Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

[quote author="The Deacon"]Why be angry?  Why not rejoice?

Sorry, at the time I posted this morning I was not aware there was ANOTHER “Anonymous” who’d posted days ago and was part of an ongoing conversation.  I want to point out that the “dumbo magic feather” comment above was from ME, not from the “other Anonymous” with whom you’ve been conversing.  Sorry to cause confusion here.  I believe you addressed your post to the other Anon poster, which is not me. Thanx.

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

[quote author="Greg"]Deacon, I am in complete agreement! If any of us has been rescued from a works-based system of salvation and converted by the grace of Jesus, we should consider ourselves most blessed!

Anonymous, welcome to 4TG! Have you considered that Ellen White learned her theology from others who continue to impact the professing Christian church to this day?
[excellent stuff snipped for brevity’s sake]

[.......] Ellen White was not alone in teaching a works-based theology. Indeed, many professing Christians today would not argue with her teaching, as they’ve learned the same thing in their mainline Protestant churches. That any of us have been rescued by God from this “self-saving” theology is a testament to His graciousness.

Greg YOU ROCK.  Thank you SO much for making a scholarly case with useful citations for what I have suspected AND proclaimed for years:  namely that this “sickness” is ENDEMIC TO CHRISTENDOM ITSELF and is NOT exclusive to SDA-ism.  I’ve seen it ALL OVER and it makes me want to tear flesh with my teeth. Makes me feral.

I do rejoice in reading your post and for it I thank you.  You have renewed my faith this moment in a God who has mercy upon even such abominations as myself.  Praise be His holy Name, and all the Denizens of the Abyss shall praise Him too for this same reason!

John 3:16
D. Ratzlaff is now posting on FAF.  He did make a comments on SDAs and cults.  I forget the thread it is one.
I have not posted for a while as I have been our of town, in Laguna Beach at a Celebrate Recovery conference.  CR is a recovery program, using the 12 steps of AA, but it is Christ centered.  It has helped me so much.  Thank you God.  You are Awesome.
Diana

To keep this thread on topic, several comments from TomrC have been moved here.

Galatians says that unconverted will “bite and devour” one another.  Colleen’s comments, apart from being gross overgeneralizations and inaccurate, also reflect something which is far more problematic.  The Galatians problem, the Laodicean problem, the pharissaical problem is one of self righteousness, a haughty spirit, condescending tone and words, excessive criticism, and so forth. 

By the former Adventists, I have been called a moron, devil, satanic, cultic, idiot, deceived, EGW worshipper, Sabbath worshipper, law keeper, Judaizer, Jew, etc. 

My reaction:  May God bless you in Christ Jesus.  He is my Savior, my judge, my defense, my advocate, my friend, and my Lord.  I question who is leading Colleen and a few others.

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.

My reaction to this post by John Douglas.  I would encourage all those “transitioning” to really reevaluate some of what they believe.  When I began to actually study Adventist Theology, in comparison to Dale’s books and other source materials, I realized that Adventists are being grossly misrepresented.  Also, statements such as what Uriah Smith said are totally irrelevant, as he was not speaking officially for anyone but himself.  The kind of spirit coming out of these forums is exactly what EGW predicted.  “There would be a fury against her writings that would be “satanic."” When you judge others, you condemn who??? 

the Investigative Judgment is totally biblical.  God will open the books for “review” as GC states, but He obviously knows Himself what is in them.  They are for others to see.  The things written in the book are not “decisive” but are “revelatory” of the truth of our hearts, lives, choices, etc.  If we are truly in Christ, the judgment will reveal that to others, and we will be recognized by the entire universe as Sons and Daughters of God.  As Daniel says, “judgment was found IN FAVOR” of the saints.  The IJ is not against the Gospel.  It simply reveals who believed the Gospel of Christ. 

[quote author="Greg"]
My crime? I merely questioned the credibility of Collen Tinker’s statement, which I will reproduce verbatim: “I know NO Adventist who really knows the real Jesus–to say nothing about salvation and how it really ‘works’.”

