The General Conference Inquisition

[phkrause]

Yeah I didn't see anything that was controversal. I do have a problem with groups that split off and than want you to join with them. Not saying that is what this group is doing richard.

pk

[Woody]

Quote:

They need to quit jawing and live Christ's life....Just do it!

Ain't that the Truth Rob. It IS all talk. And that's what they like to do. But when will the DO it? As you say ... the law requires perfect obedience. So, they need to get on it pronto.

[Gerr]

That's exactly what many Christians (many SDAs included) are doing. But you and Robert deny it! The moon can never perfectly reflect the light of the sun, nevertheless it does reflect it.

[Kevin H]

This has been one trend that has been in the church with some more or less controversial leaders. If you look at some of those who gets quoted in their publications and go to the White Estate you will find some very pointed letters from Mrs. White to them saying that they were misrepresenting her writings. While you don't find this in their current writings, some of the ministers of our past who have influenced this group have even made comments of how you needed to follow the pre-1888 Ellen White when God was giving her messages, and that after 1888 she became New Theology and got her messages from Willie White and W. W. Prescott. Despite some very sharp division between Willie White and W. W. Prescott and those who "Historic Adventists" turn to as authority, today "Historic Adventists" are no longer turning to the story of Samuel's sons to say that Willie White was a heritic to trying to make it look like Willie and Prescott believed like they did and that all Adventists believed like them until Questions on Doctrine.

We also have to remember that there was the two 1919 Bible Conferences (the one put on by the General Conference which was anti-Fundamentalism), and what I like to sarcastically call the Babylonian Bible confernece,in Philadelphia; an interdenominational Bible conference held right after the one at the General Conference-- in fact the one in Washington DC was because they knew so many of our pastors and teachers were headding to the Philadelphia Bible conference) which was the high point of Fundamentalism, where many churches became officially Fundamentalist. Sadly it was the message from the 1919 Philadelphia Bible conference that the people took home, and from which came both the New Theology and "Historic Adventist" ideas as they would read different proof texts from a fundamentalist mindset. This lead to the 1923 General Conference where Ellen White's hand picked leaders were thrown out of office, or at least demoted. A. G. Daniels was thrown out of office, W. W. Prescott was demoted, while Willie White got to keep his job, his office was stripped of all authority, so that he was basically fired but allowed to come to the office and get a pay check. There was a witch hunt in our schools and churches; the religion faculty of Washington Missionary College was thrown out, as well as non-fundamentalists in our other schools and churches. This witch hunt against the fundamentalists lead the fundamentalists to focus on their favorite quotes from the Bible and Mrs. White which lead to both "New Theology" and "Historic Adventists"

The so called "Historic Adventists" and the "New Theology" are fundamentalists who are trying to make sense of texts and quotes, but who are confining the quotes to the constraints of Fundamenatalism, and have ended up for the most part dividing the truth between them, with one group teaching more or less half the truth and the other group teaching more or less the other half of the truth, but where they have taken their half of the truth to be the whole truth and use it against the rest of the truth.

But once again, and one theam of my posts; Jesus had his own unique nature. The Historic Adventists (except for those who rejected the trinity) held the traditional view of the nature of Christ (there was not a Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic view) until the unfortunet attempt of those involved with QOD to try to make a comment whch emphessised half the truth, Andresen pointing out the incompleateness of their comment, and the historic Adventists ending up splitting the doctrine and building a whole new doctrine out of the left out.

While I have conserns about them, except for the Nature of Christ feasco, and that while they are complaining about inquisision, they tend to be quite overbearing themselves demanding obedience and they did not mind joining with the "New Theology" in the witch hunts against Willie White and the Religiion Department of Washington Missionary College etc. And I read one artical in one of their publications demanding the church make their view of the nature of Christ the ONLY accepted view. I do not like the bullying of their beliefs that I see too many of them doing. But they are a voice in Adventism, and if you can remove their bullying and scare tactics and their seeing EVERYONE who does not believe exactly like they do as "New Theology". I don't like to see any of our voices be silenced except for growth in truth. They are faithful to our Wesleyan background and bring out points that the Neo-Lutheran / Calvinistic "New Theology" misses. I am also Wesleyan, but while I'm to the left of Wesley, they are to the right.

[Stewart (SDA)]

An interesting subject to me, Richard.

But I have a question relating to the article/s. It looks like they were printed in 2000 and 2001. Are you aware of any follow-up to these "inquisition" papers written by Mr. Larson?

