Posted on 03/02/2011 10:22:55 AM PST by OrthodoxKirkPresbyterian
Don't forget the Amish. I've been reading some incredible things about them here.
Charles Taze Russell, the founder of The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society (JW’s) came out of the Millerite Adventists (SDA - Russell tweaked SDA and came out with the JW’s). And that’s an interesting read.
When I was overseas in the Marshall Islands, our chapel sponsored most of the missionaries on outlying islands, including the SDA. They seem so bright and shiny clean and they really do want to be perceived and evangelicals. After I studied them (read their Statement of Faith), it was obvious to me they are heretical. I had to quit the missionary council because the council wouldn’t acknowledge them as heretics. I joined a smaller baptist fellowship.
Seventh Day Adventists, comprised of at least six different sects of American protestantism, are Christian and not a cult.
By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity, Seventh-Day Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians. But Christians, once separated from the Church our Lord founded, are susceptible to being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp
I’ve known a few extremist members of the Church of Christ that thought other Christian churches were apostste, but that doen not mean the entire COC is a cult. The extremist were members of small rural COCs. The larger ones I know of are good Bible churches.
This is 100 percent nonsense.
1) Ask them if they believe the New Testament is the word of God as revealed through the apostles
2) Then ask them how they reconcile the scriptures (1 Corinthians 14:34) with a woman keeping silent and their prophetess I have to admit, it is kind of fun to watch the leaps of logic, conjecture and backtracking at that point. And if you really want get them to do dances of logic and back tracking, ask them about Ellen White's FAILED prophecy.
Embarrassing Failed Prophecies
In her early career Mrs. White made a number of predictions about Christ's imminent return. The most notable of those was a specific prediction made at a conference of believers in 1856. This statement was later published in the book Testimonies and received widespread attention within the SDA Church. Mrs. White claimed she was shown in vision that some of those present at the 1856 conference would be translated:
I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131
A Failed Prophecy?
Mrs. White was given a vision showing the fate of those people attending the conference. She specifically states that some of them will suffer the seven last plagues, and some will be alive when Jesus returns. The Whites had such confidence in this "vision" that it was published in Mrs. White's Testimonies to the Church and received widespread distribution. However, by the early 1900s all those who attended the conference had passed away, leaving the Church with the dilemma of trying to figure out how to explain away such a prominent prophetic failure.
The Bible leaves no doubt that when a prophet makes a prediction that does not come to pass, that prophet is not speaking for the Lord:
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut. 18:22
Re: “The Adventists are a cult that is as dangerous as the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Mormons”
******************
The only Adventists I’ve ever known were lovely, caring people — well liked physicians and their families here in the cesspool of L.A. And no, I’m not an Adventist myself...
At least they don’t worship a dude in Italy wearing a funny hat. Or I should say a dude that changes after the old dude dies. Pot calling Kettle black, is all it is. Everyone thinks their faith is the WAY, or else it wouldn’t be their faith.
You said:
1) Ask them if they believe the New Testament is the word of God as revealed through the apostles
2) Then ask them how they reconcile the scriptures (1 Corinthians 14:34) with a woman keeping silent
Ahh, so by exploiting people’s goodwill, using slightly clever intellectual misdirection and getting them to agree with an overly broad definition, you then reverse course and attack them for lack of specificity... And then criticize them corporately for intellectual deficiency...
I am so underwhelmed at your dishonesty. Anyone can play that stupid word game with anyone. Only dishonest people do, but then, that was obvious from the start.
If anyone wants to know what this is actually about...
The letter to the church addresses a cultural clash of the day... One faction culturally, did not allow women to speak in public, and one did. The people who did not allow it were offended greatly at the impudence of the women who spoke up publicly and violated very strict cultural mores.
The apostle (believed to be Paul) was of the opinion that in this clash, one of the sides had to compromise, and for reasons we don’t know, chose the side he did. Perhaps he thought it unwise to try to undo a societal stricture by force, or maybe it was just about who the majority was, we don’t know. Whatever the case, we don’t know if the church followed the advice or not. what we do know is that from reading the account, the instruction given is not a doctrine from Christ, but is, as is much of the the new testament, precisely that... The accounts of the disciples and apostles, concerning the life of Christ and the events shortly following his death.
There is no reason to think that this is anything other than the account of a cultural clash. Certainly, there is no reason to think this is a doctrine.
“Don’t forget the Amish. I’ve been reading some incredible things about them here. “
LOL!
Wow, it is obvious you do not understand the definition of dishonest (a disposition to lie, cheat, or steal). Please explain how asking two very simple questions is dishonest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.