The Counterfeit Character of God Movement

[RND]

This is indeed disturbing, that a well-respected pastor and teacher of Adventist doctrine would stoop so low as to write a book questioning the motives and intents of the heart of what I consider to be a very well rounded thought process regarding the true nature and character of God.

If you are not familiar with this extremely serious situation Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Chris Lewis of Loma Linda University recently published a book called:

The Counterfeit Character of God Movement - In the Seventh-day Adventist Church

This book is hyper-critical of a web site that I am very familiar with called Heavenly Sanctuary (HS.com) for short. I have also included a link to a review of this book from Spectrum Magazine below for you to read and reference.

​

God Kills: A Review of "The Character of God Controversy"

Why I find this so serious and such a threat to the Adventist church is not because of the views held by HS.com, far from it. They have done yeoman's work to reveal the true nature and character of God embodied in the earlychurch and that is in keeping with Traditional Adventist views.

I find it more than distressing that a man such a Steve Wohlberg would choose to write a book that is in my mind very disparaging of Traditional Adventist thought and which borders on being built on complete untruths and mis-characterizations of what is actually revealed at HS.com or the Good News Tours seminars which the folks at HS.com put together.

Instead of picjing up the phone and talking about various views I guess it is simply easier to write a book that further deepens the wedge that Satan has already planted in the church.

"Even though, come sweet Jesus come...." Soon. Before we eat each other.

 

[reddogs]

This is indeed disturbing, that a well-respected pastor and teacher of Adventist doctrine would stoop so low as to write a book questioning the motives and intents of the heart of what I consider to be a very well rounded thought process regarding the true nature and character of God.

If you are not familiar with this extremely serious situation Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Chris Lewis of Loma Linda University recently published a book called:

The Counterfeit Character of God Movement - In the Seventh-day Adventist Church​

This book is hyper-critical of a web site that I am very familiar with called Heavenly Sanctuary (HS.com) for short. I have also included a link to a review of this book from Spectrum Magazine below for you to read and reference.​

God Kills: A Review of "The Character of God Controversy"

Why I find this so serious and such a threat to the Adventist church is not because of the views held by HS.com, far from it. They have done yeoman's work to reveal the true nature and character of God embodied in the earlychurch and that is in keeping with Traditional Adventist views.

I find it more than distressing that a man such a Steve Wohlberg would choose to write a book that is in my mind very disparaging of Traditional Adventist thought and which borders on being built on complete untruths and mis-characterizations of what is actually revealed at HS.com or the Good News Tours seminars which the folks at HS.com put together.

Instead of picjing up the phone and talking about various views I guess it is simply easier to write a book that further deepens the wedge that Satan has already planted in the church.

"Even though, come sweet Jesus come...." Soon. Before we eat each other.

Well I didnt see any problems with HeavenlySanctuary.com until I probed a little deeper lately, the moderators and many others seem to believe a private interpretation on the 'testmony of Christ' and they reject the Spirit of Prophecy as given to Ellen White. So they have issues....check out the last thread I had...http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=52005

 

[Xenon]

Moses taught us to murder prostitutes and Sabbath breakers...

...We don’t believe God kills because our hearts tell us that, not because some authority tells us that.

I think I can see why the author is upset. He says so himself.

The group HeavenlySanctuary.com is in the forefront of those who teach that God never brings death upon the wicked as punishment for their sins. This sentiment is expressed in an article published on the Internet by HS.com. The author of the article begins by writing: “I’m privileged to belong to a growing fellowship of believers who have been asking very pointed questions about the legitimacy and logic of the traditional Christian interpretations of the cross and the atonement...” This person is correct that this movement is growing within the church; and this is the reason for writing this article—to warn Seventh-day Adventists so that they will not fall victim to the false teachings of this movement.

 

[reddogs]

I think I can see why the author is upset. He says so himself.

