| Author | Message | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 314 Registered: 7-2000  |
Jeremy, I won't argue the point further. Just remember that we have a huge responsibility to those who are weak and sensitive. People won't care how right we are, unless they see us demonstrate love and consideration for their experience and their feelings. Judging by several private email responses I have had from a few people in recent weeks, we can do a much better job of it on this forum! Maybe it is simply time for me to move on myself. My weekly counseling at church with neophyte Christians has given me a very different perspective on what is really of value in Christian witnessing. Bob | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 423 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard Oops! I'm sorry. I did not mean any personal attack. I did not realize it was your church, and I should have chosen my words better. I reacted viscerally to a post that had me very concerned. I hope to see you again soon. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2139 Registered: 12-2003  |
Bob, It would be great if you could suggest to those who have emailed you their responses to the forum that they email us directly. We have no way to address their concerns if we do not hear them! It is not our goal to bash, slander, or otherwise offend anyone. It is probably inevitable that some people who are closer to Adventism might be jarred by the responses of others who are experiencing the growing realization of the depth of the problems with Adventism. I agree that our modus operandum must be to speak the truth in love. But we must speak the truth. I remember so well how offended I felt even as a studying, moving-closer-to-the-gospel Adventist if I heard people make strong statements about Adventist fundamentals or Adventism in general. Even though I had already dismissed many of the core convictions, I still identified strongly with the church at a social and emotional and psychological level. The fact is, however, that the blinders eventually came more fully off, and I began to understand why people had made some the discomfiting comments I'd heard, and I began to understand the passion behind the comments. We never have the right to demean or ridicule others. We do have an obligation to speak truth. We also need to understand that God is working with everyone He calls, and His timing is known only to Him; we cannot coerce another into a belief. We should not try to do so. Similarly, we need to allow God to hold our hearts so we don't take each other's reactions to their own discoveries personally. We are all in this business of growing as God's children together! Praise Him for His Spirit that transcends even our feelings! Colleen | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 134 Registered: 2-2005 |
When I was in high school, I spent one New Year's Eve in Pasadena along the route of the Rose Parade. Every year people camp out the night before the parade in order to have a good seat the following day. The mood on the street can range from festive to downright chaotic. One of the clearest memories I have of that night is of a white pickup truck parading slowly up and down the route. In the back of the truck was a man wielding a megaphone, through which he blasted, "Repent or you will go to hell!" Needless to say, his message, while truthful, was not well-received. This discussion and events on the forum of late reminded me of that story and a quote from one of my favorite speakers, Ravi Zacharias. As a Christian apologist who preaches the gospel in countries openly hostile to Jesus Christ, Zacharias has great insight into what it takes to share precious truth with an audience who might otherwise kill the person proclaiming it. He says, "We, as Christians, make a staggering claim. We lay claim to truth that is exclusive Ö We proclaim one way to God - Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life. When we lay claim to truth in such radical terms, it is imperative that such truth be undergirded by love. If it is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the dogma repulsive." The passion for the truth displayed on this forum is understandable. We're all at different stages of the leaving (grieving) process and anger is one of the most difficult emotions to let go. Yet if we have any hope of bringing others into our precious understanding of the truth, we must ask God to infuse our message with the love in which he called us. No, we cannot coerce others into a belief, but we can make our belief so