If Colleen’s statements cannot be openly challenged and held to Christian accountability, something is wrong. If she wishes to be treated this way, she is asking people to follow her blindly, in essence elevating herself to a position of infallibility. Both Stan and I attempted to meet face-to-face with Richard and Colleen in an effort to discuss our concerns, but after initially agreeing to meet, they retracted their offer.

AS I READ THIS FROM ANOTHER, I WANTED TO CRY.  PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE A CRITICAL SPIRIT AND SO FORTH LEADS.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS STATEMENT, MADE BY A NONCHRISTIAN WRITER, BUT ONE WHO NEVERTHELESS WAS CORRECT.

“TO SELL OUT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN FOR POWER IS THE DEVIL’S BARGAIN, IT IS THE PACT THAT THE NARCISSIST MAKES.”

KICKING PEOPLE OFF WEBSITES, DENOUNCING OTHER PEOPLE, ETC. IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.  IT IS THE SPIRIT OF POWER, CONTROL, FORCE, THAT IS IN ESSENCE THE MARK OF THE BEAST, OR THE CHARACTER OF SATAN, NO MATTER HOW GLOWING ARE THE WORDS.

At 12:44 PM Pacific time on Fri. 8/17/07 I wrote this statement:

“I have received an email saying that Dale Ratzlaff has changed his mind regarding the cult status of SDA. As far as can be determined, he has only done this in private, and not on a public forum.

If this is indeed true, then I would like to see Pastor Ratzlaff say this on a public forum, rather than only in private. His book “Cultic Doctrine” should be amended so as not to cause confusion, and Proclamation! magazine should print an article by him saying outright that SDA is a cult, and in the same category as Mormonism.”
-------------------------------------------------------

Almost exactly two hours later the FAF administration heeded this statement (said somewhat tongue in cheek, as I have no way of knowing this for sure) with this announcement at this thread:

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5984.html?1187551730

Here is Richard Tinker’s statement:

Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 2:47 pm: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Ratzlaff accidently started a thread with this subject in the “Members Only” area of the forum. He wanted it where anyone could read it, so I have moved it here. If you have already commented on this post and want your comment to be public, please post it again here. Thanks!

Richard
---------------------------------------------------------

Here is the complete statement made by Dale Ratzlaff:

I understand that there has been some controversy over my understanding of the Adventist church relative to calling it a cult. As most of you know I have a book entitled, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists. In this I list some 15 characteristics of a cult. The early Adventist church meets nearly all of these and the present day Adventist church meets most of them. I know of no definitive definition of a cult or no present-day authoritative guideline on how many of the 15 marks of a cult must be met before an organization is a cult.

Another reason I have previously not called the SDA church a cult is that to do so might cut off their ears to further communication. However, every attempt to move them toward an Evangelical understanding seems to only entrench the administrative leaders into solidifying their doctrinal position. Some seem to pretend that the old errors of Adventism no longer exist and put them out of sight and mind.

Some administrators I have communicated with tell me that in some conferences the pastors do not have to teach the old SDA errors. Specifically mentioned were: The Sabbath as the seal of God, Sunday as the mark of the beast; the 1844 investigative judgment as taught by Ellen White; the Seventh-day Adventist church as the remnant church of Bible prophecy; and the idea that the writings of Ellen White are a source of truth. However, when asked if they would publicly renounce these errors there was a resounding, “No.” And this has been the pattern of Adventists throughout their history. They are afraid to “come clean” for fear of creating a crisis in their large membership. The same excuse was used in the 1919 Bible conference.

I am preparing study guides for our Phoenix FAF on the Epistle to the Galatians. Reading this book through a number of times, listening to the tapes from Clay Peck’s Galatians series, reading commentaries and doing my own study of this powerful book has lead me to reconsider my definitions of a cult. According to the Apostle Paul ANY compromise with the simple new covenant Gospel is to be not only confronted but condemned in the strongest terms.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:6—9.

