GYC Vs “The One Project” – A shocking fact about our shaking church

[mel20]

Stan Jensen:"....attacks another one because they do not have a program that is as perfect as theirs."

That's true, Stan. That's why I'm totally shocked to learn that:

1. Groups of former gay/lesbian that have been healed,

2. Groups of Adventist women that against women ordination,

3. Groups of anti Evolution, etc...

...they are continuously attacked by our leaders, and not allowed to speak up in any meetings or worship service with THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE.

God's church's leaders in certain regions apparently spent millions of our tithe money to hire legal consultants, attorneys and other law experts to find the open crack on how to avoid the certain programs/presentations/seminars that's not in harmony with our leaders' spirit of Ecumenism. And keep trying how to silence the Present Truth they hate while they are still get paid from the SDA church with its special duty to give the last warning just before the close of probation. Upside down now, unfortunately.

Welcome to the New Theology--Liberal Adventism that states the false is right and the right as "Fanatics".

I hope you won't miss the fact that the time is coming that God's people which speak up and stand up for Jesus will be sued by our SDA leaders as "hatred speech" then might be sentenced to jail. believe it or not--but please check by yourself now if this is true.

I.E.: Daniel and Revelation seminars or Ex gay/lesbian testimonies should not allowed to give their "victory over sin" testimonies at "Loma Linda University Church" PUC church or "La Sierra University Church", etc. This all is 100% not allowed anymore. Reminds me of the rebellious Israels....

Especially in USA. Everybody can sue everybody.

[lazarus]

But the shocking fact is that in the Christian history, there is no such kind a sharp-contrast division among God's people as it's happening in the SDA church now.

I'm assuming that you mean in SDA Church history. You can't be saying "in Christian history" that would be preposterous. In SDA history the current challenges we are facing are difficult but by no means as sharp as others in the past. The potential is there for significant division but it is really up to world leadership as to how this turns out.

Went to school with some of the one project guys. Committed Christian men. They have spent many years preaching truth and serving the church.

I'm making a habit of asking this. Can somebody post something that that has been said or done by one of the leaders that is contrary to SDA doctrine and practice?

[Unity]

Johann wrote in response to me:

Quote:

I followed your example and looked up the Facebook page. I did not find anywhere what you refer to

This was awhile back, I would recommend you take a look at the Facebook page closer to the time of the meeting. Hopefully it doesn't happen again. EDIT: They have had these events yearly for many years now.

[Unity]

Gregory Matthews wrote in response to me:

Quote:

5) There is no documentation of the claims. We are supposed to believe them on the basis of that claim of a person

I've personally never met a church member that wasn't already aware that open sin exists in the church. 100's of different beliefs (confusion) about what should be done, but it is a rarity that one strictly adheres to the authority of the world church to which they voluntarily joined.

[Johann]

Going back to the One Project Face Book page I noticed the following link there:

http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/...-four-concerns/

They seem to be in tune with the revival message of Ted Wilson.

[olger]

Incorrect, Johan. Were they in harmony with Ted Wilson's warnings, they would eschew emergent church speakers, instead of wandering after them.

What we have here, is a core group of Club members who's liberal reflex is to automatically support anything that opposes the core doctrines of Adventism.

[lazarus]

What we have here, is a core group of Club members who's liberal reflex is to automatically support anything that opposes the core doctrines of Adventism.

Let see examples of this or is it just hyperbole?

[Johann]

Thanks for your post Gregory. I suspected that. . I don't mind, it confirms a suspicion that I have held . . .

I am . . . sporadic. Blessings to all,

g

An interesting picture of . . .

[Gregory Matthews]

Johann, here is what Olger said:

Quote:

Thanks for your post Gregory. I suspected that you and Tom would find a way to come out in support of Sweet, and condemn any opposition to his teachings. I don't mind, it confirms a suspicion that I have held for some time now.