That is what I have been coming across from the staff/moderators and some members there. I was shocked and saddened to read their views, and I was puzzled as I had posted there for some time and had not picked up on it or let it go when they made odd statements in their post. But that last thread they made clear that they do not hold Ellen White to be a messenger for the testimony of Christ and no one stood up except myself to protest this......it is sad to see the tares make their appearance but it is the sign we should have been prepared for..

 

[RND]

Rick, I read the entire thread you offered and how your parents 'broke the sabbath' by feeding you in a cafeteria on the sabbath. You seemed to do quite well in your justification of your parents for 'breaking the sabbath' out of love. I think the story of the 'Good Samaritan' does a nice job as well. Mind you, I'm not condemning your parents for breaking the sabbath, in fact, I applaud them! They kept the true spirit of the sabbath.

Where I am concerned is simply this. We can not have a church that serves the Savior in His mission by displaying a menu of our beliefs before one enters the church. We are to welcome everyone with open arms and out of true love and care explain why we believe the things we do, why we eat the way we eat, etc. I quit smoking about 3 weeks before ever stepping inside an Adventist church for the first time because 1) I knew I needed too and 2) Because Adventists don't smoke.

I was extremely blessed that first day I attended an Adventist because a man offered to wash my feet without any judgment - and explained in perfect sense why Adventists wash feet! Had someone said, "You gotta take off that wedding ring, can't wear jeans to church, can't eat pork (I stopped eating pork about 4 months after joining the church) this could very well have been different. And yet I applauded at a church that tells the homeless they can't enter the church because of the way they 'smell' (true story!).

We are not saved, nor in any kind of meaningful walk with Christ as long as we have to victimize others in thought, word or deed in order to inflate our fragile self-image. If you ever notice one thing about me, while I may be a staunch defender of the sabbath, the Law, the Ten Commandments, the IJ, EGW, the state of the dead, Daniel/Revelation, etc., etc., I never, ever tell anyone they are not 'saved' if they don't believe these things. Our mission, should we choose to accept it is to point others to the glory of the Cross.

I see Heavenly Sanctuary, in spite of what you may think, as doing exactly this. Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Chris Lewis were wrong in publishing a book critical of Heavenly Sanctuary, the GNT and Dr. Maxwell without first dialoging with the staff, moderators, and even posters there. Pointing fingers at others, whether or not they are Adventist's is not what we have been called to do.

 

[reddogs]

Rick, I read the entire thread you offered and how your parents 'broke the sabbath' by feeding you in a cafeteria on the sabbath. You seemed to do quite well in your justification of your parents for 'breaking the sabbath' out of love. I think the story of the 'Good Samaritan' does a nice job as well. Mind you, I'm not condemning your parents for breaking the sabbath, in fact, I applaud them! They kept the true spirit of the sabbath.

Where I am concerned is simply this. We can not have a church that serves the Savior in His mission by displaying a menu of our beliefs before one enters the church. We are to welcome everyone with open arms and out of true love and care explain why we believe the things we do, why we eat the way we eat, etc. I quit smoking about 3 weeks before ever stepping inside an Adventist church for the first time because 1) I knew I needed too and 2) Because Adventists don't smoke.

I was extremely blessed that first day I attended an Adventist because a man offered to wash my feet without any judgment - and explained in perfect sense why Adventists wash feet! Had someone said, "You gotta take off that wedding ring, can't wear jeans to church, can't eat pork (I stopped eating pork about 4 months after joining the church) this could very well have been different. And yet I applauded at a church that tells the homeless they can't enter the church because of the way they 'smell' (true story!).

We are not saved, nor in any kind of meaningful walk with Christ as long as we have to victimize others in thought, word or deed in order to inflate our fragile self-image. If you ever notice one thing about me, while I may be a staunch defender of the sabbath, the Law, the Ten Commandments, the IJ, EGW, the state of the dead, Daniel/Revelation, etc., etc., I never, ever tell anyone they are not 'saved' if they don't believe these things. Our mission, should we choose to accept it is to point others to the glory of the Cross.

