Can the Remnant Church Fail?

February 12, 2012

They actually are NOT useless guidelines. Free choice can be made on any statement within them. And I think this is something you don't like. That someone would dare to choose differently than you. The emphasis in these guidelines clearly support pro-life options as the best response.

February 13, 2012

Overaged,

You look great in that picture—and rather young! How come you chose the “Overaged” name? Just wondering!

Just so you know; I don't intend to argue this subject out with you. I am glad we can state our differences, and still be friends. I know the Lord understands all this better than we do; and His will will prevail.

To answer your question; I was 13 in this picture, 1968!! Check out the shirt collars and the Kool psychedelic design!! It was definitely a hit back then; but I'd get some weird looks if I wore such a shirt today, I am sure.

The "overaged" thing started out as a bit of a joke, to make the statement that I am over age 18! Instead of being "underaged" I am "overaged!!" LOL, if you do the math from what i said re the pic, you will see that I have been "overaged" for a long time!!

February 13, 2012

ClubV12 wrote:

“I CERTAINLY don't want folks like yourself and Nic making that determination, running an inquisition, pointing fingers, accusing everyone of murder and condeming all involved.”

I don’t want that job either! The only reason I have accepted the mission of speaking on behalf of the unborn is because the church I have been paying the tithe to for seven decades has suddenly departed from the clear example set by our Adventist pioneers, the crystal clear divine mandate found in Exodus 20, and the clear Hippocratic Oath all physicians did adhere to for two thousand years.

Do you deny that our church and the North American society did recently depart from the protection the unborn enjoyed for two millennia? Do you deny that a major moral change was made regarding the right to life of the unborn three decades ago? Do you deny that this change took place because of the sexual revolution of the sixties?

Do you think that the sexual freedom, the fornication and the adultery which preceded the legalization of abortion was a good thing for society? Are you happy that our young people today have lost the respect due to the sanctity of sex designed by the Creator for the happiness of human beings?

Can’t you see that we have two divine commands which go together: the Sixth and the Seventh Commandments of the Decalogue? Can’t you see that the disregard of the adultery and fornication prohibition led to the disregard for the right to life of the unborn? Can’t you see that the enemy of souls has blinded the eyes of people to the fact that the neglect of one of God’s Commandments leads to the breach of another?

Do you really think that society is morally safer with what took place in the 60’s and the 70’s? Are you happy with the fact that today there is hardly any difference between the moral conduct of Adventists and the rest of society?

Do we have a moral message for the world today? We did have one when our church was founded. How can you be pleased in defending the moral decay which has taken place in society and the church? Are you happy that our “Remnant” Church is the one which led the way for the legalization for the killing of millions of innocent unborn human beings?

Do you think that our main message for the world should be reduced to the truth about the Sabbath? Our Bible tells us that the Sabbath is a symbol of our allegiance to the Creator. What good is to have the symbol if there is hardly anything behind said symbol? Half a block from my house there is a sign which reads “Emergency.”

What good would such symbol do if there were no hospital staffed with doctors and nurses behind said sign? Can’t you see that history is being repeated? This was the problem of the Jewish nation when Jesus was born. They considered the Sabbath to be the most sacred gift from the Creator.

For them, there was nothing more sacred than Holy Time. And they used this respect for the Sabbath—a mere symbol—as a reason to forget that the respect for human life was also sacred. They killed an innocent man and rushed home to keep the Sabbath of the Lord.

We are doing something similar. We have built our church about a sacred object in Time: the Sabbath, but decided to profit from the killing of innocent unborn children. Are you really happy with this morally anomalous situation? I am preaching to you today, but you will not have me much longer!

Be careful, lest you reject the message which the Lord has for you today. As a church we need to repent of this great evil. The Lord has given us a very simple rule to follow regarding the value of human life: “You shall not murder.”

We have designed a document several pages long designed to teach how we can set aside what the Lord has written with his own hand and we have replaced it with rules and tradition invented by human beings. Do you really believe that we can improve on what the Lord has designed for human happiness?

“I'll leave it to the Doctor, the counselors and the patient to determine what is best in any given situation within the guidelines the Church has suggested.”