My study of Galatians leads me to the conclusion that the false teachers were enforcing the old covenant regulations of the law. Specifically circumcision, food laws and holy days. It is clear from a thorough study that the issue was not circumcision per say; rather, circumcision as the entrance sign into the old covenant and was an indicator that one was under the law. As Paul said, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Gal. 5:3.

The teachings of historic Adventism parallel those of the false teachers of Galatia in a marked way. In Historic Adventism there is a lack of clarity regarding the gospel–if not a complete absence of the true gospel. There is also much evidence that the law focus of Adventism was, and is, very similar to that promoted by the false teachers in Galatia. For more on this, see my article in Proclamation! May/June 2003 entitled, “Do Adventists Preach Another Gospel?”

Therefore, in consideration of the forgoing, I am now ready to call TODAY’S Adventist church a cult UNLESS it PUBLICLY RENOUNCES the early errors upon which it was built. It cannot claim to be the only true, remnant church of Bible prophecy throughout its whole history while at the same time changing its doctrines, if indeed, it has changed its teachings as some claim.

If you have not watched the DVD, “Called to be Free”, describing the 180 degree turn around of the Worldwide Church of God you must do so. The parallels with Adventism are striking. There is a link on my website, http://www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.com to a free streaming video of this presentation. Click on “Ministry News”.

I hope and pray that someday a group of Adventist administrators and theologians will stand up as did the leaders of the WWCOG and publicly state that Adventism was founded in error and has continued to harbor error throughout its history. I pray that they will jettison the writings of Ellen White. Rather than her writings being a “source of truth” they have proved to be a source of confusion and bondage. The only way for Adventism to make this change is to once and for all state that their ONLY source of truth is the Bible. Will you join me in prayer that God would do this? It sounds impossible. Yes, but as Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
-------------------------------------------------------

I certainly agree with a lot of things that Pastor Dale said, but there are some interesting aspects to his statement that I would like to explore further when I get a little more time.

Stan

Classification prejudices all subsequent thinking. Libeling by labaling is the cheapest form of debate. The Seventh-day Adventist carry consideratble doctrinal baggage: Most focus on the Spirit of Prophecy, the Investigative Judgment, and the Final Generation. Yet many Christians in the pass have lost their lives over the issue of Original Sin, The Supper, Baptism. Even today, some label Wesleyian theology as heresy and would assign Methodists to hell. I think For the Gospel should be just that: State the good news that Jesus Christ died for all. Now is the moment to decide for the good or evil side. The story of Ruth should be our guide.  We are all kin. All in need of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ plus nothing. I like Paul’s faith “I am persuaded that He is able!” Our job is to evangelize not criticize. Many who have left Adventism have crawled into a hole and pulled the hole in after them. Let us not pound the dirt hard on top of them.  Deacon

First of all I would like to state my areas of agreement with what Pastor Dale said, and I will quote a large portion of what he said above:

“I am preparing study guides for our Phoenix FAF on the Epistle to the Galatians. Reading this book through a number of times, listening to the tapes from Clay Peck’s Galatians series, reading commentaries and doing my own study of this powerful book has lead me to reconsider my definitions of a cult. According to the Apostle Paul ANY compromise with the simple new covenant Gospel is to be not only confronted but condemned in the strongest terms.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:6—9.

My study of Galatians leads me to the conclusion that the false teachers were enforcing the old covenant regulations of the law. Specifically circumcision, food laws and holy days. It is clear from a thorough study that the issue was not circumcision per say; rather, circumcision as the entrance sign into the old covenant and was an indicator that one was under the law. As Paul said, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Gal. 5:3.

