Steps to Apostasy

[reddogs]

Adventist who leave the church seem to follow nearly the same order in their experience. The fact that so many of the church left followed the same path needs to be looked at.

First they look at the "wisdom of man" that negates the Spirit of Prophecy, or the belief in the church as the "remnant". This opens them question Adventist theology so they look for a variation and some find it and start to follow Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford who use the message of righteousness by faith to try make null and void the scriptures understanding in Adventist thought. Once their faith is influenced by this line of thought then the person starts to look for 'cracks' in the Adventist theological so they can justify their leaving.

They will say that Adventists follow the gospel of Ellen White rather than Jesus Christ. They feel they are following the Protestant Reformation view of the Bible and the Bible only as the only authority in testing the theology of Adventism and that any new light from inspiration even if in harmony with the Bible is a corruption of "truth". Then they will attack the word of God by calling it faulty or not to be understood, they will bring up that Adventists use the KJV so they can give the verse, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14, which supports Adventist thought. They also have a problem with Rev 12:17 and 19:10 that reveal that one of the distinctive marks of the remnant church is the Spirit of prophecy. Rev 12:17 says that two distinct marks of the remnant seed of God's church is that they 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) have the testimony of Jesus. Among churches that keep the Sabbath, the SDA church is the only one that has a prophet. Among churches that claim to have a prophet, the SDA church is the only one that keeps the Sabbath, so they must destroy faith in the Spirit of prophecy before they can fully get at the belief in keeping the commandments. They claim it is easier to “prove” Adventist theology from the KJV so they try and make a case for other "better" translations. With more of these "comtempary" translations it sometime changes the word "commandment" to a more obscure reference so it hides the true meaning, but this is used as proof that the understanding by Adventist theologians is faulty.

Then they go after the aurthorship of Steps to Christ, Great Controversy, etc... Then they go after the aurthor herself to destroy any belief in any of the light that she shines, they must wipe out any of the direction or expansion on the scripture and prophecies that she gives, as they must wipe out all belief in her role as a messenger of God to justify to their apostasy.


Adventist that are walking down the steps to apostasy then must decide on Ellen White. Either she was a true prophet, or inspired "messenger of God" or she was not. If she was, then they know they must all return to Adventism for she repeatedly states that those who leave the Adventist church and turn against it are endangering their souls. So they must justify their apostasy by claiming she was not, then they dont need not be bound by her many statements on those who turn against Adventism.

This is no little matter for Adventists. It must be resolved. Point number 17 in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

"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 state that problem is that the SDA church has two sources of truth, and though the church claims that the Bible is the standard, in practice it is usually the Bible interpreted by Ellen White which thus is a corruption.


Then they attack the Adventist use of the principles of hermeneutics, which deals with the presuppositions principles and of interpretation.

They lay the claim that Adventism taught their members to study the Bible by the “here a little and there a little” method, and that this is the method often used to prove most of the teachings of Adventism. So any teaching of Adventism is corruption and thus they are justified to reject them and leave the church and thus the steps to apostasy are complete.

I have personally seen many use these steps and it always leads to leaving the church at its end, now the problem is once they leave where do they go. Many are reaching this stage and I feel sad as they wont take any counsel at this point, yet feel they are heading somewhere, they just dont know where. This is a problem that they have yet to truly solve, as I find them either following a path against the church and its followers or completely letting go of all belief, or worse turning against God and any religion or to the occult or other vehicle of belief against God.

So how do we resolved this crisis of belief, how do we bring understanding to those who I feel are earnestly seeking truth, how do we bring unity to the believers, or is it foretold by God's prophecy and we are helpless to stop it?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Adventist who leave the church seem to follow nearly the same order in their experience. The fact that so many of the church left followed the same path needs to be looked at.

First they look at the "wisdom of man" that negates the Spirit of Prophecy, or the belief in the church as the "remnant". This opens them question Adventist theology so they look for a variation and some find it and start to follow Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford who use the message of righteousness by faith to try make null and void the scriptures understanding in Adventist thought.

Man you hit the nail on the head on this one for sure Reddogs. I have noticed that of the major complaints against EG White the jest of them is so trivial in nature or nit picking in nature. The part you have noticed above that is the most powerful for deception is the false idea of what righteousness by faith is. The idea that behavior has no significance in our lives anymore. They always say that it is not a license to sin but then out of the corner of their mouths they say essentially it doesn't matter what you do or even if you repent or confess or not you will be saved. This is once saved always saved at it's core for sure even though they deny it.