The guidelines were invented by men. The Ten Rules we find in Exodus 20 were drafted by God. Which one is best for our moral welfare? Take your choice!

February 13, 2012

Overaged Wrote:

“I would add that "Spectrum" is not "Adventist" just because they make the claim”

True! Spectrum has recently departed from the trail they initially set for themselves. They used to be more conservative and more faithful to the mission of the church. I remember that a couple of decades ago they published half a dozen articles dealing with abortion, and most of them did align with my views.

“This is correct Nic. When all is said and done with your issue here, people are left with no recourse, but to go to your book and your web site. This is what I have been saying all along.”

This is wrong! People have God’s Rule about the right to life of human beings which is found in Exodus 20, and they have everything published by our official “Ministry” magazine. There is no excuse today. Everybody can search the pages of said Adventist publication with a click of the mouse.

“Your references, the ones I have looked up, regardless of source, most often do not "prove" what you say they do.”

Proof is a toll order. Even scientific theories which are respected by most scholars do not provide an absolute proof. Nobody can give me an assurance that the sun will come up tomorrow. All we have is evidence, and our job is to weigh such evidence.

That is all we have. I performed my own investigation regarding what I describe as a definite change in our Adventist attitude towards abortion. No Adventist scholar I have talked to has ever tried to deny my conclusion. If you have contrary evidence, please share it with me.

“I am still mystified why you call your work "scholarly." Number of references, mean nothing. But even if they did, the references to sources other than your own are far out-numbered by your own personal opinions. Your private interpretations.”

Every research ends with a private interpretation, but the main conclusion of my research has never been questioned by anybody so far. Do you want to be the first one? Be my guest. If the evidence you provide is convincing, I will be happy to make the proper correction to my study.

My thesis is that the Adventist has departed from the views about abortion espoused and strongly defended by our Adventist pioneers. Do you really believe that I am wrong? If you read my book, you can ignore my personal views and stick only to the sources I refer to. Are you saying that the evidence found in the quotations I cite suggest that my conclusion is wrong?

“My concern is already stated, we really are just being maneuvered into the position where you are THE authority on this subject.”

Good point! I do not consider myself to be the single authority on this subject. I am the first one to research this topic in an extensive manner and publish my pro-life conclusions in book form, but this does not make me an authority about abortion. I believe that George Gainer is a greater authority on this matter.

I stand on the shoulders of other great pro-lifers, and this is documented in my book. I don’t want to be the lone ranger and final expert on this topic. I would be delighted if others would conduct similar investigations, and I would be deeply curious about the conclusions they would reach.

I am hoping that my work may incite others to perform additional research, and if they reach different conclusions, I would gladly study their work to determine if I had been wrong.

I hope you and others would be challenged to do this, even if the evidence you gather were to prove me wrong! You probably have what it takes to do this kind of research, since you have shown a great deal of determination and do not easily yield to evidence without careful investigation.

If you embark on such an endeavor and conclude that killing innocent unborn children is an integral part of our “Remnant’s” mission to the world; if you discover that participating in this genocide will speed up the Second Coming; if you conclude that our church guidelines are an improvement over the Sixth Commandment of God; and if the evidence you accumulate provides convincing evidence that I am in error, I will gladly join you in the mission of killing more unborn children for the Lord!

“I don't blame leaders for not responding to your off-balanced dogma and assault on many innocent people in the church on this issue.”

I respectfully disagree with you. I know from sources close to the leadership of the church that a revision of our guidelines may be in the works even right now. There are individuals among our leadership who are interested in this, but they prefer to remain anonymous right now.

They do not want to become the target of criticism yet and thus destroy their personal influence too soon. I have nothing to loose and everything to gain in terms of my faith in God and my need to be faithful to moral duty as the compass is to the North Pole.

“You embellish the fact that some doctors do not have very good principles on this matter into an allegation that all Adventists must be like this.”

Sorry to disagree! If you can cite where I have expressed such a view, please quote me! This is a clear distortion of my views. You may honestly believe that what you stated is true, but this does not make it true. I don’t recall having said this. If you think that I have made such a statement, please give me the reference and I will make the pro-per correction. Is this fair?