I see Heavenly Sanctuary, in spite of what you may think, as doing exactly this. Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Chris Lewis were wrong in publishing a book critical of Heavenly Sanctuary, the GNT and Dr. Maxwell without first dialoging with the staff, moderators, and even posters there. Pointing fingers at others, whether or not they are Adventist's is not what we have been called to do.

David,

You missed the whole point, when they reject the Spirit of Prophecy as given to Ellen White and say the Sabbath doesnt matter as well as the other pillars of Adventism, then they are left with teaching against the truths that God has given us. I am not pointing fingers, they posted as much and I was shocked and gave them examples where in my instance God can judge if it was done out of love, just as Christ healed on the Sabbath, to see if I had misunderstood what they were saying, but they didnt them present it as such. The problem is that they are on dangerous ground for a site that presents itself as Adventist, as to me it is clear they should not be fighting against and rejecting our beliefs, if they were a Baptist or Methodist site then its not a issue. You cannot say you are a 'Adventist' then mislead people on the beliefs of the Sabbath, the testimony of Christ as the SOP given to Ellen White, state of the dead, or other doctrines, it is spiritually wrong to do at the least and outright deception if done intentionally.

It had been very subtle but they have been working in this direction on several threads so I watched this one to see how they would answer. And they came out with "...What I hear being suggested is that we re-examine what we have been told it all means and come to our own conclusions as guided by God's spirit. In other words, with his help I believe that God invites us to examine the evidence for ourselves, to think for ourselves rather than to simply be reflectors of other men's thoughts. ...." or "...The omega of apostasy is nothing to fret about, or get all up and bothered about. It's just a signpost showing us that Jesus is almost here...." So do we just ignore apostasy or allow open sin in church and reinterpret the pillars of Adventism to whatever we want rather than what God gave us, that seems where they are headed.....

As for "displaying a menu of our beliefs" I had a discussion on this very topic at our Sabbath 'round table', some said that those wanting to join should go through a period to learn the Adventist beliefs before being baptized while others felt their declaration of a desire to join was all that was needed, but no real consensus. So in my opinion there is no reason to change how we allow others to join unless there is a real pressing issue, which doesnt seem to be the case. They should come as they are, and some of my friends have come smelling of reefer with their Black Sabbat t-shirts and that is perfectly fine, but should they continue to 'do drugs' or sin once they claim to accept Christ into their lives and clearly see the truth on the matter, that is the question.

Maybe they were arguing on being 'mature' enough to accept 'tares' into the church to make a point and went too far, but it seems they went beyond that in what they stated, and has been constant little posts/statements here and there not just this one thread. But we shall see how this plays out... (*you can PM me and we can go over what was troubling to me more extensively if you wish).

 

[TrustAndObey]

Great discussion, guys!

I haven't read the posts on HS but I have no reason not to believe Red's take on the discussion, so I just wanted to say a couple of things. I may be WAY off-topic because I'm not fully informed, so please just correct me if I get too side-tracked.

First of all, sometimes what people call "change" is actually compromise, and there's WAY TOO MUCH compromise in modern-day churches.

If we did what Peter suggested (I think it was Peter...sheesh, I'm so rusty in scripture right now), and called people out to admonish them in front of the entire congregation when they've done wrong, who would continue to even WANT to belong to a church?

We aren't teaching humility like we're supposed to--but it should always, always, always be done out of love and in the proper order.

We need to stop and consider that regardless of what our brothers and sisters may or may not see, that same sin is never missed by God. If we don't like being corrected by our brothers and sisters, we're going to learn to hate God's corrections too.

I know one thing for sure, if the people in my little church called me out about something, it would be because I deserved it. They are some of the most loving people in the world and I don't believe there'd even be one of them that wouldn't admit if they were doing the same sin I was being admonished for. Seriously, I know the people in my church and if they were committing the same sin, they'd stand up and put themselves right beside me. It would be used as a learning tool, and not a Pharisee Finger Pointing Session.