___________

They have got me looking into some of the background to a series of "inquisition meetings" (5T 57) that Uriah Smith led against a particular individual in the 1800's.

Those meetings related to a different situation of course, but the principles involved are always applicable, and the desire to remove perceived "tares" is a common, recurring element. I personally believe that it is far better to let the wheat and tares both grow (or develop) together.

But relating to the "inquisition meetings" of her day, Mrs. White wrote:

"Whatever may be Brother [bell’s] faults, your course is unjustifiable and unchristian. You have gone back over his history for years and have searched out everything that was unfavorable, every shadow of evil, and have made him an offender for a word. You have brought all the powers you could command to sustain yourselves in your course as accusers."

___________

Stewart

[Robert]

The gift of the Spirit of Prophecy is to be one of the identifying marks of God’s true church at the end of time.

The opinions of men.....

[Robert]

Quote:

They need to quit jawing and live Christ's life....Just do it!

Ain't that the Truth Rob. It IS all talk. And that's what they like to do. But when will the DO it? As you say ... the law requires perfect obedience. So, they need to get on it pronto.

But not just of the letter...but especially of the spirit....

[Robert]

That's exactly what many Christians (many SDAs included) are doing. But you and Robert deny it! The moon can never perfectly reflect the light of the sun, nevertheless it does reflect it.

The Bible says such would be liars:

Romans 3:23

1 John 1:8

1 Cor 13:5

[Robert]

She changed over time and warned that 'truth' changes also. We have a dynamic belief in God, not static....hopefuly!

But then comes the circular reasoning from the followers of EGW: We must follow her old light before we can take in new light.

How do you get new light when you make old light conditional for accepting new light? Answer: You don't...you stay stuck in the past...you remain in darkness!

[Stewart (SDA)]

... She changed over time and warned that 'truth' changes also. We have a dynamic belief in God, not static....hopefuly!

Please can you recall the reference, or perhaps the context, for the thought that truth changes, CoAspen?

Regards,

Stewart.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

She changed over time and warned that 'truth' changes also. We have a dynamic belief in God, not static....hopefuly!

But then comes the circular reasoning from the followers of EGW: We must follow her old light before we can take in new light.

How do you get new light when you make old light conditional for accepting new light? Answer: You don't...you stay stuck in the past...you remain in darkness!

AN Extra BIG AMEN

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

... She changed over time and warned that 'truth' changes also. We have a dynamic belief in God, not static....hopefuly!

Please can you recall the reference, or perhaps the context, for the thought that truth changes, CoAspen?

Regards,

Stewart.

Do not think that, because we have a glimmer of the light of God, that we have it all.--Ms. 3, 1889, pp. 1-3. (Morning Talk at Ottawa, Kansas, May 14, 1889.)

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

“A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, ‘We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God.’ But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. ‘Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.’ Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’ --Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. CW 34, 35

[Stewart (SDA)]

How do you get new light when you make old light conditional for accepting new light? Answer: You don't...you stay stuck in the past...you remain in darkness!

The apostle Paul writes that even "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion..." (1Cor 14:32,33).

New truth is always "subject" to old truth.

Light has been accumulating for centuries, but it is always - "in Thy light shall we see light." (Ps 36:9) Daniel says that God "gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding." (2:21) When we live up to old or existing light, we do indeed meet the conditions for being shown new light.

"in [God's] light shall we see light." (Ps 36:9)

But yes Robert, if we are stubbornly calling darkness "light", then we are in trouble.

________

Stewart.

[Stewart (SDA)]

I certainly agree with all these things Robert.

But I am troubled by seeming inconsistencies here... You seem to have renounced Seventh Day Adventism, and yet are you citing Mrs. White as authority? How can this be?

I wonder that you did not burn her books when you left...

Is it not better to be "cold" than to be lukewarm?

Is it not better to stand firmly against her, rather than selectively using her writings when circumstances seem right?

Stewart.

[Woody]

Nothing wrong with selectively using her writings. I do the same. She didn't want us to cling to her every word. She asked us to use our brains and compare her writings to scripture. Please don't question someone who does that. And how else would one communicate with SDAs unless they used her writings?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

That's exactly what many Christians (many SDAs included) are doing. But you and Robert deny it! The moon can never perfectly reflect the light of the sun, nevertheless it does reflect it.

The Bible says such would be liars:

Romans 3:23

1 John 1:8

1 Cor 13:5

Well, I suppose that makes Christ a liar who told the paralytic at Bethesda something that was impossible to you, "See, you are well! SIN NO MORE, that nothing worse may happen to you." Jn 5:14 ESV. And telling the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on SIN NO MORE." Jn 8:11 ESV.

