Members phkrause Posted January 30, 2012 Members Share Posted January 30, 2012 I don't see any difference in the pioneers views on abortion than the view the church holds today. It's just a matter of common sense, then and now. In some cases, abortion must remain a viable option. You simply cannot have a blanket rule that covers every case. The question THIS thread is asking is: Can the remnant church fall? The specific reason for that fall is given as the abortion issue. The entire concept that this will lead to the fall of the church is ludicrous. I have to agree with Club on this. To make this issue the reason for the fall of the Church on its own, has no merit. We know that there will be a shaking and slowing but surely those that are against the church will fall away, and if those that are for abortion are really against the church they will be shaken out. phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Naomi Posted January 30, 2012 Administrators Share Posted January 30, 2012 Quote: have to agree with Club on this. To make this issue the reason for the fall of the Church on its own, has no merit. We know that there will be a shaking and slowing but surely those that are against the church will fall away, and if those that are for abortion are really against the church they will be shaken out. I have to agree with Club & pkrause!!! I have stayed out of this discussion, but feel that comparing the Remnant Church's falling being predicted by those who use such inflamatory remarks such as "Baby Killing" etc is ludicrous. And, I don't care which side of this issue you are on!!! If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “The church WILL survive.” I hope and pray that you are right. Nevertheless, Ellen White made it very clear a century ago, when our church was definitely pro-life, that she was in danger of becoming “a sister to Babylon.” Do you want me to post that quotation one more time? If a prophet makes two opposite predictions, what reasonable conclusion can we make? To me it means that the future is not set in cement, but rather contingent on human response. Let’s not forget what happened to Priest Eli and his descendants. The Lord had promised that his descendants would continue forever, yet when he failed to perform his duty, the Lord did change his mind. "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.” [1 Sam. 2:30] This is why Ellen White did state that God’s promises and threatening are conditional. They are contingent on human response. There is no way to predict the future with accuracy. We should always remember what happened to Jonah’s prediction. It should be a permanent lesson for us. You are sounding like Jonah! “Will YOU be there Nic?” I am not a prophet! I hope and pray that with God’s help I will stand firm, but I will not dare to pretend to outsmart the Lord. “Those who think the church has fallen or very close to it NOW, those who have already left will find there’s a good chance they won't even be around to see the real shaking!” The shaking did take place in the past; it is taking place today; and will take place in the future in a more marked way. “So you say the church in Germany has fallen?” You are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that the church fell, but rather that it failed the moral test. Our church did compromise on the issue of the Sabbath and the Sixth Commandment in Germany when Hitler was in power. Our German and Austrian leaders did apologize for this moral failure and this was published in our papers. Do you want me to cite the reference? “In legal terms it's called, "inciting a riot", when we stir up anger and move people to violence. Be careful your not part of the problem.” You are blinded to the facts. True pro-lifers are opposed to violence. The violence is perpetrated against the unborn. If someone started euthanizing a large number of old people, would you not protest the injustice? Who is more violent, the one doing the killing or the one protesting the killing? Can you please answer this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: "Two classes have been presented before me: first, those who are not living up to the light which God has given them; secondly, those who are too rigid in carrying out their one-sided ideas of reform, and enforcing them on others. When they take a position, they stand to it stubbornly, and carry nearly everything over the mark." Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, pg (56) Ellen White also told us to be faithful to duty and firm as the compass is to the Pole. The Remnant Church is portrayed in the Bible as one which keeps God’s Commandments. There are Ten Rules of human behavior. Rome had diluted two of those rules, and now our own church has done the same by redefining the Sixth Commandment. The only reliable version defining said Commandment is found in Ex. 20. Our Guidelines on abortion is an attempt at redefining what the Lord wrote with his own fingers on tablets of stone. Our Adventist pioneers were right on the issue of abortion; they called it murder; we call it therapy. Therapy for whom? Is it therapy for the unborn? Abortion is a direct violation of the Golden Rule! Would you accept such a therapy for yourself? If not, why not? “May I suggest, Brother Nic, you are well over the mark on this issue.” Whose mark? God’s or the mark set by human tradition? God said “You shall not murder;” but my church by teaching and by example is saying: “You may murder under a large variety of circumstances, including when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and her mental health is being affected.” What mental health? An unexpected pregnancy will quite often produce a temporary mental depression. A temporary condition should never justify the permanent deprivation of life from an innocent human being. “Be rigid in doctrine, never waver. The Sabbath is a rock, an anchor, for instance.” I don’t get it! The Sabbath is a rock, but the only Commandment which prohibits murder is not a rock? How many deaths are taking place as a result of the violation of the Sabbath? Compare this number with the