SAVED even if you don't reject 1Cor 12 and 1cor 14?

Bob, please understand that the word doctrines (of the SDA) is a plural word.
The gift of prophecy is a singular doctrine.
How can one doctrine of the SDA convict the entire movement of being a cult? It is possible in some cases. But that is not what I said. I said that no one can believe the doctrines of the SDA (undersanding them all, and at the same time understand the gospel and still be possible. The same is true with Catholicism.
The Catholics believe in the trinity. The Pentecostals believe in the gift of prophecy, as well as some Baptists. Does either condemn them to Hell? Of course not. Do all the collective doctrines of the Catholic Church make the Catholic a false religion? Yes. Do all the collective doctrines of the SDA make it a cult? The answer is an unequivocal yes!!

 

Bob you have brought the issue of salvation into this conversation. I did not. So everytime you make one of these wild accusations you make a false accusation, innuendo, something that will eventually get you suspended. I request that you stop. I have said repeatedly that the matter of women disobeying the commands of Scripture concerning silence and the other related commands of Scripture are directly to obedience and not to salvation. For you to go on in this vein will only lead to your suspension. That is a fair warning.

I don't expect anything else to be said about this matter again.

 

We still have to be careful even creating a limit to the number of suposedly wrong doctrines before a person or group is "unsaved". I would say it is certain doctrines that deny the Gospel or who God is that would count, and even then, we have to be truthful as to whether it really denies the Gospel.

#1, 2 and 7 involve a dispute as to which laws we are to keep, and I have certainly been battling Bob, and some others in the past on that. But just because you do not believe we need to keep those laws does not mean that a person is denying salvation by faith just because he believes they are mandatory. Just think if you ran across a Christian who believed adultery was OK. You would probably deny he was saved, but then he could accuse you of "Redefining the grace of salvation to include the works of the law". You would respond that that was different; the Bible clearly condemns adultery. If a person has "faith", he would not do that. But then the sabbatarian believes the same thing about the sabbath. Those are but two separate commands of the same Law. The difference is in which laws we believe are still in effect. The SDA's as much as they argue with us, at least grant us the benefit of the doubt and say we are still saved, and won't have the mark of the Beast until the issue is made more clear. I reject that too, but I cannot say it is a denial of the Gospel.
The old-line IFB type fundamentalists, on the other hand, have a bunch of rules that are the same way.

You (DHK), for instance, have argued against contemporary music, with God accepting only traditional music, particularly in Church; which is one of their key doctrines of "separation". Now you do not claim that a person who listens to rock is "unsaved"; but just "disobedient". But that's exactly what the SDA's say about not keeping the sabbath. But which issue, as a matter of "obedience" can you actually find in the Bible? (This could never be answered in the old music debates!)

On the other hand, the music doctrine, rather then being biblical, is also ultimately tied in with cultural superiority, though most are unaware, or refuse to see it. And let's not forget how racism was more openly advocated int he past by "conservative Christians", and many still hold onto it in different ways. Many argue that America was a Christian nation ruined by all the "godless", "immoral", "multicultural", "liberal", etc. (in other words; everyone else's sins but theirs) in recent generations. Others are KJVO, with one claiming "All truth is English truth". Then other old rules in the past, such as meticulous skirt and hair measurements, total beard and mustache bans (as to not look like the "godless" or something like that). Yet most of our apologists have never condemned them like that. No, they are looked up to as the "standard" modern Christians, society and "the cults" have fallen from, and should return to!

However, all of these doctrines chipping away at the core of the Gospel, and pointing to some form of self-righteousness, and self-exaltation; often in the name of the works of the Law. Yet the same people will condemn the sabbatarians for "denying the Gospel of Grace in favor of the works of the Law". But at least the sabbath was actually apart of the Law! That means there is more scriptural support in the Bible for the sabbath than for any of those doctrines.
So the SDA's, if you want to stack up wrong doctrines, are far less worse than some of the very circle of Christians who define the "orthodoxy" they are judged by!

#2 and 3 are at best debatable. Those do not change the Gospel of how one may be saved, or who God is. But since they remove some of the fear element, that is why they are non-negotiable to fundamentalists. Even people like Billy Graham, who do not teach annihilation, but claim the fire may be symbolic of some other pain are railed against by old-liners are having denied the faith. "How can we win souls without being able to scare them with Hell?" But that is not what the Gospel depends on.
#2 in particular can be argued as what necessitates a Resurrection, while the standard view of spirits/souls floating straight to Heaven or Hell, being raised out millennia later, and then judged, then then sent back to where they were, renders the Resurrection redundant. It basically leads to the common cartoon image of Heaven or Hell as the person being judged at Peter's gate immediately, and then taking an escalator or elevator up or down to your destination.

