Response to Tall's announcement

[freeindeed2]

I've read her writings, and I've read the Bible. I don't believe that they agree with each other.

Precisely...

 

[mva1985]

I've read her writings, and I've read the Bible. I don't believe that they agree with each other.

Sophia,

Please forgive me, but in my post when I used the word "they" I was not referring to you or your husband in this case - I was referring to people in general.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people questioning and studying. I do think you are making a mistake by leaving the Adventist church, and I wish that the two of you would stay. Of course I am not privy to all that has gone on in your lives and certainly wish the best for you - I just happen to think that the best is found in the Adventist church. I hate to see anyone leave regardless of the reason.

Again, I certainly wish you two all the best and I pray that one day you will find yourselves back in an Adventist church, this may be part of your journey only God knows, and He knows what is on your heart none of us here can see that.

I hope this post clears up my previous post.

Your brother

 

[mva1985]

You guys wanted me to quote scripture so here's one WE can all use.

Romans 12
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

 

[JonMiller]

Contrary to the popular myth found in SDAism, most people leave over doctrinal issues, not because of how they're treated. I used to believe the later, but it simply isn't true.

Most people I know leave because they can't be bothered or because of how they are treated, not because of doctrinal issues.

I don't know anyone who left over doctrinal issues in real life.

Although I tihnk some of the reason why they were treated poorly is because they weren't in tune with the conservative interpretation.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I tihnk it is generally better to be in a church then not. If there was jsut the catholic church, I was jsut babtist churchs, I would join them. Despite not changing my beleifs.

If I found a chruch more in tune with my beleifs, I would change churchs now. I haven't yet. No church but one you start will be perfectly in tune with your beleifs/practices (if you think for yourself).

JM

 

[Bourbaki]

You guys wanted me to quote scripture so here's one WE can all use.

Romans 12
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

That's an excellent argument. The Aggressives hate the good and sympathize with evil.

 

[freeindeed2]

Most people I know leave because they can't be bothered or because of how they are treated, not because of doctrinal issues.

I don't know anyone who left over doctrinal issues in real life.

I know dozens who left over doctrinal issues, and only a handful who left because of how they were 'treated'. Most are now thriving spiritually.

 

[freeindeed2]

I tihnk it is generally better to be in a church then not. If there was jsut the catholic church, I was jsut babtist churchs, I would join them. Despite not changing my beleifs.

If I found a chruch more in tune with my beleifs, I would change churchs now. I haven't yet. No church but one you start will be perfectly in tune with your beleifs/practices (if you think for yourself).

JM

The 'church' is not a particular denomination. It is made up of all who believe in Christ for salvation. 'Where two or three are gathered' would qualify as a 'church' in the sense that you're speaking of.

 

[JonMiller]

I would rather be part of a larger community that can get more done. I know the small comunities which are a few families,where some of the men take turns preaching. But the issue is that they are lucky to send a missionary out... much less have centers of religious thought, schools, hospitals, etc.

Now maybe the 'church' should be small communities of freinds... but then you would still need somethingto provide the bigger efforts. And there you owuld have the same issue oyu have with the SDA church (and all other churchs, really).

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I know dozens who left over doctrinal issues, and only a handful who left because of how they were 'treated'. Most are now thriving spiritually.

Dozens isn't that many. Of the people I know well, probably more are gone from the church (probably still on the roles though, and might even call themselves Adventists) than are in. A lot of them are relatives though, and I don't know that many people well.

JM

 

[freeindeed2]

Dozens isn't that many. Of the people I know well, probably more are gone from the church (probably still on the roles though, and might even call themselves Adventists) than are in. A lot of them are relatives though, and I don't know that many people well.

JM

I'm only speaking of the one's I know personally as I don't personally know everyone who has left. But I do personally know dozens who have left over doctrinal issues.

 

[tall73]

I know dozens who left over doctrinal issues, and only a handful who left because of how they were 'treated'. Most are now thriving spiritually.

I would say the majority leave for lack of friends, and other issues.

But there is a sizable group that leaves for doctrinal reasons.

In any case we are not leaving because anyone treated us poorly. We enjoyed where we were at and we miss the people of our church.

 

[tall73]

The issue here is the investigative judgment, which Jesus taught in Matthew 25:14-30. If an Adventist pastor refuses to believe in what Jesus taught, then he has no right to transmit his unbelief and confusion in a Seventh-day Adventist church.