violation of the Sixth Commandment! Do you see the contrast? It is 50 million versus how many? “On matters of conscience, every man must be convinced in his own heart. It is not our place to be so rigid as to not allow free will in matters of abortion.” The Sabbath is a matter of conscience; while murder is not? You want freedom to violate the Sixth Commandment! How about freedom to rob a bank? Or freedom to steal your car or bank account? Or freedom to sexually abuse little children? Or freedom to rape innocent women? Why do you make an exemption for murder? “We can offer counsel and guidelines, in some cases we can refuse to be involved, IF that is done in a Christ like and loving way.” I agree! I am glad we can agree on this at least! As a church we have no right to impose our views on others; but we have the duty to preach all Ten of God’s Rules, and to preach the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness, in a loving way, of course. There were tears in Jesus' eyes while condemning the behavior of the phaisees of his time, according to Ellen White. Have you seen the tears in my eyes while carying my mission? Are you that clairvoiyant? At the same time, we have the duty to vote for candidates who will honor the constitutional right to life of every human being and the constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. How can an unborn exercise its right to the pursuit of happiness if he/she is murdered while waiting to take its first breath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “I don't see any difference in the pioneers views on abortion than the view the church holds today.” You don’t? Have you taken the time to read the opinion of our Adventist pioneers on abortion? Should I post it here for you? The contrast is like night and day, but you claim you don’t see any difference? The pioneers labeled abortion as plain murder and a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment. Our church by teaching and example has said that abortion represents freedom of choice! Should rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children be labeled also as freedom of choice? How can we defend murder but condemn rape, theft, and sexual abuse of children? If someone steals your car, you can replace it with a better one; there is no human way of replacing a murdered baby. “It's just a matter of common sense, then and now. In some cases, abortion must remain a viable option. You simply cannot have a blanket rule that covers every case.” May the Lord keep me from this type of common sense which attempts to water down what the Lord has forbidden! The Hippocratic Oath which protected the unborn has served Christianity for two thousand years. It should be resurrected to its former glory. “The question THIS thread is asking is: Can the remnant church fall? The specific reason for that fall is given as the abortion issue. The entire concept that this will lead to the fall of the church is ludicrous.” Abortion is rarely alone. It is usually associated with adultery, fornication and the violation of the Golden Rule. Would you have wanted to be treated the way unborn babies are treated by the abortionists? They are either poisoned or dismembered, and our church has the audacity to justify such “therapeutic” treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 pkrause wrote: “I have to agree with Club on this. To make this issue the reason for the fall of the Church on its own, has no merit. We know that there will be a shaking and slowing but surely those that are against the church will fall away, and if those that are for abortion are really against the church they will be shaken out.” Almost a century ago Ellen White used a single issue to warn Adventists that our church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon.” What was this single issue: Adultery in the church. Do you think that she was an extremist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Naomi wrote: “I have to agree with Club & pkrause!!! I have stayed out of this discussion, but feel that comparing the Remnant Church's falling being predicted by those who use such inflamatory remarks such as "Baby Killing" etc is ludicrous. And, I don't care which side of this issue you are on!!!” Since when is coming in defense of those destined to extermination is inflammatory, but justifying the deprivation of life for the innocent is not? You don’t like the “Baby Killing” phrase. This means that you probably prefer that I use the term “therapy” for the dismemberment of the tiny bodies of inno0cent unborn babies. I have a question for you: What term did Jesus us for those who looked at a woman the wrong way? Didn’t he say that they were guilty of adultery? Would you label his comments as inflammatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Naomi Posted January 30, 2012 Administrators Share Posted January 30, 2012 Quote: This means that you probably prefer that I use the term “therapy” for the dismemberment of the tiny bodies of inno0cent unborn babies. Oranges & apples You don't know me or what I would use ... I simply stated that the use of phases like that are geared to be inflamatory and cause some people to do unthinkable things. Moreover, my point is/was that I rather resent you using this issue as a reason for saying the church will fail. If you are so bent on the abortion issue then why not start a thread with that title? If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted January 30, 2012 Members Share Posted January 30, 2012 Almost a century ago Ellen White used a single issue to warn Adventists that our church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon.” What was this single issue: Adultery in the church. Do you think that she was an extremist? Absolutely not! Not sure what your implying??? phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Naomi wrote: “I simply stated that the use of phrases like that are geared to be inflammatory and cause some people to do unthinkable things.” Preaching against sin has always been inflammatory. Jesus stated that he did not come to bring peace to the world but rather a sword. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [Mat. 10:34] I suggest that you read Peter’s sermon on Pentecost again. Wasn’t his preaching inflammatory. 22“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,d put him to death by nailing him to the cross." [Acts 2] Would you condemn him for accusing his hearers of murdering the Son of God? “Moreover, my point is/was that I rather resent you using this issue as a reason for saying the church will fail.” First, let me clarify that I did not say that the church will fail! Read what I said again! Of Babylon it is stated in the Bible that it was in a fallen condition. Ellen White did warn Adventists that the church was in danger of becoming a “sister to Babylon,” and she said this on the basis of the adultery coming into the church. Now both adultery and fornication is being infiltrated into the church again, and to top this the killing of innocent unborn children is taking place, and the church has allowed our hospitals to profit from this morally criminal behavior. If Ellen were alive today, would she not raise her voice about our church being in danger of falling? “If you are so bent on the abortion issue then why not start a thread with that title?” You are free to start a thread with any title you desire and so am I! I rely on help from above for the titles and the content of the topics I choose for discussion. I try to listen to his voice, and sometimes I succeed. This is why I keep trying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 pkraus wrote: “Not sure what your implying???” If a single issue—adultery in the church—moved her to warn believers that we were in danger of becoming “a sister to Babylon,” then it follows that a double issue—adultery and the killing of innocent human beings—would surely prompt her again to issue the same warning in the event she were alive today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted January 31, 2012 Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 pkraus wrote: “Not sure what your implying???” If a single issue—adultery in the church—moved her to warn believers that we were in danger of becoming “a sister to Babylon,” then it follows that a double issue—adultery and the killing of innocent human beings—would surely prompt her again to issue the same warning in the event she were alive today. Agreed and that's all she would be doing and that's warning us. Which if we really follow her would know, because the church is still under that same warning, are they not?? phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 pkrause wrote: “Agreed and that's all she would be doing and that's warning us. Which if we really follow her would know, because the church is still under that same warning, are they not??” Yes, except that her warning today would be more severe, because we have added abortion to the sin of adultery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 There are many more sins than just adultery and abortion Nic. We should be speaking out against all of them, not just two. phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Naomi Posted February 1, 2012 Administrators Share Posted February 1, 2012 There are many more sins than just adultery and abortion Nic. We should be speaking out against all of them, not just two. If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 pkrause said: “There are many more sins than just adultery and abortion Nic. We should be speaking out against all of them, not just two.” Of course! I did not claim that adultery and abortion were the only sins, but these two do usually go hand in hand. Neither did I say that adultery and abortion were the worst sins. I believe that pride is much worse than abortion. The sin of Lucifer was pride. Abortion is an obvious sin and can be repented of, while pride is a hidden sin and extremely difficult to discover and eradicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Naomi quoted pkrause: “There are many more sins than just adultery and abortion Nic. We should be speaking out against all of them, not just two.” The difference between adultery and abortion and the rest of human sins is that our church has never condoned lying, pride, Sabbath breaking, and so on. Nevertheless, our church officially did justify the breaking of the Sixth Commandment. Had this been not the case, I would have had no need to sacrifice half of my business working hours for the last 15 years to this cause at great financial sacrifice to me and my family with no expectation of monetary compensation. My church has failed to fulfill its sacred duty to preach against all sins—especially the sin of abortion—which has forced me to embrace this self assigned mission. I love my church and want it to repent of this dereliction of moral duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Neither is any reform coming in or beginning to come as EGW was hopeful of. I do believe before she died she saw it wasn't going to happen. She began to see it it seems in 1901 from what I gather. Then in 1903 it appears they cinched it their way and not what she had admonished. Gibs ________________ I couldn't agree more. This topic has been thoroughly covered a few months ago on these boards. According to the minutes of the General Conferences of 1901 and 1903, as recorded in the Bulletins, and according to the testimonies, at the 1903 General Conference session the 1901 God-given reformatory steps were reversed. Thus God was put aside and the devisings of men were continued. In this order of things human plans and methods are put foreward under a semblance of zeal for truth and for the advancement of the kingdom of God. In 1907 the Lord sent this testimony: "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If this is allowed to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481. Previously the Lord had said, "Men have taken unfair advantage of those whom they supposed to be under their jurisdiction. They were determined to bring the individuals to their terms; they would rule or ruin. There will be no material change until a decided movement is made to bring