Hubert is right. If Sadhu was in any way trying to mislead others into thinking that he was not a Christian, then he failed miserably because he was nevertheless greatly persecuted for being one. Apart from his connection with Swedenborg, there is not much in Sadhu’s life that is questionable as to his Christian outlook and that includes universalism.
Doctrinal verification as a means for discernment seems to me to be yet another lie from Satan. From what I have learned, the only true children of God are those in whom an actual manifestation of the fruits of Holy Spirit are evident. If I really go by doctrines, then no one could be saved including Peter the apostle who failed to completely accept the gentile Christians together with the Jewish converts and arguably thereby demeaned the power of the blood of Christ to redeem, not to mention the personal mandate given to him concerning it, through a vision. May be he too was a false Christian after all. And while we are at it, why not falsify St. Paul who failed to see that Christ was not to return during his lifetime and only at the very end of his life does he seem to come to that conclusion as is inferable from his letters. Why accept his conversion as genuine, as well as his prophecies and visions, when clearly his greatest expectation was just wishful thinking.

All of this is just doctrinal fun to me. Probably all of us are going to hell for not keeping the saturday Sabbath as the Seventh Day Adventists would have me believe. Or they are all going to hell as you may have me believe. Or both sides are going to hell for equating Jesus to Jehovah, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have me believe. Or they could be going to hell for failing to see the ‘obvious’ oneness of Jesus with Jehovah. But one thing is certain, all the non-christians are going to hell – including Sadhu’s mother concerning whom he said that if she is in hell then I will ask God to send me hell so I can be with her. Of course, the hell-bounds also include the idolatrous Catholics, the pagan orthodox Christians, the mystical charismatics, and almost all the founders of Protestant reformation such as Luther who held on to the dubious sacrament of infant baptism.

Thus seriously looking at the doctrinal divide, I have learned to only judge by the Spirit. The aim of Christ was always to produce the fruits of Holy Spirit in men. So getting your doctrines right only satisfies the human carnality that seeks security concerning salvation through that knowledge. Knowing Christ, is the only true way to produce all the fruits in all their glory that pleases God. All other religions are either absolutely false or ‘incomplete’ as Sadhu would say. Drawing ever nearer to Christ may reveal to you the correct doctrines if you harbor any misleading ideas in your mind. Or it may not. In the end, only those who reflect the light of Jesus are right with God.

Bernard

There is a difference between wearing ordinary Indian attire and just sticking to the attire of the Hindu Sadhu’s. That is not called culture but religion.

Exactly!

There is a difference between wearing ordinary Indian attire and just sticking to the attire of the Hindu Sadhu’s. That is not called culture but religion. Yes, since I was born again, I have left everything that has to do with our traditional ancetral worship. I will not convert any of my loved ones by dressing up like a Sangoma. By looking like a sangoma, I will be auntheticating the practice to people instead of preaching to the then Christ.

I think, we should realise that people must believe, unto salvation, the Word concerning Christ.

Hubert

There are no assumptions. Sundar Singh was a Hindu Mystic. End of story.

There is too much assumption in what you are saying about Sadhu Sundar Singh. Todd Bentley uses many other people besides sundar to justified waht he is doing. He definately had the wrong spirit. However Sadhu Sundar Singh did leave his old lifestyle behind. Just like any one of us, when we followed Christ , we leave our old lifestyle behind. The question here is do we penalize him because he wear an orange robe? Do we penalize the menonites becausde they wear a headdress? Do we penalize the chinese Christian  because during somepart of their wedding they had to wear traditioonal chinese costume and cheong sam? Sundar was a punjabi. He minsters in the Indian subcontinent, so that type of dressing is totally acceptable. Thats their simple costume, a robe. Jesus wears a robe too. Sadhu simply means holy man in their language, hindi. but in that culture it refers to him as a teacher. They call Jesus a rabbi too? Is Jesus a Pharasee? In Laos and thailand they call pastors ‘Ajahn’, but they also call monks ‘ajahn’ too. Are they the same? In China, taiwan, singapore and malaysia, they call some one who teaches the word ‘lao shi’ but they also call taoist who teachesrs taoism ‘ lao shi’. In muslim culture, they call God ‘Allah’. But in malay and indonesia, the christians also call God ‘Allah’.Is muslim and Christian the same? Todd Bentley(whom i also believe is demon possessed himself) says he saw Sundar. That is liken to Saul seeing Samuel which is demonic in nature. so What todd bentley claims to see is not sahdu and could be a familar spirit.

Patrick

I am from Sweden and I have NEVER seen a Swedenborg church

Well it just shows that you need to get out and about more.

But more importantly, what on earth has your comment got to do with the article? Ahhhh nothing. It does however tell the readers of this blog that you think Hindu mystics are biblical and that Word of Faith is Godly (as per your comment below). Oh you also think John Piper is ok as well and that everyone else is wrong exept you. http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2010/05/26/john-piper-accepting-one-mountain-with-all-the-others/#comment-15377

I am from Sweden and I have NEVER seen a Swedenborg church.

James Hudson Taylor when moving to China became a Chinese to preach for them because they wouldn’t receive him as an English man.

Hi Thooomaaaaaasssssss!

Good question… hope Clark can expand further.

Clark seems to have forgotten that Swedenborg started a whole new belief system which his followers call a new Christianity. Now, if Christianity is a movement of church goers who gather in buildings to worship the Lord, then Swedenborg’s followers must surely also gather toegether in buildings where they werve and worship their “Lord” who is not the Christian’s Lord but a new “Lord” of a “new Christianity.” Is’nt that a church? (Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedenborgian and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Church)

Would Clark mind explaining how Jesus Christ established his church after his death, resurrection and ascencion into heaven? Does that mean He never established a church (ecclesia)? The fact that an “organiztion” (organizations do not have doctrines pertaining to matters of life and death) was only started after Swedenborg’s death does not mean that he was not instrumental in the establishment of a new church (with a belief system and certain doctrines).

Clark

Thanks for that FYI. I’ll fix the article. This still does not mean a church was not established off Swedenborgs teachings.