This is the start of a discussion that I did not want to have, especially on this forum, but due to the events over the last 6 months since Greg and I were suspended without warning from FAF Online, I now must speak out about my experience in more detail than I have done so in the past.

Dale Ratzlaff, the chairman of the board and founder of “Life Assurance Ministries” wrote an excellent book called ‘Cultic Doctrine of Seventh Day Adventists’ in which he and the writer of the forward, Ken Samples, did a great job objectively detailing the cultic aspects of Adventism, and especially the Investigative Judgment.

In that book Dale was very clear that Adventists are not in the same category as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons in that at least SDA is orthodox on the Trinity and the person of Christ. Just over one year ago, I emailed Dale, and he affirmed that he stood by his book.

Over the past year or so, it has become increasingly evident that those who are publishing Dale Ratzlaff’s magazine, “Proclamation!” clearly disagree with the conclusions of their chairman and founder articulated in his book, “Cultic Doctrine”, yet the book is still being advertised and sold.

FAF online, moderated by Dale Ratzlaff’s publishers, Colleen and Richard Tinker, continuously encourages statements that affirm the following:

1. The SDA Jesus is a Demon

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5462.html?1177938150

2. The SDA church is a Satanic Cult (This statement can be found on multiple threads)

3. Ellen White was a Satan Worshipper and a Satanist, and demon possessed, and is currently burning in Hades

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5806.html?1184877336

4. Doug Batchelor is demon possessed

The above statements have been made multiple times, and NEVER has the moderator or administrator of that discussion forum stepped in and moderated these statements. In fact, when some of us have challenged these statements, stern warning letters have been issued warning that those who protest this are being divisive, and if the challenges continue, then expulsion has been the promised result.

The above statements are so far outside the pale of credibility, that I see the FAF group in danger of becoming a cult-like group. There are many other reasons why I fear this is happening.

I am very reluctant to speak out on this, since I had the privilege of having wonderful fellowship for over one year with the Tinkers, and many of the Bible study fellowship group. I was a member of their Bible study group for 18 months. I was blessed and grew spiritually as a result of the Bible study and the wonderful fellowship, having dinner on many Friday nights after the Bible study was over. I wrote about my experience with the FAF Bible study group here:

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/5370/3195.html?1119994327

The Tinkers were very interested in my story of how my Dad and I left Adventism, and I agreed to publish my story in Proclamation, and you can find it linked here (you will have to scroll down to find it):

http://rtinker.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf

As my involvement continued with this group, I saw some warning signs that were disturbing, but I ignored these warning signs for a long time. I remained very dedicated to the support of FAF and Proclamation. I made over 2000 posts on FAF.

Greg and I were suspended from FAF without warning, after we challenged Colleen’s contention that “there is no Adventist who knows the true Jesus”. Instead of dealing with our arguments, they chose to suspend us, but they offered to meet with Greg and me initially, and when we took them up on their offer with a specific time and place, it was like we called their bluff, and they then refused to meet with us, with no specific reason given.

Recently, a well thought out and highly credible post by our good friend Gabriel (aka Jackob on FAF) was quickly deleted because it challenged some of the assertions that the most vocal person over there made, and questioned the “groupthink” mentality that FAF has seemed to have fallen in to. And when others on FAF directly questioned the moderators on this with a separate thread, then one of their posts was deleted, and the thread asking where Jackob was, was immediately closed to replies.

The Tinkers have made the claim many times that FAF is an open forum, and that they are not responsible for the extreme posting, yet why are the extreme posts allowed to stand, without moderation, and those who write well reasoned, and intellectually stimulating posts, censored, and those challenging them banned?

This is similar to the way SDA forums are conducted.

Isn’t it inteesting, that those who claim to have the truth, and have it all figured out, somehow won’t defend their positions on an open forum? Instead, it is necessary to remove posts, and ban those who disagree with them?

Isn’t this what Ellen and James White did in their day? Ballenger openly challenged Ellen’s position on the sanctuary, and it wasn’t long before he was accused of being divisive, and doing the work of Satan, and therefore he was effectively removed from the church. I see a similar spirit at work today on SDA forums, as well as former SDA forums.

