Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" declares Adventist are not a Cult and destroys Hoekema's book

Hoekema's argument was totally destroyed by Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" where Martin placed the SDA Christian denomination in the appendix giving it a huge amount of space for discussion and totally annihilated Hoekema's shallow arguments addressing Hoekema's book specifically - explicitly.

Martin was no SDA at all - but he knew a bogus argument when he saw it. Martin pointed out that half the time Hoekema was not even using the SDA published statements of belief for his straw-man arguments!! How sad that anyone could be snookered by Hoekema.

So then "reading" is not your strong suit??

As Christianity Today pointed out in 2015 - the SDA denomination is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world and fastest growing (incidentally it is now over 25 million in attendance each Sabbath world wide.)

Martin's book based on dialogue with SDA leaders and actually "reading" SDA statement of faith. That dialogue was published in the book "Question on Doctrine" in the 1950's.

And a number of editions since that time.

Includeing:
1985 edition of “The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7A” containing Volumes 1-7. QoD is in Appendix A, B, C

Nov 18, 2003 "the book “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine” - new print edition. Andrews University Press, part of the church-owned university and seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, recently released the 597-page, annotated edition of the book"

 

Kingdom of the Cults: appendix

On p. 551 from the section: Adventist Theology and Classical Orthodoxy, Martin writes,

It is unnecessary to document at great length the fact that Seventh-day Adventists adheres tenaciously to the foundational doctrines of Christian theology as these have been held by the Christian church down through the centuries. Dr. Anthony Hoekema, who believes that Seventh-day Adventism is a non-Christian cult, makes this interesting admission, and since Dr. Hoekema is no friend of Adventism, his testimony on this point could hardly be called prejudiced:

“I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. . . . It is recognised with gratitude that there are certain soundly scriptural emphases in the teaching of Seventh-day-Adventism. We are thankful for the Adventists’ affirmation of the infallibility of the Bible, of the Trinity and of the full deity of Jesus Christ. We gratefully acknowledge their teachings on creation and providence, on the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, on the absolute necessity for regeneration, on sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and on Christ’s literal return.”​

Says Martin,

“It is puzzling to me, as a student of non-Christian cult systems, how any group can hold the above doctrines in their proper biblical context, which Dr. Hoekema admits the Adventists do, and still be a non-Christian cult. However we shall deal with this aspect of the critics of Adventism at the end of the chapter; therefore, suffice it to say that the Adventists do have a clean bill of health where the major doctrines of Christian theology are concerned.”
​

p.561. We earlier mentioned Dr. Anthony Hoekema’s book, The Four Major Cults, in which he classifies Seventh-day Adventism as a non-Christian cult system. It is necessary for me to take exception with Dr Hoekema in this area because, in my opinion, the reasons that Dr. Hoekema gives cannot be justified by the Word of God, historical theology, or present-day practices in denominational Christianity as a whole. To illustrate this point, Dr. Hoekema stated, “I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. In support of this evaluation I propose to show that the traits we have found to be distinctive of the cults do apply to this movement.” (389).

Martin writes -

It is Dr. Hoekema’s contention that Ellen White is an extrabiblical authority in that her counsels are taken to be manifestations of the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12). But granting that the Adventists are entitled to believe that this gift was manifested in White as evidence of the charismata (a fact that Dr. Hoekema could hardly honestly challenge, since the gifts of the Spirit have been and are still manifested in the Christian church), why does he not take into consideration the repeated emphasis of Adventist writers concerning their official pronouncement – Questions on Doctrine – to the effect that they do not consider White to be an extrabiblical authority, but that her writings are only authoritative in those areas where they are in agreement with the Word of God, which is the final standard for judging all the gifts of the Spirit?
​

 

Martin writes;

It is a serious charge to maintain that any professing Christian group denies justification by grace alone as the basis of eternal salvation; and, if the Adventists were guilty of this, surely there would be ground for considering them as a cultic system. However, literally scores of times in their book Questions on Doctrines, and in various other publications, the Adventists affirm that salvation only come by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

Why is it necessary again for Dr. Hoekema to question the sincerity of the Adventists in this area and yet accept at face value their other statements concerning their faith in the Scriptures, the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ, the absolute necessity of regeneration, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s literal return, is a puzzling inconsistency in his presentation, (See The Four Major Cults, 403).

Dr. Hoekema insists that the investigative judgment and the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath are part of the reasons why he classifies Seventh-day Adventists as cultists, but, in doing this, he makes his Calvinistic interpretation of theology the criterion, while ignoring the claims of the Arminian school and of the semi-Arminian and semi-Calvinistic theologians, many of whom take strong exception to Dr. Hoekema’s pronounced Calvinism.

On the basis that Dr. Hoekema would call Adventists a cult, the same charge could be leveled at all devoted Calvinists who consider the Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin’s Commentaries every bit as much illumination and guides in the study of Scriptures as the Adventists do where White’s writings are concerned. In addition to this, the Seventh-day Baptists are Arminian in their theology, and keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Are they too a non-Christian cult? They certainly meet some of Dr. Hoekema’s qualifications.​

 

Including this on the thread because Walter Martin's approach is to discuss the Bible basis for accepting doctrine and to argue that while he does not agree with every single doctrine of all Christian denominations - he can still determine if the stated doctrine of the group - is within the bounds of Christianity.