My husband and I decided to read the Bible before we even thought about making a decision about which church to join. It was in doing that that I was convicted about stopping a lot of things I was doing. Way before any church was involved, we started making changes.

But sometimes, even in reading the scriptures, we overlook certain things. Sometimes someone has to say "this is really important to me" before we start to question WHY it's important to them, and the same is true of scripture.

For instance, one of my Messianic friends told me that before he would even put a sip of liquid or an ounce of food into his stomach, he cared for his animals FIRST because that's what God instructed His people to do. I don't remember being convicted of that but upon researching it, I have to agree with him.

I agree with RND that we should embrace everyone that steps foot into our churches and show them unconditional love. There is no question about that.

But I also agree with Red that we can't condone the sins of someone that has decided to join. We have to take away the excuse of "well, I didn't know that was a belief when I joined." People should be fully informed about what our church teaches before they join. There is no question about that either.

During the interim, let the Holy Spirit convict them, because we can't. If they have a sin they haven't recognized yet, they would discover it during lessons. They'll either be convicted or they won't.

Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in is because people want to join before they know what we teach. I see people all the time that claim they're Adventist and then teach an entirely different message than what the church does.

First of all, I'll never understand WHY they decided to join if they don't agree with what we teach. It makes NO sense whatsoever unless they weren't told about and asked to consider each and every belief.

My husband and I went to some SS classes before we joined, for about a year I guess actually, and we knew exactly what we were joining when we joined.

Teaching anything contrary to what we teach is a deliberate compromise. You can't slap an Adventist label on anything just because you become a member.

Love people, let them in, teach them, and rebuke them out of love, but never, ever embrace continued willful sin after they've made THEIR choice. It isn't right to do that, and we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do now if we approached this from the biblical standpoint.

I hope that made sense and that I wasn't too off-topic.

 

[RND]

You missed the whole point, when they reject the Spirit of Prophecy as given to Ellen White and say the Sabbath doesnt matter as well as the other pillars of Adventism, then they are left with teaching against the truths that God has given us.

I just don't see this is what the GNT and HS.com is preaching and teaching. I have the videos, and have been to the most recent forum held at Loma Linda back in September. EGW was quoted, and the event was held on, hold on to your hat, the sabbath! This is true of the first set of videos as well.

I haven't been an Adventist all that long Rick but there is one thing I am convinced of and that is Mrs. White would approve of the work being accomplished by the team at HS.com. Another thing I'm convinced of is that Mrs. White, just as she learned to change her thoughts and ideals regarding on certain things, based on the amount of light she received, so too she would warmly embrace these things as well.

 

[reddogs]

I just don't see this is what the GNT and HS.com is preaching and teaching. I have the videos, and have been to the most recent forum held at Loma Linda back in September. EGW was quoted, and the event was held on, hold on to your hat, the sabbath! This is true of the first set of videos as well.

I haven't been an Adventist all that long Rick but there is one thing I am convinced of and that is Mrs. White would approve of the work being accomplished by the team at HS.com. Another thing I'm convinced of is that Mrs. White, just as she learned to change her thoughts and ideals regarding on certain things, based on the amount of light she received, so too she would warmly embrace these things as well.

Well David lets say I overreacted on that last thread, and I am willing to give the guys at HS.com the benefit of the doubt. But David, if one of us or other Adventist, goes in there and looks at what they are posting or ask them straight up if they believe the testimony of Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy as they clearly know from the fundy.. #18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. 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. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

and they back off from that or outright reject some beliefs as I have been seeing, then we have a problem. My read from their posts is that they do not hold to that belief or have a private interpretations of it and some are getting philosophical so as not to give answer you can pin down. Maybe you can dig in there and see what the truth of the matter is, but I backed off after that thread as I was stunned and am still a bit shaken.....