I have clearly stated that I do not know enough about Sweet's teachings to comment on them.

In my post I never supported Olger. What I did do was to say that Olger had neither been fair in his presentation of Sweet's current teachings and that Olger had not been open as to what they actually were. That is quite different from supporting either Sweet's teachings, or Sweet himself.

As to Tom, he can speak for himself, but as I understand posts that he has made, he would say that same as I have said: That he has not read enough of Sweet to make a statement about Sweet's teachings.

I have personally seen a higher standard by the world, than what was presented in regard to sweet's teachings. I have had to give council and advice to employees who had been called to give testimony, sometimes under oath and sometimes not, and were perceived by the hearing officer as not testifying fully and openly. I have seen the hearing officer attempt to sanction them for that failure.

It should be noted that I do not accuse Olger to any intent to deceive or of lying. His failure to provide information about Sweet that he could have learned may have been due to ignorance. Ignorance and is not lying.

But, in situations that I have observed, I have seen that the world expects a higher standard.

[Tom Wetmore]

Incorrect, Johan. Were they in harmony with Ted Wilson's warnings, they would eschew emergent church speakers, instead of wandering after them.

Notwithstanding clear statements by Sweet to the contrary you continue to insist that you know him better than he knows himself. Yet you appear to have read nothing that he has written other than dated and out of context quotes excerpted by his critics. ( I would guess that you are an advocate of Sunday worship since about a similar number of years ago in your past you were a Sunday Keeper. I just don't think we can rely on your more current statements that you are a Sabbath-keeper like the rest of us. I just can't trust your word now since you were once one of them… If Sweet can't change I guess you can't either.)

A bit of perspective here. I suspect that what is expected of Sweet in the short time slot of author's corner is to discuss something more current than a book he wrote more than 2 decades ago. Do you suppose they might be expecting him, just as the introduction of him in the schedule suggests to focus on his much more recent book, "The Jesus Manifesto, which argues for the centrality of Jesus in the Christian experience"? He is one of how many others there to talk about Jesus? And isn't that what the whole program is all about?

Originally Posted By: olger

What we have here, is a core group of Club members who's liberal reflex is to automatically support anything that opposes the core doctrines of Adventism.

A clear example of disingenuous exaggeration that completely misrepresents the point we are making. If you misrepresent what we say here and can read for ourselves, how can we take your statements seriously about others outside of this forum? I can only assume that you are likewise exaggerating and misrepresenting Sweet and those involved in the One Project.

But I also think you have also perhaps demonstrated a case of projection of your own reflex to assume all things you don't like, don't understand or disagree with are born of some "liberal" mindset and to oppose anything that is endorsed by Church leaders that you do not like.

It really is rather interesting how much opposition, criticism and even open hostility is being directed at on organization/program with a singular objective all about Jesus. It is almost as if there are some here who are against Christ - dare I say anti-Christ?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

A clear example of disingenuous exaggeration that completely misrepresents the point we are making. If you misrepresent what we say here and can read for ourselves, how can we take your statements seriously about others outside of this forum? I can only assume that you are likewise exaggerating and misrepresenting Sweet and those involved in the One Project.

Exactly.

I have been so misrepresented by a couple of people that I have no confidence in what they say about others.

[Johann]

Can we safely follow in the footsteps of Jesus?

Quote:

Matthew 9:10

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples.

How do we win the sinners for the Kingdom if we do not follow in the footsteps of Jesus?

About 50-60 years ago I heard a number of prominent preachers from other denominations speaking at Adventist gatherings. It was back in those days when we were also winning and baptizing leaders from other churches.

I never heard a word from any of these "heretics" speak a word against any SDA doctrine. Before preaching to us they knew our doctrines well enough to avoid any confrontation, although I am certain you could have found some "heresy" they preached or supported elsewhere.

Since we have become afraid of associating with heretics our soul winning has decreased greatly, as if we are afraid it might make Jesus return too soon.

