HP: I for one believe that I Am Blessed 17, our moderator, owes the list a response to your question after claiming that the SDA group is a cult. I would also like to know if she believes one can be born again and be part of what she terms as a ‘cult.’
Cults, Christian Faith and Practice
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Jul 2, 2007.
Page 3 of 11
-
-
HP: I have read books in the past on the Trinity. After reading them, I came away with more questions than answers. Am I the only one that does not understand the makeup of God and His relation to the Son or the Sons relationship to the Father, or the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son? What must we agree about this mysterious relationship in order to be saved or to keep others from believing we are part of some cult?
It appears to me quite possible that ‘SBC Preacher’ must believe that one has to believe in the Trinity in the way he views it as in accordance to truth in order to be saved. Again, what is this essential element of belief concerning the Trinity that I must accept to be part of the true body of Christ as a born again believer? Do I have to understand it antecedent to gaining salvation or can my understanding of it come subesquent to my entrance into God's family? -
Even in case of JW, if the Deity of JC is the only matter and problem, I can think about the possibility of the Salvation there.( Jesus didn't ask the Robber at the Cross if he knows the Trinitiy). But JW has many more problems than the Deity of JC alone. I don't see any salvation in Mormons.
I don't rule out the Salvation in the SDA as I know some people there having the testimony of the salvation. Remember Paul didn't say the Galatians were not born again from the beginning though they were obssessed with the Legalism.
The people condemning SDA as cults do not condemn the much bigger cults like Roman Catholicism full of idolatry, which is quite curious. -
Here is a quote from “The Kingdom of the Cults “ by Walter Martin. “it is perfectly possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and be a true follower of Jesus Christ despite certain heterodox concepts which will be discussed.”
He classified them as a 'Christian denomination.' It appears as the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, E. Schuyler English and many others have concluded that the SDA’s do not deserve the ‘cult’ label as well. There appears to be no consensus of opinion as to SDA as being a cult, even among those that are studied in the field of cults. -
SBCPreacher Active MemberSite Supporter
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." -
SDA do not deserve to be called Cults just because of their Legalism or Eschatology. In my view there are so many denominations disagreeing about the Eschatology each other. Even I myself disagree with my own church's belief on that issue.
I have many Messianic Jewish Friends who confess Jesus as their Messiah, but keep the Sabbath and diet according to the teachings in Leviticus 11. They have the faith in Jesus but they are rather legalistic. I don't think they deserve to be called Cults. SDA has the similarity to the Messianic Jews. -
HP: That is a given. That is NOT what is being discussed here. What I see is that some, such as yourself, have a presupposition dealing with your particular views of the Trinity that define “God” at least to you. Tell us what those particular beliefs as to what constitutes the Trinity, and where you see the focus of the digression from that core belief.
Let me ask you a question. Do you have to come to know the Trinity as you see it before you come to salvation? Is that belief, as you now see it, a necessary condition for salvation?
What ever happened to 'faith plus nothing?' What ever happened to “you have nothing to do with your salvation, and you have nothing to do in keeping it or loosing it????” Now we have a SB Preacher telling us that indeed you have to formulate certain beliefs concerning the Trinity, in particular, in order to be saved. Is this 'salvation' by the forming of intents to believe some particular way consistent with the ‘orthodox’ (whatever that is) view or what? What ever happened to being predestined by God? Are you telling me that man has to do something in order to be saved, i.e., form intents to believe in the Trinity as you see it?
Possibly we are back to the old “either God chose you to salvation and a particular belief system or He did not scenario.” If that is true all is nothing more than some necessitated to salvation and others are simply necessitated to believe in some other god. Plain old double predestination as Calvin believed.
Which is it Pastor? Are we active or passive in the acceptance of God as you say we must 'understand and believe in a particular way' to be saved and part of the kingdom? Do we formulate these beliefs as a product of our wills or is it just part of being one of the lucky predestined ones? -
HP: That is my opinion as well at this time. I see MANY reasons why I could never be one of them, and Many doctrines and practices that I do not agree with, but I cannot accept the cult label for them again at this time. My feelings are not chiseled in stone.
I appreciate the emails to me concerning their beliefs and practices, and I readily admit there is much that concerns me. I certainly have my reservations about the beliefs of a lot of others as well but I do not count them out of the kingdom necessarily for differing with my beliefs. I may not be able to fellowship with many believers, from numerous denominations due to their feelings towards me, but I can still love them as Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of what they do or say to me, even if in fact they count me out of the kingdom or feel that I belong to some cult and express their desires fro me to worship elsewhere.
I might add that if the Baptist's were to be called a cult, I would take up for them as well.:) -
The above information was gleaned from:
file:///C:/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/Ency/ency0068.htm#0068_10A5 -
A person might already be saved and then afterwards get tangled up in some of these beliefs. (They wouldn't lose their salvation.)
Lacy -
We see that thing all the time today.
When you are talking about "the methods" used to squash dissent this is a favorite one - like calling Martin Luther "a heretic".
Easy to do - hard to defend with "substance" that goes beyond "they find fault with that I believe".
in Christ,
Bob -
Though one might find fault with some of Martin's doctrines - he did get that part correct.
in Christ,
Bob -
SDAs are pro-Trinitarian so this is not an issue of dividing over that doctrinal position -- but this wild idea of just slamming other groups "as it pleases you" instead of holding yourself strictly accountable to scripture is going too far -- I refuse to engage in it.
Others appear to be quite comfortable doing it as often as possible.
in Christ,
Bob -
"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 -
Invariably it comes down to one of two issues --
#1. A Calvinist objecting to the fact that SDAs are Arminian
#2. An Arminian objecting to the fact that SDA HOLD to the idea of FREE WILL EVEN AFTER a person is saved.
a. SDAs refuse to give up the doctrine on perseverance the way "some arminians do"
b. SDAs refuse to give up the doctrine of free will EVEN AFTER salvation the way some other Arminians do.
c. SDAs refuse to "retro delete TODAY's assurance or salvation" when someone fails to "persevere ten years from today"
And we have seen Arminians on this very board who join the SDAs in that particular regarding - holding to the pure sola-scriptura teachings of scripture on this point instead of the man-made traditions of OSAS.
Bascially once the tactics of those two groups are unmasked - the legalism charge evaporates right before the eyes of the objective reader. The charge REQUIRES a certain decree of confusion on the part of the audiance to hold water.
But sadly for those who try use those pejoratives - they are easily exposed.
in Christ,
Bob -
How "suprising"?:applause:
Ok - maybe not surprising at all. :laugh:
The good thing about this board is that now and then a thread subject comes up dealing with one or the other points listed in DHK's list - and each time his efforts to spin the point away from scripture have failed.
in Christ,
Bob -
-
Don't get me wrong DHK - I am not complaining that your methods require that you not actually quote from SDA doctrinal statements. As I have said you have had a lot of opportunity to demonstrate the substance of your claims in threads entirely dedicated to each point listed in your post.
If you could have done it - you would have done so by now
I for one am very happy to discuss each of those subject "sola-scriptura" which (if your wild accusations were to be believed) should make someone in your position very happy since you claim that in that context I would not be successful -- and yet the record shows that I have done just that sir.
As I have just recently demonstrated here regarding the failed accusation of legalism - it is pretty easy to debunk those hollow accusations.
In Christ,
Bob -
-
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.
so -- we differ.
in Christ,
Bob
Page 3 of 11