15. Wrapping Up the Case

#193: "Today, Seventh-day Adventists strive to be included as mainline, evangelical, Protestant Christians, and therefore object very strongly to any hint that they may be teaching cultic doctrine."

#193: They strive to be included as mainline, evangelical, Protestant Christians. Actually, there really isn't all that much striving. And why should there be, given Adventism's strong stance on the final authority of Scripture? That used to be one of the cornerstones of Protestantism, but it's been aban­doned by many mainline churches.

Representatives of the largest church in the world have declared that Adventists definitely are Protestants, since they repudiate tradition in favor of what the Scriptures teach. Here's one such quote:

The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.-"The Question Box," The Catholic Universe Bulletin, Aug. 14, 1942, p. 4.

Seriously, why should "the only consistent Protestant" have to strive? Rather, the churches who are following tradition instead of the Scriptures are the ones who ought to be striving.

Other quotations from Catholic writers on the subject follow:

People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.--Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Sentinel, May 21, 1995.

[Seventh-day Adventists] are the most fundamental of all the fundamentalist sects, holding to literal interpretation of the Bible... Kenneth Ryan, What More Would You Like to Know About the Church, p. 137.

If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh Day Adventist is right in observing the Saturday with the Jew.-Bertrand L. Conway, The Question Box (1903 ed.), p. 254.

Cath.: Is the Bible the rule or guide of Protestants for observing Sunday?

Prot.: No, I believe the "Seventh Day Adventists" are the only ones who know the Bible in the matter of Sabbath observance.-The Bible, an Authority Only in Catholic Hands, pp. 26, 27.

If you follow the Bible alone there can be no question that you are obliged to keep Saturday holy, since that is the day especially prescribed by Almighty God to be kept holy to the Lord. In keeping Sunday, non-Catholics are simply following the practice of the Catholic Church for 1800 years, a tradition, and not a Bible ordinance. What we would like to know is: Since they deny the authority of the Church, on what grounds can they base their faith of keeping Sunday. Those who keep Saturday, like the Seventh Day Adventists, unquestionably have them by the hip in this practice. And they cannot give them any sufficient answer which would satisfy an unprejudiced mind. With the Catholics there is no difficulty about the matter. For, since we deny that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we can fall back upon the constant practice and tradition of the Church which, long before the reign of Constantine, even in the very days of the apostles themselves, were accustomed to keep the first day of the week instead of the last.-F. G. Lentz, The Question Box, pp. 98, 99.

The last quote put the change of the Sabbath back in the days of the apostles, or thereabouts. This is what tradition says happened, which is good enough for some, but there is no biblical or historical basis for such a claim.

At any rate, the major points these Catholic authors make is that:

1. The Bible says to keep Saturday.

2. The Bible doesn't say to keep Sunday.

3. Protestantism claims to go by the Bible alone.

4. Protestants who keep Sunday are being inconsistent.

5. Seventh-day Adventists as Protestants are being consistent by keeping Saturday.

So say representatives from the largest church in the world.

#194: "An Adventist pastor supplied the following five marks of a cult. You be the judge whether or not his denomination fits his own definition of a cult."

#194: An Adventist pastor supplied this. When one reads what this pastor wrote, the credibility of all the information in the video is called into question.

These five marks were part of a letter to the editor of the Nelson Daily News written by Pastor Dan Stapleton. His letter, which can be found in its entirety in the documentation package under "Point 92," was in answer to charges which Keith MacGregor made in a newspaper article. The letter contains this interesting statement:

As for the accusations made by K. MacGregor against the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Ellen White, I'm sorry to see again his misrepresentations, historical inaccuracies, and false assessments in print. It was 14 years ago that I first read such things published by the "ministry" he represents and they are no more true now than they were then.

We have referred more than once to Lorri MacGregor, the script writer for this video. In the credits at the end of the video, her name tops the list of six who were responsible for the research. Keith MacGregor is her husband. The two of them were this video's co-producers, and they operate what is known as MacGregor Ministries, which is the publisher of the documentation package.

The reader likely will see the problem. The very documentation package that is supposed to substantiate the "facts" of the video actually provides documenta­tion explaining why there are so many mistakes and misrepresentations in this video. As of 1997, the date of the article Pastor Stapleton referred to, the MacGregors had been doing this kind of thing for 14 years.

#195 & #196: " 'Point 1: Cults or false religions usually have a single powerful human leader who becomes the cult's "messiah."

"Who can deny the total reliance of the group on the teachings of Ellen White. She may not be called their messiah, but is certainly their messenger of God, revered by all."

#195: They totally rely on her teachings. As presented under #21, #23-#26, and #45, the Adventist Church uses the Scriptures as their ultimate and final authority. It proves its doctrines from the Bible, not Mrs. White.

Second to the Bible, Mrs. White is officially viewed by the church as having more authority than the average person. This, however, does not mean that there is a "total reliance" on her.

By the way, it is because of the respect shown to the counsel of Mrs. White that there is no single, powerful human leader at the helm of the Adventist Church. She advocated spreading the responsibilities around, not centering all power in a few (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, p. 236).

#196: She is revered by all. It simply isn't true, as Sydney Cleveland makes clear toward the end of the video under #231.

One of the sources referred to earlier by the video was Walter Rea's The White Lie. The situation is not as bad as he describes it, but consider carefully what he has to say:

Perhaps one of the strangest twists of the white lie is that in many respects few in or out of the Adventist Church seem to be greatly affected anyway by the specific details of Ellen and her instruction, counsels, and reproofs.... In actuality not a great many pay much attention to the church's "spirit of prophecy," no matter where Ellen's ideas came from....

There is not overwhelming evidence that the members of the Adventist Church follow the solemn nineteenth-century counsel of Ellen .... Neither Adventist ministers nor Adventist lay people practice or promote to any serious degree certain legalisms they claim came from God by the inspiration and authority of their prophet....

That Adventists really believe that all the instructions of Ellen's pen came from God has to be doubted - because they have chosen to ignore a great deal of that instruction.-pp. 250, 251.