And the Apostle John must be a liar for claiming, "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.....Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The REASON the Son of God appeared was TO DESTROY the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. BY THIS IT IS EVIDENT WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD, AND WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: WHOEVER DOES NOT PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT OF GOD, nor is the one who does not love his brother." 1 Jn 3:6-10 ESV

[Guest]

I certainly agree with all these things Robert.

But I am troubled by seeming inconsistencies here... You seem to have renounced Seventh Day Adventism, and yet are you citing Mrs. White as authority? How can this be?

I wonder that you did not burn her books when you left...

Is it not better to be "cold" than to be lukewarm?

Is it not better to stand firmly against her, rather than selectively using her writings when circumstances seem right?

Stewart.

I was thinking something along the same line Robert. You put EGW down and say things like "Jack Seroquel has more light than her" and then you turn around and use her quotes for trying to prove your point. If she's what you say she is, you should never ever use her quotes.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Stewart (SDA)

I certainly agree with all these things Robert.

But I am troubled by seeming inconsistencies here... You seem to have renounced Seventh Day Adventism, and yet are you citing Mrs. White as authority? How can this be?

I wonder that you did not burn her books when you left...

Is it not better to be "cold" than to be lukewarm?

Is it not better to stand firmly against her, rather than selectively using her writings when circumstances seem right?

Stewart.

I was thinking something along the same line Robert. You put EGW down and say things like "Jack Seroquel has more light than her" and then you turn around and use her quotes for trying to prove your point. If she's what you say she is, you should never ever use her quotes.

Total nonsense.

[phkrause]

Some very good points Richard and Stewart. But at the same time have you never quoted from someone that you didn't always agree with? Not that I agree with Robert all the time, but I see him do this from time to time. Don't we all only like things that agree with us?

pk

[Woody]

But at the same time have you never quoted from someone that you didn't always agree with? Not that I agree with Robert all the time, but I see him do this from time to time. Don't we all only like things that agree with us?

pk

Well said pk. Finally a man of reason.

[Guest]

Some very good points Richard and Stewart. But at the same time have you never quoted from someone that you didn't always agree with? Not that I agree with Robert all the time, but I see him do this from time to time. Don't we all only like things that agree with us?

pk

NO! Why would I quote somebody that I don't agree with, or believe. That doesn't make any sense. And yes I see Robert do this from time to time also. He will use her when it suits his purpose, but then when you quote EGW, he is the first one to say she is not inspired by God. That's just talking out of both sides of his neck. He betrays what he claims to believe in when he does that.

[phkrause]

Not saying Richard that you would quote something that you don't agree with. But wouldn't you quote from someone you don't agree with when they've said something that is good, not something that's against what you believe. I mean every once in a while the Pope might say something that I agree with, I see no reason to quote that saying even though I don't agree with the Pope on everything else! That's all I mean.

pk

[Stewart (SDA)]

Some very good points Richard and Stewart. But at the same time have you never quoted from someone that you didn't always agree with? Not that I agree with Robert all the time, but I see him do this from time to time. Don't we all only like things that agree with us?

pk

I sat here for a while, scanning through my memory, looking for an instance where I quoted somebody in that way, but I cannot find one. (I am sorry if such a claim is offensive to anyone, and I hope that our exchange of views on this point does not degenerate into something we will later be ashamed of.)

[Also, Robert, if you read this I have been wondering about something. Having been absent from here for a time, have you noticed any difference at all in these boards? Are we any different, or just the same?]

Stewart

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Some very good points Richard and Stewart. But at the same time have you never quoted from someone that you didn't always agree with? Not that I agree with Robert all the time, but I see him do this from time to time. Don't we all only like things that agree with us?

pk

I sat here for a while, scanning through my memory, looking for an instance where I quoted somebody in that way, but I cannot find one. (I am sorry if such a claim is offensive to anyone, and I hope that our exchange of views on this point does not degenerate into something we will later be ashamed of.)

[Also, Robert, if you read this I have been wondering about something. Having been absent from here for a time, have you noticed any difference at all in these boards? Are we any different, or just the same?]

Stewart

Stewart my comments were not made to make anyone feel bad. I was just sharing my thoughts.

pk

[Stewart (SDA)]

Thank you PK, your comments/questions havn't offended or hurt... I don't know of an occasion when you might have done that to any here.

Glad to read your thoughts.

Stewart