obnoxious that it repulses the very people we intend to enlighten. As Steve Brown said recently, "it's possible to get all the propositions right and speak them in such a skewed way that the propositions are no longer true. A teacher of grace ought to be gracious; the doctrines of love should never be delivered in an unloving way; the good news of Christ should never become bad news because of the harshness of the one who speaks it." I pray that God will give us discernment in the words we make public here. Let us be "completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:2-3 NIV). Thanks for hearing these words. Praise Jesus who gives us the responsibility to represent his love! Greg | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 315 Registered: 7-2000 |
Colleen, I have not encouraged anyone to complain to me about anything related to FAF. Those who corresponded with me did so on their own initiative, and I tried to encourage them to be positive and not to be disheartened by what they perceived to be a harsh spirit by some. If those individuals did not share their concerns with you, it was their own choice. Bob | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 427 Registered: 3-2005 |
Greg, Excellent post. I understand the spirit of what you're saying, and agree for the most part. When Ravi Zachiarias is preaching in Muslim countries, he is preaching to unbelievers much like Paul was also diplomatic in his preaching to unbelievers such as his Mars Hill address. When Paul addressed professing believers including his reprimand of Peter for acting contrary to the gospel in Gal.2, and chastising the Judaizers as harshly as he did (check out Gal. 5:12), its a different story. We have a professing evangelical church who puts out information on their web site declaring to people that "They are already saved" "You are already a member of the family of God" essentially saying that there is no need to be born again. Can someone tell me what i am missing here? Is it unloving to become outraged because this doctrine may lead people to perdition? Will anyone argue that the info put out on Jeremy's post from that church fits the description of Galatians 1:8,9? I don't want to be insensitive, and my apology as stated above still stands. But, I would welcome any discussion that would show how we could be sympathetic to the doctrine presented on that post by Jeremy, and still be faithful to the gospel. Stan | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2005 |
Stan, I think you already know where I stand on the questions you have raised. I don't disagree with the substance of the post you referred to, but in our zeal to be right, we can state the truth in a very insensitive and unloving way. By the way, Ravi Zacharias employed the same diplomatic tone he uses with Muslims when he spoke recently in the Mormon Tabernacle. I think you know the problems of putting ourselves in the place of the apostle Paul. First, we're not apostles. And second, he founded the Galatian church and reprimanded them appropriately as their leader in the way a father would reprimand his children. I would be highly offended if a random person reprimanded my children in public the same way I do as their father. It's a fine line, to be sure. Believers must stand as one man, contending for the gospel, as Paul stated in Philippians 1. But me must also display the fruit of the Spirit in dealing with those who worship the same God we do. Although not exactly applicable to this situation, your pastor Chuck Smith apparently advocates a similar approach when dealing with denominationalism. Here's what he said in the 1993 book, Answers for Today:
Yes, we must defend the gospel, but as Chuck Smith says, let's strive together rather than striving against one another. I'm definitely interested in hearing other viewpoints. I certainly don't have all the answers and am willing to be corrected if I am wrong in anything I've stated here. Greg | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 757 Registered: 10-2004  |
I don't think Chuck Smith was talking about cults/false religions with false gospels. (Unfortunately, a lot of people are unaware of what the Catholic church teaches.) Peter, when preaching to the "Jewish cult" was not "loving." He called them murderers and told them that they had crucified the Messiah! And Peter and the other apostles told the high priest even, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30.) Oh, and also, as Stan pointed out, it wasn't just the Galatians that Paul spoke strongly to--he also spoke harshly of the Judaizers.
