the infallible interpreter, and is still acting in this way, we, as former adventists encounter problems and evangelcials are not showing compassion for us, as people who left a cult, not a church. Jackob (Message edited by Jackob on March 22, 2007) | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3496 Registered: 3-2004  |
But we can educate people at church and other places as we meet them. The local Baptist minister and his wife know about EGW and the IJ. My pastor did not. So some people find out and others do not. The man who is in charge of Guest Central in my church knows about adventism. How, I am not sure, but he knows some of the darker side. Also, with the internet, people are finding out what adventism really teaches. God's will, will be done. He is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5582 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, you make an excellent point. Walter Martin did choose to let confusion cloud his perception. I believe that you're rightóhe wanted to believe he was right. I have had the impression that he had great respect for the men in the 50's whom he interviewedóand they probably did have more evangelical leanings themselves than did the official body of the church. I suspect he did not want to think he had been deceived. God is sovereign, thoughóand just look at what He is already doing as a result of increasing numbers of Adventists leaving IN SPITE OF the popular notion that Adventism is just one more evangelical church. In order to leave, we have to study the Bible with an intensity and commitment that might not be necessary if we had the Christian community reaching out to embrace us and minister to us BEFORE we left. Because of our need to study deeply, we are part of a re-awakening of the beauty and truth of the New Covenant, the gospel of Paul and the apostlesóthe gospel of Jesus Christ. This understanding of the new covenant has been mostly obscured for many years except here and there in pockets of Christ-followers. The situation reminds me of what our pastor Gary Inrig told one of our friends when, in an agony of confusion over Adventism, he went and spent a couple hours talking to him. God allows heresy to creep into the Christian community, he said, in order to drive people back to their Bibles to discover what the truth really is. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 454 Registered: 7-2005 |
Colleen, I agree that Walter Martin had good intentions, and he respeced those adventist leaders with evangelical leaning. This respect made him reluctant to say what he would say in another circumstances. Jackob |