It seems to me like it is mainly the self-elevated saints among us who advocate we must not associate with people who have different opinions from our own.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

It seems to me like it is mainly the self-elevated saints among us who advocate we must not associate with people who have different opinions from our own.

Maybe this is the real "shaking"!!!

Too many people wanting to correct others.....less so themselves. Attention on people but not on Christ.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Since we have become afraid of associating with heretics our soul winning has decreased greatly, as if we are afraid it might make Jesus return too soon.

agreed... seems like there is a lot of "preaching to the choir" -- so much so that we sometimes forget there is an audience...

[mel20]

"Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" Amos 3:3

Both GYC and "The One Project" promote Jesus. However, the basic question is not about "Jesus"....but... Are those two groups proclaiming 'THE SAME JESUS'? or not?

Indeed we may have thousands of various groups of Adventism. Nothing wrong about that. But speaking of the "ingredients" or the "content"...CHRIST IS NOT DIVIDED. We are all one in Christ.

We are not talking about Christ in USA vs Europe, or Christ in Asia vs Australia, etc. No. It has nothing to do with that.

But the main concerns about "The One Project" vs GYC are:

Experience over Reason

Images over Words

Spirituality over Doctrine

Subjective Feelings over Absolute Truth

Earthly Justice over Salvation

Social Action over Eternity

Etc.

These would be the ceaseless conflict and the great controversy between those two groups everywhere. The safest way is for us to go back to the Bible and the Bible only, as the only one resource of all standards and principals.

But again, there are only two groups of people just before the close of probation: Wheat vs Tares. No third party.

This is a real POLARIZATION-POLARIZATION-POLARIZATION taking place wherever you go within Adventist communities.

Yes indeed. Polarization everywhere.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

maybe folks should start being more concerned with their *own* walk with Christ, rather than being so critical of what someone else's walk with Christ looks like...

[olger]

Clarification.

Tom &Greg are defending Leonard Sweet, claiming that he has been misjudged.

Tom produced a disclaimer that Sweet posted on his website in 2010, as proof that LS is a changed man, and doesn't believe or teach the stuff he wrote in Quantum Spirituality.

Neither Tom orGreg have read Sweets books, but they are certain that he is being misjudged.

Leonard Sweet was invited to the 2008 Innovation Conference in Ohio. I listened to Sweet's presentation there. Some of the things that he said were VERY troubling. His teachings have wrought some damage here in Ohio.

I have read parts of Sweets books, and listened to the audio here in Ohio. That does not make me an expert on him, yet it does provide insight into what the fellow is teaching. I am saying that the man is deceptive, and that his teachings are dangerous. If you feel otherwise, help yourself to his ideas.

rejoice always,

`G

[Johann]

Worth considering:

Quote:

They climb upon the judgment seat, and as soon as they see one of their brethren and sisters, they look to find something to criticize. This is one of the most effectual means of becoming narrow-minded and of dwarfing spiritual growth. God would have them step down from the judgment seat, for He has never placed them there.40 {CG 429.3}

[olger]

Indeed.

Here's another problem.

I like the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn't in there.

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays when many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, "it's all good, bro."

What many well-meaning (but misinformed)Christians are missing is that the Bible says to not judge WRONGLY!! The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in the Scriptures. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these "don't judge judges" would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; he was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, he was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into him strolling in with a shrug and saying, “Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger said:

Quote:

Tom &Greg are defending Leonard Sweet, claiming that he has been misjudged.

* * * * * * * *

Neither Tom or Greg have read Sweets books, but they are certain that he is being misjudged.

Olger you still cannot get it correct.

You continue to misrepresent.

I am not defending Sweet's views. As I have said: I have not read his books and I do not know enough about his theological views to comment on whether he is right or wrong.

What I do know is that in your first post you cited stuff that was old and that does not reflect his current view. You failed to tell us that you were quoting form a very old work. You failed to tell us that he has said that book does not reflect his current view.

