NAD leadership?

[B/W Photodude]

Another troubling article regarding NAD leadership:

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2017/12/3/nad-at-oakwood-is-this-thing-on

[Kevin H]

But you have to remember that the theology thread that Fulcrum7 represents has had a long history in the church and have tended to call who ever was currently in office and living as heretics including Mrs. White, Willie White, A.G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott etc. If times lasts long enough and these people die off eventually their grandchildren or great grandchildren will be singing the praises of say Elder Jackson and others  for being faithful advocates of what they believe and that it is the generation living at that time where all this trouble started.  

[pierrepaul]

I followed Fulcrum7 for about a year. While I admire the zeal of some of their contributors, their articles tend to be loose with facts, high on "outrage", and everything is spun to fit their narrow narrative. They are obsessed with women's ordination and continually misrepresent the scope and import of the San Antonio vote, paying neither heed nor regard to the actual text of the motion that was defeated; they deliberately fail to acknowledge that the "no" vote at San Antonio meant that the status quo prevailed.

The tipping point for me was an expository article on the story of Solomon, the two harlots and the baby. I was surprised to learn that the hidden meaning in this story (hidden for some 3,000 years) was all about women's ordination. The commenters then lauded the author's brilliant exegesis and insight. I commented to suggest that perhaps this story wasn't about women's ordination, and perhaps it was not sound exegesis to read women's ordination into Solomon's judgement, but I was roundly criticized. Biblical truth and sound interpretation always take a back seat to ideology.

Perhaps the proceedings of the Oakwood/NAD Q&A session transpired as reported in the Fulcrum article, but given Fulcrum's tenuous relationship with truth and facts, I have a reasonable doubt.

[B/W Photodude]

21 hours ago, Kevin H said:

But you have to remember that the theology thread that Fulcrum7 represents has had a long history in the church and have tended to call who ever was currently in office and living as heretics including Mrs. White, Willie White, A.G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott etc. If times lasts long enough and these people die off eventually their grandchildren or great grandchildren will be singing the praises of say Elder Jackson and others  for being faithful advocates of what they believe and that it is the generation living at that time where all this trouble started.  

 

I tend not to believe this is the same theology of calling people heretics from a long time ago. The whole trend for much of the SDA church in North America, Europe, and Australia reminds me so much of the Old Testament history where it would usually be only a generation or two after a good judge, prophet, or king before the people were back to their idols. Typical human behavior. Perhaps someday people will be singing praises for Jackson, et al, but then in the days of Elijah he was told there were seven thousand who never bent the knee to idols. We just don't recognize our idols as idols anymore.

As far as Fulcrum7 goes, it is a collection of various people with individual opinions. Like here at Adventistan. There is a lot of stuff that to me is just confusion and I mostly just leave it alone. And I don't accuse Adventistan of having a tendency to promote a specific theological agenda. Some posters, yeah, but that is what a forum is all about. And I find it odd that Fulcrum7 comes under this kind of criticism after other Adventist sites publish progressive stuff and reader comments are unbelievably critical of church leaders. Amazing what Ted Wilson gets accused of. Even a well known scholar lowered himself to compare Wilson to Hitler! Unbelievable! Haven't found a cure for WDS yet.

 

[Jeannieb43]

We can't use Fulcrum7 as our sole source of Adventist activities and beliefs [or even as one of our sources, IMHO].    There's always going to be somebody who picks apart our leaders.  Let's just read the Scriptures and concentrate on our own heart's allegiance to God.  It makes me rather ill to read all this folderol.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, Jeannieb43 said:

We can't use Fulcrum7 as our sole source of Adventist activities and beliefs [or even as one of our sources, IMHO].    There's always going to be somebody who picks apart our leaders.  Let's just read the Scriptures and concentrate on our own heart's allegiance to God.  It makes me rather ill to read all this folderol.

Perhaps we shouldn't even read Adventistan! No one has suggest that Fulcrum7 should be the source of beliefs. They are just another website publishing papers written by interested believers. So, like all things, if you don't like it, switch channels.

[Kevin H]

I know that I'm critical of them, however I don't automatically dismiss them. They have been a part of the Adventist tapestry. They have a history that we on the one hand need to remember but also know that they often focus on things that we are in danger of overlooking. What scares me about them is that, despite their track record, they often consider themselves the ONLY form of true Adventism and the rest of us nominal Adventists. And they tend to use what ever they can to try to force their views on the rest of us.

There are liberal sides and conservative sides. I respect and fear both equally. They all have something to say worth listening to. We have to remember that we all also have things that may be helpful to me but not necessary to you. The only one who had complete undiluted truth is our Lord Jesus Christ. Then we have 12 imperfect reflections of the truth and a further 70 imperfect reflections. We have prophets who all can have the same criticisms raised against them that the liberals and critics of our church can raise against Mrs. White. And these are the ones who are far above us in knowledge of the truth.

We should be like this forum, the different voices where we share our views and comment and evaluate and we follow according to the dictates of our own consciences.

[LifeHiscost]

On 12/6/2017 at 8:01 PM, Kevin H said:

 

We should be like this forum, the different voices where we share our views and comment and evaluate and we follow according to the dictates of our own consciences.

And that's only safe if one relies on the Word to shape the conscience.

13 So the word of the LORD to them will be, "Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there," That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive. 14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people.....  Isaiah 28

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!    Hope you all had a

[B/W Photodude]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

`You took her comment quite out of context; perhaps you could consider your own counsel and switch channels

Actually not. She did report feeling ill reading the site, so don't read it. It's like the guy who complained to his doctor that he broke his leg in three places. The doctor said not to go back to anyone of them!

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

perhaps you could consider your own counsel and switch channels

I think you said that already. Also, I say again, ... no!

[pierrepaul]

On December 5, 2017 at 11:58 PM, B/W Photodude said:

 Amazing what Ted Wilson gets accused of. Even a well known scholar lowered himself to compare Wilson to Hitler! Unbelievable! Haven't found a cure for WDS yet.

 

If you're referring to George Knight, he didn't compare Wilson to Hitler - although Fulcrum7 predictably revved up their outrage machine, twisted Dr Knight's words and falsely reported that he compared Wilson to Hitler. A good rule to follow when reading the usual suspects at F7 is cut it in half and believe a 3rd of it.

What Dr Knight did was quote Martin Niemöller's famous words.