I have personally seen many use these steps and it always leads to leaving the church at its end, now the problem is once they leave where do they go. Many are reaching this stage and I feel sad as they wont take any counsel at this point, yet feel they are heading somewhere, they just dont know where.

That is a major problem. The ones I encountered on Carm.com were very satisfied to just gather in small groups who believed as they do. Some went to other Sunday keeping churches like the Lutherans. However, I have never seen such vengeful vitriol as I saw comig from the former SDA's. In some cases I would say they actually hate adventism with a passion.

This is a problem that they have yet to truly solve, as I find them either following a path against the church and its followers or completely letting go of all belief, or worse turning against God and any religion or to the occult or other vehicle of belief against God.

I know of some formers who were actually raised in adventism who now vehemently defends the immortality of the soul and eternal hell fire. They keep Sunday not the Sabbath and they eat pork or any other food they want. Drink a few beers every now and then or watch porno movies.

So how do we resolved this crisis of belief, how do we bring understanding to those who I feel are earnestly seeking truth, how do we bring unity to the believers, or is it foretold by God's prophecy and we are helpless to stop it?

We need to present to them the Bible in all of it's clarity and let the Holy Spirit convict them. The problem I have encountered with many of them is they have chosen a false path and have defended it so much they have rationalized away the truth and to them a false truth now takes it's place.

This new righteousness by faith deception is one of satan's best deceptions so far that I have seen. It lies so close to the truth in so many ways yet it is just off base in one little area that leads those who accept it right back into sin again, ( Jude 7 ) .

God Bless you Reddogs,

Jim Larmore

 

[NightEternal]

Hi reddogs. Just some of my thoughts, take them for what they are worth!

Adventist who leave the church seem to follow nearly the same order in their experience. The fact that so many of the church left followed the same path needs to be looked at.

This is true. Each case is unique however, with different factors playing differing parts at different levels. Formers themselves will tell you that.

First they look at the "wisdom of man" that negates the Spirit of Prophecy, or the belief in the church as the "remnant".

I think we as a church would be misguided if we did not admit there are some problems that need to be addressed with the SOP. It is unfortunate that many feel the need to totally abandon her instead of perhaps re-evaluating how inspiration works.

As for the remnant, it is too bad so many in the church are wary of taking on that mantle. Revelation clearly spells out how one can identify God's remnant people and there is only one church that fits the whole description.

Nevertheless, perhaps it isn't so much a denomination as a people that the Lord will lead out.

This opens them to question Adventist theology so they look for a variation and some find it and start to follow Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford who use the message of righteousness by faith to try make null and void the scriptures understanding in Adventist thought.

Brinsmead and Ford preached the Gospel of salvation. They may have went off track in some areas, but in salvation, righteousness by faith and justification, they were solid and on the money. It has been said that no one preached the Gospel as clearly as Ford did, and many Adventists to this day remember his powerful proclamation of the Good News fondly. Even some of Ford's opponents will concede this.

It should be remembered that Ford never had an agenda to bring down the Adventist church. That is a false charge many label him with. What he wanted was reform, but he loved the church and his stand at Glacierview was because of this love he had for the church.

Once their faith is influenced by this line of thought then the person starts to look for 'cracks' in the Adventist theological so they can justify their leaving.

I have to disgree with this assertion. It seems to be a misconception many in the church hold though.

From my interaction with some formers, it was the opposite. The cracks in Adventist theology appeared first, and then they decided they had to leave.

They will say that Adventists follow the gospel of Ellen White rather than Jesus Christ.

Some in the church do unfortunately, and when one has spent enough time in the denomination they will eventually come across these individuals. The problem is the blanket condemnation and labelling of all Adventists as a result of the extremist, misguided few.

They feel they are following the Protestant Reformation view of the Bible and the Bible only as the only authority in testing the theology of Adventism

Should not this be necessary? We should not be afraid of this sort of testing. If our doctrine is not firm and built on solid ground, it is time we knew it, amen?

and that any new light from inspiration even if in harmony with the Bible is a corruption of "truth".

If it is in harmony with the Word, then we need to stand behind it. Those who would blanketly condemn everything inspiration has set forth as false simply by virtue of the fact that it came from EGW, are clearly in the wrong.