in a different order of things." T.M.360. This is papal and that is why on page 362 and 363 she says that these men were following in the track of Rome. At the General Conference of 1901 she stated before the audience that "That these men should stand in a sacred place to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,--that is past. What we want is a new organization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, p.25. In that bulletin are found the lectures which contain the light sent from God regarding what the foundation should be and the new principle to build upon. The light was assented to but never given a chance to be implemented and in 1903 it was repudiated. To this day the change for which the Lord had called for has never been heeded and implemented. Therefore the Lord will finish the work in a manner that will be very much out of the common order of things and in a way that will be contrary to every human planning. (T.M.300) We can safely predict that those who blindly support the established order of things will oppose this work as did the men who composed the Sanhedrin in the days of Christ opposed God's work but the Lord will at last finish it and cut it short in righteousness for "Christ's righteousness will accomplish everything." F.W.27. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 We can safely predict that those who blindly FAIL to support the established order of things, the General Conference and the body of belivers, will leave the church. They will form a "new order", remove their membership, quit paying tithe and become "off shoots", fanatics. We can also predict there will no harmony among these various groups and persons, each with his own agenda, his own mission, his own take on what should and shouldn't be preached. There is no head, only confusion. Imagine Dr. Rich, Gib's, Sky, Jamesonofthunder, miz3 and many other "professed Adventists" agreeing on fundamental doctrine. And yet, each individual absolutely convinced they are led of the Holy Spirit and doing God's work. ....it's madness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Nic says, "Nevertheless, our church officially did justify the breaking of the Sixth Commandment." That is your opinion Nic, in my opinion, your statement is grossly misleading and could be considered a lie. I certainly consider it in that light. The Church allows for some people to work on the Sabbath. This does NOT mean they justify breaking the fourth commandment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted February 3, 2012 Members Share Posted February 3, 2012 Nic says,"Nevertheless, our church officially did justify the breaking of the Sixth Commandment." That is your opinion Nic, in my opinion, your statement is grossly misleading and could be considered a lie. I certainly consider it in that light. The Church allows for some people to work on the Sabbath. This does NOT mean they justify breaking the fourth commandment! phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 pkrause said: “There are many more sins than just adultery and abortion Nic. We should be speaking out against all of them, not just two.” Yes, but all of them are a violation of only two of them: Love to God, and love to our neighbor. Adultery and abortion are a violation of both of these sacred precepts. My mission is to help restore our respect for those two basic rules of behavior. Now, what is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 That is the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist church Nic, to restore those two great commandments. Which are verily the three angels message. It appears you are condeming the church at the highest level for not doing that in the fashion and the way you think it should be done. Your placing yourself, your opinions and methods at a higher level than the church. In doing so you have violated BOTH of the commandments! My mission is the same as the Church. Now, what is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “Your placing yourself, your opinions and methods at a higher level than the church. In doing so you have violated BOTH of the commandments! My mission is the same as the Church. Now, what is yours? The church has shown by doctrine and by example a lack of love towards the unborn. This is a terrible sin. I am not placing my opinions above the church, what I am doing is placing the Word of God above human authority and above human tradition. That is what the Noble Bereans did: After listening to the greatest church authority known then--the one commissioned by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles--they went home and searched the Scriptures in order to discover whether the teachings of Paul were in harmony with the revealed will of God. Peter did something similar. When the order came from the highest church authority at the time—the Sanhedrin—ordered him to be silent, he asked: Should we follow your orders or the order we received from the Lord? “We must obey God rather than men.” I am also following the example set by Paul, who confronted the General Conference president of the nascent Christian Church—Peter—and reprimanded him for compromising on God’s instructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Nic says, "The church has shown by doctrine and by example a lack of love towards the unborn." This is the accusation made, I would request the evidence. What doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church shows a lack of love toward the unborn Nic? What example of the Seventh-day Adventist church can you offer as a position of a lack of love for the unborn? I believe you are making the same error many accusers of the brethren make. You see an individual or a business or group of Adventists doing something you don't like and conclude the Seventh-day Adventists DOCTRINES and POSITION statements are at fault. That the "church" as a whole and officially is at fault. This wouldn't fly in a court of law, it won't fly here either Nic. It is libalous. What doctrine of the Church is a problem for you Nic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts