Comment on Defining Adventism: A poll by Faith.
Vicki Gillham: In some places (here at least) conference representatives are openly saying that we should not make our doctrines distinctive to anyone outside the church, as in holding Daniel and Revelation seminars, etc.- or if we do, be careful not to say anything that might offend other churches (such as by identifying Babylon). They say that we should just “celebrate our differences,†that when you’re working together in community outreach programs “who cares (direct quote)†what our doctrinal differences are. I also heard that key world church leaders and evangelists were also complying with this, not being willing to speak clearly when giving Revelation seminars, etc.
I agree with what Vicki said here–it comes from the Willow Creek church teachings based on what Robert Schuller is teaching. Our church is soaking up heresy like a sponge from these seminars that our ministers are attending. We need to know what is going on so we can beware of these worldly teachings in our church.
Of course Satan wants us to quit making our doctrines distinctive–that would suit his purposes just fine. But this is directly contrary to what our commission is, wouldn’t it? We are to go to all the world, preaching the straight truth–and we cannot do that as long as we are trying to conform to the world and hide our truths in the shadows like they are something to be ashamed of.
Woe to the ministers that are practicing and promoting this heresy.
I posted this comment once before on the EducateTruth site, but I think it is serious enough that it bears repeating.
In the chapter “The Earth Desolated” in Early Writings, Ellen White points out the horrendous punishment meted out to the False Shepherds that mislead the people. Here she is describing the aftermath of Christ’s second coming.
“The false shepherds had been the signal objects of Jehovah’s wrath. Their eyes had consumed away in their holes, and their tongues in their mouths, while they stood upon their feet.”–Early Writings P.289-290
Ous leadership should stop and take a look at where they are heading. Not one dime of church funds should be spent sending ministers to attend these seminars of heresy.
Faith
Table of Contents
Faith Also Commented
Defining Adventism: A poll
@Vicki Gillham:
I’m afraid this statement is really to strong. We must be careful to fully reflect the spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Prophecy teachings in all that we say- especially on matters like this we must manifest a reasonable spirit which will help us to build bridges and solve problems.
So Vicki, what makes you think that statement was too strong and unreasonable? Do you think we should be funding Robert Schuller’s little university of heresy? Do you even know to what I am referring? As far as I am concerned, we have no business going to worldly churches looking for techniques to bring people into our church without any change in their lives whatsoever…actually, it is even worse than that because the Willow Creek church is suggesting we quit worshipping God as He directed, and substitute man in His place. To have coffee house/night club churches complete with food, drinks, and rock bands just to pander to the tastes of the worldly is absolute heresy…and our church has no business using the tithe contributed for the furtherance of the gospel to spend on this type of training. Our mission is to preach the truth and then we let the Holy Spirit do the converting. In the Willow Creek church, they aren’t interested in converting anyone, just filling the pews/tables and chairs.
There comes a time for plain speaking. I do not misrepresent the SOP by doing so or by posting a direct quote. Are you aware that Ellen White almost lost her gift of prophecy by softening the plain messages of the Lord? She didn’t want to hurt anyone, the dear soul. But God told her to give the messages as she was told or she would not be entrusted with them anymore. And of course I understand that I am not a prophet–never have I represented myself as being one…but that doesn’t mean I can’t quote our sister Ellen’s writings. These things were written down for us to refer to and use in times of distress. In my opinion, this is one of those times.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t be presenting the gospel in a loving manner…but we are not speaking of that right now…we are meeting heresy and we need to meet it head on…as the Lord told Ellen in one of her visions. Actually, it was a vision on this very topic of meeting heresy in the church. She was instructed to meet it head on.
I don’t feel guilty one bit for posting that quote concerning the false shepherds. It is a shocking thing, but it is a warning that needs to be heeded. Something has to shake these ministers and professors up…they need a wake up call. So why do you feel that I took that quotation out of context? How could it be out of context? It is referring to the punishment of people who teach heresy when they know better. I am sorry if it offends you, but then, unless you are one of them, I guess the message really isn’t meant for you, is it? I don’t look forward with any glee or pleasure to these people being punished like that–neither did Ellen White–and certainly neither does God. All I want to do is give them fair warning in time for them to repent of their sins. Isn’t that only fair? Aren’t we supposed to rebuke sin in the church?
Vicki Gillham: We can so easily misrepresent the Spirit of Prophecy writings to other people that way…Because the young people, etc, may not take time to read the Spirit of Prophecy writings, they will just look to our example.
As far as the young people go, my statement should not be the first introduction of the SOP to the vast majority of them. If we are doing our part, the SOP should be well-known and understood by the time they reach their teen years and are interested enough in this topic to be part of it. And in using that quote I misrepresented nothing.
Just so you know, I never wrote that passage out of anger, but out of conviction. I tend to look at things logically and state straight facts–perhaps not in the most politic way, but in sincerity nontheless. Personally, I think it would be better if we were to unite in the truth rather than quibble about the way I put things vs the way you would put them. There is a place in the work for straight speaking, as was evidenced by James White, who also spoke in a straight forward manner. In any case, if I offended you, sister, I am truly sorry, but sometimes the truth is sharper than a two-edged sword and must be used to cut out heresy. I believe that this case is one of those times.