 

[RND]

Well David lets say I overreacted on that last thread, and I am willing to give the guys at HS.com the benefit of the doubt. But David, if one of us or other Adventist, goes in there and looks at what they are posting or ask them straight up if they believe the testimony of Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy as they clearly know from the fundy.. #18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. 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. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

and they back off from that or outright reject some beliefs as I have been seeing, then we have a problem. My read from their posts is that they do not hold to that belief or have a private interpretations of it and some are getting philosophical so as not to give answer you can pin down. Maybe you can dig in there and see what the truth of the matter is, but I backed off after that thread as I was stunned and am still a bit shaken.....

Rick, I did what Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Lewis should have done before writing their book, I asked a question:

HS Staff - Help me out

I look at this way Rick. Even if someone outright rejects EGW and the sabbath, as some do here at CF.com, if I do not love them then who am I? Yet, I have never seen anyone at HS.com do this.

 

[reddogs]

Rick, I did what Steve Wohlberg and Dr. Lewis should have done before writing their book, I asked a question:

HS Staff - Help me out

I look at this way Rick. Even if someone outright rejects EGW and the sabbath, as some do here at CF.com, if I do not love them then who am I? Yet, I have never seen anyone at HS.com do this.

Excellent way to get to the root of the issue David, but make sure the staff gives some answers to clarify their veiws, as when it is the Admin and Mods of the site that have made the posts even if a subtle shift, then it is a pattern not just a odd post from a member here and there. I will await to see their reply...

 

[TrustAndObey]

[move][sign]Am I invisible? haha[/sign][/move]

 

[reddogs]

Great discussion, guys!

I haven't read the posts on HS but I have no reason not to believe Red's take on the discussion, so I just wanted to say a couple of things. I may be WAY off-topic because I'm not fully informed, so please just correct me if I get too side-tracked.

First of all, sometimes what people call "change" is actually compromise, and there's WAY TOO MUCH compromise in modern-day churches.

If we did what Peter suggested (I think it was Peter...sheesh, I'm so rusty in scripture right now), and called people out to admonish them in front of the entire congregation when they've done wrong, who would continue to even WANT to belong to a church?

We aren't teaching humility like we're supposed to--but it should always, always, always be done out of love and in the proper order.

We need to stop and consider that regardless of what our brothers and sisters may or may not see, that same sin is never missed by God. If we don't like being corrected by our brothers and sisters, we're going to learn to hate God's corrections too.

I know one thing for sure, if the people in my little church called me out about something, it would be because I deserved it. They are some of the most loving people in the world and I don't believe there'd even be one of them that wouldn't admit if they were doing the same sin I was being admonished for. Seriously, I know the people in my church and if they were committing the same sin, they'd stand up and put themselves right beside me. It would be used as a learning tool, and not a Pharisee Finger Pointing Session.

My husband and I decided to read the Bible before we even thought about making a decision about which church to join. It was in doing that that I was convicted about stopping a lot of things I was doing. Way before any church was involved, we started making changes.

But sometimes, even in reading the scriptures, we overlook certain things. Sometimes someone has to say "this is really important to me" before we start to question WHY it's important to them, and the same is true of scripture.

For instance, one of my Messianic friends told me that before he would even put a sip of liquid or an ounce of food into his stomach, he cared for his animals FIRST because that's what God instructed His people to do. I don't remember being convicted of that but upon researching it, I have to agree with him.

I agree with RND that we should embrace everyone that steps foot into our churches and show them unconditional love. There is no question about that.

But I also agree with Red that we can't condone the sins of someone that has decided to join. We have to take away the excuse of "well, I didn't know that was a belief when I joined." People should be fully informed about what our church teaches before they join. There is no question about that either.

During the interim, let the Holy Spirit convict them, because we can't. If they have a sin they haven't recognized yet, they would discover it during lessons. They'll either be convicted or they won't.

Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in is because people want to join before they know what we teach. I see people all the time that claim they're Adventist and then teach an entirely different message than what the church does.

First of all, I'll never understand WHY they decided to join if they don't agree with what we teach. It makes NO sense whatsoever unless they weren't told about and asked to consider each and every belief.

My husband and I went to some SS classes before we joined, for about a year I guess actually, and we knew exactly what we were joining when we joined.

