Quackventists

[rush4hire]

I see you feel very strongly about this cause, and I can identify with that. That's called zeal.

I have to wonder, what expression of zeal in the Bible, do you identify with most? I'll list some examples:

1. When Jesus drove out the merchants who where desecrating the Temple of God, it said: "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up", (John 2:17).

2. Phinehas killed a man who flaunted his sin before the whole congregation, and the Lord said: "Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace ... the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.", (Num. 25:11).

3. Is it the kind of zeal that provokes people, which Paul bragged about?

[color:#BF0000]2 Cor. 9:2 For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many.

4. A zeal for good works?

[color:#BF0000]Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

4. Is it the kind of zeal that causes repentance?

[color:#BF0000]2 Cor. 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Rev. 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

5. Is it the kind of zeal that is not according to knowledge?

[color:#BF0000]Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

6. Is it the zeal that causes persecution?

Philip. 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church...

Is it some other kind of zeal? Is there no example in the Bible?

[guibox]

Did you, by chance, discover the famous writings of Desmond Ford, or Jack Sequeira?

[carolaa]

Are Quackventists equivalent to Sadventists?

Sometimes. Or sometimes Madventists....

[John317]

Originally Posted By: rush4hire

Did you, by chance, discover the famous writings of Desmond Ford, or Jack Sequeira?

Actually, I've never read anything from Jack Sequeira. I have read a few things from Des Ford. He is a solid Christian man with a solid message. The church railroaded him big time.

What is your thinking on the Pre-Advent Judgment? Do you think Ford is right about it?

[Bravus]

I think heading off on a Ford-hunt is rather missing the point

[John317]

It has to do with mind-set.

[Woody]

Quote:

I think heading off on a Ford-hunt is rather missing the point

What IS the point? Adventists that 'Quack' ?

Or is it Adventists that ARE Quacks?

I am confused.

[John317]

The last month or so I have been clashing horns with certain individuals on Facebook I call 'Quackventists'.

I would really discourage making up more names to call people and bringing them on to the boards.

Discussions of these things can be done without applying names to people. Name calling doesn't lead to anything good.

[Bravus]

Agreed.

[rush4hire]

Frankly, that is what they are. The cultic mindset starts with seclusion and soon aberrant theology and apocalyptic/messianic complexes set in. Sectarianism eventually leads to cultism if not kept in proper perspective and this is why the SDA church has been classified as a cult.

So, you are like an authority on cults, then. Interesting...

What was it about the early Christian church that caused people to label it as a "cult"? There are historical references that prove this was the case, but for now, I only have some verses:

[color:#BF0000]Acts 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

The authority of the main church said the Christians where like these 2 groups. The "Cult of Theudas", and the "Cult of Judas of Galilee".

[rush4hire]

I think heading off on a Ford-hunt is rather missing the point

Good call. But what is the point? Oh, ya. We have a pandemic of conservatives in our church. I'm glad to have been made aware of this fact. I didn't realize it before.

More and more people are taking the writings of Ellen White so seriously, they are saying she is as much of a prophet as the Bible writers. We need to do something fast. But what? What if everyone starts thinking that way?

Here's what I propose. Have a get-together of some sort, the kind conservatives can attend, not with worldy music, or movies, or football, or whatever, and serve cheese and pickles, and those who don't eat those things, are the ones you need to watch out for.

That's one way to sort them out. But then what to do with them? How are you going to get people to stop practicing the things Ellen White taught, and to confess that Ellen White was not a prophet?

They are pushing people out of the church! Something needs to be done!

I can't help thinking of these verses:

[color:#BF0000]John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

But I'm sure this case is different, somehow.

Oh, that's John 666. Hmm...

[rush4hire]

I would really discourage making up more names to call people and bringing them on to the boards.

Discussions of these things can be done without applying names to people. Name calling doesn't lead to anything good.

I was going to say that, but I had too many things to say already.

Also, I would drop this new word. The word "Adventist" is kind of a sacred word. It's the name given to a movement that God Himself raised up.

