Wolves in sheep's clothing....

[debbym]

Quote:

Tried and true, tithe paying, upholders of the GC, etc, yes, us, can also be wolves in sheep's clothing. How often do we make statements about others within the church beliefs and say a that they are not following the 'true path', pastors and other church leaders do not 'know' the 'true gospel', etc. Much is said that discourages others, all in the spirit of speaking the 'real truth'. When we try to take the place of the HS, we become "wolves in sheep's clothing" to those on the same journey as ourselves.

I fear the 'wolves' on the inside more than those who are obvious wolves from without.

I would suggest that 'identity theft' applies anytime we choose or think to speak for God, however it is 'explained'.

i really agree with you. anyone anywhere in any religion that tries to exercise authority as the authority of God is dangerous. we are not to yield to others what only belongs to God.

but this doesn't mean we cannot speak to one another as fellow human beings, fellow children of God, and the community of faith. This doesn't mean we cannot share what God is to us.

but we cannot convict of one sin, and we cannot heal, and we cannot forgive sins, we cannot renew or restore the heart, we cannot defend anyone from temptation, and countless other things we cannot do that are in the sovereign place of God.. We can only choose to belong to God and let God work his will in us.

[BobRyan]

I would like to respond to your above post Bob, but I think it would be better done in the "Tongues" thread rather than this thread.

Stan has raised an important topic here I would hate to see it get to far off track.

Well Stan's claim in the OP is that the video of Barry Black apparently speaking in tongues in his repeat of that 7 syllable unknown word - is only going to be seen as speaking in tongues - by wolves in sheep's clothing. An interesting idea given the post above where Barry Black explicitly speaks to the subject of pentecostal version of tongues and apparently approves.

discover for yourself. da-sha-da-la-la-la-bosa (or something of that sort)

http://youtu.be/DDbdqc5_UG0

The issue in the OP is not whether one approves of tongues - the issue is whether the initial claim that Pastor Black approves of the Pentecostal version of tongues (and possibly engaged in it during that video clip) is an example of "Wolves in sheep's clothing" accusing Barry Black of doing something he is not doing with his repeat of that 7 syllable unknown word.

In other words - is it wrong to notice what Barry Black is doing - if what he is doing is not part of orthodox Adventism? Or is the error to "Suspect" that what he is doing with that 7 syllable - almost-word is in fact the vanilla version of Charismatic tongues that it appears to be.

Because - "in general" - I agree completely with Stan's statement about the wolves in sheep's clothing problem being a huge one for the SDA church.

It is just that the detail in this particular case do not appear to support the accusation against anyone that might suppose that the 7 syllable "Word" repeated by Barry Black is classic charismatic tongues.

in Christ,

Bob

[lazarus]

The problem as I see it is that some make a "ministry" out of pointing out such "errors" without speaking to the person themselves or clarifying the truth of the situation. Under the guise of upholding truth people post volumes of what errors are in the church when they themselves have profound spiritual issues. They end up devouring others under the pretense of standing up for the right. The devil does not need to accuse the brethren. They do the work for him.

Lets assume Black said da-sha-da-la-la-la-bosa.... that means that he is what? an apostate? a jesuit? a non-Adventist? a member of the illuminati? Black has done more to elevate and cultivate the profile of SDA's than most on this board. So he said da-sha-da-la-la-la-bosa. write him a letter, call him, but make a video out of it. Really?

Quote:

In other words - is it wrong to notice what Barry Black is doing - if what he is doing is not part of orthodox Adventism?

Of course its not wrong to notice or even object but it's wrong to demonize. That is what the wolves do. There is no such thing as righteousness by orthodoxy by the way.

[BobRyan]

The problem as I see it is that some make a "ministry" out of pointing out such "errors" without speaking to the person themselves or clarifying the truth of the situation.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

In other words - is it wrong to notice what Barry Black is doing - if what he is doing is not part of orthodox Adventism?

Of course its not wrong to notice or even object but it's wrong to demonize. That is what the wolves do. There is no such thing as righteousness by orthodoxy by the way.