Teaching anything contrary to what we teach is a deliberate compromise. You can't slap an Adventist label on anything just because you become a member.

Love people, let them in, teach them, and rebuke them out of love, but never, ever embrace continued willful sin after they've made THEIR choice. It isn't right to do that, and we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do now if we approached this from the biblical standpoint.

I hope that made sense and that I wasn't too off-topic.

No you were right on target TrustAndObey, and if you and the others have time please go through the thread and see if I misjudged or misunderstood what they were saying, and its been a number of threads that this was happening but this one was a clear-cut issue which we have struggled with here so I drove it much harder to make sure their view was clear on it.

 

[Xenon]

Wow. I got through reading your thread on HS.com red, and that's scary. Only one or two posts seemed to directly answer your questions. Most of the rest were plainly evasive. The words of Jesus are so true.

John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

 

[RND]

Wow. I got through reading your thread on HS.com red, and that's scary. Only one or two posts seemed to directly answer your questions. Most of the rest were plainly evasive. The words of Jesus are so true.

John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Hey Xenon, have you ever thought about joining into a conversation over at HS? I've read Rick's post over there a few times now and I see nothing scary about the conversation.

I think it's time to stop the attacks on our Adventist brethren frankly. If you don't want to join in and discuss over there then I don't think you have much to say over here.

BTW, your John 3:20 reference is way out of line considering you have no idea about the people over at HS. I've met them, been a part of the GNT and have the videos. Nothing "evil" about them. Many are doctors, brain surgeons, university professors, and pastors. Your condemnation of people you don't know is more telling about you than it is about the work they are doing.

 

[Xenon]

Hey Xenon, have you ever thought about joining into a conversation over at HS? I've read Rick's post over there a few times now and I see nothing scary about the conversation.

I think it's time to stop the attacks on our Adventist brethren frankly. If you don't want to join in and discuss over there then I don't think you have much to say over here.

BTW, your John 3:20 reference is way out of line considering you have no idea about the people over at HS. I've met them, been a part of the GNT and have the videos. Nothing "evil" about them. Many are doctors, brain surgeons, university professors, and pastors. Your condemnation of people you don't know is more telling about you than it is about the work they are doing.

You can be a kind and loving person, or a doctor, or a brain surgeon, or a university professor, or a pastor, and still be wrong. Willow Creek is 2 miles from my house, and last week I went to go see Bill Hybels speak for myself. He was a loving person and a real family man. I'm positive that there is no malice in his heart. However, during his whole hour sermon, he used only a single Bible text. It wasn't even used as a basis for anything. The only reason that it was said is because it supported what he and a team of other pastors were already thinking (the context was that he an other pastors were discussing an issue, came to a conclusion, then one of them quoted the bible text). The rest of the sermon was him speaking from his own resources, even though some of what he was saying could be supported from the Bible easily.

Looking at what's being posted over there, I worry. For about a year, I didn't believe in the 2300 days prophecy the way that Adventists believe it. This really caused a struggle because it affected my thinking on all other points. James 1:6 was so true: But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. Not surprisingly, I also rejected Ellen White. It was a symptom; she clearly stated otherwise than what I believed. These doubts lasted until the underlying issue was cleared up. Once I saw that the 2300 days was truly speaking of 2300 years instead of a minor ruler, Ellen White was suddenly OK.

I've learned that when someone rejects Ellen White, they're not doing it because of anything about her. They're doing it because they don't agree on an issue, and her writings clearly contradict their own thoughts. It has nothing to do with the evidence that she was used by God. You are correct though. I shouldn't abuse a passage of scripture to speak badly about someone. For that, I am sorry. But what they're saying really does raise red flags, because I've seen it so many times before. It almost always leads them out of the church and into very clear error.

 

[RND]

You can be a kind and loving person, or a doctor, or a brain surgeon, or a university professor, or a pastor, and still be wrong.

Wrong doesn't mean "evil."