It would be like making a new, derogatory name out of the name: "Christian". Most people would see that as blasphemy.

------

The same would go for those other words. Bad words. I'm not going to repeat them.

[Bravus]

Transplanted from another thread:

Quote:

There are many things where there is only one possible way to interpret. (Bravus' emphasis) If it where not so, then you can condemn the whole Protestant reformation and apologize to the Pope. Because that's what the Protestant reformation was all about, the authority of Scripture. Protestants said "Sola Scriptura". The Papacy said you can make the Scriptures say anything you want, so therefore we need the authority of the Church as well as the Scriptures.

What are you? A Papist, or a Protestant?

I'm not quoting this for ridicule or attack. Rather, I want to focus attention on the first sentence.

I believe this is the key to the whole matter. The people who are being described in this thread are people who truly, sincerely believe that there is only one possible way to interpret the Biblical text. They believe the words say *precisely* what those people read them as saying. They believe they say exactly that and mean exactly that to everyone else too.

If you believe that, then any time someone talks about 'interpretation', or claims to understand the words differently, you have to assume that they are lying. That they really read the words exactly the same way you do, but that - usually because of some cherished sin - they are lying about what they believe the words say.

This approach is linked to the idea that any text explicitly gives all its meaning when read in isolation. The kind of contextual study Kevin H talked about in relation to Ellen White, whether applied to her writings or to the Bible, is simply considered to be irrelevant, since the text is complete unto itself, and the broader context is just another way of weaseling about what the words mean.

I don't think it's necessary to make up names for these people, or to call them evil or even misguided. They are very sincere in their beliefs, and what feels to some of us like attacks is often just them simply and clearly stating what they sincerely and firmly believe. It's frustrating to us, but from their frame of reference to do anything else would be to betray the light they have been shown in the Bible (clearly, simply, instantly and without interpretation, seen the same way by everyone).

[rush4hire]

The people who are being described in this thread are people who truly, sincerely believe that there is only one possible way to interpret the Biblical text.

[Bravus]

Apologies if it appeared like a lack of honesty: what I was *trying* to do was to make a particular point, and I used your text as a leaping-off point for a discussion of that point. My post was not *about* your post specifically. If people feel that it's clearer to remove any reference to your post, or if you would prefer me to revise what I wrote or state the point again without reference to your post, I'm fine with that.

But you have just reiterated the same thing: at least on some issues, you believe that there is only one possible interpretation, and you have it.

[Bravus]

I agree in principle, and generally try to in practice. But then they tend to go and beat up on others who might be less robust than me, and I remember that 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'. Sometimes I feel they have to be taken on... but not for a million posts. I don't have the patience. I suspect I'm sometimes seen as 'taking my ball and going home' when I disengage, but c'est la vie.

[LifeHiscost]

"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.

"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Matt 13:27-30 NIV

Ah, the peace one has when allowing the One who is able to properly discern between the weeds and the wheat, do what needs to be done in the best time, for the safety of the fold.

"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! " Matt 18:7 NASB

I haven't decided yet when it is appropriate to turn over the tables of the money changers. Just another place where it is restful to take the yoke Jesus would have me bear and let Him Who has much broader shoulders than mine, handle the heavy work.

Regards!

[rush4hire]

OK, so what if someone wants to never eat pickles? Really, why would you have a problem with that. They are taking what Ellen White said seriously. How is that an issue?

573. In this fast age, the less exciting the food, the better. Condiments are injurious in their nature. Mustard, pepper, spices, pickles, and other things of a like character irritate the stomach and make the blood feverish and impure. {CD 345.1}

[C.T.B.H. 61, 62] (1890) F.E. 150, 151

574. I was seated once at the table with several children under twelve years of age. Meat was plentifully served, and then a delicate, nervous girl called for pickles. A bottle of chowchow, fiery with mustard and pungent with spices, was handed her, from which she helped herself freely. The child was proverbial for her nervousness and irritability of temper, and these fiery condiments were well calculated to produce such a condition. {CD 345.2}

(1870) 2T 368

575. The mince pies and the pickles, which should never find a place in any human stomach, will give a miserable quality of blood. {CD 345.3}

[Bravus]

Uhuh. And your efforts to be more kind, courteous and tactful will begin when?