Thus wrote two decades ago one of the primary sources for information for this video.

A minority of Seventh-day Adventists who are theologically liberal openly deny the authority of both the Bible and the writings of Mrs. White. Among many of those who do profess to believe in the authority of inspired writings, many things just aren't followed or are explained away. Some seek to put into practice the counsel offered, but it definitely isn't as unanimous as Mr. C___ thinks. Mrs. White is not "revered by all."

The documentation package identifies this item as "Point 93," but when one turns to "Point 93," no citation relevant to this item can be seen.

#197 & #198: " 'Point 2: The cult leader's word, or teachings of the cult, become absolute truth, overshadowing the teachings of the Bible.' "

"No Seventh-day Adventist would dare deny that Ellen White's comments on a certain portion of Scripture, determine the group's acceptance or rejection of historical views held on those Scriptures. Her interpretations prevail and become Adventist doctrine. Even today her writings are considered to be of equal inspiration with Scripture."

#197: Her comments overshadow the Bible's teachings. False, as already brought out under #21, #23426, and #45.

According to the documentation package's index, this charge is "substantiated" under "Point 94." There we find quoted number seventeen of Adventism's twenty-seven fundamental beliefs:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested inn the ministry of Ellen White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

Thus, since Mrs. White's comments must be tested by the Bible, they cannot simultaneously overshadow the teachings of Scripture. Once again, the documenta­tion package proves the utter falsity of the video's charge.

#198: Her comments determine the acceptance or rejection of historical views. Incredible! Mr. C___ didn't say "acceptance or rejection of Scripture." He instead said "acceptance or rejection of historical views," which is another way of saying "tradition."

So, Adventists are being condemned because they reject what tradition teaches about the Bible. But, being Protestants, they have to reject tradition when it contradicts the Bible, for that is in essence what Protestantism is all about.

What says the Bible, the blessed Bible?

This my only question be.

The teachings of men so often mislead us.

What says the Bible to me.

If an individual who truly has the biblical gift of prophecy declares some tradition to be an error, how can that possibly be wrong?

#199, #200, #201, #202, & #203: " 'Point 3: Each cult uses pressure tactics to coerce members into submission.' "

"Ellen White knew how to pressure people into submission. First she would claim to receive a reproof from God for the person, which she would air publicly through her testimonies. Usually the person conformed under the pressure. 'I have uttered reproofs... because the Lord has given me words of reproof... for the church.' The Remnant Church; Its Organization, Authority, Unity, and Triumph p. 6."

#199: She pressured people into submission. Remember how she, unlike others, refused to push the reform dress or not eating suppers on people (#123, #128, #132)? Where was the pressure?

Mrs. White set before her readers God's own example of how to treat people we do not agree with or who are erring:

The government of God is not, as Satan would make it appear, founded upon a blind submission, an unreasoning control. It appeals to the intellect and the conscience. "Come now, and let us reason together" is the Creator's invitation to the beings He has made. Isaiah 1:18. God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given. A mere forced submission would prevent all real development of mind or character; it would make man a mere automaton. Such is not the purpose of the Creator.... It remains for us to choose whether we will be set free from the bondage of sin, to share the glorious liberty of the sons of God.-Steps to Christ, pp. 43, 44.

She advocated the taking of these principles manifested in God's government into the home and the classroom:

To direct the child's development without hindering it by undue control should be the study of both parent and teacher. Too much management is as bad as too little. The effort to "break the will" of a child is a terrible mistake. Minds are constituted differently; while force may secure outward submission, the result with many children is a more determined rebellion of the heart. Even should the parent or teacher succeed in gaining the control he seeks, the outcome may be no less harmful to the child. The discipline of a human being who has reached the years of intelligence should differ from the training of a dumb animal. The beast is taught only submission to its master. For the beast, the master is mind, judgment, and will. This method, sometimes employed in the training of children, makes them little more than automatons. Mind, will, conscience, are under the control of another. It is not God's purpose that any mind should be thus dominated. Those who weaken or destroy individual­ity assume a responsibility that can result only in evil. While under authority, the children may appear like well-drilled soldiers; but when the control ceases, the character will be found to lack strength and steadfastness. Having never learned to govern himself, the youth recognizes no restraint except the requirement of parents or teacher. This removed, he knows not how to use his liberty, and often gives himself up to indulgence that proves his ruin.-Education, p. 288.

Would not the world be a better place if preachers, parents, teachers, and public officials sought to put into practice these simple principles Mrs. White advocated?

 #200: She publicly aired reproofs. Obviously, Mr. C___ must not be too acquainted with her writings. Most of the time, as the documentation package under "Point 95a" indicates, the person's name was never used when a personal testimony was made public.

Under "Point 95a" there are three "publicly aired reproofs." Of these, two were personal letters that were not published until the 1980's or 1990's, so they were never publicly aired.

The third "example" represents a selection from volume 3 of Testimonies for the Church. It talks about Brother B. Who is Brother B? Did his name begin with B? Not at all. Brother A is referred to two pages before and Brother C is referred to four pages after. Letters were assigned to replace the people's names in the order in which they appeared in the book.

The specific city or town where Brother B was from is stated to be ---- on pages 339 and 340, thus protecting the guilty as far as possible. In other words, even where he lived is kept a secret. Only those acquainted with both the man and his problem might be able to guess who Mrs. White was talking about.

Why would she "air publicly" the reproof if she left the name and address out?

I have given some personal communications in several numbers of my testimonies, and in some cases persons have been offended because I did not publish all such communications. On account of their number this would be hardly possible, and it would be improper from the fact that some of them relate to sins which need not, and should not, be made public.

But I have finally decided that many of these personal testimonies should be published, as they all contain more or less reproof and instruction which apply to hundreds or thousands of others in similar condition. These should have the light which God has seen fit to give which meets their cases. It is a wrong to shut it away from them by sending it to one person or to one place, where it is kept as a light under a bushel.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 631, 632.