Let me share my own personal experience. I've heard some say that no one is going to be convinced by hard facts, but only by a "loving witness," etc. However, in my case it was totally cold, hard facts that convinced me EGW and SDAism was false--and not by what most would think of as "loving" (but then again, telling the hard truth can sometimes be the most loving thing to do). The same is true with my father, mother, and sister. They were convinced when I kept showing them how contradictory, blasphemous, etc. EGW's writings are. (Of course, I am not trying to give the credit to those that helped me see, or to myself--it was only by the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm just talking about the way in which it happened in these specific instances.) I think a lot of it might depend on different people being reached in different ways. But if someone is really searching for the truth and wanting to know truth I don't think they will be stopped by something they find offensive. I know I wasn't. And no, that doesn't mean we should be offensive. Of course we should try to be as loving as is appropriate, but--we do need to speak the truth and if a false gospel is being preached we need to be able to call it what it is--a false gospel. But, we could probably find a more loving tone to say what we need to say sometimes. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 17, 2005) | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 136 Registered: 2-2005 |
Jeremy, Your points are well taken. I think part of the difficulty is that we all come from different backgrounds with different home/school/church environments and different battle scars. There is no "uniform" SDA experience, which makes it difficult to generalize about how best to share the truth with those we love. I do wonder if sometimes in our zeal to show others the truth, we build the walls even higher because our approach is less than gracious. What do you think? Do you believe it is our duty to be harsh in presenting truth because the apostles Paul and Peter were harsh? You may be right about Chuck Smith. My point was that he is obviously conciliatory toward those he believes to be in the body of Christ. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter--can we with any certainty decide whether individuals are in or out of the body of Christ? Even Robert Brinsmead called Adventists his brothers and sisters in Christ. Do you remember Bill Mead from Revivalsermons? He is an Adventist but I can say confidently that he is my Christian brother. Can we be content to accept Adventists as individuals in the body of Christ while disagreeing with their doctrinal statements and "prophetic" writings, or are those two concepts mutually exclusive? In the end, we probably worry more about this than we need to--God is sovereign and will call his people according to his purpose. Greg | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2144 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, you make good points. One of the distinctions I've come to, Greg, is that I cannot actually call ADventism part of the general body of Christ. Oh, yes--I believe countless Adventists ARE part of the body of Christ, but I don't believe the church is a legitimate Christian church. One of the criticisms we have heard about our Friday night FAF Bible study (a criticism which our pastoral staff has absorbed and handled for us by the way--praise God!) is that it's not appropriate for Trinity church to host such a ministry because it's "dividing the body". Frankly, it's not. This argument is one to which I've become VERY sensitive because it really reflects a general lack of understanding that Adventism actually teaches a "different gospel". Other Christian churches may have drfited from gospel-center, but they are all founded on orthodox Christian doctrines. If they really went back to their roots and their stated beliefs, they would find there the power (of Christ) to experience revival. If Adventism goes back to its roots, it would not find there any orthodox Christian doctrines. Further, the modern church has not modified its doctrines. The fact that many Adventists have found Jesus is a giant credit to the Holy Spiritóbut it is not the product of the church's teachings or theology. Therefore, I do not believe we can say that pointing out the problems with Adventism and emphasizing their heretical nature is dividing the body. I have great concern and compassion for thsoe struggling with leaving--and for those who are not yet struggling. I do not wish to inflame them by harsh words. In fact, the people in the pews I consider to be deceived by the dishonesty of the church leaders who knowingly perpetrate error because of the chaos that would erupt if they admitted the truth. Yes, Greg--I do believe we must be compassionate. I also believe we must not shrink from speaking the truth about Adventism. It is not a truly Christian church in spite of its recent efforts to state evangelical-sounding claims about Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation. At its core, it has not changed. Those who remain are blinded to varying degrees. It's like the analogy I used once before; being inside Adventism has some similarities to being in an abusive family. You can SO SEE the problems, but you don't realize the far reaching effects they have on you as long as you remain. You are tied by bonds of loyalty and love and longing and investment, and you feel as if you would lose your identity if you left the family. If you get the courage to walk away, however, the depth of the sickness and evil become increasingly clear, and you begin to see how the abusive behavior and control affected you at levels you couldn't see while you were part of it. Again, I'm not sure if I would have seen this phenomenon so clearly if I had not been immersed in a Christian environment so soon after leaving. I suddenly found myself on the faculty of an evangelical school as well as a member of a healthy church, and I started getting questions and comments that really opened my eyes to the general misperception of Adventism. It is truly a decptive religion not based upon Biblical Christianity. Praise God for knowing His own even inside the Adventist church! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 760 Registered: 10-2004 |
Greg, if I remember correctly, a few months ago you stated (I believe it was you--if it was someone else, please forgive me!) that you were still tied to the Adventist culture and that you still attended weekly. If so, that may be part of the difference in our viewpoints. Like Colleen said yesterday, that when she was still socially/emotionally tied to the church, she found certain strong statements to be too harsh and offensive. About the body of Christ, etc.: First off, there are a number of born again Christians within the SDA cult. We need to be clear on that. There are also a number of born again Christians in the Mormon cult. Let's be clear on that, also. But we also need to be clear on the fact that the SDA church is a non-Christian, satanic cult, just as the Mormon church is. The SDA church is NOT part of the body of Christ, any more than the Mormons, JWs, etc. A false gospel is a false gospel. A different Jesus is a different Jesus. Greg, you wrote...