This FAF group, none of them who have any formal training in theology or apologetics, are completely at odds with the responsible apologetic community. Even those who may regard SDA as a cult, would not agree with their conclusions as stated in the last Proclamation regarding SDA’s belief in the person of Jesus. They always claim that the evangelical community just doesn’t understand them, and they openly declare that their own pastor doesn’t understand why SDA should be labeled a cult, just like Mormons.

They diminish the research of Walter Martin, Kenneth Samples, and Craig Hawkins, all who are or were trained in formal apologetics.

Don’t get me wrong, I have deep theological problems with the SDA church, and so do the above apologists. But, what is gained by name-calling and making accusations against the SDA church and Ellen White, that cannot be proven or substantiated?

The result of all this, is that former Adventists as a group get categorized by SDA apologists as being extreme and hateful, especially when the extreme positions are so frequently stated and left to stand without comment?

There is so much good that the FAF online group has accomplished, and they do provide needed support for those who have been badly bruised by the legalism of SDA doctrines.

The purpose of this post is to call our friends on FAF about what I believe to be the seriousness of this situation. The only reason I am writing on this forum, is because I no longer have a voice on their forum, where I would like to post the above.

The leadership of FAF and LAM, as well as those who disagree with what I have posted, have the freedom to come on here and answer my concerns. This is not meant to be an FAF bashing opportunity, but is meant as constructive criticism, and to help in bringing the former SDA community into a responsible position.

May the Lord be with us all when we are discussing the great doctrines of the gospel, and may we ever be charitable to those who disagree with us. There are many fine Christian people in Adventism, who do need to know the blessed freedom that a walk with the Lord Jesus can mean, and what freedom a better understanding of the gospel of grace can mean.

Stan

Here are some quotes from Dale Ratzlaff’s book “Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists”

P.333 A Word of Caution

“When evaluating SDAs...we should not make sweeping generalizations. I am often asked, “Do SDAs have salvation? The same question could be asked of any person of any denomination, and the answer should always be the same. Those who rely on the perfect life of Christ for their righteousness; who recognize that Christ died for their sins; who believe that Christ was raised from the dead for their justification; who believe that they are now, by faith, seated in heavenly places and are already victorious in Christ Jesus, have eternal life.”
---------------------------------------------------------
Think about the above quote. Is this advice of Dale Ratzlaff being heeded on the website that represents his ministry? The publishers of Proclamation, make these sweeping declarations on a regular basis.

It was because of Colleen’s sweeping generalization “No Adventist knows the true Jesus” that we protested openly on FAF, and that is what led to us getting suspended.

And what kind of a sweeping generalization is the statement:  “The SDA Jesus is a Demon”?

This would contradict Dale’s clear statement in the summary of his book in Chapter 8 which affirms that Adventism is orthodox on the Trinity and the person of Christ. This is also the position of every respected apolologist since the time of Walter Martin in 1958.

On page 335 of Dale’s book under chapter summary:

point number 8. “Contemporary Historic Adventism may be cultic, but not to the same degree as many other cults”.
--------------------------------------------------------

Regularly on FAF, we see the contradictory statements to the above.

So, I am confused. What is the official position of Life Assurance Ministries now on Adventism and the SDA Jesus?

Since Dale Ratzlaff’s book is still being advertised and sold, I would have to assume that his book is the official position, but you certainly would not know this if you read FAF online on a regular basis. Why the disparity?

I would welcome clarifications on the above points.

Stan

Good post Stan and hopefully others who feel the same way (or don’t) from FAF will come over to offer some explanations.

Notice the purpose of the forum:

“To be a safe, supportive, and healing environment for questioning, transitioning, and former Adventists, and those associated with them.”

A ‘questioning’ Adventist surely is not accepted on such a site where brow beating of formers who challenge a few things seems to be the norm, nevermind an SDA who merely ‘questions’ somethings but doesn’t believe the same way as many of the formers there.

I question many things in our church...but I can tell you that just from lurking at FAF I ran screaming in the other direction.

I also noticed their scripture (highlighted parts are mine):

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Ephesians 4:29-32

Whoa...definitely not what I’ve seen there. Perhaps it would be wise for Colleen et.al to review their homepage.

I also noticed the last of the ‘Rules’

“You must not publish any materials which:
constitute or contain false or misleading indications of origin or statements of fact”

I guess this only applies to ‘publishing of materials’ and not to giving of opinions?