So to judge the SDA's as unsaved on that one, again, is ridiculous, particularly considering all of the less-biblical or completely unbiblical doctrines many so-called "orthodox" or "fundamentalists" believe.

#5 and 6 I say are ridiculous doctrines that have no biblical basis, and many SDA's probably don't even dwell on them. But again, with all of the other fluff believed under the banner of "orthodox Protestatantism"; I don't see how those can be salvation issues either.

One aspect of #1 touches upon the OSAS debate (the so-called "saved by faith, but not without works", and "perseverance" arguments), and that would be the closest to denying salvation by faith, but even then, there are many others, including right here who agree with that. (But because they keep Sunday and believe in the immortal soul, they get over). That doctrine we may see as implying a denial of salvation by faith, but you can argue that it is simply ceasing to believe that revokes salvation, and it would not be based on works.

The Catholic doctrines can be seen as explicitly denying salvation by faith, as well as making other gods out of inanimate objects and dead saints; and they even appeal to extrabiblical sources to justify all of this. So there is a better case with them. But since they believe in the Trinity, Sunday, and the immortal soul, some, such as our leading apologists have even gone soft on them. SDA's get an appendix in Kingdom of the Cults, where their "culthood" is fairly weighed; and in other books, are considered, full blown, one of the "four major cults". But all of these books left out the RCC. (It is mostly the findamentalists who have been consistent in condemning them, and Hanegraaf has now stepped up separate literature on them where the old CRI under Martin did not).
JW's and Mormons change who Jesus is, as well as flatly denying salvation by faith. So there is no dispute on them.

But for the SDA's, I would agree with CRI's balanced assessment of them.

 

Our standard is the Word of God. If a movement does not measure up to the Word of God it becomes aberrant in its theology and if it continues down that road it becomes heretical. Putting too much emphasis on any one doctrine eventually becomes a heresy. For example the Oneness Pentecostal put so much emphasis on tongues that eventually they made it a requirement for salvation, thus salvation became works base instead of faith based.

They don't dwell on them because they are the two doctrines that damn them the most. They are the two doctrines out of all of them that put them into the realm of a cult. They give Ellen G. White the position of an inspired prophetess, that is, an authority other than the Bible alone. This is no different than the Mormons relying on the Book of Mormon; the J.W.'s relying on Charles Taze Russel or Watchtower publications; the Catholics relying on their catechism, Oral Tradition, and the Magesterium; and even the followers of Jim Jones relying on his words. They all have a leader other than the Bible. It is characteristic of a cult to do so. Whereas a true believer has the Bible as their only authority in all matters of faith and practice.

#6, you need to examine carefully. Of course they don't want to examine that in public. It denies the full atonement of Christ. In effect Christ is still making an atonement for our sins in heaven. His work on the cross was never finished. Any doctrine that attacks the work of Christ automatically puts it in the realm of cult. It was agreed upon in an earlier thread that any belief that doctrine that attacks the person of Christ, such as the trinity or the deity would put that movement into the realm of a cult. This doctrine does the same thing. It attacks the very work that Christ did on the cross. It attacks the atonement.
For more information on the SDA's see:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s18.html

 

Re Post 105, Eric B --

A good effort to be fair and Christian.
Yet I feel uneasy. I don't trust you, Eric B! Have I seen you take your stand on any one 'doctrine' squarely? I cannot recall.
About the Sabbath. "Who is not with us, is against us." It's familiar; and applies to any pivotal doctrine of the Christian Faith. If you are not for the Sabbath 100% like Jesus was, you're against it 100% like antichrist is. To be for the Sabbath like the Jews are - because of the Law - is to be against the Sabbath on a Christian basis solely. The SDAs have not discovered the Christian Sabbath; in fact, they reject it knowingly. The Sabbath class the SDAs under 'cult', therefore.

 

"... the full atonement of Christ. In effect Christ is still making an atonement for our sins in heaven. His work on the cross was never finished." DHK on SDA-tism.

GE:

Yes. What Jesus should have finished 'on the cross', they say He is still doing 'in heaven' -- to atone for sin.