So not all were "aired," for that would have been improper, but many were, with the names and places usually deleted to protect the guilty. Usually? Well, there were some exceptions, and one such exception appears in the very same chapter:

In this testimony I speak freely of the case of Sister Hannah More, not from a willingness to grieve the Battle Creek church, but from a sense of duty. I love that church notwithstanding their faults. I know of no church that in acts of benevolence and general duty do so well. I present the frightful facts in this case to arouse our people everywhere to a sense of their duty.-[bid,, p. 632.

Why this exception? What was the problem? As an unmarried missionary in Africa, Hannah More accepted the Sabbath truth and was consequently dropped from employment by her missionary society. She came to Battle Creek, Michigan, but no Adventist took an interest in her. Ms. More actively sought employment, for there were quite a few Adventist ministries there at the time, but no one wanted to hire this intelligent and devoted lady. She therefore lodged with friends in northern Michigan who were not of her faith. Unaccustomed to the winters of northern Michigan, Hannah More died that very winter.

Because of neglect, someone died! Do you think this might be reason enough to get more specific about people and places? Would you call this an unwarranted, cultic pressure tactic?

As the result of Mrs. White confronting this issue, the denomination started an association which had the primary responsibility of aiding widows and orphans. Praise the Lord! The possibility of future neglect causing such problems was therefore less­ened.

Here is what she wrote about the public exposure of naughty students. The principles expressed in this quote would be applicable in other settings as well.

Great care should be shown in regard to making public the errors of students. To make public exposure of wrong is harmful in every respect to the wrongdoer and has no beneficial influence upon the school. It never helps a student to humiliate him before his fellow students. This heals nothing, cures nothing, but makes a wound that mortifies.-Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 267.

Wise counsel, wouldn't you say? And she did her best to practice what she preached.

#201: Usually the person conformed. Since this matter has been quite oversimplified, let's add a few details regarding a problem Mrs. White had to address, and how she addressed it.

One of the "publicly aired reproofs" under "Point 95a" in the documentation package, the one not published until 1991, is a letter written in 1886. It was addressed to a very prominent Seventh-day Adventist leader named J. H. Waggoner who apparently did "conform." Yes, Mrs. White comes down pretty hard on this minister who was guilty of adultery:

Had you, Elder Waggoner, an elder of the church, looked up, you would have seen yourself a spectacle to God and to the pure angels who veil their faces and turn away from your pollution of soul and body. My words seem tame as I pen them when I think of the wonderful truths we profess and the great light that shines upon us from the Word of God. The Judge of all the earth is standing before the door, and every case must pass in solemn review before Him. I inquire, How can anyone with this light shining upon them dare in thought or word to deny the Lord God who hath bought them? Make haste, my brother, to cleanse your hands. Jesus is still pleading as your Intercessor. Commence the work of forsaking your sins without delay. Do not rest till you find pardon, for no soul can enter the paradise of God who has a single spot or stain in his character. Make thorough work for eternity.-Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, p. 387.

Now that we actually read it, it doesn't sound like she came down all that hard. After all, this gray­haired man wasn't just having an adulterous affair in secret. He had gotten to the point where he was even putting his head in his mistress's lap at public church gatherings (Letter 10, 1885, as quoted in Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 182, and Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, pp. 243, 245). Such grievous sins must be dealt with firmly. What else should the prophetess have said instead?

That incident at the public church gathering probably occurred on New Year's eve in 1882, though it may have occurred two years later (Arthur White, vol. 3, pp. 209, 288; cf. Evangelism, p. 315). On November 4 of 1885, she wrote a letter to Waggoner about that incident. Still he did not repent of his grievous conduct. So ten months later, she wrote the letter quoted above to plead with him further to cease his affair with another man's wife. This man, in the sunset of his life, was allowing too much time to go by before he made his peace with God. Yes, he finally did "conform," but he should have "con­formed" much sooner.

#202: This was because of the pressure. Actually, Mrs. White was present at the gathering where J. H. Waggoner had his head in the lap of his mistress:

The very things that transpired at the Piedmont Sabbath school reunion, I would not have [had] occur for thousands of dollars. You, a gray-haired man, lying at full length with your head in the lap of Georgie S. Had I done my duty, I would have rebuked you there. Many saw this and made remarks about it.-Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 182, italics added.

So she later felt that she had not rebuked Waggoner as duty required. At the time, at this public religious gathering, she didn't say anything. Pressure tactics?

While Waggoner finally did "conform" under the "pressure" of Mrs. White's earnest entreaties, along with the entreaties of his brethren, she never made his case known to the general Adventist public. Most today still don't know that this man had such a severe problem.

It is apparent from both this situation and others like it that Mrs. White didn't just write about the character of Christ. She ever sought to emulate His lovely character:

Christ Himself did not suppress one word of truth, but He spoke it always in love. He exercised the greatest tact, and thoughtful, kind attention in His intercourse with the people. He was never rude, never needlessly spoke a severe word, never gave needless pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness. He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice as He uttered His scathing rebukes.-Desire of Ages, p. 353.

 #203: This type of pressure is one of the marks of a cult. If such an idea be true, then the prophets of the Bible were just as cultic as Mrs. White. Consider what Nathan told David when he had committed adultery and murder:

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. (2 Sam. 12:7-13)

Looks like David "conformed" under the "pressure." And let's not forget Elijah:

And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. (2 Kings 17:1)

That was only the beginning of Elijah's "pressure tactics." In the New Testament we have more of the same from Peter:

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. (Acts 5:1-12)

But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. (Acts 8:20-24)

To cite every example in the Bible of prophets and apostles using the same kind of "pressure tactics" that Mrs. White used, we would certainly have to reprint a large portion of the Scriptures.

#204 & #205: "The tactics may not be as blatant today, but believers are subject to pressure tactics today as well to conform to the group. Love, acceptance, and fellowship are very often withheld from anyone who questions the official teachings of the church."

#204: Love, acceptance, and fellowship are very often withheld. Love is a word that can mean different things to different people. It might mean giving a lollipop to your kid, or it might mean giving him some necessary discipline.

