Pastor leaves Adventism

Jimlarmore · Aug 14, 2007

NightEternal said:
That would be the state (er, I mean country) of CANADA.

I won't get into provinces however. Not good to disclose specific info on the internet.

I have relatives who live in Quebec province of Canada. My mom's dad came from there right before the first world war and served in the U.S. Army. Because he was a war veteran he was allowed to naturalize in America. He met my grandmother in Oklahoma and stayed right here from then on.

He spoke fluent french but never taught it to his children. Too bad I would have loved for my mother to have taught me another language. I'm currently learning spanish so when I retire next year I can communicate with the folks in S. American or Mexico when I go on Maranatha mission trips.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

Jon0388g said:
Jim, don't forget, "you will know them by their words."

You see, this is the sort of 'Us vs. Them' rhetoric that made me vote for a split forum.

What do such divisive comments do except foster and nurture the ridiculous notion that TSDA's are the 'true chosen ones' and the rest of us are Satan's legions?

It really, really gets old after a while.

sentipente · Aug 14, 2007

Jon0388g said:
Jim, don't forget, "you will know them by their words."

Did anyone force you to misquote and misuse the biblical text or was this all your own idea?

Jon0388g · Aug 14, 2007

NightEternal said:
You see, this is the sort of 'Us vs. Them' rhetoric that made me vote for a split forum.

What do such divisive comments do except foster and nurture the ridiculous notion that TSDA's are the 'true chosen ones' and the rest of us are Satan's legions?

It really, really gets old after a while.

I never meant it to be divisive; if you took it that way, I apologise.

Jim made the true comment that there was little if no Scripture being used in this thread. I added that the Bible says the words of a person are what you will know them by.

Again, sorry if any nerves were tickled.

Jon

Jon0388g · Aug 14, 2007

sentipente said:
Did anyone force you to misquote and misuse the biblical text or was this all your own idea?

Notice there was no reference to any specific passage of Scripture, so I did not 'misquote' or 'misuse' anything.

Secondly, why would it bother you that I would misquote an unreliable source? Am I your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Jon

Jimlarmore · Aug 14, 2007

The longer I stay on this forum the more I am amazed at the diversity of beliefs and philsophies among adventists.

Jon, you didn't do anything wrong so don't beat yourself up over their responses on your comment. We need to allow cooler heads to prevail here and not respond in kind to the invective laid out here. I probably should have pm'd you with this instead of making it a post.

BTW, words are the fruit of the heart and the Bible also says by their fruits you shall know them.

God Bless you brother
Jim Larmore

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

Jon0388g said:
I never meant it to be divisive; if you took it that way, I apologise.

Jim made the true comment that there was little if no Scripture being used in this thread. I added that the Bible says the words of a person are what you will know them by.

Again, sorry if any nerves were tickled.

Jon

Typical TSDA tactic. Throw out a blatant statement that clearly implies any other 'words' besides thier party line are not of God. Then, when they are called on it, they apologize and pretend they meant no such thing, when we all know what they really meant. Then they finish it off with the classic line : "Oh, I am so sorry my statement upset you, I guess you must be taking it personally since I didn't mention any names."

No actually, we just aren't that stupid we couldn't figure out that the SDA's you were directing it towards are the ones who disagree with your Conservative rhetoric.

Then, when all else fails, they resort to cheap shots that claim mere disgreements with thier positions equates to 'invectives'.

Cunningly, they manage to turn the whole thing around and you are now the offender and they are the innocent party.

Nope. Not going to work with me, sorry. Been there many times. Done that. Bought the T-shirt.

It ain't nothing new for me. Same old approach. Unfortunately, such spiritual abuse still has the potential to mentally and psychologically mess up those who are easily influenced and weak in the faith.

sentipente · Aug 14, 2007

Very true.

sentipente · Aug 14, 2007

Jon0388g said:
Notice there was no reference to any specific passage of Scripture, so I did not 'misquote' or 'misuse' anything.

Secondly, why would it bother you that I would misquote an unreliable source? Am I your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Jon

Now you are misrepresenting me. Where did I say the Bible is not reliable?

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
I have noticed that very little scripture has been given in any of these discussions. Why not? Philosophies and feelings are a dime a dozen. If we are to be a Bible based remnant people of God we need to stay with what the Bible teaches.

Anyone can throw up a whole string of Bible texts and claim 'this is what they mean'. This is the problem, and this is what Moriah was trying to tell you: It's you're interpretation of certain texts that we take issue with, as well as the arrogant claim that the way you have interpreted them is the only true one and has to be the conclusions we all come to. The Bible is of no private interpretation, therefore, someone else's take on what a text means is just as valid as yours.

That is why I personally don't cut and paste a whole slew of proof-texts to try and prove my position (and believe me, I could if I wanted to. It used to always be my method of theological discussion for years.) More often than not, what it amounts to is you are merely reading into the verse what you want it to say, and you will only pick those which appear to support your position. Someone else may not even remotely see what you are seeing in a text. Furthermore, using the Bible as a sword to maim, gouge and cut others down to size does a grave disservice to the Word of God. And the verses in question are always meant for the other person, most often the one we are trying to destroy in a debate. Scripture is a two edged sword, a discerner of the heart and intentions. This soul-searching work should only come through private study with the Holy Spirit as the guide, not through an opponent pile-driving the unwary victim with an onslaught of texts that they think applies to the opponents situation.

Of course, there are far too many who love taking on the mantle of the Holy Spirit aren't there?

