| Author | Message | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2478 Registered: 8-2004  |
When the SDA Movement started, it was based in the belief that all the Protestant churches had fallen (by failing to accept that Jesus was coming in 1844) and had become the daughters of Babylon (The Roman Catholic church in SDA prophetic thought). It taught (and has not retracted) that Christians who do not accept the "Sanctuary message" are thereafter unknowingly praying to Satan instead of God and that it is Satan that answers their prayers. THe SDA church was formed to be the rement who had it right, who held up the standard of truth, and worshiped God instead of Satan. Now the SDA church has grown, wants to be accepted as a 'mainline' denomination, to be considered just a regular Christian group, along side all the others (though still the "closest-to-the-truth" of course). Seems to me this is a bit two faced. If you're the true church and all others are false then face it and live with the consequences! If you're not the true church, and the others are not all false, then face THAT and live with the consequences. This is not a case where fence riding is possible - the difference is a chasm, perhaps even a 'great gulf.' There are consequences for those who say they are and ain't, and there are consequences for those who say they ain't and are. Not sure? Then give all the ares and ain't to God and ask him to confirm what is from Him and what isn't. He is faithful and will not trick or deceive. He has also promised never to leave or forsake us, and to save to the uttermost all who put their trust in Him. What matters is not our label, it's our identity in Him - neither is salvation found in any other thing - certainly not in making ourselves out to be better than - or even just the same as - those around us. | ||
| Cortney Registered user Username: Cortney Post Number: 141 Registered: 8-2006 |
It's funny I asked my husband a question similar to your post: "If the SDA church is the 'remnant last day true church' why do they try to portray themselves as Evangelical Christians? Why not be upfront about who you are and what you believe? If you have 'the truth' why the need to 'trick' innocent people into attending prophecy seminars? Why hide the fact the seminars are SDA? that is, until the very end. He gave me no answer. My husband likes to believe he is a non-1844believing and non-EGW Adventist. When I question him on that he says there are verses to support SDA doctrine, referring to soul sleep and sabbath-keeping(He doesn't keep sabbath or go to church, at all???) he is just too busy. But the Sabbath 'truth' is what holds him to Adventism, just like the funny 'What about the Sabbath' link on facebook. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 863 Registered: 2-2008  |
I think they also want to say that they "aint" judgmental, but they "are." I agree with you Mary that the adventist church cannot believe and support the Investigative Judgment as well as "claim" to be "mainstream" Christian. You cannot serve two masters. I loved best what you said at the end, "What matters is not our label, it's our identity in Him..." Beautiful! vivian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11512 Registered: 12-2003  |
Excellent post, Mary. They totally play on both ends of the figurative teeter-totter. They can't be both the remnant and just another Protestant denomination. Individually we have to face the implications of our own integrity or lack of it. Do we believe what we practice? Do we practice what we believe? If not, why not? As you said, there are consequences. Colleen | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1096 Registered: 10-2008 |
Mary, I never thought of the implications of SDAism saying they are the "Remnant Church". Thank you for the clear and clarifying post. I'm struck by the deceptiveness of the whole thing ... They both can't be true ... Remnant Church, but just like the evangelicals - huh? Desiring to be accepted - but so vastly different. It is mind-numbing ... Keri | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 416 Registered: 4-2007 |
Why, we're just like you with just a minor exception, WE are God's chosen REMNANT which by definition means we are right and you are all damned to hell. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 745 Registered: 7-2004 |
That's exactly how they portrayed themselves back in the 1800's! I think this will be my new question for the mainstream adventist.... If you believe you are the remnant church in Revelation, then aren't you breaking the 8th commandment by pretending that you are evangelical Christians who don't think all other churches are Babylon and are going to chase you down for worshiping on Saturday? Or is the 4th commandment really the only one that isn't important? | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 746 Registered: 7-2004 |
