Is Seventh-Day Adventism a Cult?

amen.

And what good does it do anyone to promote an assessment that is "all emotionalism" rather than an objective analysis of the doctrine that the group under study claims it is promoting?

 

I am not taking a side, I am suggesting we be a little more objective to the facts and a little less biased. I am non-denominational after all. For good reasons too. It is because I take an honest and objective look look at all denominations and compare them to what scripture actually teaches.

 

Are you SDA Bob?

 

Ok, looking at the information presented (the video), it appears to be the voice of a single disgruntled former SDA member with an agenda. It is no more credible that this video

 

As restated in a unbiased, objective lense without the bigotry.

Without bias: We are charismatic and believe that the spiritual gift of prophesy as stated in Romans 12:6 are still present today and did not die with the apostles.

"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith;"
Romans 12:6 NIV

Without Bias: Remember those official core beliefs that you will find on the SDA official website which basically is the Nicine Creed? You have to believe it.

Without Bias: SDA is open to all races. Are you ok with going to church with black people? If so, SDA welcomes you.

 

Their website? That is like going to Golden Corral for diet advice.

 

Naive? Perhaps. Foolish? No. You have yet to show any objective evidence to support your biased claims.

 

So where would I go if I wanted to know what the official Baptist beliefs are?

 

Apples and pomegranates.

You already know that there are different strains of Baptists. For example: Reformed Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Full Gospel Baptists et. al. While almost all Baptists share professor-only baptism as a common distinctive, other beliefs vary. You would be best served by reading accounts of Baptist history. The sheer volume of books by and about Baptists will yield much information. The SDA is different. It is a denomination with set beliefs and practices that can be traced primarily to Ellen White. White claimed to have many (some say hundreds) of visions that were only verified by those who believed as she did; visions that could not be verified outside of her group. Most Baptists sects hold to the Bible as their sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Reformed (or Particular) Baptists published two great confessions of their faith in the 17th century. These confessions (the 1644/46 First Baptist Confession and the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession) not only state beliefs but contain scriptural support for those beliefs. Reformed or Particular Baptists have always been transparent as to what they believe. They have never hidden behind carefully parsed words. This is not unique just to Reformed or Particular Baptists; other Baptists have been equally forthcoming with their beliefs.

But you ask a troubling question. You state you are attending a Baptist seminary. If that is correct, should they not be teaching you Baptist beliefs and practices according to their convictions? I linked to your seminary's doctrinal beliefs in this post: Why Would SDA Members Hang Out on BB? These beliefs (while not exhaustive or representative of all Baptists) are commonly held to by most Baptists. Do you agree with them? What have you learned from your own seminary about Baptists?

 

Yes I am. Long time SDA lots of connections in the church

 

True but delizzle's point about one local congregation's history where a few members start to bad-mouth it does not form a valid justification for attacking the entire group of SBC or Reformed Baptists or General Baptists etc.

And it has a world wide administrative body - that meets once every 5 years to "officially" vote or approve certain things - including the denomination's statement of beliefs. In other words one tiny congregation does not set the statement of beliefs for the entire denomination. So dishonest practices used by Hoekema were fully exposed by Walter Martin who said that he preferred to take the actual statement of beliefs of the denomination and not simply "stories" told for emotional effect by Hoekema and others.

Utterly false.

2000+ of them from late 1844 to 1914.

False.

Which is why one expects that the honest and objective baptist review of a given denomination would focus on the actual statement of beliefs of that denomination and not "emotional stories for falsely accusing others"

Have you looked at section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" as published by C.H. Spurgeon?

 

Well that is not true.

1. Baptist Faith and Message
2. Baptist Confession of Faith

might be two good places to start.

 

You seem to "fear" going to the actual statement of beliefs of the SDA denomination. How odd.

in any case - that statement above is what we would expect of a denomination that "read" the Bible and had a true prophet.

You "creative writing spin" that followed that quote - not withstanding

Another example of what is not in the Fundamental Beliefs -- rather it is in a "Baptismal Vow" where the person is both getting baptized AND joining in membership.

Exactly what we would expect - that they would have been given "full disclosure" and would agree that they know what the church believes... accepts the teaching and is making a free will choice to join it.

All of your creative-writing nonsense notwithstanding

Again another baptismal vow statement that one would expect of a denomination that was not hiding the Gospel from any nation kindred or tongue on planet earth.

You have a way of taking the common sense and logical statements and then adding your own wild emotional nonsense at the end.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

 

Good honest objective practice rather than slandering other groups with piles of false statements about them - find out what they actually teach.

good emotionalism - but hardly an objective position

delizzle did not say "I want to go to their site to seek advice" or "to believe their teaching" -- just "I want to find out for myself" rather than sitting here and drinking in emotional pablum and false accusations about others.

What is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader at that point - is how the "honest and objective" approach is being condemned and mocked by a few others.

very "instructive"