Cults, Christian Faith and Practice

[DHK]

I on the other hand am constrained to evaluate ALL doctrine "sola scriptura" sir.

we differ in that regard - but I accept it.

in 1cor 12 we SEE God giving the gift of prophecy to the NT church and in 1Cor 14 we SEE God saying "DESIRE earnestly spiritual gifts but ESPECIALLY that you may prophesy".

I believe you would reject that teaching of scripture today.

I do not.

In the same passage we read:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

It seems that you believe only those Scriptures which are convenient to your cult. Why not believe them all?

 

[DQuixote]

When my computer crashes, or my website editor crashes, it reboots and a little box says "Recovering Lost Files". I'd like to see that on the BB, especially for this thread. You can imagine why. :laugh: I'm too tired from working in the yard the past couple of days to reconstruct what would have been THE definitive post, the Gold Standard, the piece de resistance!

Later.........

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: These types of doctrines place the SDA's in the realm of a cult.

The above information was gleaned from:
file:///C:/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/Ency/ency0068.htm#0068_10A5

\HP: How about some sources from a different anvil?

DHK: According to Adventist doctrine, the law works together with grace to justify the believer. Adventism teaches that God, through Jesus, gives a sinner grace to build a holy life after the model of the law. Salvation will be determined by how successful this life is built. While Adventists profess to believe in salvation by grace alone, theirs is a redefinition of biblical grace.

I do not believe you can believe such doctrines and be saved at the same time. Salvation is be grace through faith and faith alone. It is not by faith plus works, which is what the SDA's believe.

HP: I happen to believe, from my many discussions with BR and others, that such a comment is clearly a false charge. I cannot believe you still can say that with a straight face after the many discussions over that subject.

Let me ask you a question DHK. Is adultery sin? Is it a work? How is adultery, according to the Scriptures consummated? Does it take a physical act to commit adultery? Can adultery be accomplished by the mere formation of an intent in the heart without ever doing anything outwardly, as one would normally think of as a work? Is it not true that the mere formation of an intent is the very essence of any and all works, whether of works of righteousness and obedience, or works unto death and disobedience?

To say you have faith without the performance of forming an intent to act in accordance to your faith, is not saving faith for sure. Can faith alone save you? James, an inspired writer of Scripture, states emphatically ‘no.’ Faith is not some nebulous belief, for the devils believe in that sense. Saving faith incorporates not only a belief, but an act of the will in the formation of a intents in accordance with obedience to God’s demands. Any man that has not formed such intents of obedience, and claims to have saving faith, is simply deluded as to the demands of God as shown in His Word.

Is not the formation of an intent a work by man, whether or not to yield ones will to the end of the formation of an intent to believe on Christ, or in the Trinitarian doctrine as some would have us to believe is necessary for salvation? If it is not, explain to the list what a work consists of, and why the formation of intents to ‘believe’ some of the doctrinal positions some say are necessary for salvation are not in fact works. Do they not mandate an act of the will as all works do?

 

[DHK]

\HP: How about some sources from a different anvil?

HP: I happen to believe, from my many discussions with BR and others, that such a comment is clearly a false charge. I cannot believe you still can say that with a straight face after the many discussions over that subject.

Let me ask you a question DHK. Is adultery sin? Is it a work? How is adultery, according to the Scriptures consummated? Does it take a physical act to commit adultery? Can adultery be accomplished by the mere formation of an intent in the heart without ever doing anything outwardly, as one would normally think of as a work? Is it not true that the mere formation of an intent is the very essence of any and all works, whether of works of righteousness and obedience, or works unto death and disobedience?

Salvation is by faith alone. Let me give you one example how they negate this one biblical truth.
If one neglects the Sabbath Day, and worships on the Sunday they have the mark of the beast and are doomed. To have salvation one must keep the sabbath. That is works, and is a works based salvation. Keeping that in mind, salvation is not by grace through faith.

 

[BobRyan]

In the same passage we read:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

It seems that you believe only those Scriptures which are convenient to your cult. Why not believe them all?

You focused on two main points so far --

#1. you can not be saved if you allow women to speak in church.
#2. you can not be saved if you fail to reject 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14.

