The One Project & Paul

[Green Cochoa]

5 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

On responding to Tom, Green said:

 

 

This is the type of personalization that Club Adventist requests that people not engage in.

It is perfectly proper for Green to advocate against Tom's theology and mine.  But, the above statement appears to me to be Green setting himself up as a judge of the person (Tom) and in a manner that I believe the Bible rejects.

It implies that Tom needed warning and that Green has properly accomplished the task of warning him.

Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this?  If God wanted to use Green to warn Tom, the Holy Spirit would have convicted Tom on Green's points and at the time of that conviction, Tom would have been warned.  But, Green dos not know whether or not the Holy Spirit has convicted him.  Only  God knows that and Green is not God.   On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit has not convicted Tom on Green's points, it can not be fairly said that Tom has been warned.  It may be that Tom needs to be so convicted.  It may be that Tom will be so convicted at a later time.  But, that will be the work of the Holy Spirit and Green cannot say that he has accomplished a task that belongs to God.

 

 

You missed the smiley.  Smile!

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

No, I did not miss the smiley.

I saw it and thought it was an indication you felt quite smug about your authority to warn Tom.  I did not say anything due to the fact that I did not know if that was correct.  But, as you have suggested that I missed it, I will tell you that is how I saw it.

It is quite easy to misunderstand a person.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Have you read all of TOP published materials? Have you personally attended and heard all the presentations made so that you can with with certainty verify the accusation that the cammadments are in fact muted?  Or are you only relying on second thoughts or third hand accounts of others with questionable motives or limited perspective on the entirety of TOP?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

5 hours ago, jackson said:

http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/3/4/one-project-present-or-emergent-truth

two points regarding the above article:

1)  It is from "Advindicate" — while I believe the owners and creators of Advindicate have good intentions, the articles published tend to be overly conservative, with a dollop of fear and worry-inducing commentary on "the emergent church" (as they see it).

2)  The author of the article, Janet Lundeen Neumann, is noted to be a vocal adherent of the "emergent church" conspiracies, where anything new (music using drums, women's ordination, etc) in worship is seen to be a harbinger of apostasy.  Again, I think she is well-intentioned, but not necessarily on the right track.

Not everyone worships the same way.  Not everyone is brought to Christ in the same way.  Everyone is different....their paths are different.

Mrs. Neumann may not like The ONE Project.  She's entitled to wave a warning flag if she thinks that's necessary.  That, of course, is her prerogative.  But it certainly doesn't mean that The ONE Project is wrong, or evil, or a step in apostasy.  It just means that it doesn't float her boat...

[Gregory Matthews]

JLN said:

Especially defamatory was De Oliviera’s description of God’s remnant church as a “fixed lifeless religion,” diminishing respect and planting disdain.

1) It should be noted that JLN reports on a Gathering that took place two years ago.  It is not the recent one.

2) She misrepresents Japhet's view of the SDA Church.    His life has been dedicated to both Christ and the SDA Church. 

3) The SDA Church today is a fractured and divided Church.  Within its membership are people who have found it to be a lifeless religion.  We who are SDA clergy experience those people.  That does not mean that the SDA Chruch is lifeless.  It simply means that as an organization that is human, in part, some have found it to be lifeless.

4) The One Project is a developing organization.  It is not exactly the same today that it was two years and five years ago. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

What you said about the One Project reminds me of the situation with Ernie Knoll.  At first, some of his visions contradicted Ellen White in some minor details.  Upon hearing complaints from certain ones about the discrepancies, one among his faithful followers who was well acquainted with Mrs. White's writings took it upon himself to help Ernie proofread and check his "visions" for accuracy/agreement with them.  This rendered the deception the more specious.

The One Project movement may certainly be changing.  It may not be changing for the better, even if the outward appears seems so.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

 

[CoAspen]

It is much more easy to hang on to our fears rather than to trust in God. That often carries over into other areas of our lives as well.

Our preconceived thoughts/ideas become more important than the actual proof.

We have a person here who has not attended any OP meeting or gathering, relies on a particular person/s for all their info. When those who are actively involved/attend give them information to the opposite, they cling to the preconceived beliefs.

Never let the truth get in ones way of their own reality.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  Speculation & Inunendo.

[Gregory Matthews]

Every organization, to include spiritual ones, needs to mature and grow.  The One Project has listened to its critics, and has made some positive responses to those who have  come to them, as the Bible says, and discussed it with them.

But, it has not made every change that the critics have requested.

Further, some of the strident critics have refused to meet with TOP leaders and discuss their issues.

I know of one instance where a TOP leader offered to fly the area where a strident critic lived in order to sit down and discuss the issues.  That meeting never took place.

No, I am not going to name names.  I do have some respect for privacy. and think t hat on some levels people are entitled to it.  But, there are some critics who seem to delight in talking about the errors of others and have no interet in discussing them together.

.

[JoeMo]

11 minutes ago, jackson said:

Think what you may about Advindicate and Mrs Neumann, but the direct words of the TOP founders in no way are compatible with the Adventist message as laid out in the SOP by Mrs White.

If the founders views have changed, it would be important to know just what they changed to and why. That would be fair to both TOP and those who question their motives in light of Mrs Neumann.s article

The founders are all dead.  They can't change (or even form) an opinion.  Who's to say whether or not they would still hold the same views today an they did in the late 1800's - early 1900's?  The world and religion has changed a lot since then.

I guess the Catholic Church could have used the same arguments back at the beginning of the Protestant Revolution.  I can just hear bishops and priests from that era saying "Our founders (Jesus and Peter) gave us these opinions and positions over 1500 years ago.  Who are you to say they are wrong or need changing?"

My read of Mrs. White is that she changed her philosophy a lot over her lifetime - including on important issues like the Sabbath and the Trinity.  The Catholic Church changed a lot thanks to Vatican II and Pope John XXIII.  Will denominational Adventism ever change to fit the current culture and belief system?  I'm not talking about the Sabbath or State of the Dead or Jesus as God and Savior; I'm talking about Historicism vs. futurism, papal antichrist vs. Islamic antichrist, day-for-year, 1844, etc.

[LifeHiscost]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The world and religion has changed a lot since then.

When is it evident the mark of the beast or the seal of God have ever changed in the body of Christ?

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

Hey Jackson,

Sorry I misunderstood your "founder" message.  All I can say is that after the single TOP event that I personally attended, I felt like I had been to a revival or very successful camp meeting as opposed some of the other tedious SDA and non-SDA events I have attended over the past few years.

8 hours ago, jackson said:

In response to your observation that the world and religion changed since the SOP was written,  that is true. But what is established as truth does not change over time. i believe the pillars of Adventism were established by divine inspiration and are immovable . That does not mean everything Adventists espouse is correct and in no need of revision- or that new truth is not to be considered. But the pillars of Adventism are truth and as such can be defended by the word of God alone, and new truth will only add to their permanence and relevance, not undermine them.

Unless I misunderstand (again),  your statement above contradicts itself.  You say that established truth does not change over time.  But it has!  In apostolic times, it was established "truth" that Jesus would come in their lifetimes.  He didn't.  Among the Millerites, it was established "truth" that Jesus would return in 1843 but he didn't.  Then He was gong to return in 1844, but He didn't.  In the dark ages, it was established "truth" that the papacy was the infallible representative of Christ on earth. He wasn't; and still isn't.  Before Christopher Columbus and Magellan, it was established "fact" that the world was flat, and the universe rotated around the earth.  It doesn't.  Advances in science, Bible languages, and archeology, for example, have modified the "truth" about almost everything we thought we knew 200 years ago.

I admire your faithfulness to the historic SDA positions.  I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that I don't believe that way.  My mind remains open; and if TOP somehow proves to be divisive rather than inclusive, I will probably turn away.  But now it is the "status quo" forces in the denomination who are inserting the dividing wedges, not TOP.

[LifeHiscost]

There is what is called "present truth", that will be fulfilled until it accomplishes its' mission and then will cease. However present truth never changes what God has declared included in the "everlasting covenant".

…39and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. 40"I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me. 41"I will rejoice over them to do them good and will faithfully plant them in this land with all My heart and with all My soul.…Jeremiah 32

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

I believe Mrs White was designated by God to be  His messenger, and the the truths He has shown her through night visitations or visions  are timeless truths.. They are not subject to change due to "new light" or "new discoveries".

I believe Mrs. White had the NT gift of prophecy; but I can't accept that she was given a monopoly on it.  In the OT, the prophetic gift was concentrated on a very few individuals.  In the NT, the prophetic gift is distributed across the church as one of the spiritual gifts given to the entire church in 1Corinthians12:10.

I also don't believe that every word which came from her pen was inspired prophecy. Much of it was meant simply as personal correspondence. In my opinion, some of what she was allegedly shown by the Lord she misinterpreted.  I admire the writings of prophets, theologians, and teachers like Joseph Prince, Billy Graham, Tozer, Chambers, Bill Johnson, and other contemporary Christian authors as much as I admire hers.  But none of their writings carry the authority of scripture.  All of them (and us) see through a dark glass; and our own baggage influences the way we interpret supernatural downloads.  Sometimes we get them wrong.

What I'm beating around the bush to say is that quotes from Mrs. White's writings won't influence my beliefs.  Quotes from the Bible will.

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, jackson said:

Well, if you believe she had the prophetic gift, why would you not be influenced by it?  If such a gift is not meant to influence souls, why does God bestow it?

She had a prophetic gift, but she did not hold the office of "Prophet".  She didn't even consider herself a prophet.  There are many things in her writings which I cannot correlate to scripture.  I have been blessed by her writings; but I only commit to my personal faith that which I find in scripture.  Not knocking EGW; just saying that I am just as influenced by other writers as I am by her (including many non-SDA authors); but my beliefs are based on scripture only. Basing it on anything else puts me in a cult.

[JoeMo]

Jackson,

Isn't it kind of circular logic to use EGW's own statements to prove that she was a prophet?  I'm not saying anything bad about her.  I'm confident that Paul and Peter both operated in the prophetic gift.  They both openly preached that Jesus would come within the lifetime of the people listening to them at that time.  The were both wrong.  Does that mean we should throw their writing out of the Bible? NO! Does stating that it's possible that EGW - like the apostles of old - could have been mistaken about some things?  They have the event right, but they have the timing wrong.  Hasn't it been the great hope of all believers that Jesus would return during their lifetime?