Willow Creek is 2 miles from my house, and last week I went to go see Bill Hybels speak for myself. He was a loving person and a real family man. I'm positive that there is no malice in his heart. However, during his whole hour sermon, he used only a single Bible text. It wasn't even used as a basis for anything. The only reason that it was said is because it supported what he and a team of other pastors were already thinking (the context was that he an other pastors were discussing an issue, came to a conclusion, then one of them quoted the bible text). The rest of the sermon was him speaking from his own resources, even though some of what he was saying could be supported from the Bible easily.

Wrong doesn't mean "evil."

Looking at what's being posted over there, I worry. For about a year, I didn't believe in the 2300 days prophecy the way that Adventists believe it.

You must have been "evil" during that period.

This really caused a struggle because it affected my thinking on all other points. James 1:6 was so true: But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. Not surprisingly, I also rejected Ellen White. It was a symptom; she clearly stated otherwise than what I believed. These doubts lasted until the underlying issue was cleared up. Once I saw that the 2300 days was truly speaking of 2300 years instead of a minor ruler, Ellen White was suddenly OK.

You must have been "evil" during that period.

I've learned that when someone rejects Ellen White, they're not doing it because of anything about her. They're doing it because they don't agree on an issue, and her writings clearly contradict their own thoughts. It has nothing to do with the evidence that she was used by God. You are correct though. I shouldn't abuse a passage of scripture to speak badly about someone. For that, I am sorry. But what they're saying really does raise red flags, because I've seen it so many times before. It almost always leads them out of the church and into very clear error.

Thanks for your apology, but you owe me none - you owe an apology to those you insinuated were "evil" simply because you've assumed they don't believe the way you do or that their views on EGW and the Sabbath are slightly more involved.

What good is it having the sabbath truth and EGW if one is as toxic as a rusty pipe?

Xenon, I started a thread over at HS.com called HS Staff - Help me out. I think it would be instructive and informative. There is a quote from the R & H in it that I think is extremely constructive:

"There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1892

EGW didn't have all the truth and anyone that thinks she did is not in agreement with her. That means they must be "evil."

Happy Sabbath!

 

[Xenon]

Wrong doesn't mean "evil."

Wrong doesn't mean "evil."

You must have been "evil" during that period.

You must have been "evil" during that period.

Do you know exactly why I quoted that verse? The verse after it talks about those who do the truth, compared to those practicing evil. Evil compared to truth, not evil compared to good. The problem is that falsehood has a tendency to turn into evil. The Pharisees believed in things which were simply not true. We know the results of this. It went from rejection of Jesus to outright murder.

Dr. Ron DuPreez wrote a paper critical of Adventist feast-keepers dealing with Colossians 2:16. In it he laid out why that verse gives no justification that the feasts are manditory (feast-keepers use it as a primary reason why the feasts are manditory). Their response to him was to say that he was worthy of "capital punishment" for writing it. It's one example, but I know that when I believed what I did about the 2300 days, I distrusted and felt threatened by everyone who thought otherwise.

Sometimes I don't pick the best things to say based on how I feel. Like I said, I'm sorry that I used that verse in an insulting way. But I really feel that if those on there who speak false things (like this thread) keep going the direction that they're going, they could find themselves deceived and truly "evil". Revelation says that people will kill thinking that they're doing God a favor. Deception must be identified, because otherwise we're in huge trouble.

Thanks for your apology, but you owe me none - you owe an apology to those you insinuated were "evil" simply because you've assumed they don't believe the way you do or that their views on EGW and the Sabbath are slightly more involved.

What good is it having the sabbath truth and EGW if one is as toxic as a rusty pipe?

I said I was sorry for making the comment the way that I did. I never said it only applied to you. I truly meant it toward all those who I made it to.

Xenon, I started a thread over at HS.com called HS Staff - Help me out. I think it would be instructive and informative. There is a quote from the R & H in it that I think is extremely constructive:

"There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1892

EGW didn't have all the truth and anyone that thinks she did is not in agreement with her. That means they must be "evil."