Essentially, Mr. C___ is talking about church discipline here, a biblical teaching that Adventists definitely believe in. Sometimes discipline is the most loving thing to do.

Yet unlike Jehovah's Witnesses or the Amish, Adventists do not practice shunning. To them, church discipline does not mean that family members cannot associate with erring family members. It does not mean that erring ones cannot attend church services.

There are two forms of church discipline within the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

1. Vote of Censor. This is for a stated period of time. The erring one loses the church offices that he or she holds, and, during the period of censure, cannot have a voice or vote in the affairs of the church, cannot have a public part in the services of the church, and cannot transfer his or her member­ship to another church.

2. Disfellowship. This is when the person's name is actually removed from the membership roles of the church. He or she is then no longer a Seventh-day Adventist. Chapter 14 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, which outlines these procedures, gets very specific about what a member can and cannot be disciplined for. After the erring one is disciplined, notice the attitude of kindness that must be dis­played:

Notification to Persons Removed from Membership

-It is incumbent upon the church that removes a member from church membership to notify the individual in writing of the action that was reluc­tantly taken with the assurance of enduring spiritual interest and personal concern. This communication should, where possible, be delivered in person by the church pastor or by a church board designee. The erring member should be assured that the church will always hope that re-affiliation will take place and that one day there will be eternal fellowship together in the kingdom of God.-p. 189.

Thus churches are to be as kind as possible in their dealing with members who do such things as:

1. murder,

2. commit adultery,

3. steal,

4. habitually lie,

5. embezzle,

6. commit fraud,

7. take to alcohol or tobacco or narcotics,

8. commence a warfare against the church, or

9. deny the basic teachings of the Bible.

Back to Mr. C___'s statement. He said that "acceptance, and fellowship are very often withheld from anyone who questions the official teachings of the church." Perhaps he doesn't really understand what is going on, for if he did, he would think it actually isn't done often enough! Receiving the Word, by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, documents what has been going on for a number of decades among an influential minority of Adventists who no longer take the Bible as it reads. Based on his book, and some of the liberal publications he cites, some of the views being expressed are these:

1. God is so kind, He will never punish sinners.

2. Jesus death on the cross was not as our substitute; His blood did not have to be shed.

3. Evolution is how we got here, and there was no world-wide flood.

4. No one has the right to tell any couple not to engage in premarital sexual activities.

5. Scripture does not clearly condemn homosexual practices (pp. 159, 160, 172, 173, 109, 112, 184, 185, 107).

What do you think? Should people holding such views be just as accepted and enjoy just as much fellowship as those who still believe the Bible?

There are those who seek to liberalize the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. It would be much more appropriate if they started their own denomination rather than try to change one that has stood so strongly for the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

Receiving the Word documents it well. Additional evidence can be found in the journal Spectrum. The documentation package cites this journal under "Point 6" and "Point 14." The Time article under "Point 54" calls Spectrum an "independent journal for church liberals." Grab a copy and look through it, and you will likely see that a number of influential Adventists are openly propagating skepticism while still enjoying acceptance and fellowship. If the Adventist Church is so hard on those who question its teachings, why does Spectrum still exist?

 #205: Withholding of acceptance and fellowship for questioning doctrine is a characteristic of a cult. Adventist members are not disfellowshipped for merely asking questions about doctrines. But attacking and going to war against, that ought to be a different matter.

Would Mr. C___ call the apostle Paul a cult leader? Regarding what to do with a church member guilty of fornication, Paul wrote:

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, . . . deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, ... Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven.... I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.... Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Cor. 5:4-13) Is Paul advocating a type of treatment toward those in apostasy that is cultic in nature? Or should behavioral problems be handled differently than doctrinal ones?

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 Jn. 9-11)

So John tells us that there are certain cases that the church must deal with, even cases involving doctrine. God forbid that anyone would call the apostle John a cult leader!

#206, #207, #208, #209, & #210: " 'Point 4: Each cult denies the central truth of the gospel that Jesus is the divine Son of God without beginning or ending. They deny that His death has provided salvation... for the entire human race. As a result, salvation is earned by adherence to the teachings of the cult rather than accepting Christ and following Him.' "

"We would point out that the group originally denied the deity of Jesus Christ. Today they believe Jesus Christ is eternal, but they are stuck with the old doctrine that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. They need to firmly establish one doctrine and discontinue the other. However, they cannot give up this doctrine which contradicts Hebrews 1:13 without having to acknowledge that Mrs. White made a mistake. Instead they try to accommodate both conflicting doctrines. This is an impossible situation."

#206: They originally denied the deity of Christ. This is not true, as pointed out under #94.

James White was editor of the Review and Herald, and Joseph Bates and J. N. Andrews were on the publishing committee when a work by an English author was printed in the issue of October 18, 1853. It contained the following statement:

Christians, keep not silence while your Lord is dishonored, and souls are perishing. Warn those who deny the divinity of the only Saviour, that they must perish everlastingly if they go on rejecting him, for it is fearful and blasphemous to reject him.-p. 116.

Mr. C___ is really dealing with two separate issues: the deity of Christ and Christ being eternal. They aren't the same.

For example, consider the views of well-known Adventist preacher Ellet J. Waggoner (1855-1916) in his 1890 Christ and His Righteousness. Chapters two and four are entitled "Christ is God" and "Christ not a Created Being." He obviously believed in the divinity of Christ.

In chapter four he deals with some opinions that "actually deny His Divinity." One such is

... the idea that Christ is a created being, who, through the good pleasure of God, was elevated to His present lofty position. No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of the exalted position which Christ really occupies.-pp. 19, 20.

Waggoner explains what Revelations 3:14 means when it says that Christ is the "Beginning of the creation of God":

And so the statement that He is the beginning or head of the creation of God means that in Him creation had its beginning; that, as He Himself says, He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Rev. 21:6; 22:13. He is the source whence all things have their origin.-p. 20.

Likewise, regarding the term "archangel," Waggoner says:

This does not mean that He is the first of the angels, for He is not an angel but is above them. Heb. 1:4. It means that He is the chief or prince of the angels, just as an archbishop is the head of the bishops. Christ is the commander of the angels. See Rev. 19:11-14. He created the angels. Col. 1:16. Ibid.

Waggoner also spends some time dealing with Colossians 1:15. "Neither should we imagine that Christ is a creature, because Paul calls Him (Col. 1:15) 'The First-born of every creature' for the very next verses show Him to be Creator and not a creature." -p. 21.

Then he begins to delve into that aspect of the orthodox Trinity doctrine known as the processions, which teaches that Christ proceeded forth from and was begotten of the Father (see #94):

The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, ". . . whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.-pp. 21, 22.

Here is a man who says that Christ is God, is divine, and is not a created being, while at the same time he says that Christ is "practically without beginning." Was he contradicting himself? No, he wasn't. We are dealing with multiple issues here.

Notice how clearly Waggoner upheld the full deity of Christ:

And since He is the only-begotten son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. So He has "life in Himself." He possesses immortality in His own right and can confer immortality upon others.-p. 22.

Typically, the debate over whether Christ is divine or not is called the Arian controversy, dating back to the fourth century. After the initial stages, the difference between the two sides hinged on a single letter, the letter "i." The "orthodox" position was that Christ was homoousios. This Greek word means "of the same substance" or essence. The semi-Arian position was that Christ was homoiousios, of "like essence."

Since Waggoner said that Christ was "of the very substance and nature of God," he was on the orthodox side of the question. He was neither Arian nor semi-Arian. Presumably, Mr. C___ is in agreement with most, if not all, of what Waggoner wrote in these selections.

Regarding Christ being eternal, Mrs. White wrote in 1878:

The unworthiness, weakness, and inefficiency of their own efforts in contrast with those of the eternal Son of God, will render them humble, distrustful of self, and will lead them to rely upon Christ for strength and efficiency in their work.-Review and Herald, Aug. 8, 1878.

Even before this, the Review from 1854 to 1859 published five quotes and selections using the phrase "eternal Son" (Feb. 28, 1854, p. 43; Sept. 12, 1854, p. 33; April 15, 1858, p. 172; March 17, 1859, p. 131; April 21, 1859, p. 169). Searching through each issue through 1863, we find that the only writer to argue against the usage of the phrase was J. M. Stephenson (Nov. 14, 1854, p. 105). Yet his views on some subjects were by no means typical of Seventh-day Adventists, leading to his departure about a year later.

Isaiah speaks of those who "make a man an offender for a word" (29:21). In the fourth century they made a man an offender for a single letter. Things got so bad that by 381 AD, the "orthodox" emperor had forbidden the Arians to worship publicly. Any building in which they met was seized and donated to the imperial treasury (Theodosian Code, bk. 16, title 5, statute 8).

That was only the beginning. Over the centuries that followed, love, acceptance, and fellowship were withheld from those who differed on this and many other issues. Millions died for their faith.

Let's be more tolerant lest our behavior be called cultic. Especially let's be tolerant of those whom we don't really disagree with anyway.

#207: They must discontinue the doctrine that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Sorry, Adventists must be true to Scripture (see #93).

Mr. C___, you just condemned Adventists under #198 for their "rejection of historical views held on those Scriptures." Why then criticize them for retaining the "historical view" that Michael is a name for the uncreated, fully divine Son of God (see #87)?

#208: This doctrine contradicts Hebrews 1:13. No, the Bible does not contradict itself. After all, if the Angel who claims to be God in the Old Testament is not Christ, than we have more than one God, and that cannot be.

Hebrews 1:13 makes it plain that Christ is not one of the angels of heaven, but we have to consider that Paul is using a specific definition for the word "angel" in that verse.

By one count, the Hebrew word for "angel" occurs in the Old Testament 214 times. Of these, 98 times it is translated "messenger" and 4 times "ambassadors." Nearly half of the occurrences of this Hebrew word in the Old Testament refer to human beings, not what we normally call angels. Therefore, in the biblical sense anyone who is a messenger can be called an "angel," and that includes Christ.

The context of Hebrews 1:13 makes it pretty plain that Paul is not referring to men or Christ by the term "angel." He thus is restricting his meaning to just the angelic beings of heaven.

Why the script writer thought that the Adventist understanding of Michael contradicts Hebrews 1:13 can be seen from the index to the documentation package. Under "Point 96" in the index is this revealing sentence: "Jesus cannot be eternally God and a created angel at the same time!" Seventh-day Adventism has never taught that Michael is a created angel. If He isn't, then the whole objection to Michael and Christ being the same divine person collapses.

 #209: They can't discontinue it without acknowledging that Mrs. White made a mistake. That's putting it too simply. Adventists can't discontinue this doctrine without acknowledging that Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, Matthew Henry, the writer of the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible, and a host of others made a mistake as well (see #87).

As the video informs us, Mr. C___ is a regional director for Personal Freedom Outreach. His office happens to be in Glendale, Arizona, home to the video's executive producer, Mark Martin.

According to Personal Freedom Outreach's web site, Mr. C___ "has an associate of arts degree in biblical studies from Antioch Baptist Bible College" ( http://www.pfo.org/about.html  ). Why then would he make such a big deal of this issue? Charles Spurgeon and John Gill are some of the most well known Baptists of all time, and the Baptists sure aren't a cult.

 #210: It is impossible to accommodate both doctrines. Why not? It's been done for centuries. Notice what Jesus says regarding the resurrection:

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrec­tion of damnation. (John 5:27-29)

So the voice of Jesus raises the dead. Yet the apostle Paul says that it is the voice of the archangel that does it: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Th. 4:16). And Jude tells us who raised Moses: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 1:9). So who raises the dead? Jesus or Michael?

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Dan. 10:13)

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. (Dan. 10:21)

Notice how the old King James said, "I will shew thee," and, "Michael your prince." In this archaic English, "thee" and "thy" are singular, and "you" and "your" are plural. Thus "thee" must refer only to Daniel, and "your" must refer to either the Jews or all of God's people.