Well then - let's look at something where demonization is being claimed for Barry Black.

Do we have a quote of that?

Let' define terms - and point to what it is that is under discussion.

Because in the case of this thread - I believe the point is that it would be horribly wrong to think that da-sha-da-la-la-la-bosa is an example of the classic charismatic version of speaking in tongues so popular today.

in Christ,

Bob

[lazarus]

But in the post above you say that oops - it may be a mistake and an actual 7 syllable version of gibberish.

No, I said lets assume. If we assume that then this means that Barry Black is........

Quote:

It is harder for an SDA pastor to claim to have that level of lack of information however. Chaplain to the Senate or not.

So assuming that Barry Black knew all the facts etc. That instance of him speaking in "tongues" means.........?

[lazarus]

In watching the video I think the part in question is audio that has been added. His mouth is not moving.

[phkrause]

In watching the video I think the part in question is audio that has been added. His mouth is not moving.

Interesting point, I was thinking that myself.

[phkrause]

And not only that, someone's head gets right in front of him as he supposedly says it the first time. The second time it looks like his lips are not moving.

[cricket]

Though I have no stake in whether the video has been altered or not, his lips are moving when the barely audible sound is projected.

[ClubV12]

Sometimes I wonder if I got to the same Church as some of you do...

I keep hearing about how members IN the Church apparently oppress, condem, demand, uh, whats another word, intimidate, insist that other members "stay on the path". Woody speaks of it in terms of using Sister White like a hammer, beating up other members with this or that quote in order to "convince them" (as Debby might say it) that they are not on the this path. There is talk about how so much damage has been done to members as a result, how terrible this is. There appears to be a deep seated, almost anger and a lashing out at anybody that even appears to take comfort in the words of Ellen White. Certainly those who actually live the "blue print" are subject to feigned concern (yes, feigned, false, paranoid, fear of).

To those "paranoid" ones in the Church who can't resist speaking up and condeming, intimidating, insisting that other members QUIT talking about "staying on the path", do you realize you have become exactly what you are talking about? Do you realize that you are causing the same kind of damage and hurt and discouragement you THINK you are trying to prevent?

Wolves in sheep clothing indeed, who is who? Since day one in this Church I have been told to use caution reading Ellen White. I have heard endless stories about people using her as a hammer. When I discovered the Testimonies I was told it was not a good idea to read them, as if there was a hidden danger there. I hear, almost constantly, from apparently good people, good members in good standing who support the Church fretting over someone taking Ellen White to seriously. Comments that speak of her as being human and subject to mistakes, having personal opinions, questioning the gift in subtle ways.

Who is who indeed! Mention health reform and here come the "paranoid Adventists" in good standing with a passion to make sure things don't get carried to far, urging caution and condeming anyone that even looks like they might be carrying a hammer.

You, good people in the Church, good members in good standing, the same ones who proclaim to love, honor and support the Church, you, have become the very people this thread is trying to warn us about!

I haven't found these people of which you speak. I find OFF SHOOTS using Ellen White as a hammer, those outside the Church. I find those INSIDE the Church also using a hammer, to stop anyone from actually getting a blessing from Ellen White!!! FAR MORE I consistently find members IN the Church ignoring the counsel and angry at those who love the counsel!

Who is who indeed when it comes to "radicals".

By the way, that tongues video has now taken over TWO threads and is much ado about nothing.

[Ted Oplinger]

And not only that, someone's head gets right in front of him as he supposedly says it the first time. The second time it looks like his lips are not moving.

Maybe the lips are moving, maybe not.

I agree - the first audible occurs when Bro. Black's face is blocked by another's head. When it becomes unblocked (and the first audible's "word" is being completed, it does not appear to me his jaws are moving while the sounds are being made.

When his face becomes visible, the focus (at least, on my computer) is such that the area around his mouth is blurry. It seems to be the only time such blurriness occurs in the clip. I can't see lips moving during the second audible, no matter how many times I backed it up and looked for it. His jaw does appear to move - but not in a manner in harmony with the syllables being enunciated.

Audio spliced in? Quite possibly. Regardless, though, I would not consider this to be hard evidence of any kind, of Bro. Black engaging in "tongues".

Blessings,

[Kevin H]

ClubV: When I was a child I grew up a shut in from church. Until I was in Jr. high we would only go when relatives came to visit, or we were out visiting relatives. Once we were out in California for a year with relatives when I as 2-3 grade. At that young age I noticed two types of Adventists. People who were like my Grandma and who loved Jesus and who were enjoyable to be around. And those who did use Mrs. White as a hammer.

I noticed 2 of my relatives married to Adventists ho used Mrs. White as a hammer. My best friend in the 3rd grade, his mom was fine but his father (who was one of the Bible teachers at the Academy) was one who used her as a hammer. It was not just the off shoot people who used her as a hammer. I grew to the point of believing that those who used Mrs. White as a hammer were correct because the Bible said "SUFFER the little children to come unto me..." and these people sure made little children suffer, and for the next few years I tried to be just like them.

In about the 7th or 8th grade I started to go to church a bit more often when able to visit relatives in NYC more often. Then in the 9th grade a young man from our church, I think that he was about 18 at the time, started to drive out to bring us to church each Sabbath (a ministry that he still does for people).

In the 10th grade I went to Academy then eventually on to college. While I still saw those two types of Adventists, I learned that the word "Suffer" meant to "Permit the little children to come unto me" not that you needed to lead them to him by making them suffer. Then in college I got a balanced view of Mrs. White. While at the Seminary, I read many letters Mrs. White wrote to many people. I noticed a group of them to some individuals who's letters and her response sounded a lot a like. These people loved to quote massive amounts of her writings, and she kept telling them that despite the massive amounts of her writings they were quoting, that they did not understand her message and were misrepresenting her.

My next stop was the Army, at Ft. Lewis Washington. That was near the head quarters of one of the conservative publications of the church and several of the churches had members who liked that group and were willing to give out copies upon copies of their journal. I read them. I read a lot of them. I noticed that they tended to sound like the letters that Mrs. White complained about. And I noticed that the publication held up as heros the very people who Mrs. White and Willie White would write those letters to complaining that despite their massive quoting of her works they do not understand her message and misrepresent her.

The problem is not in reading the Testimonies or learning about health reform. But it's the attitude we approach the Testimonies with, a fundamentalist attitude that really grew in the church after the 1923 General Conference, that has really hurt us and we are trying to heal from. And yes this is very much a part of the church.

[ClubV12]

I do understand the history, from books not personally, of how the Church misapplied the counsels and caused a very legalistic attitude.

Nothing new there. The Jews did that. The Catholic Church did/does that. Even the reformers in breaking away from the Catholic STILL did it. People just can't seem to get away from "works".

I realized that. But now, theres a new Sheriff in town. The response to all this works is to avoid talking about them! Were in the other ditch, but were still in a ditch.

I wonder who is the more dangerous, those outside condeming the Church for it's apostasy? Or those inside the Church ignoring the apostasy?

Those folks who made you suffer when you were growing up Kevin, they were still right. The legalists, are still right. The counsel stands, children and nominalists hate the counsel and those who present it, nothing new there. You mention coffee around here and a fire fight breaks out, among "good members within the Church". An off shoot mentions coffee and he's ignored because he IS an off shoot, but he's still right. The counsel stands.

I don't know who is more dangerous, seriously, the off shoot or the nominal Adventist.

[Ted Oplinger]

I do understand the history, from books not personally, of how the Church misapplied the counsels and caused a very legalistic attitude.

Nothing new there. The Jews did that. The Catholic Church did/does that. Even the reformers in breaking away from the Catholic STILL did it. People just can't seem to get away from "works".

I realized that. But now, theres a new Sheriff in town. The response to all this works is to avoid talking about them! Were in the other ditch, but were still in a ditch.

I wonder who is the more dangerous, those outside condeming the Church for it's apostasy? Or those inside the Church ignoring the apostasy?

Those folks who made you suffer when you were growing up Kevin, they were still right. The legalists, are still right. The counsel stands, children and nominalists hate the counsel and those who present it, nothing new there. You mention coffee around here and a fire fight breaks out, among "good members within the Church". An off shoot mentions coffee and he's ignored because he IS an off shoot, but he's still right. The counsel stands.

I don't know who is more dangerous, seriously, the off shoot or the nominal Adventist.

When did we get that "new sheriff in town" which dissolved such people away as if dusted with fairy dust and *poof* the issue is no more? There seem to be elements within the SDA church that never got that memo...

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

As I said, sometimes I wonder if we go to the same Church.

I've visited and attended many Churches in my area and I consistently find the majority saying the same thing. People apologizing for Ellen White, suggesting I use caution, warning about some mysterious danger that might lurk there. From practically day one since I stepped into the Church. I've heard plenty of stories about the Church using Ellen White as a hammer, how we were steeped in legalism for decades.

What I see IS a "new Sheriff", you didn't get the memo because it's laying in plain sight and is so prevalent people don't notice. This Church IS IN apostasy, thats reality. WE as a people are far removed from the blue print outlined in the counsel. The paranoia is so high, concerning the counsel, good Adventist walk in FEAR of coming across a legalist! They are just as much compelled to stop any suggestion of that as the off shoots are compelled to demonstrate extreme legalistic behaviour.

I suggest, Ted, that it is possible you have become so concerned about legalists yourself, you assume they are everywhere. Thats it's a crisis, that you need to meet it, with a passion. And I find that is a common response of many within the Church. THAT is the new Sheriff in town, they murdered the other one for talking about coffee, cards, movie shows, TV, health reform, etc. etc. and took away his stick.

They were right, those many Adventists who warned me about studying to much of Ellen White, it did lead to problems. My eyes were opened. The counsel and the Church didn't line up, it still doesn't. I'm not suggesting what the solution is, as for me, I quit comparing myself to Church members sometime ago.

Yes I deal with fanatics and off shoots, but I am left to wonder, which group is the most serious threat to the Church? Nominal Adventists comfortable without taking the counsel to seriously or fanatics who live and breathe every word? Anybody in between those two extremes gets hammered from both sides (raises hand).

[ClubV12]

"There is a little hope in one direction: Take the young men and women, and place them where they will come as little in contact with our churches as possible, that the low grade of piety which is current in this day shall not leaven their ideas of what it means to be a Christian."

Manuscript Releases, Volume 12 333

First time I heard this quote was from one who had removed his membership and was openly fighting against the Church as a response to it. Eventually, I realized the counsel was not radical, it is what it is. I transferred to a smaller Church, left behind the very nice, lovely people, that I loved dearly in the large "nominal" Adventist Church I had been in. My lifestyle and their lifestyle had become incompatible, they enjoyed things which no longer interested me. They wanted to talk football, I wanted to talk about Jesus.

Egotistical? Not at all, REALITY check!

[Ted Oplinger]

As I said, sometimes I wonder if we go to the same Church.

I've visited and attended many Churches in my area and I consistently find the majority saying the same thing. People apologizing for Ellen White, suggesting I use caution, warning about some mysterious danger that might lurk there. From practically day one since I stepped into the Church. I've heard plenty of stories about the Church using Ellen White as a hammer, how we were steeped in legalism for decades.

[CoAspen]

Thanks for pointing out the issue of wolves with in the church. Said better than I ever would.

[Gail]

Thanks for pointing out the issue of wolves with in the church. Said better than I ever would.

I agree with that... I have for years taken a Positive PR stance for the church when dealing with non-Christians or non-SDAs. It's been for me like Iron Deacon's position. Whoever I interact with, I want to do it in a way so that when they walk away they know a bit more about the church in a positive light. Why? Because if they reject what I say, that cuts off any further communication from/about the church forevermore. If anyone was to do any rejecting I don't want it to be because of my presentation of my faith or my Jesus.

And Positive PR stance does not mean whittling down EGW, either. I just try to bless people, period, being respectful to where they are at and using whatever Bible or EGW I can to minister to them. The Bible is the most important, well, because it is, but also because that is what other mainstream Christians will relate to. With ex-SDAs, I just give them love, because in many of their experiences that was the missing element of their bombardment with Mrs. White's work.

[Gail]

So what I am essentially saying is that I don't want to misrepresent Christ to others. It is worth studying His methods of dealing with people. He raised crowds by His preaching and healing. He attracted people to Him in a way that made them drop everything to follow Him.

I've got much to learn from His example, but I feel it vital that I do.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Thanks for pointing out the issue of wolves with in the church. Said better than I ever would.

I agree with that... I have for years taken a Positive PR stance for the church when dealing with non-Christians or non-SDAs. It's been for me like Iron Deacon's position. Whoever I interact with, I want to do it in a way so that when they walk away they know a bit more about the church in a positive light. Why? Because if they reject what I say, that cuts off any further communication from/about the church forevermore. If anyone was to do any rejecting I don't want it to be because of my presentation of my faith or my Jesus.

And Positive PR stance does not mean whittling down EGW, either. I just try to bless people, period, being respectful to where they are at and using whatever Bible or EGW I can to minister to them. The Bible is the most important, well, because it is, but also because that is what other mainstream Christians will relate to. With ex-SDAs, I just give them love, because in many of their experiences that was the missing element of their bombardment with Mrs. White's work.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

But in the post above you say that oops - it may be a mistake and an actual 7 syllable version of gibberish.

No, I said lets assume. If we assume that then this means that Barry Black is........

Quote:

It is harder for an SDA pastor to claim to have that level of lack of information however. Chaplain to the Senate or not.

So assuming that Barry Black knew all the facts etc. That instance of him speaking in "tongues" means.........?

it means this "Wolf in sheep's clothing thread" is an interesting choice of words for studying this subject and trying to figure out what was going on there.

I find it curious.

in Christ,

Bob

[cricket]

it means this "Wolf in sheep's clothing thread" is an interesting choice of words for studying this subject and trying to figure out what was going on there.

[ClubV12]

Ted, I don't care for the methods you employ in your ministry concerning Ellen White. So what, we all have an opinion. I don't need to justify my opinion with a lengthy analysis of it.

The percentages of members in good standing with the Church, on THIS FORUM, who are easily offended, fear or are paranoid of hearing anything from or about Ellen White mirrors the percentage of people in Churches I've attended that do the same.

I didn't cause this to happen on this forum, nor am I the cause of it in our local Churches. In both cases it was already here when I arrived, it will be here when I leave. I won't speculate on why so many are "angry" and "concerned" about Ellen White. What ever the reason is, or was, it's just an excuse to murmur and complain. It's just an excuse to hurt others you "worry about" becoming to enthused over the gift. As you are doing right now, on this very thread, Ted!

The same Spirit wrote both the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, the Holy Spirit. The bible has a much bigger track record of causing strife, paranoia, fear, wars, people leaving Churches, becoming fanatics and off shoots and radically misinterpreting the biblical quotes.

With the bible, do you ask for context for every verse? After reading a verse do you mention, that was for their time, it's different today. Do you point out where you think a biblical author offers his own opinion? Are you SO worried you tell people to ignore some of the counsel? Do you hide it when your talking to an atheist so you won't offend him?

WHY THEN do you treat the Holy Spirits OTHER book, the Testimonies, with such a fearful attitude? The author is the same in both cases, the Holy Spirit! There is nothing to fear, nothing to hate, no one to beat up over it, you either trust God to lead people into the light, or you don't.

And sadly MOST Adventist DON'T trust God to lead people into the light through the Spirit of Prophecy. THATS a fact, a sad fact.

Another fact is, those who loudly and often proclaim the bible and the bible only are very often doing so because they FEAR the Spirit of Prophecy! You can lie to me about that, but why will you lie to YOURSELF about it? You know it's true.

Whose worse, off shoots or laodecia? The question remains.