Then they will attack the word of God by calling it faulty or not to be understood,

Actually, many formers have a very high regard for the Word of God. Verbal inspration and the infallability of the Scriptures are positions held by many.

they will bring up that Adventists use the KJV so they can give the verse, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14, which supports Adventist thought.

Hm. I have not encountered this.

They also have a problem with Rev 12:17 and 19:10 that reveal that one of the distinctive marks of the remnant church is the Spirit of prophecy. Rev 12:17 says that two distinct marks of the remnant seed of God's church is that they 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) have the testimony of Jesus. Among churches that keep the Sabbath, the SDA church is the only one that has a prophet. Among churches that claim to have a prophet, the SDA church is the only one that keeps the Sabbath, so they must destroy faith in the Spirit of prophecy before they can fully get at the belief in keeping the commandments. They claim it is easier to “prove” Adventist theology from the KJV so they try and make a case for other "better" translations. With more of these "comtempary" translations it sometime changes the word "commandment" to a more obscure reference so it hides the true meaning, but this is used as proof that the understanding by Adventist theologians is faulty.

Interesting strategy.

Then they go after the aurthorship of Steps to Christ, Great Controversy, etc...

This is a problem area that we would do well to not ignore. The fact is that EGW relied on many people to put her books together. At best what we have are EGW's thoughts mixed in with the literary sources she used as well as extensive editorial help.

Then they go after the aurthor herself to destroy any belief in any of the light that she shines, they must wipe out any of the direction or expansion on the scripture and prophecies that she gives, as they must wipe out all belief in her role as a messenger of God

This, unfortunately, is true. Sad, but true.

to justify to their apostasy.

This is a personal judgment call I am not prepared to make. It implies we know the heart of the former when we certainly do not. I would submit that many desperately looked for reasons and validation to stay in the church, but could not honestly reconcile the conclusions they were coming to and SDA belief. The cognative dissonance they were experiencing became too much to bear.

Adventist that are walking down the steps to apostasy then must decide on Ellen White. Either she was a true prophet, or inspired "messenger of God" or she was not.

A third option is also available which is not so black and white: She was inspired of God, but not in the rigid, dogmatic confines many have attached to inspiration. A balanced, realistic view of thought inspiration will go a long way in repairing the damage done in the area of EGW. See George Knight, Alden Thompson and Graeme Bradford for more details...

If she was, then they know they must all return to Adventism for she repeatedly states that those who leave the Adventist church and turn against it are endangering their souls. So they must justify their apostasy by claiming she was not, then they dont need not be bound by her many statements on those who turn against Adventism.

Is salvation found in an organization or denomination or in Jesus Christ?

I might agree that those who turn against the SDA church and violently oppose it are placing thier souls in danger, for obvious reasons. However, to say that those who leave out of a sense of integrity because they are simply convicted on matters differently than what the SDA church teaches are bound for the lake of fire is a bit much. They are fully convicted through thier honest study of the Bible and have acted accordingly. God knows thier heart and He knows where thier spiritual journey has led them and why. I leave thier cases with Him where they belong.

This is no little matter for Adventists. It must be resolved. Point number 17 in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

"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."

You know, James White and EGW herself said that her writings should never be made a test of membership. How sad that the corporate church has ignored that counsel.

They state that problem is that the SDA church has two sources of truth, and though the church claims that the Bible is the standard, in practice it is usually the Bible interpreted by Ellen White which thus is a corruption.

There is much evidence in the church that this is true on many levels of the denomination. I fail to see how anyone who has been in the church for any amount of time could miss this. I have been to many Sabbath schools where EGW was constantly consulted to validate something said in the Bible, as if the Word was not enough to stand on its own merits.

In fact, we just had an article in the Review recently called 'Are We Protestants' where this very problem was lamented.

Then they attack the Adventist use of the principles of hermeneutics, which deals with the presuppositions principles and of interpretation.

We Adventists do presume a lot, don't we? How many of our people have incorrectly assumed something was in the Bible when it was, in fact, something from EGW they had read into the text?

They lay the claim that Adventism taught their members to study the Bible by the “here a little and there a little” method, and that this is the method often used to prove most of the teachings of Adventism. So any teaching of Adventism is corruption and thus they are justified to reject them and leave the church and thus the steps to apostasy are complete.