Faith
Defining Adventism: A poll
I totally agree with Pastor Kevin’s remarks. Thank you for your faithfulness to the church. Such loyalty is getting harder and harder to find.
As to the poll–I also felt that it left room for interpretation. Like Jose, I was thinking of the number 0 when I was clicking on the ‘yes’. However, it would be wise, I think to reword it so that we have the option of saying that straight out–perhaps that could be one of the choices?
We really need to realize that fellowship in this or any other group depends on agreement with it’s tenets. I have seen so many people baptised while doing things they shouldn’t be–such as smoking, drinking, using tea and coffee, breaking the Sabbath, rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, and worshiping in Sunday-keeping churches.
It seems that there is little regard even among some of our ministers for the pillars of the faith. With the Willow Creek movement that has infiltrated our churches and the “contemplative spirituality”, along with this mega monster “theistic evolution” that has reared its ugly head, our church is under a huge attack. It is time to get back to the pure church that was established by the pioneers with God’s direct help.
I daresay I will be attacked on this once again by people who think we should not be purifying the church, but as far as I’m concerned they are just working for Satan to block the work that needs to be done…so…I have broad shoulders–I can take it–with God’s help. 🙂
Faith
Recent Comments by Faith
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
And you are correct, Sean, PK must consider where his influence is going–for God or against Him.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Mr Taylor,
After reading your comment above, I must say PK isn’t the only one in that boat.I would make some comment as to how I really feel about you, but I know Sean will only delete it and you won’t benefit from my insight anyway–seeing as Sean is more concerned about other people’s feelings than you seem to be.
How you have the nerve to come to this website and call us all a bunch of morons (which is really what you are doing) is beyond me. You and your cronies are the ones drowning in error. Anyone who dares to accept man’s opinions over the Bible or SOP isn’t to be trusted to define truth for anyone.
Too straight-forward in my comment? Trust me, I have restrained myself admirably. If you only knew….
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Further to my comment on skeptism and our professors, I’ve got to tell you that I found Prof Kent to be extremely annoying in his comments on EGW. He seems to think that she is an embarrassment to the church when she speaks on Science.
Personally I find people who dis her to be the embarrassment to the church. I really don’t see how they dare to contradict and mock God’s prophet. By doing this they undermine a lot of our church’s beliefs to outsiders as well as church members. God will hold them accountable for that.
Furthermore, David’s unpublished manuscript plus other books I have read on archaeology have reported skeletons of the type that EGW mentions. Also found were artifacts such as huge iron bedsteads made for and buried with kings of huge stature.
Just because you haven’t done your research, PK, don’t jump to the conclusion the evidence isn’t there. It’s there, all right, and you make yourself look a little foolish for not knowing about it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:
“Ellen White’s statements about larger antediluvian life forms are well attested with regard to many different types of flora and fauna. They’re not even controversial…
Hi David,
As you know, I took advantage of your kind offer and I read your manuscript as well as I purchased 3 of your books, one for me, one for my sisters, and one for the church library. It took me a week to finish the book, and I and my sisters are very impressed with it. My one sister calls it “one incredible book”. It has answered a lot of the questions we had on the subject of evolution vs creation science, and, yes, I believe we (you and I and my sisters) are on the same page in our beliefs. We have immensely enjoyed discussing the various aspects of the subject as we read. It makes perfect sense to us.
I still have a couple of questions–new ones will probably always keep popping up–but I would say you have covered the subject admirably. Thanks so much for this book.
I agree with Elder Wilson, this is something every Adventist should read. In my opinion it should be used as required reading for science courses. It is exactly the way I would want science courses in the universities to treat the Creation/evolution debate in the classroom. And if the professors at LSU and the other SDA institutions would do this we wouldn’t be constantly losing our young people and, for that matter, our professors, to skeptisism.
Thank God someone has the courage to publish the truth and expose error.
God Bless you, David.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,
I am wondering if the difference of opinion here is due to varying definitions of the word ‘science’. As we all know there is true science and there is worldly psuedo-science.
If Bill’s understanding of ‘science’ in this case is actually worldly psuedo-science, then he is correct in not wanting any truth to be compromised with it.
From Sean’s post, I believe he is referring to true science, which is definitely part of our beliefs on origins and is well supported by the Bible and SOP, as Sean admirably demonstrated.
Not having seen the exhibit myself, I cannot comment on whether or not they are mixing psuedo-science into it. (Perhaps a few of you posters out there can see the exhibit and report back to us.) Knowing the general philosophy of SAU, I would be surprised if they did.
Their goal is “to provide scientific evidence that substantiates the Bible’s account of creation.” Sounds good to me.
They also say: “Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.” And that is true when you are referring to true science, which I believe they are.
However, I do understand Bill’s reaction in that these days when people use the word ‘science’ without qualification it so often means evolutionary pseudoscience, that we tend to be suspicious.
I think, Bill, that in this case we don’t need to worry. I believe SAU’s heart is in the right place and I am so glad that at least one of our institutions is willing to stand up and be counted on the side of Creation, even though they will probably draw much criticism from the ‘scientific’ community as well as from the TEs in their own church.
God bless them for their fidelity to Him. And may God strengthen them to meet the onslaught that is most likely to follow, is my prayer for them.