No!  Certainly not in all instances. But going back to what I said above. Hehe, it may sound funny, but I'm telling the truth, as I was finding out about EGW myself, I hit my family members over the head with the truth about EGW for a month or so--and they saw that she was a false prophet. I'm just saying that's the way it happened. Jeremy | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 137 Registered: 2-2005 |
Jeremy, You are right that I was tied to the SDA culture several months ago, but I now exclusively attend a local Christian church. Furthermore, I live in a part of the country that is relatively devoid of Adventist culture--we can't even get the Adventist veggie meat at the market! (That's probably a good thing ) Oddly, the longer I am around healthy Christians in my new church, the more accepting and empathic I become of my brothers and sisters in the Adventist church. I can see clearly now how God led my family out of Adventism when he desired to do so. I'm content to remain subject to his sovereign plan for my brothers and sisters who remain. I wouldn't go as far as you in calling Adventism satanic. I personally think EGW made up almost everything in her visions. Nobody can verify one bit of what she said she experienced. We know she lied about plaigiarizing, diet, etc., so why couldn't she have lied about the para-normal phenomenon she claimed to have experienced (e.g. "handsome young man", smell of roses, angels, etc.)? Even A.G. Daniells, at the 1919 Bible Conference said that the miraculous phenomenon such as holding the 18/40 lb. Bible in an outstretched hand for so long is "not the best kind of evidence" and he admitted nobody had actually witnessed the event. I'm enjoying this conversation by the way. Thanks for your insights and Colleen, you too. Greg | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 391 Registered: 5-2002 |
Greg, if her theology originated in lies, doesn't that theology by definition come from the father of lies? Historic Seventh-day Adventism (that espoused by EGW and the "founding fathers") is either from Satan or from Christ. Ellen herself even declared that. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 761 Registered: 10-2004 |
Greg, that's a very interesting theory about EGW lying about everything. And I'll tell you why I can't see it that way. You wrote:
How could she even know to make up classic occult/demonic phenomenon such as smelling roses, seeing light, etc.?? And if she did know about those things, why would she make it up and say that it happened to her so that people would think she was occultic???? Everything she writes that so cleverly (and subtley) glorifies Satan and lifts him up and makes readers feel sorry for him--convinces me that this wasn't just human. The way that everything is designed, the whole doctrinal system, where everything is so intricate and complicated and connected and works so well to keep people in bondage and under a spiritual (evil/demonic) hold has to be more than some crazy woman just coming up with it all! Even the brainwashing people into sending their kids to SDA education so that they will stay in the cult, marry in the cult, and produce more little Adventists--it is all so woven together. But most importantly, I believe it is Satanic/demonic because the Holy Spirit says so:
That says right there that EGW was "taught by demons"! Who am I to disagree? If the Bible says it's doctrines of demons, we better listen to the Bible. I'm also enjoying this dialogue. Jeremy | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 138 Registered: 2-2005 |
Freeatlast, Point well taken. I guess I have a hard time giving Satan credit for something I think EGW could have dreamed up herself. Yet another reason to ground everything you believe to be true in scripture, although some SDA pastors I know believe the Bible itself has been tainted by the father of lies. Greg | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 139 Registered: 2-2005 |