There's a difference between new light, and reversing the light that we already have. Hell and the destruction of the wicked is one of those things which seems plain to me strictly from the Bible. Their position is not simply adding new light; it is reversing the light that was given before.

 

[reddogs]

Well, I was at bible study today and we were talking about a issue of some controversy, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, and in his defense I said 'Yes, but he is still a good man" and the reply essentially was "we are not judging the character of the man, but the fruit of his work". And I think this is the case here, as the people of hs.com are good people, but the direction and conclusions they are coming to, we have some issues with.

So I think its best we just agree to let the thing be played out, and I think we will find the answers we are looking for.

 

[RND]

Do you know exactly why I quoted that verse? The verse after it talks about those who do the truth, compared to those practicing evil. Evil compared to truth, not evil compared to good. The problem is that falsehood has a tendency to turn into evil. The Pharisees believed in things which were simply not true. We know the results of this. It went from rejection of Jesus to outright murder.

Right. Which is eventually the direction many Adventists will go when the perception of truth is challenged. This is the same spirit that is found in the Adventist church right now, especially when smelly homeless people are told not to come into the church because they "smell bad."

Dr. Ron DuPreez wrote a paper critical of Adventist feast-keepers dealing with Colossians 2:16. In it he laid out why that verse gives no justification that the feasts are manditory (feast-keepers use it as a primary reason why the feasts are manditory). Their response to him was to say that he was worthy of "capital punishment" for writing it. It's one example, but I know that when I believed what I did about the 2300 days, I distrusted and felt threatened by everyone who thought otherwise.

Sounds to me like Dr. Ron DuPreez was completely wrong quite frankly. Those feasts are still vital to teaching and preaching the exact method of salvation that they pointed to in the sanctuary service.

Sometimes I don't pick the best things to say based on how I feel. Like I said, I'm sorry that I used that verse in an insulting way. But I really feel that if those on there who speak false things (like this thread) keep going the direction that they're going, they could find themselves deceived and truly "evil". Revelation says that people will kill thinking that they're doing God a favor. Deception must be identified, because otherwise we're in huge trouble.

Stating clearly the character of God and the nature of His government is deceptive? May I say this, it is not those type of people you need to worry about in any church - those that seek to know God deeper. You need to worry about those that say, "Mrs. White said" while at the same time condemning those that are different.

The ones we have to worry about are those that seek their own way through force, fear, intimidation and manipulation.

I said I was sorry for making the comment the way that I did. I never said it only applied to you. I truly meant it toward all those who I made it to.

Take it to HS.com then. Let your apology be known.

There's a difference between new light, and reversing the light that we already have. Hell and the destruction of the wicked is one of those things which seems plain to me strictly from the Bible.

Are you sure your an Adventist? Hell is simply the grave, where we all eventually go and destruction of the wicked is not a vengeful God one day "pulling the trigger."

We are responsible for our own destruction.

Their position is not simply adding new light; it is reversing the light that was given before.

No it's not. Trust me, I can misquote EGW all day, this is not a misquote. Revelation of God's perfect character and government guided by the principles of love, truth and mercy is easily displayed at the cross. Jesus didn't die to appease an angry God and if that is what you believe I would suggest finding a different denomination.

"Those were days of peril for the church of Christ. The faithful standard-bearers were few indeed. Though the truth was not left without witnesses, yet at times it seemed that error and superstition would wholly prevail, and true religion would be banished from the earth. The gospel was lost sight of, but the forms of religion were multiplied, and the people were burdened with rigorous exactions. They were taught not only to look to the pope as their mediator but to trust to works of their own to atone for sin. Long pilgrimages, acts of penance, the worship of relics, the erection of churches, shrines, and altars, the payment of large sums to the church--these and many similar acts were enjoined to appease the wrath of God or to secure his favor; as if God were like men, to be angered at trifles, or pacified by gifts or acts of penance! - Story of Redeption, pg 332