From: Thomas R Cusack Ellen G. White Defense League, Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventism, SDA, SDA Independent Ministries

Church Issues by Thomas Cusack

Click here to go to our Home Page

Below is a transcript of Thomas Cusack to an E-Mail group known as Adventist Issues. Tom is a trained Seventh-day Adventist phycholigist. We are presenting his views precisely as they appeared on Adventist Issues.

----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas R Cusack Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 4:44 PM Subject: [AI] Gary, and methods that have been used on this discussion group. Dear Gary [Mayo], There is not a single Adventist doctrine that can be proven incorrect, because there is ample Biblical support for them. That includes the issues related to Daniel 8:14. I do not take the same position regarding understandings of Revelation, for the SDA church does not take the position that every aspect of Revelation is understood, and there are certainly areas which are clearly open for discussion, such as the trumpets, Revelation 11, etc. I feel that some very useful comments have been made in that area. What I have heard on this discussion group regarding the nature of Christ, the Great Controversy, the Gospel, the Law, the Sabbath, Death, Hell, the 2300 day prophecy, final events regarding the antichrist, etc. has only proven to me, totally, that the SDA position is completely correct.

I will give you one example. I pointed out that Hebrews says that Christ came in the "seed of Abraham", the genetic material of a sinful human being. I clearly pointed out that the term "likeness" in Romans 8 does mean that the nature of Christ was not exactly like us, simply because He was human plus divinity, and His mind was totally controlled by the Holy Spirit from birth, and the response was that I was saying sin is transmitted genetically. But the person missed the whole point. If we say that sin was not transmitted genetically, what makes any of us a sinner? We sin. Jesus did not. Therefore, the "sin" that He did not have would be a sinless character, not nature. That would prove the Adventist position. If the other is true, which it is, it still does not prove that Christ, in His divinity, was a "sinner." Only the nature that He assumed, for the purpose of redemption, was representing corporate humanity. But His nature is that of a sinful human being. We are not teaching that Jesus "had" a sinful nature. He was divinity that took upon Himself, humanity. He took upon His divine nature, our fallen human nature, so that He could do what Galatians 4:5 says, He redeemed those who were 'under the law." By the way, if the term under the law refers only to those keeping the Ten Commandments, then Jesus did not redeem the whole human race. Think about it. Under the law means under the condemnation of the law. He was born "under the law", to redeem those that are "under the law." How? He took upon Himself a sinful nature that represented corporate humanity, the sinful race that needed redeeming. He took that nature through life, without sinning, and took our sins at the cross, and resurrected to heaven, accomplishing a complete atonement for the Human race. The truth about Christ's nature does not make Him a sinner, for He "did no sin."

Regarding EGW, I am troubled by the methodology being utilized. A person finds one statement, hones into it with a fine tooth comb and a magnifying glass, when often one cannot fully retrieve the cultural background to the statement, the motives of the person involved, etc., and fails to utilize proper hermeneutical principles to fully study the point under discussion, all methods which one would never use in studying the Bible. I'll give an example.

James 2:24. "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

[A Caricature of the Study Methodology and Presentation of Gary Mayo and Other of Ellen White's Critics]: Now, don't look at any other books, or any other information. Just magnify this statement, and criticize it. James is wrong theologically, because this is obviously not a true statement. He must have been a false prophet, for he is "contradicting" other information. He is not speaking "according to the law and the testimony." Please dont take into account all of the issues involved, as to why Paul and James are focusing on a slightly different aspect of the gospel issues. Please dont read other books to balance one's understanding. Please don't take into account the spiritual maturity of the writer at the time of the statement. Please do judge one's motives, and make statements of conjecture that one cannot validate, because the person is dead. Please assume that James wrote this to make money, even if he gave much of himself to assisting the poor and needy, and lived very sacrificially. Please add up the name to 666, when all of the other marks of the antichrist would not at all apply. Please ignore many scriptures, use one scripture to prove a doctrine, when the Bible says not to prove a doctrine that way. Please use apocalyptic and other less than clear scriptures, instead of the clear ones, to prove a point. Please approach the task with incorrect understandings of how prophetic inspiration works. Please listen to a theologian such as Desmond Ford, instead of the whole Bible. Please bring up the issues that Canright raised, and forget that perhaps his whole viewpoint was skewed to begin with. Please keep using this discussion group as a bulletin board for "soundbites" from web sites, with no discussion. Please quote from Walter Rhea, as though his understanding of the prophetic gift is correct. Please assume that since people did not realize how much "James" borrowed, that that proves the people responsible for the writings were hiding something. Please assume that everyone's stated opinions about James, if in the negative, proves that the opinions are truth. Please assume that if witnesses testimonies differ, James is the one lying and inaccurate, without ever considering the state of mind and spiritual life of the critic. Please ignore that the critics had no impact on society, or the growth of the Gospel, while "James" brought millions into a closer relationship with Christ, into a healthier lifestyle, and inspired thousands to evangelize the world. Please assume that if James' work resulted in a growing church with a lot of money, that such is totally evil, while many other churches have much more money, but never mention that. Please place yourself in the position to bring down a whole church, through criticism, through labelling the Estate as liars and hypocrites, but not to their face personally, as though Christ's words about "those who are not against us are for us" is totally irrelevant. Please assume that destructive, critical, negative ministries are God's desires today, instead of preaching the final warning about the antichrist, and the truths of the Everlasting Gospel. Please call for everyone to unite in the "doctrines we hold in common", and ignore the rest, when the Bible says we should "live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God", that we should "teach all things Christ commanded", that we should teach what is in accordance with "sound doctrine", and that we should "love our enemies." Instead,please call people in the SDA church "apologists", "firemen", etc. all in totally violation of the Golden Rule, and justify your sin because someone else called you a Jesuit. Please make a mockery of Christianity, of this discussion group, and the Christian spirit itself, and justify it all.

Now, I expect some sharp retort from someone to try to throw this back at my face. Please don't bother. For once, instead of trying to engage in a power struggle, just ask yourself whether or not the methods being used to discuss the writings of EGW are really sanctified, accurate, and Biblically correct. We are to test a prophet. But when you have someone dead a long time, with the amount of written material existing, be very careful how you utilize the "tests." Thomas R. Cusack