The teachings of historic Adventism parallel those of the false teachers of Galatia in a marked way. In Historic Adventism there is a lack of clarity regarding the gospel–if not a complete absence of the true gospel. There is also much evidence that the law focus of Adventism was, and is, very similar to that promoted by the false teachers in Galatia. For more on this, see my article in Proclamation! May/June 2003 entitled, “Do Adventists Preach Another Gospel?”
--------------------------------------------------------

With regard to historic Adventism, Pastor Dale and I are in agreement. If our salvation in any way depends on Sabbath Keeping or abstaining from certain foods, then this is another gospel. If Ellen White has the final authority over scripture, then this fits with my late friend Dr.Walter Martin’s definition of a cult. He was very concerned about the direction of the SDA church with regard to Ellen White, and her authority.

The above quotation is immediately followed by the following quotation from Dale:

“Therefore, in consideration of the forgoing, I am now ready to call TODAY’S Adventist church a cult UNLESS it PUBLICLY RENOUNCES the early errors upon which it was built. It cannot claim to be the only true, remnant church of Bible prophecy throughout its whole history while at the same time changing its doctrines, if indeed, it has changed its teachings as some claim.”
--------------------------------------------------------

The last quotation is the key quotation. I wish we could get brother Dale to come on here and answer a few questions I have about this statement. I am not sure this is necessarily an unequivocal statement. It seems to be saying that he is definitely calling historical SDA a cult, but with regard to today’s church there is a condition applied that UNLESS it publically renounces the errors of the past, then it is a cult.

I am not aware that officially the SDA church still teaches that as Dale says “It cannot claim to be the only true, remnant church of Bible prophecy throughout its whole history while...” Does the SDA church still officially claim to be “the only true remnant church of Bible prophecy”?

I don’t think that today’s SDA church officially teaches the above doctrine in its 28 fundamentals, but I could be wrong, and someone may be able to correct me. So, Dale may be creating a straw man here to knock down. At least in my mingling with SDAs, I don’t see a lot of these historical doctrines being believed or taught.

It could be that Dale intentionally was very careful with his wording. It has been known for a long time that those who work with Dale have been trying to get him to come out in print for a long time to publically denounce the SDA church as a cult. Maybe they got what they wanted for now, and there does seem to be a lot of joy and glee on the thread posted above if you look at the responses.

It remains to be seen if Pastor Dale will reprint his book “Cultic Doctrine”, and if he amends the book, will Ken Samples still allow his forward to stand? Because Ken Samples has just stated the opposite conclusions to Dale Ratzlaff in a recent communication within the last three months. And what about John MacArthur who endorsed Dale’s “Sabbath” book? MacArthur has also clearly stated that SDA is not a cult, but has strongly denounced the Catholic church as another gospel, but FAF takes the opposite position and is at least somewhat tolerant of RCC, but denounces SDA as a satanic cult.

I am still not fully convinced by Dale’s statement as there does seem to be some equivocation. But the open invitation to come on here to discuss this statement certainly stands.

Stan

Here is another statement from Pastor Dale that I agree with:

“According to the Apostle Paul ANY compromise with the simple new covenant Gospel is to be not only confronted but condemned in the strongest terms.”
----------------------------------------------------

I agree that a lot of what is taught in the SDA church is not the gospel, and there is definitely significant compromise.

But does even Pastor Dale have any compromise at all with the full truth of the gospel? Do any of us have it all together, and are there any of us who do not compromise the gospel in some way?

For example, my good friend Greg Allen has just posted this thread on this site:

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/articles/sin_grace_in_the_christian_life

I listened to this presentation of the White Horse Inn last night, and my jaw dropped. These men illustrated how most of the evangelical church is really compromised on the true gospel of grace.

At the FAF reunion in 2006 at the Friday night session, (and I believe the recordings are still available), I heard Dale Ratzlaff give a clear presentation of the Semi-Pelagian gospel (if not actually Pelagian) when he seemed to indicate that conversions like Paul’s are really the exception rather than the rule. He made the statement “that Jesus is just waiting for us to become willing” to accept the invitation of the gospel. I turned to the person I was sitting next to and said “If Jesus waited for me to become willing, I would never be here tonight”.

