Leaderboard

Unfortunately, I do not believe we will be able to have an open discussion on this topic. Prior links to other websites regarding the actions of the Potomac conference have been deleted and apparently only acceptable politically correct websites (ie, those supporting the progressive agenda in the church) will be referred to. Spectrum, as usual, is engaged in another character assassination of someone who does not toe the progressive line. They are doing it to Bohr and have done it to others. This quote from the Spectrum article was concerning: The most recent example is in the Gaithersburg (Maryland) Hispanic church in the Potomac Conference, where Bohr joined church members in defying not only the conference and the pastor, but the standard procedures for inviting speakers into churches. The statement above reminded me of something I saw in a Greek orthodox church one time. The priest told the congregation that the "fathers" had decided and it was their duty to obey. The members of the church in question wanted to hear Stephen Bohr, however, the conference seems to think that they should determine who the members have speak in their church. Never mind that the Potomac conference says nothing to the pride festivities in other conference churches. Never mind that some of these churches were funded by the sacrifice of the members. (This is what happens when you let the conference hold the title to the church that the local members have struggled and sacrificed for to bring about.) Stephen Bohr is a properly credentialed SDA pastor with "no demerits" on his record. There was no valid reason for this kerfluffle to be happening. The Potomac conference is doing to Bohr what the Florida conference did to Doug Batchelor. Bottom line: Stephen Bohr does not support the ordination of women. The Potomac conference is in full on rebellion against the greater church over this matter. So they will cancel him in the Potomac conference.

One can respect a person and disagree with aspects of that person's life.

I have much respect for S. Bohr

Christians hijack airliner: The following may be a bit dated. But in an episode that has been described as Christians hijacking an airplane, the issue of Christian witness is considered. Or is it? https://buzzloving.com/this-is-terrorism-christians-slammed-for-hijacking-the-plane-with-annoying-religious-singalong/

Outside the walls of the Church: The Adventist Review posted a recent article on their website that is well worth considering. See the article along with my posted comment, at: https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/do-you-mingle/#comment-6254564773

Romans 1 through 4 is even more clear that Christ was the Son of God prior to His being sent into the world. "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord WHICH WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". The next verse is saying that the above was proven or "DECLARED" by the act of the Resurrection itself. As in everything Christ said about Himself, everything the Prophets said about the Christ was declared to be pinpointed at Jesus as He was The Christ. I'm somewhat stunned that you'd take this verse and others to mean that whatever it is that you think Incarnated into Mary's womb became the Son of God "at the Resurrection". I suppose I shouldn't be all that shocked by this given a mob of Anti-Trinitarian "prophecy experts" in the 19th century claimed to have solved the puzzle of when Jesus would return. This would be like claiming building and throwing paper airplanes around is all the experience and knowledge it takes to fly an F22 in combat. I mean COME-ON!

If you agreed that Ps 2,7 is speaking about the Incarnation what I said evidently did make sense. Let's see if I can't make some more sense for you out of those other texts.. Acts 13,33 works out the same way - If Christ was God's Son prior to being "SENT" its not logical to conclude Christ became God's Son at the Resurrection. The text merely references the Psalm which clearly states that Christ was indeed the Son of God prior to the Incarnation All these verses are referencing the same text - which confirms The Son of God was "the Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. I was unaware that SDA's held the view you are espousing. You made a reference that SDA's have made a big mistake in trying to force the Bible to say what they think EGW said. Do you mean by this that you hold a minority view within the SDA Church and that the majority of SDA's would agree with me in that Christ DIDN'T become the Son of God at the Resurrection.?

It proves that St John said The Father sent the Son which defaults into "The Son of God" as the son of man would be subsequent to the Incarnation OF THE SON OF GOD and "THE SENDING" [of the Son] predates the Son getting here (to earth).

Psalm 2, 7 prophetically applied to Christ is speaking of the Incarnation when Jesus was indeed born "in the flesh". You've no doubt heard the saying that 'wherever you go - there you are'. Well, Christ was the Son prior to the Incarnation according to the Scriptures.

Gustave: At an earlier time in SDA life there was an element in Adventism that believed that a large number of SDA leaders were Jesuit priests who had infiltrated the SDA Church. My description of those is that they believed that there was a Jesuit under every SDA bed. I am reminded of one such who actually had a serious mental health diagnosis. Shortly after she moved to a new small town, the local RC priest made a visit to Rome. She immediately announced that he had had traveled to Rome to be advised by the Pope as to how he should respond to this new citizen. Generally, those who believed that the Jesuits had infiltrated the SDA Chruch thought the they had the following functions: * They reported back to Rome on what was going on in the secret meetings. * They promoted false doctrines in attempts to get the SDA Church to accept those false doctrines. In actual fact, it is true that in some nations, Communist leaders did infiltrate individual SDA Congregations. In some cases, our knowledge of this resulted in our ability to use this to our advantage. But, I do not feel free to make public some of what happened.

According to documents I came across at Andrews from the early 1900s showing critical views of the post 1888 church, either/and Prescott, Daniels, Willie, and some suggested Ellen became Jesuits when Ellen, Prescott and Daniels were in Australia, if not before, and that the Jesuit influence is what caused Mrs. White to be so friendly to Jones and Wagner, and why all four became trinitarians.

Probably false testimony or ill informed. I heard a lot of falsehoods in Adventism too. Perhaps you remember Jim Arrabito. He said L.E. Froom was a Jesuit. I went to the heritage room at PUC, found the obituary for Froom's family members in old SDA publications. Benjamin Wilkinson seemed to have started the rumors about Jesuit infiltration. One of his books includes a story about a Jesuit at Union College. The infiltrator supposedly just disappeared once he was discovered. Never identified, it should have been easy to unmask him. Not many religion professors at SDA colleges simply disappear. Wilkinson wrote at least 2 books, one on church history, one on the KJV. I read these books like gospel, believed the great SDA/Jesuit conspiracy. Then it occurred to me that SDA "scholars" pose more/ as much danger to the gospel as do the Jesuits. In one book, Truth Triumphant, Wilkinson states that the Council of Trent was dominated by Jesuits (p 308). Oxford church historian Alister McGrath said that there were only 2 Jesuits at the Council of Trent. There were 29-34 Franciscans, 7-9 Dominicans and between 4 and 14 Augustinians (Iustitia Dei, 320). There were assorted others, all more than the number of Jesuits. How could 2 individuals have dominated so many other groups, in view of the fact that there was of conflict between those orders? If I remember correctly, it was the Dominicans who got the Jesuits expelled from China and contributed to their troubles with the pope. Of course, some would respond that Oxford is controlled by Jesuits and McGrath is a puppet. You are capable of more honorable pursuits, Rahab.

UK man fined for praying outside abortion clinic now faces criminal charges Adam Smith-Connor was fined for “praying for [his] son, who is deceased” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, England. | ADF UK By Jonah McKeown St. Louis, Mo., Aug 4, 2023 / 13:00 pm Local authorities in Bournemouth, England, have filed criminal charges against Adam Smith-Connor, an army veteran and father fined in 2022 for praying silently within an abortion facility censorship zone, or “buffer zone.” The legal group supporting him, Alliance Defending Freedom UK, said Aug. 4 that Smith-Connor is expected in the Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on Aug. 9, where he will plead not guilty. Smith-Connor had approached a British Pregnancy Advisory Service abortion facility in Bournemouth intending to pray for his unborn son, who had died in an abortion he helped procure at a similar facility more than two decades ago. Smith-Connor stood silently with his back to the clinic to respect the privacy of staff and visitors, according to Alliance Defending Freedom UK. Community safety officers inquired about what he was doing, and Smith-Connor replied: “Praying for my son, who is deceased.” The Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council issued a charge against Smith-Connor on May 12 but did not inform him of the charge until July, ADF UK said. “In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the U.K. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK. “In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer. The zone was created by the council, enforced by the council and now also prosecuted by the council. This is a remarkable consolidation of power, making the council the judge, jury, and executioner.” “This case has no place in a country with a historical and proud commitment to the rule of law. The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to be even-handed in their approach to every case, and to protect the rights of suspects and defendants — a duty which has been ignored at every stage by the council, which has not only shown itself to be incapable of impartiality but also failed to grasp the gravity of inaugurating thoughtcrime trials in the U.K.,” Igunnubole continued. Smith-Connor’s Nov. 24, 2022, encounter with the officers was recorded on his phone. “I’m sorry for your loss,” one officer replied. “But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines of the Public Space Protection Order, to say that we are in the belief that therefore you are in breach of clause 4a, which says about prayer, and also acts of disapproval…” “I’m just standing praying,” Smith-Connor said. “I do understand that. But the [protection order] is in place for a reason and we have to follow through on those regulations,” the officer replied. A protection order is intended to stop antisocial behavior. The protection order for the abortion clinic has been in force since Oct. 13, 2022, and will remain in place for three years. As part of the order, the Council of Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole drew red lines around an abortion provider and designated the area a “safe zone.” Anyone caught blessing themselves with the sign of the cross, reciting Scripture, or sprinkling holy water behind these red lines can be fined £100 (about $113) or risk a court conviction. The order bars engaging in an act or an attempted act of approval or disapproval of abortion services. Smith-Connor said he stood outside the clinic due to his personal experience with abortion. “Twenty-two years ago I drove my ex-girlfriend to a facility and paid for her to have an abortion. It was a pivotal moment in my life,” he said. “The consequences of my actions that day came back to grieve me years later when I realized I had lost my son Jacob to an abortion I had paid for.” He said he “prayed to God for my son Jacob, for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff.” “In the past, I assisted with abortions in hospital as part of my army medical training, but now I pray for those who perform abortions because I realize how harmful abortion is to women and families and that every single human life is valuable — no matter how small,” he said. “Most of all, I’m moved to pray because of what happened to my son, Jacob.”