You are trying to apply standards that you do not subscribe to yourself to stifle those with whom you disagree.

I have apologised to you numerous times when you have taken offense at something I wrote: something not written with the intention of giving offense, but which you misunderstood. I do not recall you ever apologising to anyone on this forum for anything.

Still, it is not a matter of 'I will be courteous when he or she is courteous'. I will strive always to be courteous because it is my nature and it is the right thing to do. Doesn't mean I won't disagree with people and state that disagreement as clearly (but courteously) as I can.

[Joe_in_RP]

I think quackventist is a very strong term. I would not refer to my Brothers or Sisters that way. There are many whom have different views than mine. I value their opinion ad would not want to speak bad things of them. I also know that because my understanding is different it does not make me right. Also God works with people at different levels. I think its wrong to criticize others in the church. I know can learn from people who have a different view.

[Bravus]

Do you think that attitude of non-criticism needs to extend to the point where we stand aside while they harm others, Joe? Would your tolerance mean you would stand aside during a mugging for fear of judging the mugger? These words sound harsher than I mean them, and text is not that skilful at conveying tone... the spirit is one of inquiry rather than censure.

[Bravus]

Mind you, I agree with you about the term 'quackventists', and said so in my first post in this thread.

[james423]

After reading this whole thread, it seems to me that being "precise" (according to what is written here) is not supposed to be part of the Christian life (according to many posts above). And "conservative" Adventists are led by the devil if they try to be "precise" in what they do and what they believe.

Now I will grant you that some "conservative" Adventists take Ellen White statements out of context, out of obscure letters, out of perhaps at times even thin air (the book Ellen White Says, Vol. 2) and apply them to their lives and, by extension, to everyone's life.

But I still wonder whether being precise is not the way a Christian should go. After all:

1. God was precise when He asked Christians to observe the 7th day as holy.

2. The prophecies pointing out when Jesus would come are precise down to the year if you study them carefully.

3. Daniel was led to a precise diet when he sought God's Will for his life.

4. The Jewish people were precisely told what to eat and what not to eat.

5. The gospel went to the Gentiles precisely when prophecy said it would.

No, I don't think precision is necessary when determining the color of the rug in a church sanctuary, the way a church is designed, or even (heaven forbid) the order of the church service. But I really think that so-called "Quackventists" are getting a bad rap when all of us need to stop and think about the fact that the Lord is very precise in what He asks us to do. They may go far beyond what is necessary precision, but the Lord does ask us as Christian to do things exactly as He wants them done.

I hope I haven't offended anyone by wording or whatever.

[Bravus]

No, it's a very good and clear and thoughtful post, James.

Can I draw your attention to the way physicists (of which I'm one) use the words 'precise' and 'accurate', though? 'Precise' means how exact the measurement is, and the degree of confidence we can have that if we measure again we will get the same answer. 'Accurate' tells us how close the answer we get is to the true answer.

I think part of the problem that is being discussed in this thread is that these two concepts are mixed up. How precise an answer is actually tells you almost nothing about how accurate it is: if there is a systematic error in the way you make the measurement, you can measure it 100 times, have all those answers be within 0.5% of each other, but still get the wrong answer.

In the same way, if someone applies a particular approach to Biblical interpretation very carefully, they may have an answer that is very precise - other people using the same method will get the same answer - but that is nonetheless not accurate.

I don't think even the most progressive people on this forum would argue that there is no true answer to the questions we pose. God knows the true answer, so the concept of accuracy is completely valid. The arguments are pretty much all over methods and approaches, but increased precision does not by itself yield increased accuracy.

[carolaa]

How are you going to get people to stop practicing the things Ellen White taught, and to confess that Ellen White was not a prophet?

They are pushing people out of the church! Something needs to be done!

I don't think the point is how people choose to live out their Christianity. It has more to do with their behavior toward others. Being judgmental, critical, arrogant, and a host of other ugliness.