Let's start a thread -- totally dedicated to your teaching in this regard to see how long it can hold water sir!

BTW - at this point I feel a certain sense of pride in saying of your tactics so far -- "it is THAT kind of thinking that then tries to call SDAs a cult".

I am sure that you too are very happy with your own tactics here -- so I suppose that on THIS point point we can BOTH agree!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

HP: Are those in what you call a cult outside of the faith and in a lost state? Must they first get properly educated on doctrines such as how some view the Trinity before they can repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ?

I can't really answer that for every single person. The leaders who build the doctrine, and thus deceive others with it, knowing what they are doing, yes. Those deceived, and yet think it is really the truth of Jesus, I'm not sure.
I would agree that we should be exercising more care in judging others over the Trinity, because as such a specific formula, it was not fully developed until the 4th century and later. The fathers before then expressed it somewhat differently, and apologists and historians often read the later formula back into their statements, but if their whole views were judged by the Nicene and later standard, they would be considered heretical as well. (like they saw one God the Father, who manifested as Son and Spirit, rather than "three equals"). But most of the "alternatives" to the Trinity offered today (JW's spin on Arianism, Mormon mythology, etc) are clearly heretical to the point of rendering it a false god that cannot save.

Are you defending the practice of slicing and dicing God's word or are you saying that the cults invent new parts of God's Word that don't exist to hold other Christians accountable to?

No, they invent new interpretations, and then accuse those who don't buy them of slicing and dicing the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

If one neglects the Sabbath Day, and worships on the Sunday they have the mark of the beast and are doomed.

hmmm -- good thing we don't let DHK write doctrine for us - aint it!!??:laugh:


When all else fails DHK - "quote yourself" when making up false accusations about other Christians.:tonofbricks:

While it is true that Adventist do NOT DOWNSIZE Christ the Creator's TEN commandments to NINE - as DHK does it is ALSO true that when we observe Christians in violation of The Ten Commandments (for example the RCC on the commandment against idol worship) we have always stated that this alone does not determine that all Catholics can not be saved. Rather "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not to him it is sin". I have consistently maintained on this board that there are many saved saints among our Catholic brethren but I STILL regard idolatry as sin whether it is in the form of worshipping a piece of bread or of praying to images.

The wild an empty-accusation that "this is works" if you ADMIT that breaking the Ten Commandments is sin - does NOT hold up to scripture AND DHK knows it -- but he tries to tell his stories "anyway" hoping that the reader will not look to closely at the details.

The wild and empty-accusation that Adventist doctrine teaches that Christians today who keep Sunday instead of Christ the Creator's Sabbath -- have the mark of the beast is also dead wrong. But I am not sure how much DHK actually knows in that regard since he is pretty consistent about quoting himself to make those false accusations. For all I know he actually believes what he posts. Kinda hard to say with DHK.

I understand that that is the way he has to play the game since the facts just are not with him on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I
I would agree that we should be exercising more care in judging others over the Trinity, because as such a specific formula, it was not fully developed until the 4th century and later.

Recall that John's disciples said to Paul "we have not even heard that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit".

But most of the "alternatives" to the Trinity offered today (JW's spin on Arianism, Mormon mythology, etc) are clearly heretical to the point of rendering it a false god that cannot save.

How does the statement of John's disciples differ from the JW's sir?

Eric said
No, they (cults) invent new interpretations, and then accuse those who don't buy them of slicing and dicing the Bible.

So every time I see YOU with an interpretation of scripture that differs from someone else -- then YOU are declaring yourself to be a member of a cult??

Fascinating!

I did not know you viewed it that way sir!

I learn something every day on this board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

BR,

Would you simply say Yes or No about this question:

Do you believe in the Once-For-All redemption by the Grace of God without need of any works, by believing in the Blood of Jesus and His Death at the Cross?

Do you have to work very hard keeping the Law to maintain the Salvation until the death?

What is the requirements for the Salvation? Tell me simply and shortly.

 

[BobRyan]

By GRACE you are saved through faith and that NOT of works lest anyone should boast.