Is this the Jesus that is taught in the gospels and in Paul? Is there this picture presented of a Jesus who just “waits for us to become willing”?

John 6:44:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
This word “draw” in the Greek means clearly to forcefully draw as in “against gravity”.

Now I respect greatly the ministry of Dale Ratzlaff, and he has done so much to help people become free of a system that keeps people in bondage. And the above is not to imply that he is not born again, but it illustrates that if he believes that we contribute our own effort to believe, or that we can use our own willpower to come to Christ, then, this may be at least some compromise with the gospel of grace which Paul preached. Just read the book of Ephesians and see if Paul teaches in anyway that we somehow can become willing on our own to be born again.

John 1:13:

13"who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

This is a clear statement that we who are born again, are not born of our own will, but of God.”

My point in all of this is:  before we label another group as being in compromise with the gospel of grace, then let any of us be careful that our own theology is consistent with the true teachings of sovereign grace and what the Bible actually teaches.

Because by what measure we use to judge others, then that same measure is expected of us.

Stan

Here is one more quote from Dale Ratzlaff:

“If you have not watched the DVD, “Called to be Free”, describing the 180 degree turn around of the Worldwide Church of God you must do so. The parallels with Adventism are striking. There is a link on my website, http://www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.com to a free streaming video of this presentation. Click on “Ministry News”.

I hope and pray that someday a group of Adventist administrators and theologians will stand up as did the leaders of the WWCOG and publicly state that Adventism was founded in error and has continued to harbor error throughout its history. I pray that they will jettison the writings of Ellen White. Rather than her writings being a “source of truth” they have proved to be a source of confusion and bondage. The only way for Adventism to make this change is to once and for all state that their ONLY source of truth is the Bible. Will you join me in prayer that God would do this? It sounds impossible. Yes, but as Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
-------------------------------------------------------

Amen to the above statement regarding our need to pray for the SDA church to come clean and renounce it’s fundamental doctrine of the IJ which is opposed to the true gospel of grace.

But I am still fascinated by Pastor Dale’s praising of the World Wide Church of God. At the 2006 FAF reunion in the Saturday night marathon session lasting three hours, Dale seemed justifiably proud of the way that the WWCG gave credit to his book “Sabbath in Crisis” for the major changes that the WWCG made in regard to it’s Sabbath theology, when they abandoned it in 1994. Now this is all well and good.

But what about the WWCG? Is this an organization we should be praising? Did this former cult really reform itself?

There were some external transparent changes in that the leaders did publically renounce Herbert Armstrong as a false prophet, and they moved to orthodoxy on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

However, what is the gospel that the WWCG teaches? Please review this link:

http://wcg.org/lit/gospel/bestnews.htm

You be the judge and tell me if this gospel presented here compromises the gospel in any way?

Here is an excerpt from that article:

“When Americans gathered in churches around the nation on September 14, 2001, a day of mourning, they came to hear words of comfort, encouragement and hope. Yet, try as they might to bring hope to a grieving nation, a number of conservative Christian leaders unwittingly proclaimed a message that amounted to despair, hopelessness and fear for people whose loved ones had died in the terrorist attack without having first professed faith in Jesus Christ.

Many Christians are convinced that all everyone who didn’t profess Christ before death, even those who never so much as heard of Christ in their lifetime, are now in hell, being tortured in agony by the God the same Christians ironically proclaim as compassionate, merciful, loving and full of grace.

“God loves you,” some of us Christians seem to be saying, but then comes the fine print: “If you don’t say the sinner’s prayer before you die, then my merciful Lord and Savior will torture you forever.”

Good news

The gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. It remains forever, good news, the best news imaginable, for absolutely everybody and everything. It is not merely good news for the few who came to know Christ before they died; it is good news for the whole of creation–even for all those who died before they ever heard of Christ.

Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice not merely for the sins of Christians but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). The Creator is also the Redeemer of his creation (Col. 1:15-20). Whether people know that truth before they die is not the thing that determines whether it is true. It depends entirely on Jesus Christ, not on human action or human response of any kind.

Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16, New Revised Standard Version throughout). It is God who loved the world and God who gave his Son, and he gave him to save what he loved–the world. Whoever believes in the Son whom God sent will enter into eternal life (better translated “the life of the age to come").

The verse says nothing about that belief having to come prior to physical death. In fact, it says that believers will not perish, and since even believers die, it should be obvious that “perish” and “die” are not the same thing. Belief keeps people from perishing, but it does not keep them from dying.
----------------------------------------------------

Look at this quote again:

“The gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. It remains forever, good news, the best news imaginable, for absolutely everybody and everything. It is not merely good news for the few who came to know Christ before they died; it is good news for the whole of creation–even for all those who died before they ever heard of Christ.”
-----------------------------------------------------

Do you see it?  The WWCG hasn’t really renounced Armstrong very much. This doctrine that most all people will be saved, and especially that most people actually become saved AFTER THEY DIE, is a lie of Satan straight from the pit of hell. What motive is there to preach the gospel if everyone gets saved anyway after they die?

Now let us review Pastor Dale’s criteria again with this quote:

“According to the Apostle Paul ANY compromise with the simple new covenant Gospel is to be not only confronted but condemned in the strongest terms.”
---------------------------------------------------

So does the “gospel” of the WWCG possibly fit into Pastor Dale’s criteria for compromise of the gospel?

Folks, it doesn’t matter if the WWCG was able to produce a slick video with “tear jerking” moments if they still preach a gospel contained in the link of above.

More on the WWCG in the next post.

Stan

Here is another shocking link asking some really hard questions and with the headline of the article titled:

“Was God Behind the Worldwide Church of God Changes”

http://exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/behind.htm

Here is an excerpt:

“Why didn’t members know the true history about the WCG? Why didn’t they know about the courageous WCG evangelists who took their concerns to headquarters over 30 years ago? These evangelists knew of the financial abuses, corruption and double standards going on at headquarters. They knew about the doctrines that were causing untold misery and suffering. Why did many ministers choose, instead, to stay, keep quiet about these things, and continue receiving three tithes from the members? After all, the tithing doctrine was one of the problems brought up by several WCG evangelists in the 1970’s who sought to bring change from within the organization. What was the result of bringing these issues up to the leadership? They were ignored, accused, slandered, kicked out and labeled “rebels” and “influenced by Satan.” That was the real reason for the mass exodus of ministers and members during this time, not an “attack from Satan” when HWA told remaining members that he had to “get the church back on track.”

How then, in 1995, could Joseph W. Tkach. “suddenly” just so happen to get his “new revelation” from God?? The long-time ministers still in WCG would have known exactly what transpired in the past (many of whom grew up in WCG). Could this be the main reason WCG replaced many of these older ministers (who they said were “too slow” in getting the changes implemented) with newer, naïve ministers today?

Was it true (as members were taught) that God really didn’t reveal the truth about the New Covenant to members until He revealed it to Joseph W. Tkach? If that was true, what was Greg Albrecht doing attending Azusa Pacific University (known as a theologically liberal institution, Charismatic/Pentecostal, and a member of Willow Creek Association) in 1977? [See Outsider’s Inside Update Newsletter #6 and article in the New Times Los Angeles, December 4, 1997 which shows it was not just Albrecht who began “quietly attending” Azusa, but Bernie Schnippert, Michael Feazell and other ministers in the “inner circle."]
---------------------------------------------------------

There are so many other shocking facts presented in the link above but just one more illustration which would really question whether there was any truth to the claims that the WWCG has really reformed?:

“Why did WCG (in March 2003) decide to allow Philadelphia Church of God (a splinter group of the WCG) to republish HWA’s material by selling PCG the copyrights for $3 million dollars. Would a “Christian church” allow Herbert W. Armstrong’s material (considered heresies) to be given to another group labeled a totalistic religious cult, to republish and to distribute? Is this what “true changed evangelicals” do? Is this ethical? One must ask if such behavior can have a part in the life of those who claim to have changed from cult to preaching the gospel of Christ.”
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, if these “evangelical” leaders of the converted WWCG renounced Herbert Armstrong as a false prophet, then why eight years later did they sell this “false prophet’s” writings to the PCG for 3 million dollars? This sounds like the 30 pieces of silver to me. This is the ultimate proof that these leaders didn’t really believe that HWA was a false prophet.

The irony of LAM and FAF praising the WWCG is interesting.

Ken Samples, the cult expert who wrote the forward to Dale’s book “Cultic Doctrine” said recently that Ellen White should really get credit for moving Adventism from it’s false roots of Arianism to a better understanding of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

Should not former SDAs be happy that SDAs have moved to at least a better understanding of the Deity of Christ and Trinity than they had in their Arian past? (Even though it must be acknowledged that their understanding has flaws)

But instead we have a constant barrage of statements coming from former SDAs on other sites berating SDAs saying that you can’t really believe the official belief statements, and a drum beat of ridicule of SDAs view of the Trinity?

But at the same time there is this almost “giddy” and “warm fuzzy” view of the WWCG where most of them seem to believe that now the WWCG has moved from being a cult to an orthodox denomination. But reading the fine print will prove such views not well founded.

We need to strive towards a consistency in what we believe and teach.

After hearing the White Horse Inn show last night, I am further convinced that the entire evangelical church needs to be evangelized. That is why our emphasis should not be to tear down a particular organization or group, but to preach the truth of the Gospel of Grace, and to be truly FOR THE GOSPEL--as The Deacon stated above. This doesn’t mean that we should not point out the errors of SDA, RCC, WCG, or of Pelagianism, or of any other “ism” that opposes the gospel, but that we do this in humility and grace.

Stan

Greg and all --

THIS is why I have not visited 4TG very much lately.  What the first anonymous said is correct, and best summarized by Deacon, emphasis mine:

I know I am out of the loop on this. It seems to me that For the Gospel should remain just that. Unless, some person or group directly challenges your personal beliefs or ministry why engage in debate? I think the advice of Gamaliel in Act 5:34-39 is sound.

If ANY site aimed at helping people see the Gospel takes a break to attack its own members—or attack the members of another forum, it is getting distracted from its mission.  The length of this thread is a testament to that.  Every site—or rather, every group—will have times when there will be friction and disagreement.

This is PAINFUL.

*****

The great debate about whether SDA is a “cult” or not --

You know what?  I don’t care too much about that.  Because I have seen the spirit that started Adventism—it started without the Gospel, attacked those who held to the Gospel, and taught its own members things from angels which underminded the Gospel completely.

In short, Adventism began with an ANTI-CHRIST spirit.  Today it still struggles between some of its members wanting to be Christian, and others clinging to the family altar.

I’ve written about this before.  And you’ve published it here.

What does the label “cult” matter?  Listen, all of our resistance to calling it a “cult” has two roots—1) fear of offending doubting Adventists and 2) pride.  I had to deal with #2 in myself recently.  I didn’t want to believe I had been in a cult.  But yes, God can save you while you’re in a cult.  Yet I would not want ANYONE to be in that confusion, in the same house with that “altar” because the altar is not empty.

So if we say “it’s not a cult”—yaay!  Then it’s not a cult, but nevermind that it was begun with an anti-Christ spirit that still holds so much power through EGW’s books and the denominational structure (which will not sacrifice its institutional gains for the truth).

Yaay, then, it’s not a cult!  It’s just got an anti-Christ spirit at its root.  *Whew!* Thank God it’s only an anti-Christ spirit!  That’s not as bad as being “a cult”!  Merely an anti-Christ spirit.