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Hi Stan, your post certainly does address the same concerns I have held in regards to vitriolic positions that have appeared on FAF.

This is their stated purpose:

“Purpose: To be a safe, supportive, and healing environment for questioning, transitioning, and former Adventists, and those associated with them.”

The FAF forum fills a unique niche for Adventists questioning the validity of their church as well as those transitioning out and those who have left but feel isolated by their decision. It provided a very gentle and accepting environment in which to ask questions and express your thoughts about the Adventist THEOLOGY.

I was amazed when I started seeing ‘Adventism a satanic cult, ‘satanic BLASPHEMY’, ‘This teaching is worse than satanism’ in relation to the SDA Church, the members and especially EGW. This certainly was not a demonstration of a rational discussion of biblical and unbiblical theology and how to know the difference and certainly not beneficial to those questioning, transitioning and transitioned.

I was further amazed that this was not only allowed but applauded.

In allowing these odious rants to continue FAF seems oblivious to their own rules:

“You must not publish any materials which:
(a) are not in harmony with the Purpose”

Is FAF so oblivious as to not recognize how repellent this would be to the very people they seek to attract?

It is my hope that FAF will reevaluate its purpose-to gently reveal error though the Word Of God with Christian love and restraint.

John Douglas

Guibox and John, you’ve both hit the nail on the head.  The stated purpose of FAF contradicts the very nature of the forum they operate.  The only “safe” behavior to exhibit there is one that never questions the viewpoint of the moderators while continually trumpeting the evils of Adventism.

Furthermore, as Stan rightfully pointed out, the modus operendi of FAF contradicts Dale Ratzlaff’s unambiguous statements in Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists.  One wonders when he will step in to correct this or whether he will revise his book, because as it stands now, the FAF/Life Assurance Ministries “movement” is a study in contradictions.

John, as you said, there is quite enough at the theological level with which to criticize Adventism without descending into vitriolic and subjective attacks.  Ironically, it is the theological topics that are often relegated to the “locked box” on the forum while the heated rhetoric is proudly displayed out in the open, further straining the bounds of credibility.

In answer to some of our past objections, the moderators stated that such heated discussion was a necessary component of any support group.  While not dismissing the very real pain that can be caused by Adventism, I must submit that the antidote for theological trauma is good theological teaching.  The apostle Paul did not create a support group for himself after being beaten repeatedly and chased out of the synagogues by the Jews.  Instead, Paul repeatedly returned to those synagogues to tirelessly preach the good news to anyone who had the ears to hear.

“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ESV)

Our friends on FAF would do well to consider Paul’s example and submit themselves to it.

Greg

There will be Seventh-day Adventists in heaven. There are Seventh-day Adventists in Georgia. Some of them are my personal friends. We worship together, we both agree that Jesus is our Savior and that He is in the Most Holy Place we just don’t agree on when He arrived there or exactly what He is doing, except He is our Advocate with the Father. I have Roman Catholic friends also. We pray together and believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus. We have much to celebrate about and let each other live in peace on our differences. If we pray to God as our Father we must treat each other as kin!  This shunning attitude came over on the Mayflower. We are glad the pilgims came but we wish they had left some of their baggage a home. 

Greg,

You also hit the nail on the head, when you said that good Biblical theology is what is needed to replace the void left by legalistic Adventism. It took me so long after leaving Adventism to get really grounded in good theology.

I wandered for so long in the muddled theology of the evangelical culture in America. It wasn’t until I discovered a radio program called “The White Horse Inn”, that I really began to understand what true Biblical theology was. The link to this radio program which can be listened to on the internet is http://www.whitehorseinn.org

And when I came on FAF in 2005, It was one of my purposes to help former SDAs not only stay away from bad theology, but to be guided into good theology. We had a lot of great discussions on FAF in those days, and if anyone would check the archives for 2005, and some of 2006, you will find a lot of good theological discussions. The Tinkers were very tolerant of my emphasis on Reformed theology, and my emphasis on staying away from the bad theology such as that of Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer, and we also had Rick Warren disussions (Warren is not as bad as Hinn).