So the angel in Daniel 10:21 is saying that Michael is "the prince of the Jews." Why, that's an interesting title! The phrases "king of Israel" and "king of the Jews" are used in the gospels eighteen times to refer to Christ. Remember why He was condemned and crucified? The placard above His head on the cross said that His crime was that He was "the King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26).

The only references to Michael in the Old Testament are the three made by an angel in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1. A careful reading of chapter 10 suggests that Daniel at some point actually saw Michael, and that Michael must be Christ:

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:... and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. 10:5, 6)

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.... and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, . . . and his voice as the sound of many waters.... and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. (Rev. 1:13-16)

One last quote may be considered:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Dan. 12:1)

So Michael is the great prince who will "stand up" at the very end of time. Stand up? What does that mean?

Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.... a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. (Dan. 8:22, 23)

Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia .... And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. (Dan. 11:2, 3)

But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate. (Dan. 11:7)

Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom .... And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. (Dan. 11:20, 21)

Repeatedly, when Daniel says that a kingdom or king or prince "stands up," he's saying that they are beginning to reign. Thus, in the time of trouble, Michael the great prince begins to reign. Begins to reign?! I thought Christ was the one who did that (Rev. 11:15; Mat. 13:41; 16:28; 25:31; 2 Tim. 4:1)!

#211, #212, #213, & #214: "As to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, Adventists have added the investigative judgment, the keeping of the Sabbath, and obedience to the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament laws as requirements for salvation."

#211: Adventists have added the investigative judgment to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Really? Then why did Paul say, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom. 2:16)? If God will judge all by the gospel, it cannot be true that the judgment is added to the gospel. And as

Revelation 14:6, 7 clearly shows, even a pre-advent judgment is part of the gospel.

In actuality, someone who denies the truth of these Scriptures is deleting the judgment from the gospel. Who authorized the contributors to this video to delete the judgment from salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone? The penalty for deleting anything is severe:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:19)

#212: Adventists have added Sabbath keeping to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Who gets quoted so much on these issues? Why it's the apostle Paul. And what did he teach?

The Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. (Acts 13:42, 43)

So Sabbath keeping is not at odds with salvation by grace. Besides, Paul made it pretty clear that he was not a Sabbath breaker:

Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. (Acts 25:8)

Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. (Acts 28:17)

The worst rumor that the Judaizers could bring against Paul was that he had told Jews not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21), a charge that was totally baseless. If he really had been teaching that the weekly Sabbath was incompatible with the gospel, then the Judaizers would have had some facts to relate rather than just baseless rumors. The absence of a record of a controversy over the Sabbath in the book of Acts tells us plainly that Paul always sought to keep holy the Lord's Day Sabbath.

Now if these considerations aren't enough, we also have that first angel of Revelation 14 quoting from the fourth commandment while preaching the everlasting gospel: "And worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Rev. 14:7).

Sabbath keeping is also a component of the New Covenant, for the New Covenant promise is:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. (Heb. 8:10) Speaking of covenants: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3:15). When was the New Covenant ratified?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Heb. 9:15-17)

Since the Greek word for "testament" (a will) is the same as the word for "covenant," it is quite apparent from this passage that the New Covenant could not be altered after Christ died. Therefore, the New Testament, the New Covenant, was ratified on Friday, the day of Christ's death.

That evening, what did Christ's followers do? "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56).

Christ's will states that the law is to be written in the hearts and minds of believers. If the Sabbath were to be deleted from that law, it would have to be deleted before Christ died. Since it was not, the fourth commandment must still be in force. Resurrec­tion Sunday came three days too late.

Would the contributors to this video please consider that they are at risk of being charged with the crime of deleting from and altering a Man's will after His death? Such activities are highly illegal. Contact the heavenly court for full details. 

#213: Adventists have added obedience to the Ten Commandments as requirements for salvation. If by "salvation" the narrator means justification or conversion, then it need only be pointed out that Adventists believe that obedience is impossible before salvation occurs. If the narrator means "glorification," then it is a simple fact that Adventists haven't added anything.

The gospel of Luke says:

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:18-20)

Jesus wasn't saying that we can work our way to heaven, but He was pointing out that sin must be put away.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:18,19)

It is only through salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone that our lives can be brought back into harmony with God's holy law. But the point of these verses is that our lives must be brought back.

Paul cannot be clearer:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Gal. 6:15)

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Gal. 5:6)

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (1 Cor. 7:19)

If we want to be in God's kingdom at last, we must become a new creature, we must have that faith that works by love, we must keep God's command­ments.

The idea that people can continue to break the commandments of God and still go to heaven must be another gospel. It certainly wasn't the gospel Paul taught in the book of Galatians (Gal. 5:19-21). That book also says:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (Gal. 1:6, 7)

Why did the contributors to the video delete commandment keeping from the gospel, thus producing a different gospel than the one that Jesus and Paul preached? Did they have a vision or dream, or did an angel come to tell them to do so? "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).

 #214: Adventists have added obedience to other Old Testament laws as requirements for salvation. Again, this is untrue. Adventists haven't added anything.

What Old Testament laws is the narrator talking about? Is he talking about abstaining from eating blood? Yet Acts 15 tells Christians that they must still abide by this Old Testament regulation:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep your­selves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28, 29)

Or is the narrator talking about abstaining from eating unclean animals? Yet Isaiah said that those living in the end of time just before Christ returns must abstain from eating such:

For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. (Is. 66:15-17)

And the apostle Paul indicates that we should abstain from them as well:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:17, 18)

That's what we all want, isn't it? Don't you want God to be your Father? And let's not forget that, years after the cross, Peter testified: "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14).

Or is the narrator talking about tithing? In the context of events that occur in New Testament times, Malachi says:

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts. (Mal. 3:8-11)

Many Bible-believing Christians of many denomi­nations have been greatly blessed by simply taking God at His word. They have claimed this promise and have had their crops, their homes, and their lives preserved.