I have always stated that some of our hospitals have engaged in elective abortions with the full knowledge and blessing of our leadership—not all Adventist medical institutions and all Adventist doctors. Please, be careful in what you say about me.

You need to avoid unfair distortions of the views of those who disagree with you on some issues. You have a chance to correct this if you so desire! It would be a fair thing to do and it would build up your credibility.

“The Church has made it clear that they do not support abortion on demand, and neither you nor Doug can prove otherwise, not even by striving at gnats with terminology over "guidelines;" because the guidelines were published for a reason, not just for decoration of a web page.”

We are in full agreement on this point; I don’t know why you bring this up. I have made this very clear on multiple occasions. It is true that our guidelines state that the church does not condone abortions on demand; the problem is that the rest of the document negates this pro-life principle and the behavior of our church towards the hospitals who have been offering elective abortions on demand contradicts the lofty pro-life statements included in the first portion of the our "Guidelines on Abortion."

What the church has done with this document was to please the two opposing sides in this controversial issue: pro-lifers and those leaning toward the pro-choice/pro/abortion position, and this was done with profit in mind. This is clearly documented in the writings of George Gainer which were published both by “Ministry” and “Spectrum."

We need to remember what Jesus said about profit: “You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” We need to repent of this great sin against our Creator and Savior. Public sins must be acknowledged publicly. This is the only road to forgiveness.

“Nice little smoke screen here Nic. No one here has ever said anything about grammar or punctuation; I think you know full well the issues are nothing to do with this.”

There is no smoke screen in my statement. If you think that there are factual errors in my book, I will be delighted to make the proper corrections. I have made the same challenge to other critics in the past, and I am still waiting for any solid meat coming my way from those who are opposed to my views.

No one so far has provided me with any factual errors in my work or any errors in the manner I have interpreted the evidence I discovered in my investigation.

“So your "exception" is better than any other? How should the poor doctor then decide which one to save? Under your strictures, they could still be guilty of letting the wrong one live and murdering the wrong one.”

This problem does not belong to the physician, but rather to the pregnant woman. Since the unborn child cannot be consulted, then the only option is for the woman to decide whose life should be saved.

“That is an outright lie. I hold no reservations about saying so. I personally know some church leaders, and I know they would never in a million years come close to this kind of crime.”

I have solid documentation to prove my point. The fact that you know some church leaders who would not in a million years compromise on this does not negate what I have asserted. I know the way the church has treated pro-lifers since I am one of them.

If you desire some details, let me know; and I know the leniency the church has shown towards those hospitals which have killed unborn children on en elective basis by the hundreds. So, where is the lie you accuse me of?

“Right now; I see no reason to want your book Nic. What you already have here and on your site is enough evidence for me that you hold many issues against the church;”

The fact that I disagree with the pro-choice/pro-abortion policy of the church is not evidence that I am wrong in my views. The Bible, the historical facts about elective abortions performed by our Adventist hospitals, and the historical pro-life views of our Adventist pioneers are on my side.

You are very clever and very adamant when you talk about generalities, but you have shown to be very weak in solid evidentiary facts. I challenge you to give me some solid meat for me to chew on. Show me which views of mine and which facts are in error. If you do, use the Bible and the facts of history instead of prone to err human opinion and human invented traditions.

I am open to serious criticism. I have discovered that I can learn more from my opponents than from those who are ready to say amen to what I say. My critics are the ones who can help me strengthen any weak point I may still have in my view about this controversial issue.

February 13, 2012

Overaged wrote:

“They actually are NOT useless guidelines. Free choice can be made on any statement within them. And I think this is something you don't like. That someone would dare to choose differently than you. The emphasis in these guidelines clearly support pro-life options as the best response.”

It is true that those guidelines include lofty pro-life statements. The problem is that they also include so many pro-abortion exceptions which render the pro-life declarations meaningless and of no effect. You need to think this through with care.

What good is it to proclaim that the church does not condone abortions on demand if the facts of history show that those Adventist hospitals who did elect to profit from abortions on demand have been allowed to do so with total impunity?