That failure on your part is an ethical one. I am disappointed in you, even if the failure was due to ignorance on your part and was not intentional.

Due to that failure on your part and your continued misrepresentation of me, I have lost confidence you what you say about others.

People make mistakes. No one, to include both you and I are free from error. You have caught me in a printed error, and I am glad that you brought it to my attention and I said you were correct.

I am much more concerned about your continued misrepresentation of me than I am about your first error.

You just do not appear to me to get it correct.

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger said:

Quote:

What many well-meaning (but misinformed)Christians are missing is that the Bible says to not judge WRONGLY!! The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in the Scriptures. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

There are a number of Biblical passages that comment on this:

Matthew 7:1 & 5

Luke 6:37

John 7:37

There are others.

Let us be clear: The Bible clearly teaches:

1) We must each make judgments on moral issues and on doctrinal issues.

2) We must each apply those judgments to our personal lives.

Olger uses the word "absurd." Robert Meyer, writing in 2006 used that word in a similar manner and he makes good points. He correctly points out that the Biblical position is, in part, that we should expect to be judged in the same manner that we judge.

I will add another aspect to this: While we are to judge as I have stated above, we are not to judge the person. Only God can determine the salvation of another. That is beyond our ability to judge. We do not know the extent to which the Holy Spirit, which is our spiritual guide, has convicted another on a specific issue. God only judges us in relation to the convictions of the Holy Spirit.

If a person has not been convicted by the HS on a point and therefore is not in rebellion against God and the Holy Spirit, God does not hold that person accountable. We simply do not have that knowledge.

There is much Biblical truth in the dictum not to judge. But, that does not lead to the idea that everything is good and right. It does not lead to the idea that we can ignore and reject the leading of the HS. On some things we are to judge. On others we are not to judge.

[Windsor]

I don't believe olger commented on whether or not Leonard Sweet was ready to be translated. Rather, he is warning the flock of false doctrine which Leonard Sweet has been a proponent of.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

While we are to judge as I have stated above, we are not to judge the person. Only God can determine the salvation of another. That is beyond our ability to judge. We do not know the extent to which the Holy Spirit, which is our spiritual guide, has convicted another on a specific issue. God only judges us in relation to the convictions of the Holy Spirit.

Well said.

[Tom Wetmore]

Indeed.

Here's another problem.

I like the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn't in there.

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays when many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, "it's all good, bro."

What many well-meaning (but misinformed)Christians are missing is that the Bible says to not judge WRONGLY!! The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in the Scriptures. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these "don't judge judges" would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; he was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, he was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into him strolling in with a shrug and saying, “Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

If you then wish to inhabit an environment where judging is the norm and even celebrated as a most Christian form of treatment of one another, I invite you to go/return to such a Internet forum and enjoy your self-proclaimed freedom to judge to your hearts content.

[Tom Wetmore]

...

Leonard Sweet was invited to the 2008 Innovation Conference in Ohio. I listened to Sweet's presentation there. Some of the things that he said were VERY troubling. His teachings have wrought some damage here in Ohio.

I have read parts of Sweets books, and listened to the audio here in Ohio. That does not make me an expert on him, yet it does provide insight into what the fellow is teaching. I am saying that the man is deceptive, and that his teachings are dangerous.

I spoke today to someone that is well acquainted with Leonard Sweet and what he teaches. I mentioned specifically the criticisms of Sweet being posted here and Sweet's own response to similar criticisms. The person with whom I spoke confirmed the correctness of Sweet's response and specifically that Sweet is not being deceptive. He noted that Sweet is very supportive of Adventism and has many positive things to say about us. He even noted that even though he is a Methodist and a professor at a Methodist university, Sweet had sent his own children to Adventist schools. Sounds like he may well be more in harmony with and supportive of the Adventist Church than some professed Adventists here that are so often critical of the Church and its leadership.