A. I have no problem with investigation of records as the Sciptures talk of it.

B. I have no problems with judgment as the Scriptures talk about it.

C. You would have a hard time getting the Adventist IJ in 1844 out of that passage.

D. Did you notice that the master is PRESENT in the story with the servants, and it is when he comes back? Did you notice rewards and punishments happen immediately?

 

[tall73]

I think you may have seen a different outcome if Ford had stuck to the issues with the traditional interpretation rather than expounding on the apotelesmatic principle.

If he thought that principle was the key to interpretation then he could have waited for them all to come to that conclusion once the weaknesses of the traditional view were seen.

The committee working with him also advised him this way, and I think despite the fact that they were trying to downplay some things, he should have listened. But he felt he had a solution. I can't fault him there.

But for the future's sake I think he should have taken another course.

If people want a real eye-opener, they need to read the Spectrum minutes of Glacierview:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive06-10/10-4utt.pdf

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive11-15/11-2cottrell.pdf

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive11-15/11-2documents1.pdf

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive11-15/11-2dismissal.pdf

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive11-15/11-2zytkoskee.pdf

I have never read such a disturbing display of backroom politics and underhanded behavior in all my life.

First of all, what in the world was up with Neal Wilson?! He has the audacity to reassure Ford that what was about to take place was not an inquisition, that Ford was not on trial, blah blah, blah...

I mean, butter would have melted in this man's mouth at the beginning. He even had me believing that Ford might possibly have an ally through this whole nightmare.

And then, out of the blue, in the middle of one of Ford's responses, Wilson suddenly goes for Ford's throat! He's all; "Des, you never listen to the brethren, you are stubborn, you won't recieve correction, yadda, yadda, yadda.."

What the....??!

Where did that outburst come from?! It just does not make sense. Something happened, or someone got to Wilson behind the scenes, because his whole demeanor just changed at the drop of a dime.

Turns out the whole affair was exactly what Wilson said it was not: A trial where Ford was going to lose his credentials, either voluntarily or involuntarily!

Unreal. Wilson assured Ford he could speak freely and openly, led Ford to think that no harm would come to him...

And then the very thing Ford is encouraged to do is used as a weapon to bring about his demise!!!

If it was anymore sickening, I don't think I could handle it!

And don't get me started on Robert Pierson's letter to the committee! What a gutless hack!! How dare he malign Ford the way he did? Try it face to face!

At least Jack Provonsha brought a little sanity to the precedings with his speech on standing beside one's integrity. It was like a verbal oasis in a desert of legalism!

And then we have the spineless wonder himself, Keith Parmenter!

Way to sell out your friend you useless Judas. I wonder what you thought when you buried that knife right to the hilt in Ford's back? I hope it was worth it whoring out your integrity to a bunch of ultra-conservative, theological assassins. You had the opportunity to stand your ground and tell those right wing thugs where to go and you folded under thier pressure. It was painfully obvious to anyone with two eyes and two ears that these fundamentalist hyenas were gunning for Ford for a long time and you danced on thier strings like the pathetic marionette you are. You make me want to puke.

Mark it well: Glacierview was a complete joke.

Parmenter went there as nothing more than a whipped puppy with an agenda that had to be enforced to save his presidency, brought to his knees by a legalistic, Historic Adventist lynch mob. As a result, the one man who had the potential to bring the cross and the Reformation gospel into Adventism was unjustly and unceremoniously treated as a heretic.

It is to make one weep...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

People who believe in The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell have no right to talk about the Bible. What the masquerading demon has taught while pretending to be the channeled Jesus in the New Age book, A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 84-85, is to be compared to lengthy excerpts from an evangelistic sermon series that Maxwell gave at Andrews University.

That is interesting Eugene, did you know that Graham Maxwell was a major contributor to certain larger sections of the SDA Bible Commentary. Then you based upon a totally fallacious argument that equates a course in miracles with Maxwell declare him a demon among us. From there a person who agrees that Maxwell is a fine gentleman are declared incapable of commenting upon the Bible. Oh yes Ford was also a contributor to our SDA Bible Commentary.

Your use of information is so inadequate that you are an embarrassment to this forum. It is interesting how you condemn Maxwell and embrace John MacArthur who I would also agree is a fine Christian gentlemen yet MacArthur believes in a God who will torture sinners forever in hell. Yet to Eugene the man who believes in Ellen White and does not accept the idea of eternal torment is called a Demon.