oops....the only one that IS important | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11519 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bb--I like your new question! Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 566 Registered: 7-2005 |
While I agree with the great amount of deception involved in the adventists double standards, the issue of the remnant church-evangelical church is not an "either or" situation. Adventists see themselves as inheritors of a long line of reformers in the church, in the line of protestant reformation, line which is currently seen in the evangelical churches. They think that the reformers who started this trend of removing the unbiblical practices of the church had not went far enough in their reformation, especially they had not get rid of Sunday worshiping. With other words, adventists see themselves as part of a continuum of churches which became gradually purer, the SDA being the cutting edge in this process while the others had stopped before reaching the finish line. The continuum is a spectrum like a rainboy: at one end of the spectrum is Roman Catholicism - Babylon, at the other end of the spectrum is the SDA church which is 100% pure from Babylonian wine. Between these two opposites there are the evangelical churches which area mixture of pure teachings and Babylonian wine, this situation creating a highly unstable position for these evangelical churches. In the adventist understanding, these churches stopped migrating to the end of the spectrum in which adventists are, they are with one foot in Babylon (Sunday sacredness). The end time scenario of saturday-sunday contest will cut the rubber band in two, making the two pieces swing toward the margins of the spectrum. Some people from these evangelical churches will join the adventist church, some will become fully Babylon. Reformulating, adventists see themselves as 100% evangelical and the other evangelical churches as less evangelical, kept back from becoming fully evangelical by the Babylonian wine. Consequently they want to be recognized as evangelical, reformed, but at the same time, because they think they are fully evangelical, fully reformed, no trace of Babylonian wine in their ranks, they want to keep distance from the doctrinal corruption which they think will ruin the other churches evangelical character. That's why I think this issue is less an issue of dishonesty but rather an issue of self-perception. To put it in other terms, adventists see themselves as fellow participants with other evangelical churches in a race which starts in Babylon and ends up in Canaan, but with other participants being like the Israelites in the Sinai deserts, liberated from Egypt but still in love with Egypt's food and way of life. Gabriel | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2482 Registered: 8-2004 |
While the idea that many SDAs see Christianity as a continuum is accurate, the idea that they are THE remnant that is left after all the other denominations went to the devil is also accurate, especially among the SDA founding fathers and mothers. I'm sure there are SDAs today who have no clue what their 'messenger from the Lord' had to say about the rest of the churches,
Yes, there are SDAs who think evangelical Christians are their brothers and sisters and who think they themselves are the epitome of evangelical Christianity. That doesn't make it so. Either they ARE the remnant they claim to be and the others are not, or they are part of Christianity, or they are something totally different (I vote for option three). They can't be both better than and just the same as. Dishonest or deceived, some things just can't both be right. | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 748 Registered: 7-2004 |
Well, actually based on how I USED to think as an adventist, I thought that the other Christian believers were sincere, but ignorant of "the truth", and if they really did love Jesus, at some point before "the end" they would accept "the truth" and "be converted" to adventism. (words in quotes are adventist catch phrases, which I now can't stand) So you have a point in that they may feel that the other Christians are on the journey with them and will at some point accept "the truth" so they aren't really being deceptive per se. At least they are rationalizing it that way. There is a lot of rationalization going on as an adventist. I know we've talked about this before. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2484 Registered: 8-2004 |
Yes, there is a lot of rationalization that goes on. One line of reasoning runs "well, they're still brothers/sisters till they hear and reject the SDA message." This then led to questions of whether it was better to share our distinctives and risk losing a friend/causing a soul to be lost by rejecting them or if it was better to tell them so that we wouldn't run the risk of being lost ourselves for failing to evangelize. | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 867 Registered: 12-2007 |
Wait just a minute !!!!!... I had to go back and read that garbage from Ellen White 4 times and every time I read it.. I got more angry as it became even more clear each time I read it what she was REALLY saying..... (copy and paste from Helovesme2's post # 2482 above with MY understanding of what she said in *CAPS*) "I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches [that is, the churches that did not accept the SDA doctrines] had crucified these messages, *THESE MESSAGES....MEANING HER MESSAGES... SHE IS EQUATING THE "CRUCIFICTION" OF HER MESSAGES TO THE CRUCIFICTION OF CHRIST ????????!!!!!* and therefore they have no knowledge of the way into the most holy, *SO WITHOUT HER MESSAGES THERE IS NO WAY INTO THE MOST HOLY.....?? AND HERE I THOUGHT JESUS WAS THE WAY INTO THE MOST HOLY NOT HER MESSAGES* and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; *SO WITHOUT HER MESSAGES OUR PRAYERS ARE "USELESS" AND THEY GO INTO AN APARTMENT THAT JESUS HAS "LEFT" * and Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying wonders, to fasten them in his snare." *SOOOO IF OUR PRAYERS ARE "USELESS" AND THEY ARE GOING INTO AN APARTMENT WHERE JESUS HAS "LEFT" AND SATAN "ASSUMES A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER" TO "FASTEN THEM IN HIS SNARE" IS SHE SAYING THAT THE "APARTMENT" SHE REFERS TO AS HAVING BEEN VACATED BY JESUS IS THEN OCCUPIED BY SATAN ?? AND IF SO, THEN SHE IS PLACING SATAN IN THE HOLY PLACE THAT JESUS LEFT VACANT !!! IS THAT WHAT SHE IS SAYING ??? IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE IS SAYING THAT JESUS LEFT THAT "APARTMENT" WHERE THE "USELESS PRAYERS" OF THOSE WHO REJECT HER MESSAGES GO AND THAT SATAN IS NOW THERE INTERCEPTING THOSE "USELESS PRAYERS"*AND "LEADING THE MINDS OF THESE 'PROFESSED CHRISTIANS'TO HIMSELF" *IS THAT WHAT SHE IS SAYING ????? IF SO SHE IS PUTTING HER WRITINGS AND THEREFORE HERSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE SAVIOR SINCE SHE IS SAYING IF WE REJECT HER WRITINGS (DOESNT SAY REJECT JESUS)THEN WE WILL BE "FASTENED IN HIS (SATANS) SNARE".* *IS THAT WHAT SHE IS SAYING... OR AM I READING TOO MUCH INTO THIS ? IF THAT IS WHAT SHE IS SAYING... THEN, TO ME,,, THAT ONE STATEMENT ALONG WITH WHAT IT INFERS IS REASON ENOUGH IN ITSELF TO REJECT HER AND ANY AND ALL THAT SHE EVER WROTE OR SAID ABOUT ANYTHING. ! THAT WICKED WICKED SELF RIGHTEOUS WITCH ! MAY GOD REBUKE HER !* FRANCIE | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2485 Registered: 8-2004 |
Yes, she's definitely saying that Satan takes over the place Jesus has left and answers prayers from there, and that those who don't accept the sanctuary doctrine are praying to him and not Him. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11525 Registered: 12-2003 |
Absolutely. That IS what she is saying. When you actually analyze the words she wrote, a person can't escape the conclusion that Adventism is not misguided but benign. It is deadly, and Satan is at the core of the atonement. We had to have Ellen in order to understand "present truth" for these times; if we reject her messages, we reject God. There is a good reason why Adventists encountering truth have deep fear at first. The notion they will be lost is profound, even if they don't think they "believe all that". Can you imagine? A group that calls itself Christian actually teaches that if one embraces the apostolic gospel and trusts Jesus alone, he will be lost. it's all inside-out and backwards--and we thought it was truth! Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 567 Registered: 7-2005 |
Colleen said
I guess you referred to "malign" instead of "benign". Benign means something that's harmless. Regarding the issue of dishonesty, adventists are not right if they are honest and wrong only if they are dishonest. You may be sincerely wrong and sincerely right, sincerity or dishonesty is a moot point when the issue is truth. It matters when you're talking with adventists to admit that they are entitled to hold to their beliefs when these beliefs are not in conflict with each other. Gabriel | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 568 Registered: 7-2005 |
Francie, you said:
I don't think that she may be found guilty of putting herself in the Savior's place. She's guilty of speaking falsely in the name of Jesus, claiming to be something she was not, a genuine prophet, but she's not guilty of blasphemy in the sense that she made some claims that are wrong in and of themselves, apart from any question regarding her prophetic role.