ALL are sinners ALL are condemned by the Law of God so that no one can recommend themselvs for salvation on any basis at all but the blood of Christ. NO ammount of works EARNS salvation - not by Paul, not by Peter not by you and not by me.

BUT you CAN lose salvation JUST as the Bible says AND on the BASIS that the Bible says you can lose it.

Matt 18 - Forgiveness revoked.
John 15 - those REMOVED from Christ, branches that dry up and are burned to ashes do NOT reattach themselves later to the vine.
Romans 11 like the unbelieving Jews REMOVED from Christ

That is the long and short of it sir.

DHK has argued in effect that if we do not reject the spiritual gifts teaching of 1Cor 12 and 1cor 14 we can not be saved.
He argues in this case that if we do not reject the teaching of Matt 18, and John 15 and Romans 11 regarding the loss of salvation for the saved Christian then we can not be saved.

The bottom line is - I differ with DHK in his reading and rejection of those scriptures.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SBCPreacher]

Cleaver -- now answer a straightforward question.

"Was faith in the God of the BIBLE" required of John the baptizer? John's parents? The family of Timothy?

To quote Steaver :"A simple yes or no will do".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,
Since you missed it earlier, here it is again:
As for John the Baptist or any other Old Testament Saint, James 2:23 says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (NKJV) I believe the same would be true for John the Baptist. Since he did not have the full revelation of God that we have in the Bible, then it was enough that He, too, "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

Now as for the Trinity issue that you are having trouble with, I was saved by faith in the God of the Bible. Now, I will admit that I did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity at salvation. But I did believe that Jesus is God, that God the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit of God is God - not three different Gods, but one God.

Now I'm not saying that someone must confess a complete understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. But they MUST believe that Jesus is God - not another god, or a man who became a god - but God. And that there is no other way to the Father - no other way of Salvation - but by Jesus, God the Son.

OK, go ahead. Fire away!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu:Would you simply say Yes or No about this question:
Do you believe in the Once-For-All redemption by the Grace of God without need of any works, by believing in the Blood of Jesus and His Death at the Cross?

Do you have to work very hard keeping the Law to maintain the Salvation until the death?

What is the requirements for the Salvation? Tell me simply and shortly.

HP: That is a good question for the whole list including yourself. All remarks should be sustainable from scriptural quotes as well.

I would consider ‘striving to enter in’ as something that requires effort, would not you as well? Lu 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

As for remaining faithful, Scripture tells us that “he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.” Jesus said, IF ye keep my commandments, then are ye my disciples indeed.” “He that saith he loveth me, and keepeth not my commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

It is true that God made a once for all atonement, that built the bridge making it possible for all to repent and believe and receive forgiveness. What was NOT accomplished on the cross was the literal payment of the sin debt incurred for any specific sin, or a blanket pardon for any future acts of sin, or the formation of blinders for God’s eyes that prohibit Him from seeing exactly who each of us are and our hearts of obedience unto life, or disobedience unto death.

The requirements to have sins that are past remitted, is to repent for our sins that are past. We are commanded to place our faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross to cleanse our hearts from every stain., for 'sins that are past." We are commanded to have a change of heart towards sin, to the end that we loath sin in our lives just as God does, and our honest goal is to live in accordance to obedience to His Word, and that until the end, with the help He has promised us.

Now lets hear your answer to the questions you pose.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,
Since you missed it earlier, here it is again:
As for John the Baptist or any other Old Testament Saint, James 2:23 says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (NKJV) I believe the same would be true for John the Baptist. Since he did not have the full revelation of God that we have in the Bible, then it was enough that He, too, "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

So then you ARE happy with saints SAVED via believe in the ONE UNCHANGING God of the Bible.

One that we today to be the TRIUNE God and they may not have fully understood it as we do BUT THEY worshipped the ONE true God anyway.

Now as for the Trinity issue that you are having trouble with,

I have no problem with it -- I just don't see any way to hold others accountable to it IF we do not hold Bible saints accountable.

I was saved by faith in the God of the Bible. Now, I will admit that I did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity at salvation. But I did believe that Jesus is God, that God the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit of God is God - not three different Gods, but one God.