But we who reject their view, how do we understand Christ's 'finished' atonement? Because Jesus did not, finish atonement / reconciliation / redemption / forgiveness, 'on the cross'! That is Roman Catholic heresy! They end right where the Jews end : with "the life in the blood", in other words, in death.

But, says John Owen, "the death of death in the death of Christ"! What is that, "the death of death"? It is LIFE in the resurrection of Christ "FROM THE DEAD"! Jesus completed, finished, atonement / salvation / reconciliation / forgiveness, in OFFERING, his LIFE, and in His LIFE, OFFERING, his blood, for the forgiveness of sin through, and in, and with, and by, and for, having RISEN from the dead. This is where Atonement was ended: Where LIFE - New Life - had begun.

We must never leave it unsaid! Because without Jesus' resurrection the Gospel is NOT proclaimed, but hushed.

 

I am not referring to the resurrection. John 19:30: "It is finished." The work of salvation was finished at that point in time. There was nothing that man could do. Jesus paid it all. As the song writer put it:

Jesus paid it all;
All to Him I owe.
Sin had left a crimson stain.
He washed it white as snow.

The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection proclaims His victory over sin and death. That is true. Without the resurrection there would be no gospel. But the sin was paid with the blood of Christ. Keeping all of that in mind here is what the SDA's believe on that essental doctrine of the Christian faith:

And that is only a part of this heretical doctrine. It has other implications as well.

 

My point was, the same can be said about so-called "orthodox evangelicalism", or "fundamentalism" or IFBism, or whatever you ascribe to. They have their "tradition" as well, though they don't call it that --as much. Let alone "our godly heritage", particular Christian preachers of the past, etc. Most everyone claims their standard is the Word of God, but they can still be in error on it. If any of your beliefs turn out to not be the right interpretation of the Word of God, then you will have condemned yourself.

Well, I can't defend that one. But still, you're claiming it denies the Work of Christ because He is still making some atonement in Heaven. But this, from what I understand, is not to deny "it is finished", but is some sort of spiritual action, conjured up just to save their "1844" date significance. That is a bad doctrine with a bad reason for being, but I still think it is a bit too much to claim they are a cult or unsaved. "Cult" basically is more of an exclusive group (such those who claim only they are saved, and that one must observe all their unbiblical rules to be saved). Some IFB's almost fall into that line of thinking.

 

Well, where are you taking a stand, squarely? You attack me, here (for who knows what reason), and attack the SDA's together, with your peculiar concept of the sabbath that seemingly only you hold.

 

You think you have shown these points Bob, but in reality you haven't. Considering point #3, one might conclude it is non sequitor. It has nothing to do with nothing. I never brought salvation into this issue. You did. You keep harping on it. You infer it. I have asked you to stop. And yet you continue? Why? I am at the point of taking all of these voluminous posts that deal with salvation and presenting them to the administrative council. I detest false accusations.

Let me give you an example with another religion.
1. Lutherans believe in infant baptism (I disagree with infant baptism)
2. Lutherans beleve in constubstantiation. (I also disagree with this doctrine)
3. Therefore because I disagree with Lutherans, all Lutherans are not saved.
--Bob, I never said that. And that is precisely your logic. It is flawed, ridiculous, and for you to bring salvation into this conversation simply is a false accusation which needs to be dealt with. In simple terms it is a lie!

You haven't convinced me and probably no one else. For example, there are not many who are going to accept such flimsy arguments as OT examples of Deborah supposedly having a NT "gift of prophecy" that was given precisely for the edificaton of the NT churches. That is the most laughable defence of your doctrine that you could possible put forward. We don't live under the Judges. We live in the NT age commonly called the Church Age. But that is just one example.

Perhaps some of them pertain to Hinduism and Voodooism too. I haven't checked. The reason being is that the thread was specifically geared to the doctrines of the SDA. If you want me to check the other cults and world religions I can do that for you.

 

GE:

Not only I. The number is growing day by day. But even were I the only one, it would make no difference, I'll still 'take my stand' on it 'squarely'. How many stood with Luther when he said, Here I stand ...? (Now you will tell me do I think I am Luther? I would still, not mind!)

 

BR:

"What if they agreed with whatever your favorite list is - EXCEPT for this ONE regarding the trinity? -- does this one alone cause a problem or do you need a special combination? IF a combination is needed - what is it?"

GE:

If I may vent my opinion for whatever it might be worth, the answer is, they for this reason only, may not be allowed the title and honoyr of being Christians!