This writer is one of these. His house in Dobbins, California, was in the midst of a 5800-acre forest fire in 1997. The hard-plastic weather stripping around two of his windows melted from the intense heat of the fire as it raced to the top of the ridge where his house stood. A forty-foot or taller pine tree twenty feet from the house was torched all the way up. A cedar with foliage four feet from the roof was badly burned on its side away from the house. Though there was no defensible space between the house and the trees on the downhill side, the house stood totally untouched, other than the weather stripping. Eighty­three other houses did not fair so well. One nearby went down in ten minutes.

Paul indicates that as the preachers of the Old Testament were supported, even so were the preachers of the New Testament to be supported:

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:13,14)

Another hint regarding the perpetuity of the three things mentioned above (abstaining from blood and unclean animals, and tithing), is that they are all precepts that existed before the Jews came to be:

1. Noah and all his descendants were forbidden to eat blood (Gen. 9:4).

2. Noah knew all about the clean-unclean animal distinctions (Gen. 7:2, 3).

3. Abraham paid tithes, and Jacob promised to (Gen. 14:20; 28:22).

A careful study of Acts 15 reveals some vital points. First, the issue that prompted the church council of Acts 15 was whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could be saved (vss, 1, 5). Such a position in effect was saying that Gentiles had to become Jews, and thus that only Jews could be saved. Nowhere in the Old Testament are Gentiles ever told to be circumcised if they want to be saved. These Judaizers were thus trying to add to the Word of God.

Second, the council decided to ask the Gentiles to obey laws that had been binding upon them in Old Testament times (vss. 20, 29; cf. Lev. 17:13; 18:24, 25). So while they didn't have to obey laws that applied only to Jews in Old Testament times, they were still expected to heed the laws that had always applied to everyone.

Now since the Sabbath dates back to Adam, since both abstaining from blood and the clean-unclean animal distinctions date back at least to Noah, and since tithing dates back at least to Abraham, these must be precepts that applied to Gentiles back then. That being so, Acts 15 indicates that they still apply today.

Much more could be said on the subject, but suffice it to say that Adventists haven't added anything here either.

#215, #216, & #217: "In addition they believe the world's sins have been placed upon Satan rather than Christ, and that Christians must stand before God without Christ as their mediator.

'Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator.' Great Controversy p. 425."

#215: They believe that sins have been placed upon Satan. No Adventist believes that sins have been placed upon Satan. This charge is a total fabrication.

As shown under #191, Adventists believe that sins will be placed upon Satan only after salvation is completely done. Since Christ has not yet returned, since the "redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:23) has not yet taken place, since probation has not yet closed, no sins have yet been placed upon Satan. 

#216: And that means rather than Christ. Utterly false. Adventists have never taught that our sins are laid upon Satan instead of Christ. Christ is our only Sin-bearer (see #191).

 #217: They believe we must stand without a mediator. Quite irrelevant, for as every Bible­believing Christian who has studied the matter knows, the mediatorial work of Christ must cease at some point. Will we need a mediator throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity? Of course not.

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev. 22:11, 12)

According to Jesus' own words, therefore, His mediation will cease just before He comes. There will be no more switching sides. Sinners will be forever lost, and saints will be forever saved.

This is also indicated in the following passage:

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. (Rev. 8:3-5)

Voices, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake are associated with the second coming of Christ in the book of Revelation (Rev. 16:18). The censer with the incense is a symbol of the intercession going on in heaven for us. The casting down of the censer must therefore represent the cessation of that intercessory work just before the return of Christ.

Though Adventists believe that this is something that becomes reality only in the last moments of time, the narrator gives no hint of this fact.

#218, #219, & #220: "Contrast this with the plain statement from the Bible in Hebrews chapter 7 verse 25 concerning Jesus Christ. 'Hence also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.' Truly the salvation for the Seventh-day Adventists, placing sin upon Satan, is not the salvation taught in the Bible."-

#218: This contradicts Hebrews 7:25. As should be readily apparent from #217, the use of this text is irrelevant to the point. Will this verse be still true ten million years after Christ returns? Of course not. There will be no need of salvation or intercession then, since sin will be no more. The saved of earth will enjoy total bliss throughout eternity without needing a mediator.

And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. (Rev. 22:3, 4)

And [God] said [to Moses], Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Ex. 33:20)

What makes the difference? Why was Moses unable to see God's face in Old Testament times, but the redeemed throughout eternity will be able to? We cannot today approach a holy God except through our divine Mediator, because of our sinfulness. However, once sin is fully dealt with, this impediment will be removed, and we will be able to see the face of God. The clear implication is that when Revelation 22:3 and 4 are fulfilled, there will no longer be the need of a mediator.

Hebrews 7:25 is talking about the present. It has no bearing whatsoever upon that time when those who are filthy will be filthy still, when those who are righteous will be righteous still.

 #219: Seventh-day Adventists believe their salvation comes from placing sin upon Satan. Maybe Mr. C___ is talking about the Church of Satan, but he cannot be talking about Seventh-day Adventists. The placing of sins upon Satan in the end purchases salvation for no one. Yet it is a biblical fact that the one responsible for all sin will receive his just deserts (see #191).

 #220: This isn't the salvation taught in the Bible. Since Seventh-day Adventists do not believe, and never have, that their salvation comes from placing sins upon Satan, this argument is clearly irrelevant.

#221 & #222: " 'Point 5: Cults often urge their converts to leave their families.' "

"At last we can find a point on which we can agree. Adventists do not urge their converts to leave their families. That means that out of the five points marking a group as a cult, four of them apply to Seventh-day Adventists. Many feel this is too cult-like for them."

#221: Four of the five points apply to Seventh-day Adventists. As we have just seen, not one of the five points applies.

1. Has single, powerful human leader who becomes the group's "messiah." Adventists do not make Mrs. White out to be their "Messiah." She is not "revered by all." They do not have a "total reliance" upon her. The Bible is their final authority.

