Should SDA's be asking: What is the mark of the beast???

[jasd]

>>No need to go elsewhere...<<

Though I am more and more of a persuasion to... the above remains,

that it is kind of you to say so --and the sentiment is valued.

[jasd]

>>JASD, Thanks again for the wonderful long exposition showcasing your verbal skills. Please, if you are going to post, speak in more twenty-first century English and then we should be just fine here. College or not, we have plenty of simple-minded folk on here who have not a clue what you are trying to say. Much appreciated.<< [ed.]

Tskity, tskity.

It is that we all have “verbal skills”. It is mostly the matter of style that differs. It is of small consequence. Why dwell upon that which is of small consequence? Let it go.

Please, let me remind that you’ve made your intention to become a pastor --known. I offer with all kindness and consideration

that you desist with the hissing.

Let’s get on with issues that may or may not have bearing upon that which may be deciding.

Should it be that you’ve been offended by me, I erred, it is my error. That said,

what of the mark of the beast? This is your thread. Sustain it. The tenor and the content of it is your responsibility. I’ve retraced my detour, how about you?

Again, what of the mark of the beast? I’m asking…

[wicklunds]

Funny how my becoming a pastor (which I am not yet) somehow equates to me becoming a people pleaser. You tend to understand how people see the work of Christ when you tell them you are in school for the ministry. Does this fact all of the sudden make me a genuflexor? The pastorate is not a place for people to walk all over the clergy. Pastors are not Burger King employees where they ask you how you want your Jesus. Jesus is who He is and I have to do my best to relfect who I believe He is to all. Sometimes I have extreme challenges like right now.

The problem I have at this moment is with you specifically. What I am humbly asking is for you to cease making this thread a stomping ground for your larger than life vocabulary. Is that asking too much? As to your repeated request for my opinion as to what the mark of the beast is, I would reply that it has already been posted and you have stiffened your neck several times against it. Why go through the motions again in order to arrive at where we stand now?

Thank You,

Dennis

[jasd]

>>Funny how my becoming a pastor (which I am not yet)…<<

It was your acknowledgement. For the reason that I cannot presently live up to the expectations consistent with appending the term Xtian to oneself --I decline ‘Xtian’ --as applied to my person.

>>…somehow equates to me becoming a people pleaser.<<

No one suggests that you become a “people pleaser”; but what’s wrong with civility?

>>You tend to understand how people see the work of Christ when you tell them you are in school for the ministry.<<

I should imagine so; as well, I should hope so. To avow such a declaration to another is to accept the additional burden of reflecting certain beliefs --and Christ. Yes? No?

>>Does this fact all of the sudden make me a genuflexor?<<

You’ll have to help me out on this one… I’m reading a personal derivation upon genuflect, do I err?

>>The pastorate is not a place for people to walk all over the clergy.<<

Again, you’ll have to help me out here. I plead the benightedness of [the] Greek idiot, that is, myself.

>>Pastors are not Burger King employees where they ask you how you want your Jesus. Jesus is who He is and I have to do my best to relfect who I believe He is to all. Sometimes I have extreme challenges like right now.<<

Sorry, for my above observation -- “It was your acknowledgement”. You seem to have anticipated me, and have done so originally and well.

>>The problem I have at this moment is with you specifically.<<

Ah, mountains, molehills, and soliloquies.

>>What I am humbly asking is for you to cease making this thread a stomping ground for your larger than life vocabulary.<<

Upon that note, I reviewed my posts. To suggest that I’ve proved difficult to understand does disservice to yourself, as my posts, submitted in a manner that relies heavily upon that which is in still in view proves quite effortless to read.

>>Is that asking too much?<<

Truthfully? yes, it asks much more than too much, --if at all possible. I think the matter is less than trifling.

>>As to your repeated request for my opinion as to what the mark of the beast is, I would reply that it has already been posted…<<

You put forward a premise whilst attempting to validate that premise without avail to Holy Writ. Instead, you appealed to and relied entirely upon the extraBiblical as reference, to wit...

(Letter 31, 1898).

{ST, March 22, 1910 par. 5}

{ST, March 22, 1910 par. 6}

{ST, March 22, 1910 par. 7}

the which, I responded to with my ‘charagma/mark/microchip’ post.

Now, upon my “repeated request” you invest your premise with ‘irrefutable assertion’,

>>…and you have stiffened your neck several times against it.<<

and cavalierly resort once again to the pejorative.

>>Why go through the motions again in order to arrive at where we stand now?<<

Yes indeed. Perhaps, it is I who errs. My understanding of vigorous dialog relies somewhat upon the formulaic point-counterpoint devise.

>>…I am humbly asking is for you to cease making this thread a stomping ground for your larger than life vocabulary.<<

I generally try to respond to a post directed to me --for the expectation of civility and courtesy. That said,

may I take your above quote as an exit cue without seeming to appear churlish? I simply don’t have the energy to deal with intransigence. I’m finding it difficult to continue… and fear that we’re both becoming shabby in the exchange.

For your participation and for your contribution, thank-you. (all being said, you know, you’re still okay ;-) g’day.

[wicklunds]

thank you...

[wicklunds]

churlish...intransigence...hehe...all quite effortless to read, and impossible to comprehend.

[melvin mccarty]

Actually my friend Wicklunds,whoever you are, after reading the above exchange of verbiage, I must assure you that in my opinion with an attitude like yours you should reconsider your choice of life work. We already have a number of that type of pastors in the church. Sorry.

mel

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

melvin mccarty said:

Actually my friend Wicklunds,whoever you are, after reading the above exchange of verbiage, I must assure you that in my opinion with an attitude like yours you should reconsider your choice of life work. We already have a number of that type of pastors in the church. Sorry.

mel

---

And when my legs are in irons, and my neck is in the stock, who will likely be standing over me with the insults? Will it be the man who insisted that the mark of the beast was a computer chip? Or the one who insisted that I choose another line of work? Either way...

Dennis

[melvin mccarty]

Weeelll now maybe I did come accross too strongly although i only suggested...not insisted. I do not have a college education as such but I have no problem understanding the man's posts. They are invigorating mentally and if you have trouble with his language I suggest the problem is not with him. As to the mark of the beast I believe there is considerble room for new study on the subject. After all some other original theories in adventism have had to be revisited. I feel too that the traditional theory is quite weak Biblically.

I trust we have no hard feelings over this.

mel

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

melvin mccarty said:

Weeelll now maybe I did come accross too strongly although i only suggested...not insisted. I do not have a college education as such but I have no problem understanding the man's posts. They are invigorating mentally and if you have trouble with his language I suggest the problem is not with him. As to the mark of the beast I believe there is considerble room for new study on the subject. After all some other original theories in adventism have had to be revisited. I feel too that the traditional theory is quite weak Biblically.

I trust we have no hard feelings over this.

mel

---

Plenty of feelings...none of them directed in an angry or censoring way. I merely asked the man to dumb down his language and composition for the simple folk. Is that so wrong friend? You came on the scene at just the right time and it seemed as though I was doing all the posting. But if you go back and look, the man's posts were a mile long and several back to back. Study away, if microchips are what you desire, there are plenty Hal Lindsey and websites that go in that direction. It is all a speculators dreamworld.

[melvin mccarty]

+

I'd like to set the record straight here and then i will let the matter drop. When I logged on a few days ago and saw the thread heading "Should SDA's be asking" I said to myself I believe they should so I went back to the beginning as I usually do and read all the posts. Context is important to me.

I'm sure those "simpleminded" folk must appreciate your going to bat for them.

No i'm not into microchips and Hal Lindsey but speculation is not limited to those folk. It takes some creative thinking to arrive at the traditional teaching too. I would love to see a thread where people could discuss and exchange ideas without silly bickering.

Nuff said, bye

mel

[Bravus]

Dictionaries are free unline: rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle by learning a few new words?

[wicklunds]

Sorry, I think that we could use some simplifying of terms...especially with such a sensitive topic as this. Who's cursing the darkness? I just don't want people be lead astray by some fast and fancy talker. I know what the terms mean...but I sense others would not.

[wicklunds]

besides...who has time to look up words all day.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I just don't want people be lead astray by some fast and fancy talker. I know what the terms mean...but I sense others would not.

---

How can someone be led astray when they don't understand what is being said?

Jesus said a lot of stuff people didn't understand. I guess He was a fast and fancy talker.

Dennis you crack me up! LOL

Richard

[wicklunds]

I am happy for you.

[wicklunds]

Here is a great series of quotes in response to what has been posted here lately. When I first began college, a professor remarked in one of my papers that I should aim for an economy of words. That was the best advice I ever received while in that horrible and often subjective, unjust environment. The only problem was that the professor who wrote it was himself often guilty of using more than enough words to get his point across, and terms that would have been better left for the puffed-up. Dare I say that this man was being hypocritical?

“I was shown that the truth once published now, will stand, for it is the truth for the last days; it will live, and less need be said upon it in future. Numerous words need not be put upon paper to justify what speaks for itself and shines in its clearness. Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form.” CW 15

Thanks for mining for this precious treasure Ed!!

[cardw]

Quote:

---

“I was shown that the truth once published now, will stand, for it is the truth for the last days; it will live, and less need be said upon it in future. Numerous words need not be put upon paper to justify what speaks for itself and shines in its clearness. Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form.” CW 15

---

Yeah, a lot of our doctrines take very few words. Let me think, the sanctuary doctrine is pretty simple. Our views on Daniel and Revelation only take a paragraph or so.

Yeah right!

Quote:

---

When I first began college, a professor remarked in one of my papers that I should aim for an economy of words. That was the best advice I ever received while in that horrible and often subjective, unjust environment. The only problem was that the professor who wrote it was himself often guilty of using more than enough words to get his point across, and terms that would have been better left for the puffed-up. Dare I say that this man was being hypocritical?

---

I don't know, dare you?

And exactly how does one make a reservation of words for the puffed-up. Do we have a separate puffed-up dictionary?

Vocabulary is developed for different disciplines to deal with more detailed descriptions with the goal of being more exact in speech. For example in the study of medicine we need more exact descriptions of bones and muscles and their insertions so one can talk about biomechanics to solve problems of overuse, poor body mechanics, and other difficult dysfunctions. For example, the use of the word hip bone is too general to be of use in cases were details are important, because it could refer to the pelvis or the top end of the femur. If we are going to have surgery on the hip bone, we better darn well know what we are talking about. At that point, I don't think the patient is worried that the doctor might be puffed up because he or she is using big words.

These vocabularies are not so we can use big words and impress people, its so we can solve problems and communicate. If you are too lazy to learn what the words mean then you aren't going to be able to participate in more indepth conversations.

Its generally not a matter of intelligence, but of intellectual sloth.

Richard

[wicklunds]

Hey, Richard,

If churlish and intransigence are words that tickle your ears, there is a nice feature on the C/A forums called CHAT ROOM. I could make a private room for you and some folks who appreciate being entertained in that regard. But I wouldnt want to be accused of inellectual sloth. If I used words such as those in my daily discourse with regular folks I might not make it to the next day. Thanks for setting a brother straight.

Dennis

[benherndon]

wicklunds signs off each post with the following:

Quote:

---

A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions.{2SM 385.2}

---

>>>"Those who cling to old customs and hoary errors have lost sight of the fact that light is ever increasing to the people of God. We must follow Christ; truth is constantly unfolding if we are following our Leader. It is when we walk in the light that shines upon us, obeying the truth that is open to our understanding, that we receive the greater light. We cannot be excusable in accepting only the light which our fathers had one hundred years ago. If our God-fearing fathers had seen what we see, and heard what we hear, they would have accepted the light, and receive the truths open to us, as they received those presented to them; we must do as they would have done, had they lived in our day." EGW in Historical Sketches, 196

Ladies and gentlemen SDAs, it has been over 160 yrs ago that the founders, including EGW, established most of the principles that have been accepted by the church---not many things have changed since then. Maybe the time has come!

"There is no excuse for anyone to take the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error." R&H, Dec 20, 1892----103 YEARS AGO!

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and of all reforms......before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus said the Lord" in its support." GC 595

So......open up your minds and concentrate on the Bible ONLY!!!--if you expect to get it straight! One cannot spend a lot of time in 'the writings' and get to know the Bible very well! Not enough hours in the day when one has other things to do too. The Bible is the only Word of God the earth has today. Like in the transfiguration----Moses was 'gone' and so was Elijah! The Voice from heaven said of Christ who, only, remained, "Listen to Him!"

Significant?

Go figure!

Ben

[cardw]

Quote:

---

But I wouldnt want to be accused of inellectual sloth. If I used words such as those in my daily discourse with regular folks I might not make it to the next day. Thanks for setting a brother straight.

---

I wasn't suggesting that you use such words. My point was, instead of railing on people for using a good vocabulary, why don't you just look up the words so you can join in the conversation.

If I wanted to go to France and speak with French people I learn French. I don't go complain about the French people speaking French because I think they are puffed up.