The proof-text method is vastly inferior to taking the Bible as a whole in its full context. No serious student of the Word should dispute that.

I have personally seen many use these steps and it always leads to leaving the church at its end, now the problem is once they leave where do they go. Many are reaching this stage and I feel sad as they wont take any counsel at this point, yet feel they are heading somewhere, they just dont know where. This is a problem that they have yet to truly solve, as I find them either following a path against the church and its followers or completely letting go of all belief, or worse turning against God and any religion or to the occult or other vehicle of belief against God.

We need to pray for them and ask God to continue lead and direct in thier lives as well as keep them open to the voice of the Holy Spirit. It's pretty much all we can do.

So how do we resolved this crisis of belief, how do we bring understanding to those who I feel are earnestly seeking truth, how do we bring unity to the believers, or is it foretold by God's prophecy and we are helpless to stop it?

Good questions.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I see a major change in the way you responded here brother. Good dialogue, good christian responses. This is the way we should be discussing and debating our beliefs.

Thanks and God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

Adventist who leave the church seem to follow nearly the same order in their experience. The fact that so many of the church left followed the same path needs to be looked at.

First they look at the "wisdom of man" that negates the Spirit of Prophecy, or the belief in the church as the "remnant". This opens them question Adventist theology so they look for a variation and some find it and start to follow Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford who use the message of righteousness by faith to try make null and void the scriptures understanding in Adventist thought. Once their faith is influenced by this line of thought then the person starts to look for 'cracks' in the Adventist theological so they can justify their leaving.

They will say that Adventists follow the gospel of Ellen White rather than Jesus Christ. They feel they are following the Protestant Reformation view of the Bible and the Bible only as the only authority in testing the theology of Adventism and that any new light from inspiration even if in harmony with the Bible is a corruption of "truth". Then they will attack the word of God by calling it faulty or not to be understood, they will bring up that Adventists use the KJV so they can give the verse, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14, which supports Adventist thought. They also have a problem with Rev 12:17 and 19:10 that reveal that one of the distinctive marks of the remnant church is the Spirit of prophecy. Rev 12:17 says that two distinct marks of the remnant seed of God's church is that they 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) have the testimony of Jesus. Among churches that keep the Sabbath, the SDA church is the only one that has a prophet. Among churches that claim to have a prophet, the SDA church is the only one that keeps the Sabbath, so they must destroy faith in the Spirit of prophecy before they can fully get at the belief in keeping the commandments. They claim it is easier to “prove” Adventist theology from the KJV so they try and make a case for other "better" translations. With more of these "comtempary" translations it sometime changes the word "commandment" to a more obscure reference so it hides the true meaning, but this is used as proof that the understanding by Adventist theologians is faulty.

Then they go after the aurthorship of Steps to Christ, Great Controversy, etc... Then they go after the aurthor herself to destroy any belief in any of the light that she shines, they must wipe out any of the direction or expansion on the scripture and prophecies that she gives, as they must wipe out all belief in her role as a messenger of God to justify to their apostasy.


Adventist that are walking down the steps to apostasy then must decide on Ellen White. Either she was a true prophet, or inspired "messenger of God" or she was not. If she was, then they know they must all return to Adventism for she repeatedly states that those who leave the Adventist church and turn against it are endangering their souls. So they must justify their apostasy by claiming she was not, then they dont need not be bound by her many statements on those who turn against Adventism.

This is no little matter for Adventists. It must be resolved. Point number 17 in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

"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 state that problem is that the SDA church has two sources of truth, and though the church claims that the Bible is the standard, in practice it is usually the Bible interpreted by Ellen White which thus is a corruption.


Then they attack the Adventist use of the principles of hermeneutics, which deals with the presuppositions principles and of interpretation.

They lay the claim that Adventism taught their members to study the Bible by the “here a little and there a little” method, and that this is the method often used to prove most of the teachings of Adventism. So any teaching of Adventism is corruption and thus they are justified to reject them and leave the church and thus the steps to apostasy are complete.

I have personally seen many use these steps and it always leads to leaving the church at its end, now the problem is once they leave where do they go. Many are reaching this stage and I feel sad as they wont take any counsel at this point, yet feel they are heading somewhere, they just dont know where. This is a problem that they have yet to truly solve, as I find them either following a path against the church and its followers or completely letting go of all belief, or worse turning against God and any religion or to the occult or other vehicle of belief against God.