Yes, there are many problems in SDA which are also common in the rest of the body of Christ.  Yet that is NO REASON to minimize or overlook the founding spirit of Adventism.  The prevalance of legalism and ignorance about certain truths in Christianity does not make foundational Adventism any less cultic.  There is a legitimate need to help people in Christianity out of bad things, but when we cite these things in response to someone criticizing Adventism/EGW, our citation comes across as making excuses for Adventism or trying to minimize how bad foundational Adventism is.

*****

I am growing impatient with debates about whether SDA is a cult or not, and growing impatient with discussions about how much of EGW is salvageable and how much it isn’t.  Why?  Because time is short.  Christ is coming back, and it will not be an easy moment for the world.  The ONLY thing that will carry us in that time (and in our time) is the GOSPEL.

And you know what?  Ever since the beginning SDA has preached “prophecy” and in so doing distracted people away from the Gospel and undermined it.  Adventism is UN-PREPARING people for the end.  It is teaching them to trust in a day instead of a Man.  It is teaching them to trust a false prophet instead of hearing the Spirit for yourself.  It is teaching you to “be good” and “get ready” when in fact Christ has already died to be your righteousness, and He is your readiness.

I am growing impatient because it is so important for people to know THE GOSPEL and not all the distractions-from-the-Gospel which Adventism has marketed ever since the beginning.

*****

So now my comment comes full-circle.

“For the Gospel”—I urge you to get back TO THE GOSPEL.  Forgive where you have been wounded, pray for people, and entrust those you left behind to God’s grace.

Listen, they are not making threads discussing you or this site or what’s wrong with your beliefs.  The new rules you villified actually prevent people from talking smack about you.  Did you think of it from that angle?  Did you remember that people there are still praying for your families?

Be “for the Gospel” or be “against FAF”.  I know it seems like both can be done, but with threads as long as this one there is a bit too much going on in the latter half.  If you disagree with someone, it is possible to state it in brevity and in love.  But this has gone on much longer than necessary, and for that reason it really distracts from the name of the website.

Ramone, thanks for your sharing your concerns. I value your criticism, but in an ironic way, your post puts into sharper focus the problem that still exists on FAF.

In trying to protect the credibility of FAF, I registered a criticism of Colleen Tinker’s statement about Adventists not knowing the true Jesus. Instead of allowing my criticism to stand and be answered, I was banned from her forum. I’m left to conclude that, as in many parts of Adventism, Christian accountability is sadly lacking on FAF.

It is not wrong to hold others accountable, and the Bible even gives us a mandate to share our concerns publicly at times (Matthew 18:15-20). Both Stan and I attempted to resolve our concerns in private, but the Tinkers blocked these attempts. After several months of silence, Stan and I concluded that more harm than good would come from not making our concerns public.

With respect to the new rule changes protecting us from people “talking smack”, I’m sorry I just don’t see your point. I welcome any challenges to what I’ve said, as your ability to openly disagree with me here demonstrates. All of us should desire to be held accountable to one another in the name of Christ. None of us needs a complex set of rules to “protect” us, we just need openness, humility and accountability–three things that I’ve seen lacking in my experience with the FAF administrators.

In the very same letter where Paul vigorously defended the gospel to the Galatian church, he also publicly rebuked Peter–his brother in Christ–for not being consistent in his behavior (Galatians 2:11-14). I am simply following this biblical precedent and likewise, I submit myself to your criticism by allowing you to disagree with me openly. Unfortunately this is not allowed on the forum you are now defending.

Finally, let us be certain we have not traded one cultic mindset for another. In our zeal to escape what we perceive to be a cult, let us cling only to Christ and not to any man-made ministry or new religious movement. We’ve gained nothing if we leave Adventism for “former Adventism” while still being in our sins. If by the grace of Jesus we are not in our sins, we should have the utmost humility and longing for the liberation of others who are still held captive as we were, becoming “all things to all people, that by all means [we] might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

In Christian love,

Greg