Church Issues by Thomas Cusack
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
|