So how do we resolved this crisis of belief, how do we bring understanding to those who I feel are earnestly seeking truth, how do we bring unity to the believers, or is it foretold by God's prophecy and we are helpless to stop it?

I think you've accurately shown the SDA perspective to try and justify why so many leave SDAism.

 

[djconklin]

If the perspective didn't match reality that would be one thing. But, when you've seen it with your own eyes over and over again, that's quite another.

 

[freeindeed2]

That is a major problem. The ones I encountered on Carm.com were very satisfied to just gather in small groups who believed as they do. Some went to other Sunday keeping churches like the Lutherans. However, I have never seen such vengeful vitriol as I saw comig from the former SDA's. In some cases I would say they actually hate adventism with a passion.

I won't assume you have something to back up these claims.

Secondly, opposing false teachings of any denomination is not 'hating' those who belong to those denominations 'with a passion'. And Jim, it was your own words and accusations against others that got you into trouble on CARM. Please don't blame formers for your own actions.

 

[djconklin]

I've been at CARM; I can testify that it was (it if has changed that would be new news to me) as he said it is.

 

[freeindeed2]

I've been at CARM; I can testify that it was (it if has changed that would be new news to me) as he said it is.

I guess I don't understand why a differing viewpoint or interpretation which is opposed to your own is considered to be hatred or 'vengeful vitriol'. Can you explain that?

 

[Jimlarmore]

I won't assume you have something to back up these claims.

Secondly, opposing false teachings of any denomination is not 'hating' those who belong to those denominations 'with a passion'. And Jim, it was your own words and accusations against others that got you into trouble on CARM. Please don't blame formers for your own actions.

I was having a simple disagreement and said someone was acting childish by a statement they made. That is not enough to get banned over. The moderation over there is very biased because in that same exchange there was more than one of those I was debating with had called me a liar several times. Even Kevin Morgan an SDA pastor went to bat for me over that but got no where.

In my dialogue with them I had been told that I had EG White up my you know what on more than one occasion. That may not be hating someone but it's not showing a lot of love either by any standards. There were many times I felt as though I was looked down on for just claiming to be an active or current adventist. I have never seen the scriptures twisted so much in my life as I did over there. I also saw where other genuine adventists were singled out for very discrimitory treatment by moderator 14 ( who ever that was ).

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

I was having a simple disagreement and said someone was acting childish by a statement they made. That is not enough to get banned over. The moderation over there is very biased because in that same exchange there was more than one of those I was debating with had called me a liar several times. Even Kevin Morgan an SDA pastor went to bat for me over that but got no where.

In my dialogue with them I had been told that I had EG White up my you know what on more than one occasion. That may not be hating someone but it's not showing a lot of love either by any standards. There were many times I felt as though I was looked down on for just claiming to be an active or current adventist. I have never seen the scriptures twisted so much in my life as I did over there. I also saw where other genuine adventists were singled out for very discrimitory treatment by moderator 14 ( who ever that was ).

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Interesting perspective. I seriously doubt that the phrase you wrote above was used in a post. I remember the accusations you were making against those who left Adventism. They weren't very nice.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I've been at CARM; I can testify that it was (it if has changed that would be new news to me) as he said it is.

what is CARM?

 

[NightEternal]

C hristian

A pologetics

R esearch

M inistry

The CARM forum is very much like this one I am told, where different denominations have thier own chat forums.

I have a very close friend who posts over there, but we have lost touch over the months. His e-mails stopped a while back for some reason. I wonder if he is still there?

We attended the same SDA church for a while and studied a lot of Adventist issues together. Our ideas were very similar. I left that church, but he was still there last I heard.

 

[freeindeed2]

what is CARM?

CARM.org is a Christian apologetics forum where the beliefs of many different denominations/religions have boards where those interested can discuss/debate the beliefs of that particular denomination/religion. Also there are boards for a slew of other topics. It's similar to here, except that all are allowed engage in the discussion. As long as people avoid personal attacks, personal insults, making unsubstantiated claims, or making false accusations against others they are free to discuss the topic of the board or thread. The layout is similar to CF too.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Interesting perspective. I seriously doubt that the phrase you wrote above was used in a post. I remember the accusations you were making against those who left Adventism. They weren't very nice.