2. Leader's word or teachings of the group overshadow the teachings of the Bible. Adventism exalts the Bible above all.

3. Uses pressure tactics to coerce members into submission. Neither Mrs. White nor the Seventh-day Adventist Church uses cultic pressure tactics.

4. Denies that Jesus is the divine Son of God, and that his death has provided salvation; salvation earned by following the group's teachings rather than accepting Christ and following Him. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has consistently advocated the doctrine of the deity of Christ since its very beginnings. Adventists believe that salvation is provided through the death of Christ. They do not believe that anyone can be saved by works. Even those in Old Testament times were saved by grace through faith in Christ, not by works.

Roughly 115 years ago, many Adventists had strayed away from a solid emphasis on salvation by faith in Christ. The Lord then used Alonzo Jones, Ellet Waggoner, and Mrs. White to put the doctrine of justification by faith at the center of Adventist theology.

At least some of the contributors to the video must know about that bit of Adventist history. Too bad the video didn't mention it. Giving Mrs. White credit for at least one positive thing, like her support for the doctrine of righteousness by faith at the 1888 General

Conference session, would have made the video seem much less biased.

5. Urges converts to leave their families. As Mr. C___ admits, Seventh-day Adventists do not fit this one. 

#222: The makers of this video think that these five marks of a cult are important. Do they really? There are so many denominations out there that are much bigger than the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Suppose a larger denomination could be found that fits these five points better. If Jeremiah Films, MacGregor Ministries, and the rest really feel these five marks are so important, then they should have already made a video about it before making this one.

Let's consider the five marks one more time.

1. Has single, powerful human leader who becomes the group's "messiah." Many denomina­tions got started by a single, powerful human leader. Calvin, Wesley, and Luther are a few examples of men raised up by God to do a special work at a special time.

The pope happens to be a single leader too. And as the teaching goes, he's pretty powerful. The official dogma is that he has the power to forgive sins, can lock and unlock heaven, and is the representative of Jesus Christ on earth. You can't get much more powerful than that.

It's not wrong to have strong leaders. The problem is when the followers of those leaders follow them instead of God's Word.

2. Leader's word or teachings of the group overshadow the teachings of the Bible. A most unfortunate thing happened after the death of the reformers. As the pilgrims departed from Holland on their journey to America to find religious freedom and a new home, their pastor John Robinson had a few words to say, quoted for us in Great Controversy, pages 291, 292:

... I charge you before God and His blessed angels to follow me no farther than I have followed Christ. If God should reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth of my ministry; for I am very confident the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth out of His holy word." -Martyn, vol. 5, p. 70.

"For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion, and will go at present no farther than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw; ... and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This is a misery much to be lamented; for though they were burning and shining lights in their time, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God, but were they now living, would be as willing to embrace further light as that which they first received."-D. Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. 1, p. 269.

To be honest, even Seventh-day Adventists are in danger of doing the same. And it isn't just Protestants that are in danger of this. While the Bible says that we only have one mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), yet all too often Catholic Christians look to priests, saints, and Mary as mediators too. And, as John Paul II acknowledges, Jesus forbade the use of certain titles for the pope:

Have no fear when people call me the "Vicar of Christ," when they say to me "Holy Father," or "Your Holiness," or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel. Christ himself declared: "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven...." (Mt 23:9-10).-Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 6.

All of us, whether Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Adventist, must exalt the Scriptures as being the final authority. The Bible's teachings must supersede every tradition, every human doctrine.

3. Uses pressure tactics to coerce members into submission. Sometimes when folk talk about persecution, they point the finger at the Medieval Church. It is true that somewhere between 50 and 150 million people were put to death during that time period at the behest of Rome. It is also true that the oppression did not cease with the end of the Middle Ages. One writer, loyal to the papacy till the end of his life, served as a spy and diplomat for three popes. He tells us the following:

Between 1823 (death of Pius VII) and 1846 (when Pius IX was elected), almost 200,000 citizens of the papal states were severely punished (death, life imprisonment, exile, galleys) for political offenses; another 1.5 million were subject to constant police surveillance and harassment.

There was a gallows permanently in the square of every town and city and village. Railways, meetings of more than three people, and all newspapers were forbidden. All books were censored. A special tribunal sat permanently in each place to try, condemn, and execute the accused. All trials were conducted in Latin. Ninety-nine percent of the accused did not understand the accusations against them. Every pope tore up the stream of petitions that came constantly asking for justice, for the franchise, for reform of the police and prison system. When revolts occurred in Bologna, in the Romagna, and elsewhere, they were put down with wholesale executions, sentences to lifelong hard labor in the state penitentiary, to exile, to torture.-Malachi Martin, Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 254.

Yet Protestants have not been squeaky clean on this matter either. The established churches of Protestant countries all too often, in days gone by, repressed and persecuted the faiths that were in the minority. Such practices were then exported to America in the days of her infancy. Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, faced just such persecution from Protestants in Massachusetts. Though quite ill at the time, he fled into the wilderness in the depth of winter, and endured fourteen weeks of misery.

Today there are those who wish to take us back to those times by once again forcing people to keep religious observances:

Laws in America that mandated a day of rest from incessant commerce have been nullified as a violation of the separation of church and state. In modern America, shopping centers, malls, and stores of every description carry on their frantic pace seven days a week. As an outright insult to God and His plan, only those policies that can be shown to have a clearly secular purpose are recognized.-Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 236.

While it is an insult to God's plan to conduct commerce on His holy Sabbath, it is by no means an insult to not force people to keep Sunday.

Regarding the lack of enforcement of the first table of the Decalogue, including the Sunday substitute, another American writer lamented:

In other words, things that should be criminal because they represent an affront to the very founda­tions of society and of justice are declared legitimate. -John Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, p. 80.

Then we have John Paul II calling for Sunday legislation as well in his 1998 apostolic letter, Dies Domini. Where are the voices of protest from Catholics and Protestants who believe in religious freedom? Is the only impediment to such agendas the pervasive secularism of our society? Or are there still some people of faith who believe that no one must be pressured to serve God?