However, there came a time in the summer of 2006, that some new members came on FAF who got somewhat offended by the emphasis on Reformed theology, and there was one member who took great exception to my criticism of Benny Hinn. The Tinkers then changed their tune about my attacks on Benny Hinn, and thought I emphasized Reformed theology too much, so they decided to have a locked section where they could conveniently move all theological discussion to a “members only” area. Calvinism discussions were banished to the lock box, as well as controversial discussions about Benny Hinn and the like. This move offended some of the most prominent players on there. Even Dennis wrote a very stinging post on the locked section that drew him a stern warning from the administrator. Several who were at first troubled by all of this have now come back to the fold, and have decided to lay aside their differences for the sake of unity among formers.

But now I see very few threads emphasizing the great truths of the Reformation. There is a lot of banter and gossip being thrown around over there, but very little in the way of solid teaching on theology. There are posts on there recently comparing Bin Laden to Doug Batchelor, and gossip articles about one prominent SDA evangelist. (There is some medical evidence that I am aware of that would bring that gossip story into serious question.)

But here is an example of one person who does act as a “teacher” on Adventism, and at least claims to be an authority on the scapegoat doctrine:

quote:

“And what infuriates me even more is that they teach that neither of the two supposed “atonements” of Jesus are enough--they don’t actually TAKE AWAY our sins--that SATAN has to atone for our sins in order for our sins to be remembered no more and, as EGW says, in order for us to be “freed from the burden of [our] sins”!!!!!!!!!!! What satanic BLASPHEMY!!!! I just can’t comprehend how anyone could have a problem with someone calling Adventism a satanic cult! This teaching is worse than satanism itself. The work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us! And they say it’s Satan NOT Jesus!!!!

It’s too awful to write about..."(quoted from Jeremy)
----------------------------------------------------------
Lest anyone doubt that Jeremy is held up as a researcher, then just notice that he is listed as a research assistant to Colleen’s article in the latest Proclamation on the SDA Jesus.

So, what happened, when Jackob tried to at least challenge Jeremy’s ranting and raving above?

Stay tuned

Stan

So here is Jackob’s challenge to Jeremy’s statement above:

Hello all,

I don’t care if somebody wondered why I became suddenly silent on FAF, but I sensed that this is the proper time and place to give an explanation for my departure from FAF.

Basically my reason for ceasing posting on FAF is because I became aware that FAF functions practically as a denomination, going beyond the legitimate borders of a support group. I became aware of my subjectivity in evaluating Adventism through the lens of FAF “group mentality”, which disregards good and sound biblical scholarship, not being willing to submit to external and more objective evaluation of the particular views posters are sharing on this forum.

Don’t misunderstand me, there is a lot of good and sound biblical material present on FAF. However, the critical evaluation of Adventism is where the subjectivity becomes evident, the “groupthink mentality” being inclined to paint Adventism is a blacker light than more objective Christian scholars or respected leaders from the evangelical world are willing to paint Adventism.

The evangelical world is divided in evaluating Adventism, if it is a cult or is not, but no respected evangelical leader or scholar is willing to classify Adventism as a Satanic cult, or a cult which is worse than the Satanic church, because of it’s aberrant doctrine of the Scapegoat. The criticism from the evangelical world is different than the criticism exhibited on FAF, and even those evangelicals who considers SDA as a cult, will not share FAF’s unofficial but somehow consensus opinion that SDA is a Satanic cult. This raises a red flag regarding the objectivity of formers who have suffered abuse in the SDA church at this point. I’ll become specific and offer some solid proofs

At http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5679.html?1183477569, Jeremy said

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

And what infuriates me even more is that they teach that neither of the two supposed “atonements” of Jesus are enough--they don’t actually TAKE AWAY our sins--that SATAN has to atone for our sins in order for our sins to be remembered no more and, as EGW says, in order for us to be “freed from the burden of [our] sins”!!!!!!!!!!! What satanic BLASPHEMY!!!! I just can’t comprehend how anyone could have a problem with someone calling Adventism a satanic cult! This teaching is worse than satanism itself. The work of the Scapegoat in taking away our sins is what saves us! And they say it’s Satan NOT Jesus!!!!

It’s too awful to write about…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post was praised as being “fabulous” by Colleen, and nobody challenged Jeremy’s evaluation of Adventism based on this doctrine. In spite of the fact that the doctrine is flawed and is aberrant, respected evangelical scholars and critics of Adventism had not being willing to calling Adventism a satanic cult.

I believed for a time that this is the situation because the SDA duped those critics, and offered them distorted information, but it is not credible to think that ALL critics have not done their homework regarding Adventism. It is like pretending that until FAF appears, the entire evangelical church was deceived and it is still deceived by the SDA church. This sounds similar to thinking that until 1844 the church was wrong regarding the Sabbath and now it’s time to restore it. Both views lack the willingness to become accountable to other Christians for their views and opinions.

I know that for many Walter Martin is not a credible critic regarding Adventism, but Anthony Hoekema who disagreed with Walter Martin evaluated the Scapegoat doctrine in his book “The Four Major Cults”, when he classified SDA as a cult.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Finally, if it is necessary for these sins to be laid on Satan before they can be obliterated from the universe, Satan plays an indispensable part in the blotting out of sin. Though Seventh-day Adventists deny that Satan makes atonement for our sins in any way, \bthey are nevertheless guilty of ascribing something to Satan which should only be ascribed to Christ: the obliteration of our sins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. We conclude that the doctrines of the investigative judgment and of the laying of sins on Satan are false teachings. Not only do they lack all Scriptural support; they actually go contrary to the Scripture at various points, as has been shown. If Seventh-day Adventists honestly wish to be true to Scripture alone in their teachings, they should repudiate both of these doctrines. (p. 160)}

He did not jump to the conclusion that Adventists are worshipping Satan, and are a satanic cult. And he is not alone.

I will quote from SDA evangelical critics who wrote before 1957, when QOD was published, in the period in which SDA was looked as a cult by the majority of evangelicals. These critics had the occasion to classify Adventism as a satanic cult, in which people are worshiping Satan, but they didn’t make this accusation. This raises again the question regarding the objectivity of former Adventists in using the information they know about Adventism.

J.K. Van Baalen wrote in his book “The Chaos of the Cults” (originally published in 1938 and updated in 1962):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

“To such plain language as these texts contain, S.D.A.’s statements concerning ‘Azazel’ do gross injustice. They detract from Christ’s saving work. And even if S.D.A. is correct in feeling irked when it is accused of making Satan a part-saviour (which they do not do), it has given occasion to this misinterpretation by belittling Christ’s saving death and by fantastic and unscriptural reference to the part of Satan.” (p. 240)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said that an adventist is correct in feeling irked when it is accused of making Satan a part-saviour because “they do not do”.

William C. Irvine said in his book, Heresies Exposed (originally published in 1917 and republished in 1955):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

“If ever there was a ‘damnable heresy’ (see 2 Peter 2:1) surely it is here! Mrs. White professes to found all this teaching on Leviticus 23 and the book of Daniel. We confidently hand both books, yea, the whole Bible itself, to any mature, sane-thinking Christian and challenge him to find anywhere in the whole sixty-six books of the Divine Library, one jot or tittle of evidence or proof (set forth according to fundamental and eternal principles of exegesis), for such consummate trash. It seems an insult to offer such stuff for the serious consideration of a reasonable mind.” (pp. 157-158)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In spite of all this criticism, William C. Irvine had not said that the SDA Jesus is Satan, or that they are a Satanic, demonic church, who worship demons. He classified it as a “damnable heresy”, of course, but had not jumped to the conclusion former Adventists jump.

Norman F. Douty, said this in Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism (published in 1962 and written in response to “Questions on Doctrine”):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

“Now, I am unwilling to charge Adventists with holding that Satan is our sin-bearer, but surely, in the light of the preceding, they should not blame their critics for accusing them of so doing. Their interpretation of the scapegoat lays them wide open to such a charge. Although they do not expressly declare Satan to be our sin-bearer, they do so implicitly...” (p. 128)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are proofs that respected evangelical leaders who classified SDA as cult were not willing to pronounce the SDA church as a Satanic cult, the Adventists as devil worshipers and so on. This is just the particular formers view, and even it has some substance in it because the Adventists doctrine of the scapegoat leaves them wide open to the charge of making Satan our sin-bearer, it is not sufficient to condemn Adventists as Satan worshipers.