Then your view at the start DID NOT match John the baptizer's view OR that if his disciples according to the NT.

Now I'm not saying that someone must confess a complete understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. But they MUST believe that Jesus is God - not another god, or a man who became a god - but God.

I am open to the view that the OT saints would have known that the Messiah was in fact God. But the fact that even Christ's disciples were a little suprised by it - indicates that this knowledge may not have been as common as we would like to think.

And that there is no other way to the Father - no other way of Salvation - but by Jesus, God the Son.

OK, go ahead. Fire away!

Let me be clear. I am not objecting to your doctrinal statements since I too agree to them and this is in fact the teaching of the Adventist church.

What I am trying to get at is the line that we use when judging others that DON't have that understanding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SBCPreacher: Now I'm not saying that someone must confess a complete understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. But they MUST believe that Jesus is God - not another god, or a man who became a god - but God. And that there is no other way to the Father - no other way of Salvation - but by Jesus, God the Son.

HP: Now I like this statement you make. I can also tell you that man has no litmus test to know absolutely when God accepts that belief as belief in the “True” God. No man made statement as to what constitutes the doctrine of the Trinity will suffice. God alone sees the heart of man.

That brings us to the other issue of the OP, concerning ‘practice.’ We can indeed see 'practice', although again we are not perfect judges as to when it comes from the heart, or when in fact one is acting in a hypocrtical fashion as has been mentioned. Just the same, does not practice give us clear insight into a man’s true heart? Have we no abilities granted to us by God to judge, in some limited fashion, the practices of man, whether or not the are in accordance to the Word of God and obedience from the heart as shown by ………………………………….love towards God and man?

How does love operate in telling someone on this list that they are not a Christian, that their heart is not right, that they are doomed for hell, because of beliefs that do not line up with a Baptist site such as DHK quoted from, or because some believe that they are a cult? Should not we as believers error on the side of caution and charity?

 

[Eliyahu]

By GRACE you are saved through faith and that NOT of works lest anyone should boast.

ALL are sinners ALL are condemned by the Law of God so that no one can recommend themselvs for salvation on any basis at all but the blood of Christ. NO ammount of works EARNS salvation - not by Paul, not by Peter not by you and not by me.

BUT you CAN lose salvation JUST as the Bible says AND on the BASIS that the Bible says you can lose it.

Matt 18 - Forgiveness revoked.
John 15 - those REMOVED from Christ, branches that dry up and are burned to ashes do NOT reattach themselves later to the vine.
Romans 11 like the unbelieving Jews REMOVED from Christ

That is the long and short of it sir.


Bob

I don't want to comment the other parts of your post.

But simply I can say your confession is OK for the matter of salvation.

I have several friends of Wesleyan which teaches One can lose the salvation, but surely have the conviction of the salvation.

As for your Bible quotes, I would comment as follows:

Matt 18 : the servant was wrong from the beginning and misunderstood the forgiveness from the beginning: Read verse 26 : I will pay thee all !
Can anyone pay all for their sins? It is a parable and doesn't disprove OSAS! If he believed that his debt was forgiven by Grace, he wouldn't have been so much cruel against his fellow servants !

John 15 : If anyone is born again, he or she abides in Jesus all the time, but any activities departing from the Lord Jesus will be burnt as we read 1 Cor 3:10-15. Read verse 15 - If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
So, what they lose is not the salvation, but the reward for their works.

Again I don't judge the salvation of the people by a few differences in the doctrines, and you may misunderstand many things though you may have the clear and good conviction of Salvation by the Blood of Jesus Christ Once For All. But my conviction is that no one can lose the salvation once the person was accepted by God thru Jesus Christ.

This is how I try to avoid the Friendly Fires which may occur often in the Chrisitan world.

 

[Eric B]

How does the statement of John's disciples differ from the JW's sir?

Again; they are simply confessing that they do not know everything about God; that they had not heard of it. Everything had not yet been revealed yet anyway.
The JW's claim thir view is the absolute truth, and this AFTER the revelation of statements like John 1:1. They then try to manipulate Greek grammar to change that verse. Is this ANYTHING like what John's disciples said? One is teachable, the other is not, but it strying to teach others something wrong.

So every time I see YOU with an interpretation of scripture that differs from someone else -- then YOU are declaring yourself to be a member of a cult??

Fascinating!

I did not know you viewed it that way sir!

I learn something every day on this board.

in Christ,

Bob

It's not a matter of simply "differing from someone else". It depends on what the doctrine is, what the person's alternative to it is, and the difference between confessing ignorance like John's disciples, and deliberately manipulating scripture to teach something it does not really teach. Why can't you see the difference between that and John's disciples?

 

[BobRyan]

Again; they are simply confessing that they do not know everything about God; that they had not heard of it. Everything had not yet been revealed yet anyway.
The JW's claim thir view is the absolute truth, and this AFTER the revelation of statements like John 1:1. They then try to manipulate Greek grammar to change that verse. Is this ANYTHING like what John's disciples said? One is teachable, the other is not, but it strying to teach others something wrong.

Let me put it another way -- the false dealing with scripture and denying the plain truth of the Bible is EXACTLY what Arminians show Calvinists to be doing and it is EXACTLY what Calvinists claim that Arminians do.

But neither group can really seriously use that reasoning to call the other group "a cult" or to charge "they are not saved".

While I agree with you that the JWs are bending scripture I ALSO say that is true of Calvinists -- and Calvinists say that is true of Arminians.

The Point remains sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's not a matter of simply "differing from someone else". It depends on what the doctrine is, what the person's alternative to it is, and the difference between confessing ignorance like John's disciples, and deliberately manipulating scripture to teach something it does not really teach. Why can't you see the difference between that and John's disciples?

I agree completely that John's disciples while not believing in or teaching the doctrine of the Trinity - were not familiar with it and did not actively reject it. You make a good point there.

But the methods you accuse the JW's of using to REJECT the trinity are the SAME methods Calvinist use to reject the Arminian truth in scripture regarding God Loving the World and sending His son to be "the savior of the WORLD" 1John 4. So it is the SAME methods - but a different doctrine that is attacked using those SAME methods.

Is your argument that their METHODS are the problem or is your argument that they used Calvinist methods on Doctrines that the disciples of John believed and THAT is what makes the JW's "a cult"??

Basically I am looking for some level of objectivity when using that kind of subjective term.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

hmmm -- good thing we don't let DHK write doctrine for us - aint it!!??:laugh:


When all else fails DHK - "quote yourself" when making up false accusations about other Christians.:tonofbricks:

Bob

What is it Bob? You deny your own doctrine? Don't believe it? Or ashamed to admit it?

1. "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ... "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." (The Marvel of Nations, Elder U. Smith pages 170, 183)
2. "Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." (Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23)
3. "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)
4. "The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.
5. "The mark of the beast is Sunday-keeping. A law will enforce this upon Seventh-day Adventists. They won't obey. Then they will be outlawed, persecuted, and condemned to death! Of all the wild Advent speculations in the prophecies, this deserves to stand among the wildest." (Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914)
6. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and ALL who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.' .... Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." (Advent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850)
7. "the Seventh day, Saturday, must be kept; that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast; that all should pay tithes; that Mrs. White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible; that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writings" (Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D.M. Canright, 1914)

1. http://www.bible.ca/7-mark-beast.htm

Bob I am not making up YOUR doctrine. There is no need for such false accusations.

 

[BobRyan]

What is it Bob? You deny your own doctrine? Don't believe it? Or ashamed to admit it?
[*]http://www.bible.ca/7-mark-beast.htm
[/list]Bob I am not making up YOUR doctrine. There is no need for such false accusations.

#1. I always look for an ACTUAL quote of it -- but it is usually just you quoting you. Walter Martin did a pretty good job of condemning those tactics though you seem to cling to them "anyway".

#2. As I track your specific false accusations - and show how even your OWN data is not backing you up - you simply abandon one false accusation and flee to another.


I know some groups that are pretty much famous for doing what you are doing here sir.

Hint: Pick SOMETHING that will hold water - and make your stand on THAT -- instead. I am patient ... I can wait for you to go through a litany of non-SDA literature looking for something that is "real".

in Christ,

Bob