Seventh-day Adventists - not a cult according to Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults"

[church mouse guy]

I always defend SDA. You have to look at each church, but most of them are Christian. I have met and worked with many of them here in Indianapolis. They once held their national convention here. Also, Indianapolis is home to Dr. Cory SerVas, editor of the Saturday Evening Post.

Walter Martin wasn't the only one to stand up for the SDA. SDA members in Indianapolis are often very friendly and quite interested in good health and good nutrition as Dr. SerVas clearly is.

 

[Jerome]

I just had to chuckle, seeing this at the Redeemer NYC (PCA) church website:

Kathy Keller:

"on April 4, 1989, Redeemer Presbyterian Church held its first worship service. We met at the Church of the Advent Hope, at 111 East 87th Street, a Seventh-Day Adventist Church,...which would be Redeemer’s home for the next four years."

 

[robycop3]

I posted some of EGW's false prophecies in a couple of now-closed threads.

Scripture gives a nutshell description of SDA:

2 Tim. 3:
having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

 

[utilyan]

You have placed the full weight of your soul in the hands of a woman who had a third grade education, took a severe blow to the head as a young age, made many false predictions, inserted man-made extra-biblical laws, denies the gospel of grace, and you think I've done something wrong. That's rich.

God leaving things in the hands of a underdog is nothing new.

If SDA were a cult there would not even be any dialogue between us.

They would just flat out ignore their opposition. Just like you are going to ignore this post.
Shunning/Ignoring is central to a cult, IGNORANCE and ignorant people, ignore what they disagree with.

Despite their pretty paranoid view of my faith, i'm pretty confident SDA view of God is a Kind and Loving God.


Calvinist Character of GOD however........... I couldn't insult God more than Calvinist do if I TRIED.

Because you actually BELIEVE and buy into what would be considered flat out evil.


A Muslim's idea of God is better then a Calvinist.

If the character of God from every religion was person for a day and he walked upon lake with 10 kids drowning in it. It would be pretty easy to pick the Calvinist God, he's the one who lets some kids drown, even though he could save them, just to show the how much they should appreciate his "mercy".

Not even a Muslim God would let those kids drown.


I'll take a crazy prophetess with a GOOD GOD over a EVIL GOD any day.

 

[church mouse guy]

I posted some of EGW's false prophecies in a couple of now-closed threads.

Scripture gives a nutshell description of SDA:

2 Tim. 3:
having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

I'm only a casual observer and a layman but I could never get interested in Ellen White's writings. Isn't she fading with time?

 

[thatbrian]

I always defend SDA. You have to look at each church, but most of them are Christian. I have met and worked with many of them here in Indianapolis. They once held their national convention here. Also, Indianapolis is home to Dr. Cory SerVas, editor of the Saturday Evening Post.

Walter Martin wasn't the only one to stand up for the SDA. SDA members in Indianapolis are often very friendly and quite interested in good health and good nutrition as Dr. SerVas clearly is.

We aren't discussing how well manicured one's lawns are. We are discussing theological beliefs. Many "nice" people hold to doctrines which have their origins in the heart of Satan.

​

 

[church mouse guy]

​

We aren't discussing how well manicured one's lawns are. We are discussing theological beliefs. Many "nice" people hold to doctrines which have their origins in the heart of Satan.

​

Please tell me which doctrines you label as satanic, ThatBrian. In the essentials, I think that SDA is Christian. Everyone has a few odd things that are unimportant in his doctrinal system as long as those things are peripheral. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

 

[BobRyan]

I posted some of EGW's false prophecies in a couple of now-closed threads.

Scripture gives a nutshell description of SDA:

2 Tim. 3:
having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

Posts that prove nothing and merely accuse ...are the best forms of "hot air" style opposition one could hope for

 

[BobRyan]

Please tell me which doctrines you label as satanic, ThatBrian. In the essentials, I think that SDA is Christian. Everyone has a few odd things that are unimportant in his doctrinal system as long as those things are peripheral. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

That is precisely the conclusion that Walter Martin came to in his book as he totally destroyed Hoekema's false and shallow arguments against the SDA denomination.

 

[BobRyan]

We aren't discussing how well manicured one's lawns are. We are discussing theological beliefs.

That would be an interesting and welcomed "change" from the direction you have been going so far - at least in your posts.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm only a casual observer and a layman but I could never get interested in Ellen White's writings. Isn't she fading with time?