Former Adventists who posts on FAF must become aware that their view which is the common “in house” view regarding Adventism is not credible in the evangelical world, and is a sign of subjectivity, and a sign of the marks and effects of the spiritual abuse suffered in the SDA church. Evangelical criticism of the SDA church has a different tone and flavor and formers Adventists cannot disregard it for reasons “they are deceived”. By using this shortcut in their reasoning, the cultic mentality learned in the SDA church is resurrected (remember, “those apostate protestants are deceived by the wine of Babylon, how they can knew about the gospel when they don’t keep the Sabbath?”).

I became painfully aware that a lot of my criticism of the SDA church which I posted on this forum is not endorsed by the Christian world, and I will soon loose credibility by going overboard with my criticism toward the SDA church. FAF needs to be under the supervision of the Christian church at large, otherwise it is on the road to be another “close community”, with “in house” opinions, isolated from the Christian body of believers with no checks and balances. I’m sorry for being involved in over the board criticism of SDA church, Adventists deserve to be evaluated objectively.

It is unfortunate that the good which a support group can give may be so easily lost by the group becoming a web-church, with a groupthink mentality, mentality unsupported by the evangelical church at large, which is not based on sound scholarship. Classifying the SDA church as a satanic cult is the road to loose credibility in the Christian world, and also will diminish the impact on the SDA church. It will only endorse the prevailing opinion that former Adventists are disgruntled, and their opposition to the SDA church is not based on objective research.

Jackob
---------------------------------------------------------

Well done Gabriel!

Notice the objective scholarly approach Jackob takes to the issues as opposed to his opponent. Gabriel (aka Jackob) takes all the trouble to quote from all the evangelical sources who have studied this aberrant doctrine in the past. Remember, the sources he quoted are not those who are friendly towards Adventism, (at least some of them)

This post must have taken Jackob a long time to put together, and done from Romania where there is a record heat wave right now. So what happened to Jackob’s post??

Right, the Tinkers were not open to an honest challenge to the rantings of one of their favorite members. So, the easy way to deal with these questions is to punch the delete button, and write Jackob a stern warning letter promising expulsion for the next offense!

Is this what honest and open dialogue is about?

Then, when Diana asked an honest question and Jonvil made a very charitable comment about Jackob’s post, Jonvil was deleted, and the thread was immediately closed with a terse statement from the FAF president posting some forum rules.

This is how the views of FAF stay so monolithic. Dissent is discouraged. I am sure there are many other voices who are perplexed about this on FAF, but they will not feel free to challenge the hostess. They continue to make examples out of a few of us, and this discourages others from voicing their opinions. This is how “Groupthink” mentality is fostered.

Stan

Again, I want to quote from Dale Ratzlaff:

“When evaluating SDAs...we should not make sweeping generalizations. I am often asked, “Do SDAs have salvation? The same question could be asked of any person of any denomination, and the answer should always be the same. Those who rely on the perfect life of Christ for their righteousness; who recognize that Christ died for their sins; who believe that Christ was raised from the dead for their justification; who believe that they are now, by faith, seated in heavenly places and are already victorious in Christ Jesus, have eternal life.”
------------------------------------------------------

Well, Colleen is at it again. Look at this sweeping generalization that Colleen makes just today on FAF, where she makes a statement that the Holy Spirit is not present in SDA services:

‘River, you are right. And I agree that the prayer for our entrenched SDA friends is that they will be saved. I know this stance makes some people angry; nevertheless, the fact that the Holy Spirit is not present in their worship services is evidence.”
-----------------------------------------------------

Folks, I don’t know what to say. How can Colleen Tinker be so sure that the Holy Spirit is not in SDA worship services?

I am at a loss for words. It is one thing for a person to make ranting statements with ten exclamation marks, but it is quite another thing for the most prominent leader of the former SDA movement to make such a sweeping generalization as this. It is clear that she has no regard for Dale Ratzlaff’s advice above.

I listened to the Saturday medical school graduation church service on June 2 2007 from the LLUSDA church. I heard testimonies from Christian medical students that were moving, and the presence of the Holy Spirit was clearly present.

When I listen to a sermon by Smuts Van Rooyen preached both from the Riverside SDA church, and now from the Vallejo Drive church, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is present.