Jeremy, Yeah, you make good points. I do believe, however, that the mind is a powerful tool for self-delusion. We know people can see/smell/hear all sorts of things if their brain chemistry is imbalanced. Just think of what happens when someone is under the influence of controlled substances (now there is an interesting theory ). I've personally witnessed people who exhibit hyper-religiousity and hyper-graphia as EGW did, albeit on a much smaller scale. I don't know if you are familiar with the work Ron Numbers, who wrote a paper about this with his then-wife, who is a psychologist. Check this link and tell me what you think. I believe this article is also part of the second edition of his book, Prophetess of Health. The bottom line for me is this. Whether you believe EGW had an organic brain disorder, was simply lying or was under the control of demonic forces (or all of the above), the result is the same--it's not of God and is inconsistent with his Word. The Bible tells us what to do with such "prophets". That said, using the word "satanic" in conjunction with any witnessing attempts may not be the best approach with an Adventist. As you and I have both stated previously, each case is unique and I believe we need to prayerfully consider how we approach this matter. Greg | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1620 Registered: 3-2004  |
In our approach to our or any SDAs, it is something about which we need to pray about before we say anything. Maybe we do not need to say anything, unless God puts the words in our head to say. It is something only each of us, individually, will know, when it happens. God promises to give us the words to say. I forget the text. When we sound harsh/judgemental or whatever as we write, it is because of the experience each of us has gone through. Some of us have had horrendous experiences and then there are those, like me, who have not had any repercussions from family or friends who are SDA. I see the cult like aspects of the SDA church and I do not like it and am glad I am no longer a part of it. I will tell others why I am no longer SDA and why, but I will ask God to put the words in my mouth before I speak. I am not perfect at this and I do open my mouth when I should not. That shows me I am human and need His help 24/7. Even writing on this forum, I need to pray before putting any thing in writing. I just do not always come across the way I want it to. When speaking, face to face, one can see the facial expressions, movements of the other person and they can see me. With writing, all we see are the words. So, I will repeat what Greg said above,"each case is unique and I believe we need to prayerfully consider how we approach this matter." With God's love for all of you, Diana | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 430 Registered: 3-2005 |
Greg, Thanks for coming on and making an interesting and worthwhile discussion. However, If Chuck Smith saw that web site Jeremy posted with that thoroughly false doctrine of Universalism, he would condemn it in strong terms SDAs who teach Universalism would not be part of the Body of Christ according to Chuck Smith. Also, it was Chuck Smith who discovered Mark Martin, and Chuck was incredibly surprised what Adventism really taught. I am not sure Smith would label SDAs a cult, loke Martin does. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 762 Registered: 10-2004 |
Greg, Oh, I am not disputing that EGW had brain/mental disorders. But I also think Satan can take advantage of such things, too. If there is no satanic/demonic influence in SDAism, then why is it so hard to even talk to them? Why are they so powerfully blinded? Don't you think that there is a hold on them??? I don't understand how a crazy woman could come up with such a "good" system of bondage--that's giving her too much credit! I'm having a very hard time understanding why you think that Satan is not the founder/controller of this religion. Do you think that other false religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) are only "human" religions with no evil power in control of them? And the Holy "Spirit clearly says" that there are "deceiving spirits" and "demons" in control and behind these doctrines. It is not just human--it is definitely spiritual. (Which means evil/demonic/satanic). Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 18, 2005) | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 140 Registered: 2-2005 |
Jeremy, There are many "good" systems of bondage including ideology, philosophy, politics and religion. Adherents of any of these systems can be very difficult to talk to. If you need examples listen to talk radio sometime. EGW's system of bondage was carefully cultivated by those around her and continues to be cultivated by those who stand to benefit from it now. I'm amazed how many former Adventists willingly remain in that system while believing they are fighting against it. You are free to ascribe to Satan anything not of God. I'm comfortable with that definition, but it's probably larger than we'd like to admit and may include your own actions (and mine). Do you witness to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists by telling them their religion is demonic? Greg |