More specifically - SDAs have never used Ellen White's writings to prove their doctrinal positions so the entire "I want to talk about Ellen White and not the Bible" diatribe here by a small group is a sign that some people here are not even reading the material they claim to know so much about ... nor reading the posts on Baptist Board.

All evangelistic programs, outreach, Bible study - (and of my posts here) -- make their doctrinal case "sola scriptura". Which is the "last thing" some folks here are interested in doing.

 

[BobRyan]

I always defend SDA. You have to look at each church, but most of them are Christian. I have met and worked with many of them here in Indianapolis. They once held their national convention here. Also, Indianapolis is home to Dr. Cory SerVas, editor of the Saturday Evening Post.

Walter Martin wasn't the only one to stand up for the SDA. SDA members in Indianapolis are often very friendly and quite interested in good health and good nutrition as Dr. SerVas clearly is.

Good point. Paul Harvey another great example of a non-SDA that had a lot of good things to say about them.

And of course - Dr.Ben Carson who ran as a Presidential Candidate - another example of an Adventist in the news.

Also Adventists are well known as the group that started the "Creation Science" movement defending the Bible account of creation.

 

[BobRyan]

Exhibit One. From The Adventist Review, December 23, 1982.
Also appeared in Ministry, February 1983.

AFFIRMATIONS

1. We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
4. We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
5. We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
6. We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
7. We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
8. We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
9. We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
10. We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.

DENIALS

1. We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
2. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.
3. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.
4. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
5. We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
6. We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
7. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
8. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
9. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.
10. We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.

I keep meaning to continually post your list - thanks for doing it for me

 

[BobRyan]

1. We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
4. We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
5. We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.

What remains black in the above statement is meaningless

How sad

 

[BobRyan]

. How much poison in a glass of water is safe for consumption? Of course you will say that you are sola scriptura, but you also say that a deluded woman guides your understanding of that scripture, which completely undermines sola scriptura.

You are twisting the position of others -- if you really thought you had a case you would ask me something about doctrine and see if I said "This scriputre means - this - because Ellen White said so" RATHER than my saying "here are well known non-SDA bible scholars and translators that freely admit this scripture means -- this--"... And we ALL know it!!

Constant attempts to misstate and mislead not at all as well disguised as you may have at first imagined to yourself.

 

[thatbrian]

Please tell me which doctrines you label as satanic, ThatBrian. In the essentials, I think that SDA is Christian. Everyone has a few odd things that are unimportant in his doctrinal system as long as those things are peripheral. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

You obviously don't now anything about the SDA, and I'm sure they like it that way. They would rather you judge, as you have, their outward appearance and fail to see the doctrines of demons behind it.

 

[BobRyan]

You obviously don't now anything about the SDA,

That is true of you -- not sure if it is true of those you falsely accuse

 

[thatbrian]

That is true of you -- not sure if it is true of those you falsely accuse

What don't I know, that Ellen White suffered brain damage from being hit with a rock as a child? Or, that she claimed to speak for God yet her "prophesies" failed to come to pass? Or, that people like you use her writings in order to understand God's word? Maybe it's the legalism and self-righteousness that I don't understand - the gospel-less message of law-keeping in the SDA. Maybe I don't quite get that?

 

[BobRyan]

What don't I know, that Ellen White suffered brain damage from being hit with a rock as a child?

That bit of common news about her childhood seems to be your great accomplishment so far.

Yet on this very thread you claimed you were actually looking at doctrine instead of mere "fluff" --

How "instructive"

 

[BobRyan]

thatbrian said: ↑
. How much poison in a glass of water is safe for consumption? Of course you will say that you are sola scriptura, but you also say that a deluded woman guides your understanding of that scripture, which completely undermines sola scriptura.

You are twisting the position of others -- if you really thought you had a case you would ask me something about doctrine and see if I said "This scriputre means - this - because Ellen White said so" RATHER than my saying "here are well known non-SDA bible scholars and translators that freely admit this scripture means -- this--"... And we ALL know it!!

Constant attempts to misstate and mislead not at all as well disguised as you may have at first imagined to yourself.

people like you use her writings in order to understand God's word?

Ok now one more time ... slowly

- if you really thought you had a case you would ask me something about doctrine and see if I said "This scriputre means - this - because Ellen White said so" RATHER than my saying "here are well known non-SDA bible scholars and translators that freely admit this scripture means -- this--"... And we ALL know it!!

Constant attempts to misstate and mislead not at all as well disguised as you may have at first imagined to yourself