If Eugene's ideas were not so confused and inconsistent he might be dangerous. But as it is he seems to be a simple thorn in the side of intelligent conversation.

 

[Bourbaki]

A. I have no problem with investigation of records as the Sciptures talk of it.

B. I have no problems with judgment as the Scriptures talk about it.

Show me one instance where you have refuted publicly (anywhere on the internet) the popular but false accusation that the IJ is a "soul-sucking, assurance-robbing, legalistic, righteousness by works gospel" by citing the cross-examination judgment of Matthew 25 or any other Bible reference?

C. You would have a hard time getting the Adventist IJ in 1844 out of that passage.

Correct. I would have to add other passages to it to get the time of the investigative judgment.

D. Did you notice that the master is PRESENT in the story with the servants, and it is when he comes back? Did you notice rewards and punishments happen immediately?

LOL. Have you ever thought of investigating how the second scenario interprets the cross-examination judgment in the book of Revelation?

 

[Bourbaki]

That is interesting Eugene, did you know that Graham Maxwell was a major contributor to certain larger sections of the SDA Bible Commentary.

Did you know that the Adventist Bible Commentary is an unscholarly collection of ignorance? The reason for that is the useless format conveying incoherent information. Another problem with the Adventist Bible Commentary is that the contributors were asked to write about what they didn't even understand. That includes Raymond Cottrell on Daniel and Graham Maxwell on Romans.

Then you based upon a totally fallacious argument that equates a course in miracles with Maxwell declare him a demon among us.

I'm not the only person on the Internet that teaches that Maxwell's doctrine is demonic. See this blog entry by Stan Ermshar. He agrees with me. The author of http://www.sdabeaconlight.org/omega most certainly agrees with me. Another blog that is promoting my message is http://endrtimes.blogspot.com/2007/10/spiritualism-of-adventism.html

Even Ministry Magazine has commented at length on the great darkness of Maxwell's Moral Influence Theory (March, 1992 pp. 6-10.)

There are other examples.

Yet to Eugene the man who believes in Ellen White and does not accept the idea of eternal torment is called a Demon.

Mike Clute teaches that God is the devil and the devil is God. Am I to promote his delusions because he doesn't believe in eternal torment?

I support The Gospel According to Jesus by John F. MacArthur because it is an excellent declaration of the true gospel. By comparison Maxwell's contribution to theology is merely a demonic synthesis of ancient and modern New Age heresies.

 

[tall73]

Show me one instance where you have refuted publicly (anywhere on the internet) the popular but false accusation that the IJ is a "soul-sucking, assurance-robbing, legalistic, righteousness by works gospel" by citing the cross-examination judgment of Matthew 25 or any other Bible reference?

I imagine I could show you places where I said I have no problem with judgeent or records. In fact you already started reading my thread here and would see it if you read it.

But beyond that, if I don't agree with the IJ happening, why would I be worried about defending it?

Correct. I would have to add other passages to it to get the time of the investigative judgment.

Your plural is a bit confusing there. Do you have more than the one that pinpoints 1844? Miller had several, but most of course pointed to 1843, and were a bit of a stretch.

LOL. Have you ever thought of investigating how the second scenario interprets the cross-examination judgment in the book of Revelation?

Sorry ,you lost me there.

Spell out what you want in more detail.

But for now I will note that you made no refutation of the facts presented by RC that this is a parable meant to teach a specific point.

Nor did you refute the presence of the master, which does not happen in the IJ according to Adventists. Nor did you refute the fact that rewards were immediate here. Nor did you refute the fact that this judgment occurred at the return of the king, not before.


Until then I don't think you are going to convince me that this is an IJ according to Adventist standards.

 

[sentipente]

Tall73, don't get hooked by Bourbaki. His only agenda is to destroy any influence he thinks Maxwell has.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I'm not the only person on the Internet that teaches that Maxwell's doctrine is demonic. See this blog entry by Stan Ermshar. He agrees with me. The author of http://www.sdabeaconlight.org/omega most certainly agrees with me. Another blog that is promoting my message is http://endrtimes.blogspot.com/2007/10/spiritualism-of-adventism.html

Oh what a surprise those who only believe in the Penal Substitionary atonement think anything else is wrong. Why next you will point me to material from the Roman Catholic Church that Protestantism is wrong. Because that is the same, a presupposition which colors all other areas.

But thanks for the link to the comment, it is not a blog article just a response to your comment but I will let Stan know just how you used his comment.