Today, on the Calvary Chapel radio station from Costa Mesa, on KWVE-FM 107.9, a caller asked the question whether SDA should be in the same category as Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. The pastors hosting the show answered in no uncertain terms, that clearly SDA is NOT in the same category as JW.

Mark Martin’s ministry was not even mentioned by these pastors. Mark Martin has been trying to paint SDA as a cult in the same way as JW for a long time, but it is clear that Martin is not even being heeded in his own group.

What we have in FAF is a rogue ministry. They are not subject to any pastoral authority, not even their own founder’s authority as he has made clear statements that are contrary to what Colleen is saying. They do not even respect the authority of their own pastor, Gary Inrig. I have email communication from pastor Inrig that clearly disagrees with the position that FAF has taken.

The response is “We know better about Adventism than the entire evangelical community and apologetics community that somehow doesn’t understand what we know.”

The FAF moderator appears to have the view that SDA is entirely evil, but the other churches are all OK. There is even a tolerance for RCC and orthodox theology on FAF. RCC is so much worse than evangelical Adventism as represented by the likes of Smuts Van Rooyen.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

While FAF denies the claims by SDAs that those who are transitioning out of the SDA Church and those who have left do so based, not on theology but on emotional issues, FAF itself has subordinated theology to emotionalism.
Their desire to accept practically all theological positions (i.e. RCC), expressed by those who post there, with SDA being the only exception, resembles the watered down theology of the ‘Purpose Driven’ movement.
While commending one poster who has joined a denomination whose foundation and theology lacks any scriptural support they simultaneously demonize the SDA denomination who’s foundation and theology also lacks scriptural support, by stating “…the fact that the Holy Spirit is not present in their worship services is evidence.”, one could easily conclude this to mean Godless. Warmly receive one, vehemently reject the other. Contradictory positions over identical theological issues! Instead of ‘harmony of purpose’ we find discordance.
This intense emotional antipathy toward Adventism has so prejudiced them that they have lost objectivity and the ability or desire to calmly and rationally discuss the issues.

JONVIL

I do want to emphasize that SDA is a very diverse group, with so many different types. I am very aware of the cult branch of SDA, which is definitely as bad as JW, but to broadbrush and generalize is extremely dangerous.

Because, if a person is wrong about the allegation that the Holy Spirit is not present in SDA services, then this can be a very serious problem.

One of the pastors on the Calvary Chapel call in program yesterday acknowledged some cultic elements in SDA, but then related the fact that his grandmother is SDA, and she is definitely spirit-filled, non-legalistic, and loves the Lord.

This testimonial, as well as what I know of my own mother contradicts Colleen’s blanket and brash statements saying that “no Adventist knows the true Jesus”.

So, to summarize the cultic doctrines of FAF (defined as doctrines that no one else in the credible apologetics community hold) are these:

1. The SDA Jesus is a demon, or at least a different Jesus.

2. The Holy Spirit is not present in SDA services.

3. The SDA church is a Satanic Cult.

4. Ellen White was a satanist, or a satan worshipper

5. No Adventist knows the true Jesus

6. Adventism is actually worse than satanism, and all the other cults.
----------------------------------------------------

The above is only a partial list. Others may be able to add more.

It should also be pointed out that I personally emailed the moderators of FAF, and linked to our discussion, and invited them to answer some of our concerns.

Stan

Stan,

I believe that it is also the time, since you started this thread, to share some of the things I learned from my participation on FAF. I’m speaking about it as a past experience, and my deleted post was composed as an explanation of my departure from FAF. At least, after all my contribution on FAF, the other posters deserve to hear the reasons I’m no longer side to side in their efforts to help inquiring and transitioning adventists in their spiritual journey. But since my short explanation had not been left to stand, I’ll use the opportunity of this thread to share the lessons I learned from my FAF experience. I will do this in more than one post, and in the following days.

I have not posted randomly, I had chosen this thread http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5767.html?1184557741,
and my post was in line with Colleen’s preceding post, in which she spoke about the theological and cultural problems which a church composed from former adventists will have. Practically, she spoke against forming a new denomination, “Former Adventist Church” because of its subjectivity.

I just built up on this premise, and showed already theological problems which are present on FAF, which functions as a church, a closed group which on some certain points are rejecting theological supervision. As you can see reading my post which Stan presented previously on this thread, I pointed to some specific view which has no back up in the christian theological world. I just pleaded for correction in line with the presuppositions already stated by Colleen, which will make FAF function properly, as a support group, and not as a web-church. Interesting is that on another thread, entitled “Fellowship found here”, http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5799.html?1185163572, Jim02 says with the agreement of others, and neither Colleen corrected him

“This forum functions as a church whether it intends to or not.
What a blessing !’

A church? Is this not what the FAF forum must not be, according to Colleen? When I said something similar and pointed to the problems which this web-church has because it is isolated from the christian church at large theologically in some areas, my post was deleted. my approach was friendly enough, but my post was considered a threat to the forum, making that place “unsafe”.

I was never told why my post was unsafe. In my opinion, my post was designed to attract attention to issues that makes the forum unsafe, like Colleen’s endorsements of Jeremy’s extreme statements presented above. Encouraging extreme positions is not healthy and safe for the souls, not for Jeremy’s soul, not for anybody soul. I know this from experience.

Because of certain group dynamics people who dare to challenge the hypercritical attitude toward adventists, are banned, not allowed to speak, because the forum suddenly becomes unsafe because of their concerns. They suddenly are declared to be the problem, and in this way, the forum is “protected” from acknowledging and correcting the real problems.

To be continued ...

Gabriel

Has anyone talked to Dale Ratzlaf about this? 

John 3:16
Gabriel, I am so glad to see you here.  I read your post right after you wrote it.
All I will say is that I continue to pray for everyone involved in this.
Diana

[quote author="glennspring"]Has anyone talked to Dale Ratzlaf about this? 

Yes Glenn, I have emailed Dale Ratzlaff on some issues. Most recently he agreed that the statement “The SDA Jesus is a Demon” is a statement that may be over the top. I did forward the thread to him, so he is probably aware of what is going on, but I am not sure he is aware of a lot of the extreme statements.

As far as I know, Dale has not come out in print amending his very moderate views expressed in “Cultic Doctrine”, a book that I am in whole hearted agreement with. That book is an example of CREDIBLE and well reasoned biblical arguments against a cultic doctrine of the sanctuary. But the kind of stuff that goes on on the website in many instances is not credible as we have given examples above.

Gabriel,

Thanks for your post. I am looking forward to reading more of your insights. After you are finished, I will add some more personal notes and concerns I have.

I was also interested Gabriel in the power point presentation on “groupthink” that you sent me. A lot of that applies in this situation.

Stan

It seems to be the norm for groups that associate within themselves to lose objectivity quite easily. Historic/conservative SDAs in forums do the same thing.

In this environment, the truth begins to be left further and further behind as one statement or view is piled on top of the previous. When one idea is accepted and believed, it is easy to generalize from that view further and further.

For example, one could take a train of thought like this one:

1) If the SDAs are wrong in one doctrinal area, they most likely are wrong in many others!
2) Look at the IJ! The IJ takes away security and hope! Well, that means they musn’t have the Holy Spirit!

3)Those SDAs don’t have the Holy Spirit? What ‘spirit’ must be guiding them??

4) Well, based on this and this and this, it is obvious that they are completely deceived!

5) Who is the master deceiver?? Satan! Satan is ruling the SDA church!

6) Surely everyone can’t be unknowingly deceived!

7)That means some must be in league with the evil one! SDAis is Satanic!!

Couple that with exclusive thinking and irrational thought processes fueling the fire, and objectivity and sensability goes right out the window as a cultic mindset sets in.

I agree with whoever said that FAF is merely renforcing the sterotype that many SDAs have of formers: Bitter, disgruntled rhetoric with not much theological support.

Of course a forum is as strong as its members. If everyone there merely lets this go on and dismiss it with a ‘Well, lets just praise the Lord and focus on the positive of this forum’, then nothing is going to get done, no message will get across and the abuse and unfairness (nevermind the cultic mentality) will go on.

Good for you, jonvil and jackob for standing up even at the expense it might cost you. I respect that. It’s nice to know that there is this forum that seems like a breath of fresh air and is fulfilling FAF’s ‘purpose’ that they seem to have forgotten.