TrustAndObey · Aug 14, 2007

Brother Jim, I just wanted to tell you that your PM really made my day. I thank God for this wonderful new friendship!

djconklin · Aug 14, 2007

Vegetarianism as a condition for those who would be translated in the end comes directly from the Bible? Since when? Scripture please.

You can't. Because it isn't there. It's purely EGW and nothing else.

That one is on my list of anti-EGW whoppers. She never said such a thing. So, much for being familiar with her writings--add new one's to suit your fancy!

djconklin · Aug 14, 2007

Anyone can throw up a whole string of Bible texts and claim 'this is what they mean'.

My fav is Judas hanged himself, go do thou likewise, and what thou doest, doest thou quickly!

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

djconklin said:
That one is on my list of anti-EGW whoppers. She never said such a thing. So, much for being familiar with her writings--add new one's to suit your fancy!

Actually, she did. Although different people are going to interpret her statement in different ways, I prefer to just let it stand the way she plainly wrote it.

And I have no idea what spin the anti-SDA websites put on the statement. But it is clearly there for anyone who wants to read it.

djconklin · Aug 14, 2007

Originally Posted by djconklin

That one is on my list of anti-EGW whoppers. She never said such a thing. So, much for being familiar with her writings--add new one's to suit your fancy!

Click to expand...

Actually, she did.

No, she did not--I have the page people point to and she didn't write it. I dealt with this whopper on a different forum.

I prefer to just let it stand the way she plainly wrote it.

She didn't write it. I'd like to see your proof.

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

"Again and again I have been shown that God is trying to lead us back, step by step, to His original design. That man should subsist on the natural products of the earth. Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat-eating will eventually be done away with; flesh will cease to form a part of thier diet." Counsels On Diets And Foods (p.119)

Sounds pretty clear to me Conklin. Any Adventist who is alive when Christ returns will be vegetarian. Those Adventists who are still eating meat will not be accepted by God.

"Grains and fruits prepared free from grease , and in as natural condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to Heaven." Testimonies Vol.2 (p.352)

Again, pretty clear. Those SDA's who eat meat are not fit for translation, because eating meat is not a valid diet for translation preparation.

"Those who have recieved instruction regarding the evils of the use of flesh foods will not continue to indulge that they know to be unhealthful. God demands that the appetites be cleansed , and that self-denial be praticed in regards to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people." Testimonies Vol.9 (p.153)

Of course, the Adventist Review tried to do damage control with these statements, but I don't think thay made a very good case:

http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1538/story2.html

This is taught in virtually every Conservative independent ministry I have come across. It shouldn't be news to anyone who has been in the church for any length of time.

djconklin · Aug 14, 2007

"Again and again I have been shown that God is trying to lead us back, step by step, to His original design. That man should subsist on the natural products of the earth. Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat-eating will eventually be done away with; flesh will cease to form a part of thier diet." Counsels On Diets And Foods (p.119)

Sounds pretty clear to me Conklin. Any Adventist who is alive when Christ returns will be vegetarian. Those Adventists who are still eating meat will not be accepted by God.

Aw dang, here we go assuming way too much again on several counts. First of all, the passage says nothing about SDA's. Secondly, it doesn't suuport the claim that only vege's will be saved. "Among those"--i.e. a sub-group of the whole.

"Grains and fruits prepared free from grease , and in as natural condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to Heaven." Testimonies Vol.2 (p.352)

Again, pretty clear. Those SDA's who eat meat are not fit for translation, because eating meat is not a valid diet for translation preparation.

Again, the passage says nothing about SDA's. Secondly, it does NOT say that anyone eating meat is "unfiit" for translation. And thirdly it does not say that eating meat "is not a valid diet for translation preparation.

Of course, the Adventist Review tried to do damage control with these statements, but I don't think thay made a very good case:

[URL]http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1538/story2.html[/URL]

In this case, "damage control"=telling the truth in a well-balanced way. Of course, when you have an "agenda" one must put the worst possible "spin" on what the other side says and substitute labeling for actual reading and thought of what the texts at hand say.

This is an example of what the formers call "study" and "careful examination."

NightEternal · Aug 14, 2007

Good luck with that Conklin. Her statements are pretty clear to me and many others as well.

Let each judge for themselves what she is really saying.

And I have no agenda either. I believe she was inspired, but I also believe in taking her statements at face value. She was wrong on this issue. It seems just too impossible for many to just admit that and move on instead of trying to use fancy reasoning to cast such statements in the best possible light.

djconklin · Aug 14, 2007

Her statements are pretty clear to me and many others as well.

I can believe that! But, the Bible gives us a clear warning about that

James 3:14

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

And I have no agenda either. I believe she was inspired, but I also believe in taking her statements at face value. She was wrong on this issue.

If you don't have an agenda are you saying that the formers who said we all have agendas' lied? The next two sentences are fine. We have proven that she was not at fault here. The fault lay with the interpreter. We need to be more humble when we judge whether an inspired person is wrong--that is the least likely option.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Aug 15, 2007

What is with the SMOKE SCREEN?? Good GRIEF. EVERYONE who darkened the doorstep of the SDA dot-org long enough got to know all these statements. They are a matter of public record as are the multitudes of writings published by the R&H, PP, etc. years after-the-fact which substantiate the early claims attached thereunto.

Come ON guys NO MORE POSTURING!!!!
I haven't the patience for this NONSENSE when there is WORK to be done. Now GET MOVING.

Pastor leaves Adventism

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Evangelical SDA

TrustAndObey

Guest

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Evangelical SDA

Moderate SDA

Evangelical SDA

Moderate SDA

Evangelical SDA

Moderate SDA

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency