Non-SDA Speakers banned?

[ClubV12]

teresaq(sda), How is it helpful to point out that I misunderstood Kevin's post but fail to offer your interpretation of what you think Kevin was saying?

Smells like,,,, SDA spiritual superiority.

[fccool]

Yes, and pointing THAT out is very helpful... :)

[Kevin H]

It would be ridiculous to allow a non-SDA speaker to present this topic to an SDA gathering. The typical Adventist barely has a good understanding of the subject, the last thing they need is to be further confused on the issue!

I find myself agreeing with this part of the quote. I'm sad that we are in this situation. (a reason why I mention Jim Fleming is beacause he is someone who is incredably Biblically centered, while we can hear lines here and there we won't agree with, he still would give us a strong Biblical foundation that can establish our beliefs.)

I have been conserned on how we follow some well known non-Adventists who's use of the Bible is basically "fluff" I mean these may be good people and even useful people but that we see their "fluff" as deep study bothers me. I also lament that... the reason for the 1919 Bible Conference in Washington DC was because so many of our pastors and teachers were heading to Philadelphia for the great interdenominational Bible conference for Fundamentalism. Our teachers and pastors first studied with our officials from the General Conference, A. G. Daniels, and W. W. Prescott. (Willie White was to be there too but had to be out of town on business). At first it looked like the conference went well but then they moved on to Philadelphia, and came home with the Philadelphia message rejecting the Washington DC message. And I agree with Elder Daniel's that the message of Philadelphia PA was going to spell disaster for the church and for our understanding of Mrs. White as a prophet. (And today we find that people tend to split between those who reject Mrs. White because she does not meet the Philadelphia standard, and those who keep trying to squeeze Mrs. White into the Philadelphia standard and tries to squeeze us into their standards). These two points make me Sympathetic with the caution of those who uninvited him.

However this note of sympathy is tempered by an even earlier event in church history. When the village of Washington NH was founded, the villagers could not decide on a church. Some wanted the conservative church and only allow speakers who were credentialed by the church. Others in the village wanted a liberal church and have their pulpit open to anyone who felt that they had a message and allow the members to listen with their own discretion.

The solution was to make 2 churches, one that only allowed the official church people to speak,the other willing to listen to others. The church that was willing to listen to others ended up becoming the official first Seventh-day Adventist Church (there may have been some older in Seventh-day Baptists communities, such as Linklian Center NY, but we don't have the dates to make sure). I guess that our later generations have come to learn that the spirit of our Pioneers were wrong in the first place and that Washington NH should have just joined the church that would only allow the official preachers.

[teresaq]

for the whole post. I just shortened it for brevity's sake, tho it should be saved for posterity, in my opinion.

...

The #1 problem is pride. The pride that comes from realization that we are God's chosen, and we keep the law properly, and people come closer relationship with God through us. And that in the end we will be persecuted by these other protestant heathens because of that.

Ironically, I think if Christ himself would walk into our churches on Sabbath and started preaching, he would be chased off with a broom, for not being SDA enough.

[skyblue888]

As early as 1903 we were told through the Testimonies that we had become so much like the world (worldly churches) that no difference could be seen! See 7 B.C.959.

After compromising the pillars of our faith in the 1950s the leaders stated, "We are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints." Questions on Doctrine,32.

A decade later, on page 10 of Ministry Magazine of March 1966, appeared these words from our leaders:

"Today, the old largely negative approach, emphasizing the things wherein we differ from all religious groups, is past, definitely past. And this is as it should be."

The same year, in the June issue, one could read these words:

"The Adventist Church today is better prepared to make common cause with these other evangelicals than at any previous time in its history." pp.19,20.

And we wonder why we have had these pulpit exchanges ever since.

For decades now we have had congenial fellowship with the other churches simply because in 1957, after the compromises of the pillars of our faith, we were officially accepted by Christendom as a Christian denomination whereas in the past they had categorized us as an anti-christian cult. What happened during those meetings between 1955 and 1957 was predicted by Mrs. White.

It came as the result of an effort to unite with other churches based upon common points of doctrine. And "to secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed, however important they might be from a Bible standpoint, must necessarily be waived." The Great Controversy, 444.

And if you are not yet convinced, listen to these words coming from one of the leaders of the World Council of Churches addressing an adventist audience three decades later:

"It is my pleasure to be with you again. I bring the warmest of greetings from the World Council of Churches and from all our member churches around the world. When I was at your worship service yesterday, it seemed as though it was my own time of worship, as well as yours. And it said to me that there are many things we hold in common. So as fellow Christians, like those of Pentecost in the earliest of days, we look at one another, and we say that we hold all things in common." Joan Campbell, director of the United States office of the World Council of Churches, as quoted in Adventist Review, July 10, 1990.

The Advent people were supposed to be a peculiar people. Our mission is not to establish friendship with the churches that constitute Babylon but to bring the third angel's message to them. But that message has not only been lost sight of, it has been compromised.

Long ago, Mrs. White warned that we were in danger of becoming a sister to the churches that constitute Babylon!

I find it very interesting that the new president wants to change all that. That is good but if there is to be any genuine revival there must be an acceptance of the call of God to reorganize according to the principles revealed between 1888 and 1901. Otherwise all efforts to reform will be in vain.

sky

[teresaq]

Because of fairly recent interactions with you, my brother. When I point out that only the president can veto bills and you come back with "you're not supporting the congressperson of this district", there is a serious lack of communication. I stated it that way instead of what was actually said in the hopes that you would see how you appeared to intentionally misunderstand what I was saying in that situation.

An alternative to putting me down would be to go back and reread Kevin's post to see if you had misread it...or to ask him to clarify.

teresaq(sda), How is it helpful to point out that I misunderstood Kevin's post but fail to offer your interpretation of what you think Kevin was saying?

Smells like,,,, SDA spiritual superiority.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, very well stated! I also agree with what you posted.

[teresaq]

Kevin I liked your post also especially the last two paragraphs. I thought they contributed important information.

I also appreciated you pointing out that a SD baptist-lady even-was invited to speak-preach- at our foundling church.

[ClubV12]

teresaq(sda) says,

"When I point out that only the president can veto bills and you come back with "you're not supporting the congressperson of this district", there is a serious lack of communication."

What is THAT supposed to mean?

Your posts are consistently disorganized, poorly structured and rambling in nature. Most of the time I don't know WHAT your talking about. I asked you to clairify what YOU thought Kevin was saying, but I withdraw that request. I don't believe you are capable of explaining it in plain and simple english.

[teresaq]

Thank you ClubV12.

I hope God blesses you richly with all that I wish for myself.

[ClubV12]

Kevin says,

"The solution was to make 2 churches, one that only allowed the official church people to speak,the other willing to listen to others. The church that was willing to listen to others ended up becoming the official first Seventh-day Adventist Church (there may have been some older in Seventh-day Baptists communities, such as Linklian Center NY, but we don't have the dates to make sure). I guess that our later generations have come to learn that the spirit of our Pioneers were wrong in the first place and that Washington NH should have just joined the church that would only allow the official preachers."

Kevin, what you are suggesting in the above post, and it's history lesson, is that MODERN DAY Seventh-day Adventist churches should allow any speaker on any subject to come in and preach whenever they are invited. That in fact we should follow the pioneers decision to allow this in hopes that these non-SDA speakers will present, "New light". That such new light might then lead to a dissolution of the old and tired SDA theology and a new emerging church, more consistent with "truth", would then be founded.

Now that may not have been your intention, but that is the message you present. Which appears to be well accepted by some on this thread. How easy it is to accept counsel that sounds so noble and yet contains such poison.

[John317]

fccool, you make some interesting points. I'll get back to your post and answer it in depth.

[John317]

Kevin, what you are suggesting in the above post, and it's history lesson, is that MODERN DAY Seventh-day Adventist churches should allow any speaker on any subject to come in and preach whenever they are invited. That in fact we should follow the pioneers decision to allow this in hopes that these non-SDA speakers will present, "New light". That such new light might then lead to a dissolution of the old and tired SDA theology and a new emerging church, more consistent with "truth", would then be founded.

Now that may not have been your intention, but that is the message you present. Which appears to be well accepted by some on this thread. How easy it is to accept counsel that sounds so noble and yet contains such poison.

I agree with you, and I would completely reject such a notion.

A few years ago, a local church, following the orders of the SE CA Conference President, refused to allow SDA Ron Spear's Hope International to hold a series of meetings. Elder Spear had to hold them at a mountain retreat, which worked out nicely. They were good meetings.

The president was a former favorite teacher of mine, and he assured me on the phone that he hadn't directed the church to refuse Elder Spear's desire to hold the meetings there. However, the pastor told me twice that he had received such an order from the president. I prefer to think there was a misunderstanding, and I will give my old teacher the benefit of the doubt.

I would encourage anyone to read and study the wonderful magazine, Our Firm Foundation.

http://www.hopeint.org/about.htm

[teresaq]

... These two points

make me Sympathetic

with the caution

of those

who uninvited him.

However this note of sympathy is tempered by an even earlier event in church history. ...

[ClubV12]

teresaq(sda), it's easy to cut and paste, do you have a relevant comment to make that might clairify what you mean to say?

[Kevin H]

ClubV12, your above post is a wonderful example of scrambling someone's ideas into something that they have no intention of saying...

I was pointing out Adventist history, a couple of other points of Adventist history that I'm sure you could have done a better job than our pioneers did.

The Review and Herald joined an interdenominational publishing association of 1000 religious journals who send one free copy of their journal to the other 999, and the journals were welcome to have their writers copy from the articles. Mrs. White had first dibs and would read through the 999 journals each month and use what she wanted for her writings, then she would let the others involved with the Review have their turn to look at the other articles and use it for their own writings. (Likewise the people involved with the other 999 journals would read the Review and their writers would copy from Mrs. White and the other Review contributes in writing their articles). Should not have the Review stayed only with Adventist writers and not join this interdenominational association? Should not have Mrs. White put a stop to this instead of being right in the middle of the involvement with it?

Also, my point from the earlier post that you missed and think it is snobbishness to point out that you did not read with comprehension was the fact that Mrs. White had become a very popular preacher on Sunday mornings in Sunday keeping churches. She spent Sabbaths working with our churches and Sundays she was in Sunday keeping churches. Her sermons in the Sunday keeping churches were on the love of Jesus towards them (things like the book Steps to Christ, which was published by an interdenominational publishing association) and the health message. (C. Mervin Maxwell pointed out that while in Australia Mrs. White worked some with the church, but also distanced herself a fair amount from the church and working with more of a general Christianity)

I'm just thinking that this policy makes Mrs. White appear a hypocrite. Can you picture her writing a letter to a church and saying "Thank you for having me preach in your pulpit lasts Sunday, I hope that you found my message to be a blessing. I'd invite you to come to speak at my church, however we don't allow preachers of other faith's to come, however I'm willing to return to preach in your church again any time you want."

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry John, but when I was at Andrews I read a lot of Mrs. White's corrispondence with some people such as an Elder Washburn, and I think an Elder Watson, and I don't remember if there was corrispondence between Ellen White and Elder Wilkerson but there was at least the corrispondence between Willie White and Elder Wilkerson.

The White's were very critical of these men. Mrs. White accused them of although quoting her at great extent that they were missing the point of her message, that they did not understand her message, that despite their large quotes from her they are teaching their message and not hers and that they were misusing her writings and that they were wrong. These Men came up with reasons to dismiss the White's counsel and to contiue their same methods.

I have looked quite a bit into Ron Spears and Our Firm Foundation. His views are the same as the group of men Mrs. White and Willie complained about, and he holds up these same men who were thorns in the flesh to the Whites as role models.

Now they are teaching a lot of truth, a lot of neglected truth, however, so I can understand the basic attraction, I have that too, however, especially after reading Mrs. White's letters to those who were teaching the same ideas, I understand them to to take a portion of the truth use it against the rest of the truth. I see Spears in the same catagory as I see Desmond Ford, that they split the truth between them (and not nicely 50% 50% but with a very jagged edge with one group having more truth on one portion and the other with another portion) with both being completely wrong on the nature of Christ. I see Spears and Ford as equally dangerous only that they tend to have, generally speaking. split the truth between them.

[John317]

I'm sorry John, but when I was at Andrews I read a lot of Mrs. White's corrispondence with some people such as an Elder Washburn, and I think an Elder Watson, and I believe that she had some but certanly the corrispondence between Willie White and Elder Wilkerson.

The White's were very critical of these men. Mrs. White accused them of although quoting her at great extent that they were missing the point of her message, that they did not understand her message, and that they were misusing her writings and that they were wrong.

I have looked quite a bit into Ron Spears and Our Firm Foundation. His views are the same as the group of men Mrs. White and Willie complained about, and he holds them up as role models.

Now they are teaching a lot of truth, a lot of neglected truth, however, so I can understand the basic attraction, I have that too, however, especially after reading Mrs. White's letters to those who were teaching the same ideas, I understand them to to take a portion of the truth use it against the rest of the truth.

You'd need to be more specific about what you're referring to in terms of what Ron Spears and Our Firm Foundation teaches. How is it the same as Elder Washburn, Elder Watson, and Elder Wilkerson?

I have not seen anywhere that Ron Spears taught contrary to the teaching of Ellen White. Can you quote both Ron Spears and Ellen White to show how they differ? Or if you can't quote them, can you be specific about the teaching that you believe Spears teaches contrary to Mrs. White and/or the Bible?

I read Our Firm Foundation from about 1980 to about 1996 or so. I haven't seen it for quite a few years, so I don't know if it has changed or not.

[LifeHiscost]

I guess if the Bible is not the foundation of your belief one could agree with this comment.

Quote:

Adventism in itself is not a standalone phenomenon. It borrows a lot of different understandings from different people and denominations. It's a composite of different beliefs, and it builds on the road paved by the predecessors.

This below may be true of some various segments of Adventist congregations. However as Pastor Ron Halvorsen once said, "If you are looking for a perfect church, as soon as you walk into it, it would no longer be perfect".

Quote:

Ironically, I think if Christ himself would walk into our churches on Sabbath and started preaching, he would be chased off with a broom, for not being SDA enough.

Adventists have a distinct message to deliver, as no other church has been seen to carry the same message. If one chooses to ignore that difference, it is at the peril of eliminating God's express choosing of a people to deliver a last day message, which without, many lives will perish.

"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear."EzekialEzekiel 3:10 KJV

God blesses!

[John317]

...This below may be true of some various segments of Adventist congregations. However as Pastor Ron Halvorsen once said, "If you are looking for a perfect church, as soon as you walk into it, it would no longer be perfect".

Wow-- ain't that the truth! That's something I will have to remember. So true and so important for all of us to think about-- every Sabbath we're at church, especially.

[Kevin H]

I've heard that it has changed for the worst, I read a post on the internet that claims that some people have pushed Ron Spears out, I think moved to another location, had made working pressures hard on their workers yet tollerating some very inapproprate behavior from some of their family that are living at the compound.

I read "Our Firm Foundation" mostly in the 1980s when I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis. Of course both my professors at AUC and at the Seminary were very critical of the journal. At AUC they talked about how both Ford and the Historic Adventists are teaching about half the truth against the rest of the truth.

At Andrews I read a bit of those writings by the men who Mrs. White was writing those critical letters to, and as I was reading Our Firm Foundation I felt that I was reading the same writings, the same ideas, the same massive quoting of Mrs. White but for the ideas that Mrs. White called misusing her writings. Then I read footnotes refering to those writings that I had read at Andrews by those very men and references in a positive light to those gentlemen who the White's complained about. But also notice, althought Mrs. White and Willie wrote these men some very sharp letters, and complained about them, they did not get them kicked out of the church, nor stifel their voice in the church and accepted them as full church members. They continued to work for the church as leaders. But the White's still complained about them.

Someone who has done a good job that you can study, who I believe made a oneness of the truth and is ballanced is the writings of LeRoy Moore, such as (now I thought this book was "The Theology Crisis" but I've seen it referred to as "Theology in Crisis") and his book about Questions on Doctrine. Also I had sent you a link of some studies in Mrs. White's studies that I believe are well ballanced and ponts out the problems with both Ford and Spears.

[John317]

... writings of LeRoy Moore, such as (now I thought this book was "The Theology Crisis" but I've seen it referred to as "Theology in Crisis")....

Yes, I have that book in my library.

It's about the teachings of Ellen White on Righteousness by Faith.

[John317]

I read "Our Firm Foundation" mostly in the 1980s when I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis. Of course both my professors at AUC and at the Seminary were very critical of the journal.

Without a doubt, and I shouldn't wonder.

But the important thing is what evidence your professors had to show that they were right and Our Firm Foundation wrong. One thing I know for sure is that I get a greater spiritual blessing from studying Our Firm Foundation than the Adventist Review. Our Adventist Review, when you compare it to what it was in the 1800s and up to about 1975, makes the current Review look like it's written for children. I do enjoy some of its articles but most of them come across more like in-house propaganda than honest reporting and writing about issues and biblical subjects.

But then I know they have to publish what they believe will sell the most copies or at least what they know the most people want to read.

Most SDA readers wouldn't want to read the articles that were in the Review and Herald. They wouldn't understand them, for one thing. Readers today don't have the ability to concentrate and comprehend like they used to. They need simple or compound sentences but not complex ones. It's like the newspapers-- for which I used to write-- everything has to be be written for people who have about a sixth grade education. It is almost that bad. But I know there's no use complaining about it-- it's not going to change. Might do about as much good as complaining against the lightening and thunder.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

... writings of LeRoy Moore, such as (now I thought this book was "The Theology Crisis" but I've seen it referred to as "Theology in Crisis")....

Yes, I have that book in my library.

It's about the teachings of Ellen White on Righteousness by Faith.

His books are right on target and shows where Ford and the so called "Historic Adventists" take about half the truth, rip it from the rest of the truth and go their own directions.

But also the big thing for me was reading the letters between Ellen White, Willie White, and the theologians who's views developed into "Historic Adventism" and how Mrs. White and Willie (and even some earlier from James White) were critical of these people. There is something about reading those letters, reading their writings, then reading articles that sound very similar and where those men who Mrs. White and Willie complained about are the sources and held up as role models that really makes me uncomfortable.

[ClubV12]

Kevin says,

"The solution was to make 2 churches, one that only allowed the official church people to speak,the other willing to listen to others. The church that was willing to listen to others ended up becoming the official first Seventh-day Adventist Church (there may have been some older in Seventh-day Baptists communities, such as Linklian Center NY, but we don't have the dates to make sure). I guess that our later generations have come to learn that the spirit of our Pioneers were wrong in the first place and that Washington NH should have just joined the church that would only allow the official preachers."

I'm not twisting anything here Kevin. The two churches you refer to are not Adventist. One is an "open church", one is a "closed church". The closed church has certain standards, beliefs, values, they don't allow just any speaker who passes by to preach to them. As it SHOULD BE for any church. The "open church" doesn't have a clue, they don't know what they believe, there open to who ever wants to speak, they are searching for truth, for values, for doctrine. They are NOT Seventh-day Adventists.

What you ARE suggesting, with this example, is that we should be an "open church". This is NOT in harmony with Sister Whites counsel on the matter. I'll go with her advice on this issue, as the GC has done. That Sunday preachers should be considered carefully, that SDA's should have limited exposure in this regard. Not carte blanch, as your post seems to suggest.

Sister White speaking in Sunday churches is irrelevant. Again your twisted reasoning on this is that we, therefore, should allow Sunday preachers to give the sermon. When? Where? On what subject? Where is the balanced approach?

I'm not sure what your intentions are, I suspect they are good and proper, but these examples lead the people to wrongful conclusions. We need to be balanced on this approach. In addition, we need to support the GC, not tear them down. I don't know why any given speaker was disallowed from giving a sermon at an SDA church, but I SUPPORT that decision of the brethren. I'm not sure you do, and I find that troubling.

teresaq(sda), it's not good forum netigutte or good manners to copy/paste a post and leave no comment. This applies to anyone on any subject. on any thread. Some like to simply post lenghty bible verses, others lengthy EGW quotes. Not cool without leaving some comment or explanation. As a moderator, you especially should know this.