Can unborn children benefit from said toothless guidelines. The Bible says that you shall judge them by their fruits. If those guidelines have resulted in thousands of dead babies in our own hospitals, do we need more evidence that that?

Suppose a Wal-Mart executive were to argue that their policies do not condone theft but did nothing to enforce such policy and on top of this included a large number of exceptions to theft, such as poverty, special financial needs of those who steal from their employers. Would their policy against theft be of any value to the company and the honesty of their employees?

Would you defend the criminal freedom to rape? Would it help if you were to make a declaration that you do not condone rape, but did nothing to prevent such acts against your wife or daughters? Would your wife and daughters respect you for allowing such freedom to those who harm them?

And remember that abortion is a more serious crime than rape or theft. If someone steals my car, the vehicle can be replaced. A stolen life can never be replaced. The consequences of abortion are irreversible.

February 25, 2012

Overaged wrote:

Can unborn children benefit from said toothless guidelines. The Bible says that you shall judge them by their fruits. If those guidelines have resulted in thousands of dead babies in our own hospitals, do we need more evidence that that?

Nic; you need to get a life. Those guidelines did not cause thousands of abortions. You can't even come close to proving that.

Rather; IF people would look closely at them; and follow their spirit and intent, they would not choose abortions. The guidelines clearly point people to the choices and alternatives to abortion. They are "guidelines;" not meant to have "teeth." One has to wonder what you mean by "teeth?" Hopefully; it wont be shooting the abortion doctor, such as happened in a city near me when a so called "right to life" person shot a doctor as he came from an abortion clinic.

So what are these big bad "teeth" that you think will stop people in the church from carrying out abortions?

February 25, 2012

I have always stated that some of our hospitals have engaged in elective abortions with the full knowledge and blessing of our leadership—not all Adventist medical institutions and all Adventist doctors. Please, be careful in what you say about me.

June 22, 2012

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“I am pro-life, Nic, but forcing people to do something against their wishes especially victims of rape and incest is where I part with you. You add insult to the injury by making victims of rape and incest carry their pregnancy against their wishes. I don't believe that's the kind of God we serve.”

I thought that I was pro-life until I met a genuine pro-life Adventist who challenged me to face the issue seriously. Are you aware that the government is doing what you are condemning? I know an Adventist physician who related to me the following experience:

One of his patients demanded an abortion past the point of viability, which according to him is against the law. He reported this to the authorities and she was incarcerated until delivery had taken place.

If killing a human being should be left to the discretion of an individual, then how about leaving other illegal acts which are less serious like stealing, rape, and sexual abuse of children?

Did you consider that no one usually dies following the violation of such illegal acts? If someone steals your car, you don’t loose your life! If a child is sexually violated, the child is still alive. A woman who is raped suffers a lot, but she is still alive. Contrast this with abortion. 99 percent of abortion cases end with the death of the victim.

Should not society rather be lenient with burglars, rapists, and child abusers than with unborn baby killers? What do you say to the girl with a missing arm? Did you read the story? She is happy to be alive! Her missing arm was torn during a failed abortion.

What do you say to the woman who survived a saline abortion but became paraplegic? She is also happy to be alive, and she is invited to speak publicly about her experience. Quite often when an abortion fails, the baby is left to die unattended.

We Adventists led in the legalization of abortion. We started offering abortions on demand three years before it became legal in the U.S. mainland. We also justify killing innocent unborn babies when the pregnancy interferes with a girl’s studies, and even when the pregnancy affects the woman’s’ mental health. The woman says: I am depressed and I can’t concentrate on my studies, and bingo, another innocent babies is sacrificed on the altar of convenience!

Should lifestyle be more important than the right to life? Jesus gave up his lifestyle in heaven in order that we might have life, but we Adventist choose lifestyle over life.

“I am glad that you are passionate for the unborn, but when that passion takes center stage ahead of the gospel, IMHO, that's unhealthy. The gospel, to me, is the greatest deterrence to abortion.”

Methinks that you have chosen a false Gospel. Jesus said: “I have come that you might have life, and have it abundantly.” How can the unborn have this abundant life if we dismember their tiny bodies before they have had a chance to take their firs breath?