You are just too lazy to do the work required to communicate.

Richard

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

wicklunds signs off each post with the following:

Quote:

---

A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions.{2SM 385.2}

---

>>>"Those who cling to old customs and hoary errors have lost sight of the fact that light is ever increasing to the people of God. We must follow Christ; truth is constantly unfolding if we are following our Leader. It is when we walk in the light that shines upon us, obeying the truth that is open to our understanding, that we receive the greater light. We cannot be excusable in accepting only the light which our fathers had one hundred years ago. If our God-fearing fathers had seen what we see, and heard what we hear, they would have accepted the light, and receive the truths open to us, as they received those presented to them; we must do as they would have done, had they lived in our day." EGW in Historical Sketches, 196

Ladies and gentlemen SDAs, it has been over 160 yrs ago that the founders, including EGW, established most of the principles that have been accepted by the church---not many things have changed since then. Maybe the time has come!

"There is no excuse for anyone to take the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error." R&H, Dec 20, 1892----103 YEARS AGO!

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and of all reforms......before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus said the Lord" in its support." GC 595

So......open up your minds and concentrate on the Bible ONLY!!!--if you expect to get it straight! One cannot spend a lot of time in 'the writings' and get to know the Bible very well! Not enough hours in the day when one has other things to do too. The Bible is the only Word of God the earth has today. Like in the transfiguration----Moses was 'gone' and so was Elijah! The Voice from heaven said of Christ who, only, remained, "Listen to Him!"

Significant?

Go figure!

Ben

---

Significant?? probably not!!

But this is!!

If we only knew what is before us, we would not be so dilatory in the Lord's work. There are ministers and workers who will present a tissue of falsehoods as testing truths, even as the Jewish rabbis presented the maxims of men as the word of God. These are given to the people as meat in due season, while their souls are starving for the bread of life. Even now there seems to be a burning desire to get up something startling and bring it in as new light. Men are presenting as important truth that which is only fable and falsehood. This imaginary food which is being prepared for the household of God will cause spiritual consumption, decline, and death. {MC 69.1}

AND...

There are those who say, not only in their hearts, but in all their works, "My Lord delayeth his coming." They show the effect of error upon them by smiting their fellow-servants and eating and drinking with the drunken. As in the days of Noah, those who have had great light will show their inconsistency. Because Christ's coming has been long foretold, they conclude that there is a mistake in regard to this doctrine. But the Lord says, "If the vision tarry, wait for it; for it will surely come. It will not tarry past the time that the message is borne to all nations, tongues, and peoples." Shall we who claim to be students of prophecy forget that God's forbearance to the wicked is a part of His vast and merciful plan, by which He is seeking to compass the salvation of souls? Shall we be found among the number who cease to cooperate with the Lord, and who are found saying, My Lord delays His coming?--Letter 131, 1900, pp. 2, 3. (To Brother Daniells, October 14, 1900.) {7MR 182.3}

OR...

It is too late in this earth's history to get up something new. The erroneous theories that we had to meet in our early experiences in this work drove us to the Lord in prayer. And the Lord gave me, His messenger, a decided message that men were placing a false application on the Word of God. Christ referred to this danger in the words, "Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, that are ready to die" (Revelation 3:2). Woe, woe to the man who teaches false theories. {MR760 16.1}

We were cautioned not to listen to the doctrines of men who were obtaining a false experience. We spent whole nights in prayer, and the Holy Spirit gave the message, clear and distinct. All along the way we have had to meet just such things. But we gave no heed to them. Other presentations were made in doctrines that denied the truth which in the past had been advocated. Thus it will be till the close of this earth's history. {MR760 16.2}

But Ben, do you even believe in the testimony of grace? It would seem out of place for you to quote from "the writings" if you didn't.

[benherndon]

Oh! so it's the likes of YOU who has the sole right to quote

'the writings'??? Excuse me, show me the paper that gives you the right and not anybody else that wishes to quote 'the writings'. Do you have some 'ownership' or personal 'dispensation' others don't have?

And, thanks for showing us all that one can find just about whatever he might want from various parts of 'the writings'!

You choose what you like from 'the writings' and I'll choose what is compatible with Bible from 'the writings' whenever I think it will illustrate the point needing to be made.

And where do you get the idea the 'testimony of grace' is unique to 'the writings'. I believe what you call the

'testimony of Grace' comes from the Bible exclusively.

I've also made myself clear about the 'status' of

'the writings' ----since 'the writings' says one thing one place and sometimes to opposite someplace else---this illustrates exactly why we should follow what was written that was consistent with 'plain thus saith the Lord' in the Bible, particularly the NT, which is the ONLY authoritative source of info for living the Christian life on this earth. And thanks for what is most probably a confirmation of why we sould classify 'the writings' just like was done with Luther's writings---that is 'pastoral' in authority----not 'prophetic' in authority. I get tired of watching so many cultists herein use 'the writings' as authority over the Bible and then fib about it when saying the Bible supports all 'the writings'---well, it depends upon which of 'the writings' might be being referred to. Some are consistent with scripture and some aren't----and that is the big problem.

Many responsible people use 'the writings' properly as if they are indeed 'pastoral' and the crowd doing so is growing though not officially approved yet. Church famous, now deceased, SDA elder/pastor told us we couldn't admit this truism becau$e, if we did, we would lo$e 2 million member$ overnight(mostly South American folks)----those tending to cultism in re: 'the writings'. 'The writings' have their place--but that "place" is not to ever be put them actually, hintingly, or subconciously ahead of the plain words of scripture----meaning, particularly, the New Testament which 'the writer' had a little difficult time with.

The DETAILS of the CLOSING TIMES is of little concern to us today for it takes us off into a tangent away from concentrating on and deeply understanding the 'Grace' of Christ's being here and actions in us, the sinners, behalf.

I've been hearing those dire warnings about 'end times' for 83 yrs personally. And, all that while, the 'testimony of Grace' from the Bible was missed. Comprehension of the 'gospel' and the 'covenants', keys to understanding the NT were missed! -- while concentrating on the guessing of what the obscure symbols of Revelation meant. So what? God will do His thing and when it comes, Christians will recognize it----all believers will recognize it even if it happens to be a bit different than they have thought it might be.

And another thing---- it makes snarly judgmental comments come from those who are by nature the quite intolerant group of individuals when somebody else doesn't praise their 'guessings' so highly. Simply watch the judgmental attitudes and personal pronouncements like we've been watching posted here on CA for several months already. The proper Christian life brings peace amongst the believers. It does NOT bring stress, strain and tensions like we've been having right here on many subjects and threads of discussion. Competing beliefs in the subject of Christiani life and living are just fine, of course, but some attitudes exhibited are NOT 'just fine', always, of course.

Through His Grace we've been given peace amongst ourselves. Grace does NOT bring interpersonal stress, strain and tension amongst those who love the Lord and regard each other as being His 'creation'----whether they worship on Sabbath as do we, or, Sunday as do others just as knowledgeable and sincere as we SDAs are. If perfect keeping of the Jewish Sabbath is essential to salvation---nobody--NOBODY--is going to be saved!

We ought to open our minds to plain Biblical truths only just like the highly regarded little lady, our founder, advised in those passages I quoted above. "The Bible only for all doctrine and reforms"! "Never should the Testimonies be presented from our pulpits!"---was also said.

Ben

[wicklunds]

Just to let everyone know who is reading this forum. Gregory Matthews is only editing my posts and not others'. If you would like to see my response to this man Ben's post. Send me a private message and the truth will be told. Thanks for hearing me out. I deserve to be heard and not ignored and censored.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Yesterday, I removed one sentence from a post that Dennis had made. It was a very inappropriate sentence, and a hurtful personal attack on another person. I left the rest of the post, because it was quite fine.

This resulted in a series of PMs between Dennis and I. In his final message to me yesterday, Dennis stated that he would no longer "pollute" in areas where I moderate. At least I think that is what he said.

This morning morning I had to remove an entire post that Dennis had made. It was a personal attack that went well beyond what I allow. I did not find anything in it that I could retain, so I deleted the entire post.

Dennis feels that I am editing/deleting his posts due to what he sees as a disagreement with his theology. As many here know, I allow others to post theolgoical positions with which I disagree. But, there is a point where I draw the line on personal attacks. Dennis has crossed that line.

In the last message that I have read from him this morning, he has asked me not to send him any more messages. I assume that means that he will not read any that I send him.

As a result, I am posting this publicly: Dennis, I am NOT preventing you from posting here. You can contnue to post messages that are within the bounds that I have drawn. But, when you cross over in the area of personal attacks, as you have done, I will either edit, or remove, them.