At this point Jesus shows that the master and the servant share common ground in regards to the acceptance or rejection of their message: rejection of the disciple's message parallels the rejection of Jesus' message, and acceptance is operating on the same principles. That entitles us, as messengers of the true gospel to think ourselves as ambassadors for Christ who are rejected or accepted for Christ's sake, and who share with Him in acceptance or rejection. We stand on the same plane and in the place of Christ when we proclaim the gospel without becoming blasphemers. Apart from the question of the truthfulness of our claims, it's not wrong to see yourself as sharing with Christ in rejection. Sure, it is blasphemy to preach a false gospel and claim being rejected like Christ was, but in and of itself, it's not blasphemy to think of yourself as being rejected because of the reasons Christ was rejected. Now, Ellen White believed that her messages were genuine supernatural revelations, her prophetic conscience operates normally at this point. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that she was a true prophet, thinking that people rejected her messages as they rejected Christ is not blasphemous. It's not placing yourself boastfully and pridefully in Savior's place, it's a normal view about servant sharing in the fate of his master. Of course, when you're a false prophet with a false gospel message, the claim to share in the master's fate is false. It's invalidated by reality. This is another question that requires a separate treatment. Still we can't find fault with Ellen White's claim that her messages were rejected as Jesus was rejected because this is a blasphemous claim in an of itself. It's a legitimate claim when it is made by a genuine Christian with a genuine gospel message, it's not blasphemy to claim that you share in the Savior's rejection. Actually it's very important for us to think in this way, because otherwise we will lose heart when we testify to our adventist friends. We should not forget that the opposition we encounter from our adventist friends is in reality opposition to Christ and his gospel message. We are rejected because of the same reasons Christ was rejected. Now, if we are thinking in this way about us, if we think that we are persecuted for Christ's sake and adventists reject our message because they reject Christ's gospel, it would be counterproductive for us to criticize Ellen White for having the same views about the rejection of her messages. It would send the message that we are using a double standard, one for us, and one for Ellen, and unfortunately will confirm the adventist suspicion that we are having a hidden agenda that is not informed by fairness. We will give to adventists a valid point in their criticism, something which we don't want to give them, at least, I don't. Gabriel | ||
| 1john2v27nlt Registered user Username: 1john2v27nlt Post Number: 49 Registered: 5-2009 |
------------------------------------------------- quote: "I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches [that is, the churches that did not accept the SDA doctrines] had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; and Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying wonders, to fasten them in his snare." Early Writings 261 -------------------------------------------------- OK I think I am getting what Skeeter is upset about, but maybe this is the twist: Satan is in the apartment that Jesus left - & those offering up prayers through understanding these messages that 'the nominal churches' have rejected are having their prayers answered by Satan. EGW spoke the truth BUT it is not the 'nominal churches' who are deceived! It is those who receive 'the messages'! THEY cannot benefit by Jesus. They offer up useless prayers, Satan is pleased, & fastens them in his snare. For me, this is why I must be continually in the Bible, reading & rereading the whole, entire Word of God, praying for the Holy Spirit to teach me. The spirits must be tested, compared to the Word. I cannot take anything because someone says it. I must pray for Jesus, by His Spirit to open my understanding & find Him in the scriptures which testify of HIM. J9 | ||
| Yenc Registered user Username: Yenc Post Number: 266 Registered: 6-2008 |
Jackob, What Colleen was referring to was that some people brush off these heresies by saying EGW was "misguided but benign (harmless)" whereas she was not just misguided and therefore harmless, because these heresies are horrible, and neither merely misguided nor in the least bit harmless! And, yes, I was just as horrified when I read where EGW said that Satan is in the Heavenly Sanctuary right now, in the Holy Place, and that if people do not accept the Sanctuary Doctrine of 1844, and they think Jesus is still in the Holy Place (and did not go into the Most Holy Place in 1844) then their prayers will go to the "wrong address" and Satan will respond to their prayers instead of Jesus! GASP! GASP! It still boggles my mind! (Message edited by YenC on August 05, 2010) (Message edited by YenC on August 05, 2010) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1212 Registered: 3-2009 |
If Satan is following the steps of Jesus: First being the scapegoat, then occupying the Holy Place that Jesus vacated, does it follows that the next step would be to go into the Most Holy Place and sit at the right hand of God as our intercessor? Hec | ||
| 1john2v27nlt Registered user Username: 1john2v27nlt Post Number: 52 Registered: 5-2009 |
WOW Yes Hec! to APPEAR as if our Saviour - 'in the place of' - the spirit of the Antichrist. J9 | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 879 Registered: 12-2007 |
So with that kind of deception implanted in their minds (complete paranoia) how could they ever be really sure that they were meeting Jesus and not the counterfiet even there in the "Most Holy" place ?? That is so sad. Francie | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 569 Registered: 7-2005 |
It should be useful to remember that this quotation about Satan occupying the Holy Place instead of Jesus is written in the period when adventists believe in the "shut door" heresy and is a very good proof that Ellen White endorsed it from visions. Adventists today are embarrassed of her earlier teachings and very few if any subscribe to what Ellen says about the churches in this period, including a statement found twelve pages later, Early Writings page 273: "Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body." At the same time, they think that what they see as grave errors in the other churches justify Ellen's assessment of these churches as being under Satan's spell. Eternal punishment in hell and worship on Sunday are seen as unexplainable and childish errors in biblical interpretation which have no natural explanation. In the adventist eyes these alleged grave errors are explained only by the supernatural blindness produced by supernatural wicked angels and Satan himself. I met adventists who no longer believe in the Investigative Judgment but who, because they cling to saturday-keeping and annihilationism, are thinking that adventism is the best option on the market, all these churches are offering a much worse theology than adventism offers. For example, while they may be disturbed by Ellen's statements about Satan being in Jesus place in the Holy and answering prayers from that Holy place, they will compare the damage this error produced with what they think is the greater damage produced by what they think is the false belief in hell. In their view, teaching eternal punishment is a greater insult to the character of God, akin to a greater blasphemy than saying that Satan is in Jesus' place in the Holy. They think that eternal punishment is the sure proof of Satan's success of putting his own image instead of God, the climax of deceptions. Now, on these terms, it's impossible to make an impression on adventists who will dismiss Ellen's errors as nothing compared with the christianity's errors in holding to eternal punishment. They will also add that while Ellen White renounced her errors (even if she was not quite explicit about this), Christianity still holds to the horrible error of placing Satan's image where Christ should be. In this way, twice, Ellen wins. So, when you're trying next time to put pressure on adventists with these bad quotations from Ellen White, think about what they believe regarding eternal punishment, and spare yourself a lot of frustration and useless conversations. I spent precious hours from my life trying to press adventists with the "shut door" statements of Ellen that are indeed horrible, but to no avail because it's not something that will impress the adventist mindset. And I think they had a valid point from their perspective: if eternal punishment is not true, Christians believe in an infinite unjust God who's akin to an infinite Hitler. They need first to get a true picture of the holiness of God, before they will be impressed by Ellen's horrible statements. Gabriel | ||
| 1john2v27nlt Registered user Username: 1john2v27nlt Post Number: 53 Registered: 5-2009 |
Gabriel you are so right. And SDAs (& most people in general & even many ministers) have not been reading the whole word of God for themselves. I keep praying that God will draw people to himself & into His word & teach them by His Spirit. Everything is possible with God & nothing is impossible for Him. J9 | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2068 Registered: 4-2000  |
Just in case someone may question whether SDA beliefs are based upon very liberal theology, their grassroots opposition against Proposition 8 in California (same-sex marriage), is a valid example. Notable SDA educators and pastors have endorsed their opposition against any ban of same-sex marriages. Due to the SDA defense of minority groups, in light of their scary expectation of a National Sunday Law any moment, they often find themselves on the wrong side of the fence on social issues. Actually, Sunday blue laws are based primarily upon social concerns--not upon religious dogma. This is certainly the case in England's current debate about having Sunday as a day off. The Brits are not known to have strong moral or religious views these days. Thus, the SDA view about the Jewish Sabbath trumps even the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. In short, the Sabbath is more important, in SDA circles, than anything else. By the way, those Adventist employees (who work for the SDA organization) who support same-sex marriages have not been threatened in any way (such as losing their jobs). Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on August 06, 2010) |
