Featured Seventh Day Adventance

I consider it unfair to call a group a cult when I know little about them. That'd be like someone calling IFB a cult without knowing much about it.

 

Well you should enjoy our SDA Bob Ryan because he doesn't believe in OSAS. Or that Christ actually atoned for our sins on the cross.

Educating yourself about false doctrine is a good thing. It helps to defend the faith once delivered, which is our duty.

 

You should make no conclusions when you know little to nothing, yet you have. It's unwise.

 

No, I follow OSAS.

 

I've arrived at no conclusion as of yet, but I am challenging the ideas expressed here. That and I hate to call a group of people something when I'm not entirely sure it's true.

 

SDAism denies the Deity of Christ and the sufficiency of His atonement alone to save. That equals cult. And it only get's worse, i.e. the teachings of Ellen G. White.

 

You have. You've stated you don't see them as a cult, when you know little to nothing about them. Why make such a defense on something you know nothing of? That's conclusive and unwise. And how can you 'challenge' ideas expressed here when you have no knowledge of that system? What you're doing in essence is defending them based upon nothing. That's ridiculous my friend.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. I asked about SDA's view on Jesus--so they deny Jesus' deity? Thanks.

Although denying Jesus' deity doesn't make them a cult anymore than believing Jesus is God makes mainstream Christianity a cult. To my understanding, a cult is more about controlling people than it is about doctrine.
As to E.G. White, I did concede that you may be right there.

 

It has more to do with the fact that I don't like to label people unfairly anymore than I want to be labelled unfairly.

 

Let's forget about the word cult. Let's decide if these beliefs are truly Biblical and Christian. How about that?

Denying the Deity of Christ is not Biblical and is not Christian, and no lie is of the truth. This doctrine is not Christianity nor Biblical truth. So, we have to accept the fact of how weighty doctrine actually is in examination of what is truly Christian and what is not (Proverbs 20:23).

You also must understand the controlling element of Ellen G White. Her doctrine controls that sect. Denounce her teachings and you are castigated. They've developed many twists and turns to defend her false prophecies. Bottom line, that in itself is controlling. It's no different than if one were a Mormon and challenged the teachings of Joseph Smith. Out you go if you do, then you are shunned, and the same thing happens in SDA groups. So back to the word cult we go.

 

But friend, you have unfairly labelled them. You've given them an out when you should not have. That is dangerous and unwise.

 

We agree on the Biblical aspect.

Would you consider the Amish to be a cult? They practice shunning and consider it Biblical. (In fact it might bear some similarities to the IFB concept of practicing separation.) But other than that, the Amish don't appear to be very controlling, although the rules they abide by tend to be strict. But they also allow their children a choice when they come of age as to whether they want to become Amish or not.


JW I know to be a cult, knowing of someone who left them and how she was treated. In fact, if a member who left decides to return, they are punished severely for having left in the first place.

 

Or maybe I'm just withholding my judgement until I feel I can come to a solid conclusion. Either way, I'll not argue this point further as it adds little to the discussion.

 

Good question. Shunning by the Church is Biblical, yet shunning in and of itself does not equal cult. It is Biblical to shun some who sow discord, do not walk right, cause division &c. Orthodox churches follow this Biblical mandate, but they are nonetheless orthodox in teaching, yet these are labelled a cult for doing so. But the term cult is over used. I prefer to look at it in this way: is said group truly Christian and orthodox? SDA's, JW's, Mormonism are not. There are many more and this is why we must arise to the level of Hebrews 5:11ff. The sad part is when you see true believers giving them an out, not based on Scripture, but based on sentimentalism and an unscriptural view of love, mixed with the ideology of politically correct tolerance.

 

I understand what you are trying to convey, but that said giving them the out you've given is unwise and is an uneducated guess.

Let me put it to you like this: How would you accept a preacher who came to your church, and denied the Deity of Christ, denied the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ, and preached the words of a modern day prophet who had heretical doctrines and also failed in being a true prophet due to failures in fulfillment?

 

My church would not let them preach there, for starters.

And I would be something of the stance of "You have every right to that belief, but I don't believe scripture says that." I would tend to shy away from debate if possible because I don't consider myself schooled enough to go into an in-depth debate--I would leave it to those who know what they are talking about and if I was spoken to directly I would answer as best I can.
Also, it wouldn't be the right time or place for them to preach their ideals.

 

I see. Yet we have 2 Timothy 3:15ff and 4:1ff that teach us how to handle such issues which you should follow and uphold. You are no different than others in the church who are called to uphold these things, as I am fairly certain you know these passages and also Jude 3.

That said, there is never a right place or time for them to preach their false doctrine. They are to be opposed as Scripture mandates. But what we see these days is apathy, cop-outs, timidity and shirking of responsibility. Not one of these stances is Scriptural or Christian yet many today think doing these things is being Christian and peaceful when it is actually unChristian and instead of being peace it is appeasement toward doctrines of devils.

 

You probably aren't speaking of government regulation when you say they shouldn't be allowed to preach anywhere, but I do believe they have a right to preach in their own circles and to outreach as they desire as much as we do. In the eyes of the government, that is; if freedom of religion is to be preserved, this must be so. Otherwise we give the government power to regulate not only non-Christian religions, but Christianity itself as well. That's dangerous. But as I said, you probably aren't saying the government should control it.

Jesus' parable about the wheat and the tares applies here, IMO. We don't have to promote or agree with others' positions in the slightest, especially if they are indeed unBiblical, but we can't oust it ourselves either.
Teaching and rebuking in faith and love I totally get--doing so forcibly, just no.

 

Just beware when driving through Emerson--it's a speed trap.

 

Governmental and Biblical mandates are separate issues. Government allows it, Scripture tells us to rebuke it and that is the enigma of the USA but US government does not supplant Biblical doctrine.

Yes, we will never rid the kingdom of this, but we are to warn others and point it out, and that is all we are doing here. Reproving, rebuking, correcting, instructing, comforting. True preaching is polemic in nature which is why many hate it today, they've been conditioned to be politically correct and tolerant.