============================

They may - but in real life how good is their "bible avoidance" ?? is it as good as yours when your point has run aground?

You claim to be someone who has at least some value for "sola scriptura testing" -- at least on other threads you do that.

In the dark ages - all through the protestant reformation your argument above was precisely the argument made against the way that "sola scriptura" was being promoted as a judge as a test as a rule for testing established church doctrine.

Are you opposing the "sola scriptura" method OR are you now proposing to allow yourself to actually "practice" the sola scriptura testing model in this example of Isaiah 66 and John 9???

 

Martin never claimed to be SDA or to believe all SDA doctrine nor did he claim that only churches/denominations that believed just as he believed could be considered Christians. In fact he hammered Hoekema for basically taking the position "if you are not as Calvinist as I am - then you are not a Christian". That was one of his primary exposed-flaws in Hoekema's book.

Thus it is not entirely necessary to "argue with Martin" over each SDA doctrine that he might wish to tweak so as to bring it over to his POV.

 

BTW - thanks for posting that.

Also notice the NASB for Hebrews 9:3

 

Sadly they are the irrefutable details you can not "spin"

[/quote]

I keep saying that " I BELIEVE" the Bible should be read - and believed and you keep saying "that makes my point!"

So "odd" that you find a way to "spin" all of this into a much-imagined negative.

On the contrary - we see to SDA members who do not mention pork at all on this thread (though you wish to "spin" it to "pork").

And as you were told dozens of times before .. we see affirmation of John 9:41 and Isaiah 66 by these same members on other threads.. at the exact point that you wanted to declare that "reading the Bible" and "believinig it" would be a "bad thing" if it was not in harmony with your "preferences".

Didn't we have enough of that sort of "teaching" in the dark ages Steaver?

Wouldn't you like to join the side of ?sola scriptura testing" where the Bible is not at war with faith in Christ?

These little bible-avoidance games you seem to enjoy are not helping you make a strong case for your preferences.

 

Sadly for you -- I am in the one repeatedly quoting the Bible and you are the one admitting that when I quote the Bible and say I believe the Bible - that this "makes your case" because you have re-imagined that reading and believing the Bible is 'a bad thing' whenever your own preferences don't fit what you find in the text.

How sad Steaver.

Steaver you are extending your Bible-denying doctrine to brand new areas. You have now much-imagined for us that all the NT saints could not be "sola scriptura" Christians if they accepted Agabus, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters and all those in the church of Corinth who claimed to have "a revelation" as prophets because they already had "scripture" -- what is mere in the false teaching you have written via creative writing - you make even the Apostles of the NT to be a cause for NT saints to deny "sola scirptura" testing since they themselves were prophets outside of what the NT saints had in their hands as "scripture".

How sad Steaver that your "spin game" is now getting you to utter teaching that condemns the NT saints -- just because 1 Cor 12 "existed" and just because the saints in 1 Corinth 14 "existed"!!

Come back to the Bible Steaver. come back to reason and to sound doctrine. I have not seen you go this far off the narrow path of pure doctrine in a long time.

 

This substitution of darkness placed in for light is extreme Steaver. Do we ever argue that only if Agabus is found to be a teacher of false doctrine in the NT are the NT saints allowed to be "sola scriptura" testing saints?

Do we ever argue that "only if John is found to be a teacher of false doctrine" can NT saints be using "sola scriptura"?

what utter nonsense.

what "spin"

What "gaming"

There are actual doctrinal differences that we have that could be discussed - but this extreme creative writing, spin, and false teaching that you are inventing on the spot - would not pass muster even among Baptist theologians like Spurgeon. And we both know it.

 

BTW - I think Martin new that SDAs do not declare the "Bible to be in error in Isaiah 66" and still found the Adventist church to not be a cult.

Here then Steaver is a detail your spin doctoring does not appear to " survive "

 

I agree that for "some folks" that concept means nothing.

But that is why I like posting actual scripture so people can "demonstrate" their "need" to avoid the details in the actual text and then go around "blaming the text on others" as if in their mind that sort of "gaming" is a compelling form of discussion.

Everyone has free will - let them demonstrate their embrace or rejection of "Bible details" as they will.

 

Pontifical ruling on your part?
creative writing?
wishful thinking?

In the mean time - we all have Daniel 7 and Romans 2 "in our actual Bibles" instead of having to rely on this pontifical rulings from you... as we call can see.

 

After that extensive "quoting you" and empty false accusation... is this the point where you would be willing to "look" at scripture or do you need to engage in more "creative writing" first?

Will you be troubled if a quote texts that refute your wild speculation in that post?

Have you imagined to yourself that Walter Martin thought the SDAs are "ignoring all the texts you need to ignore" and it is only because of this that he said they are not a cult? How exactly does that story telling go??

 

Is this "you" condemning every saint in the NT who accepted that 1Cor 14 statement about church members having a revelation from God??

Are you "reading" the Bible or just engaged in creative writing???