That's interesting friend as it seems to me if I remember correctly that when you came here to CF you were very happy to see me here and missed me over on Carm. You didn't even realize I had left carm and was curious as to what had happened there. I had to tell you about the incident that got me banned so it appears you were not following what I said all that close after all.

As far as the other part you "seriously doubt" the actual wording was very graphic and in the vernacular, but if you doubt it happened why don't you just come out and call me a liar like they did over there at carm? Don't beat around the bush say whats on your mind.

God Bless
Jim

 

[freeindeed2]

That's interesting friend as it seems to me if I remember correctly that when you came here to CF you were very happy to see me here and missed me over on Carm. You didn't even realize I had left carm and was curious as to what had happened there. I had to tell you about the incident that got me banned so it appears you were not following what I said all that close after all.

My statement was that you have an 'interesting perspective' of CARM.

I was happy to see you, and I still do wish you would post on CARM as well as here. I knew you had gotten yourself suspended and I remember you telling me too when I first came here.

As far as the other part you "seriously doubt" the actual wording was very graphic and in the vernacular, but if you doubt it happened why don't you just come out and call me a liar like they did over there at carm? Don't beat around the bush say whats on your mind.

Settle down...

In over a year of posting there and over 2400 posts, I've never seen anything posted like what you described. Send me a link to the post where someone said what you said here and that's the last you'll hear from me about it. I'm not calling you a liar, just asking for verification because it mischaracterizes those who post there.

Thanks.

 

[Jimlarmore]

If you knew I was banned why did you ask me why I hadn't been posting over there? I wouldn't mind posting over there if the moderators were not so biased.

The person who said it once was disciplined by the moderator after I warned him that kind of language could get him in trouble if he wasn't careful. Sure enough, the offensive part was deleted at that point by the moderator. I can't remember the name/handle of the guy who did this initially but he was very abusive. The other time someone said something similar on carm was by making a comment on the first incident and was agreeing about it without actually using the same exact language just close enough so you got the jest of it.

Sorry if I came off too strong. I just remember the battles and the vitriol over there all too well.

God bless

Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

If you knew I was banned why did you ask me why I hadn't been posting over there? I wouldn't mind posting over there if the moderators were not so biased.

Because I knew your suspension had been up for a long time because beside your name it no longer said 'Inactive', but 'Member'.

The person who said it once was disciplined by the moderator after I warned him that kind of language could get him in trouble if he wasn't careful. Sure enough, the offensive part was deleted at that point by the moderator. I can't remember the name/handle of the guy who did this initially but he was very abusive. The other time someone said something similar on carm was by making a comment on the first incident and was agreeing about it without actually using the same exact language just close enough so you got the jest of it.

Even if you could verify it, it is not fair to characterize the many who post there based on this one post.

Sorry if I came off too strong. I just remember the battles and the vitriol over there all too well.

No problem.

Jim Larmore[/quote]

 

[Jimlarmore]

Even if you could verify it, it is not fair to characterize the many who post there based on this one post.

You know you are right, I have probably done them an injustice so to speak. So I will recant my statements at this point and invite anyone of the loyal adventists who are here now to go over to carm and start to dialogue with the ex's for a while. Start a thread on the IJ or the way the Bible asks us to keep the Sabbath, or something like that. Go over there and discuss/debate Biblical truth only. Come on back in a few weeks and tell me if I am off base on this or not. If more than two folks comes and tells me that I was unreasonable with my opinion I will publically apologize to Carm here and there as well.

Deal? Anyone interested in doing this?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

You know you are right, I have probably done them an injustice so to speak. So I will recant my statements at this point and invite anyone of the loyal adventists who are here now to go over to carm and start to dialogue with the ex's for a while. Start a thread on the IJ or the way the Bible asks us to keep the Sabbath, or something like that. Go over there and discuss/debate Biblical truth only. Come on back in a few weeks and tell me if I am off base on this or not. If more than two folks comes and tells me that I was unreasonable with my opinion I will publically apologize to Carm here and there as well.

Deal? Anyone interested in doing this?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

If you do, expect your beliefs to be discussed and debated with Scripture alone. It's different than here in that regard with Christians who are not SDA being able to discuss the actual beliefs. Expect EGW's visions and writings on the topic to be brought in and discussed in light of Scripture too. Also, expect a bit of humor in it all (because sometimes we really should just laugh at ourselves!). I'm sure you won't find anyone telling you that you have 'egw up' anywhere. But you will have to be accountable for what you say.