Letter to Doug Bachelor

[skyblue888]

I would like to share something I posted yesterday on Doug Bachelor's website after someone posted an article of his on FB about the pope. Please read this carefully.

Dear brother Bachelor,

I read the article you wrote about the third angel's message in regard to the papacy and how we need to give the message of warning to the world.

I have been aware of your ministry for many years. I joined the church in 1976 after I had read myself into the church through the writings of Mrs. White. I graduated in theology in 1981 and worked as a pastor for a few years and then joined an independent ministry and worked as a Bible instructor. After some years of doing that I left that independent ministry and re-joined the church, that is in 1988. Since then I have been working as a writer and a commentator on adventist forums since 1997. After reading your excellent article a few minutes ago I strongly felt impressed to write you the following:

Yes we were called to give to the world the message of warning in regard to the beast but how can we expose the beast when our leaders have been following in the same track? I was listening to Walter Veith this morning being interviewed on Adventist Discoveries about the new pope. It can be viewed on you-tube.

Very interesting interview and yet it is clear that he himself (including the majority of adventists) has yet to realize how, as a people, we have failed to see how the third angel's message warning us against popery is also a warning to us as our leaders have followed in the track of Romanism!

Some may ask, What are you talking about? I am talking about warnings from the Lord Himself that our church leaders have so lessened the distance between the ways and methods of the papacy and theirs that no difference can be seen!

More than one century ago the Lord warned us that our leaders were "following in the track of Romanism." Testimonies to Ministers, 362, very bottom of page.

Then, on page 363 and 365, we read the following warning:

"Those who are enjoined to represent the attributes of the Lord's character, step from the Bible platform and in their own human judgment devise RULES and RESOLUTIONS to force the will of others. The DEVISINGS for forcing men to follow the prescriptions of other men are instituting an ORDER OF THINGS that overrides sympathy and tender compassion, that blinds the eyes to mercy, justice, and the love of God. Moral influence and personal responsibility are trodden underfoot... RULE, RULE, has been their COURSE OF ACTION... HUMANITY IS HAILED AS GOD!" 363,365.

Furthermore, on page 365, this order of things is called the "mystery of iniquity" and on page 463 it is called "a confederacy" and on page 468 it is called "the religion of Baal!"

"The religion of many among us will be the religion of Baal." 468.

The religion of Baal is "the spirit of domination" creeping into the church, making inroads into the very church that professes to believe present truth!

From a Scriptural point of view this means that men have taken the place of God in the church, seeking for pre-eminence when Christ should have pre-eminence in all things to the church! See 3 John 9 and Colossians 1:18. In other words, these men are "lording it over God's heritage." see page 366.

This is a most serious matter.

The Lord sent a most solemn warning in regard to this order of things within our ranks:

"The Spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences." 362.

For those who are still skeptical about this, may be the following will help:

"Men have taken unfair advantage over those whom they supposed to be under their jurisdiction. They were determined to bring the individuals to their terms; THEY WOULD RULE OR RUIN. There will be no material change until a decided movement is made to bring in a different order of things." 360.

"The high-handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result... At the time of the first advent of Christ to our world, the men who composed the Sanhedrin exercised their authority in controlling men according to their will. Thus the souls whom Christ had given His life to free from the bondage of Satan were brought in bondage to him in another form." 361.

In no uncertain terms we are told that what the men of the Sanhedrin did in the days of Christ the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church are doing today. Here is one more:

"I write thus fully, because I have been shown that ministers and people are tempted more and more to trust to finite man for wisdom, and to make flesh their arm. To conference presidents, and men in responsible places, I bear this message: Break the bands and fetters that have been placed upon God's people. To you the word is spoken, 'Break every yoke.' Unless you cease the work of making man amenable to man, unless you become humble in heart, and yourselves learn the way of the Lord as little children, the Lord will divorce you from His work.... God declares, 'I will be glorified in My people,' but the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." 480-481

Since these solemn warnings were sent to the church over a century ago no decided movement has been made to bring in a different order of things. Solemn, isn't it? For those who are interested, please read the dream Mrs. White had about this. It is found in Testimonies, Vol.1, p.578. Hope this helped.

So brother Bachelor, as you can see for yourself, it is not difficult to understand why the loud cry of the third angel has been so long delayed! What say you?

Would appreciate your feedback.

sky

[skyblue888]

A brother from another adventist forum said this to me:

It would be nice if you would get out your Bible for once and prove your big beef with the church from the Bible only. You can't do it, can you? Anyone can take Mrs White's writings and make them appear to say what ever dirty dogma they want; and she has also clearly warned against this. This is one warning which you refuse to pay attention to While Scripture does tell us about the wheat and the tares, meaning the church, God's Word paints a much different and more positive picture of both the church, and the church leadership. Your hell dust theology is an elixir for those who are malcontent and out of joint with the church. You are not even an Adventist yet you keep yapping at us all how to be one. So whats next sky?

castaway

___________

Dear brother, to begin with I don't have a "beef" with the church or anybody for that matter. For years I have been a student of the Word and of the Testimonies in an effort to understand our history and the reasons why the work of finishing the work in the world has been so long delayed. That's all. It is nothing I myself am saying. I am only repeating what the Lord said through His servants.

I have already proved it from the Bible but you must have missed it. The statements from Mrs. White which are from the Lord are only echoing the words of 3 John 9 about men seeking the pre-eminence in the church. This is what happened in the Early Church! Paul identified this problem as the "mystery of iniquity" in the church which is this lording it over God's heritage, making man amenable to man which means that the leaders are determined to bring the individuals to their terms. "They would rule or ruin." See T.M.360. This is also spoken of as "kingly power".

This is an important issue and it will not go away. Colossians 1:18 clearly teaches that Christ is to have the pre-eminence in all things to the church but we have been clearly warned that "the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God (Christ) aside and accepting the devisings of men." T.M.481.

Hence the warning: "Unless you cease the work of making man amenable to man, unless you become humble in heart, and yourselves learn the way of the Lord as little children, the Lord will divorce you from His work." T.M.481.

I don't deny that there has always been the wheat and the tares in the church. This is nothing new. It has always been the case but there comes a time when probation closes for the church if she refuses to heed the warnings God has sent to her. When probation closes for the church God still has a church and they are His servants through whom He will proclaim the loud cry to the world. In the loud cry church the wheat and the tares will still comingle until the great final test which will separate the good from the bad and their destiny will be forever fixed.

There was a time of probation for the Jewish church. At the stoning of Stephen the Jewish church sealed her rejection of God's mercy. Probation closed for the Jewish church then but God still had a church composed of the Apostles and their converts and these turned to the Gentiles with the message that the established church flatly rejected only to turn upon the bearers of the message. The Jewish church was then left behind. But individuals within the Jewish church were still able to join the Early Church as they heard the message being proclaimed to the Gentiles and they came out of the organized church to join their voices with those whom God was using to proclaim the message to the world.

History will be repeated in these last days.

"Your hell dust theology is an elixir for those who are malcontent and out of joint with the church. You are not even an Adventist yet you keep yapping at us all how to be one. So whats next sky?"

Be careful brother how you treat this message. By callilng these warnings "hell dust theology" we would be committing the sin against the Holy Spirit!

sky

[ClubV12]

Skyblue says,

"After some years of doing that I left that independent ministry and re-joined the church, that is in 1988."

Curious,,, are you currently a member in good standing with the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

[Woody]

We have to be careful these days. For those who might present themselves as SDAs are often times ... in fact NOT SDA. There seems such an attempt to mix. Appearances are not always correct.

[ClubV12]

We see that a lot around here Woody, I find it extremely troubling. On the other hand, at times, I tend to jump to a conclusion and end up offending someone.

It would be nice if people could simply explain their position to avoid this kind of confusion.

[skyblue888]

As far as I know Mrs. White was a bonafide Seventh-day Adventist.

sky

[ClubV12]

Indeed she was, but that is not the question under consideration at the moment.

Are YOU, a member in good standing of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

[skyblue888]

Was the name of Jesus recorded in the church register of His day? Yes. He was a member but not always considered by the religious authorities as a member "in good standing". Nevertheless He was a member of that church. If this is what you mean by your question, the answer is "yes" since my name is still recorded on the church register.

And since when you cannot be a church member if you bring a message of warning to the church? As they often say, please don't kill me, I am only a messenger.

sky

[skyblue888]

Indeed she was, but that is not the question under consideration at the moment.

Are YOU, a member in good standing of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

I said that because you seem to be of the opinion that what I have posted was a mere opinion of mine when the messages posted are the warnings the Lord sent to the church through Mrs. White. Hence my question, Was she not a member of the church? And, mind you, she was not always considered a member in good standing since the leaders in responsible position got rid of her by sending her to Australia so they could carry on with their work which was antagonistic to the third angel's message.

sky

[ClubV12]

Sky says,

"After some years of doing that I left that independent ministry and re-joined the church, that is in 1988."

As a student of Ellen White I am reasonably sure you have read her counsel on what constitutes a lie. It can be as subtle as a wave of the hand, a nod of the head. It can even be the truth stated in such a way as to mislead someone into beleiving an untruth.

Doug Bachelor would incorrectly assume you are a member, in good standing, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As will some members of this forum.

I would politely ask you again Skyblue, ARE you a member in good standing of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

...it's a simple question.

[skyblue888]

ClubV12, we have been over this before.

To be a member "in good standing" is not necessarily a good thing for Jesus was certainly not a member "in good standing" but nevertheless He was a member of the Jewish church.

I cannot say that I am a member "in good standing" since the message I bring is antagonistic to the "organized work" which is antagonistic to the third angel's message.

It was the same with brother Jones. Because those who considered themselves members "in good standing" could not bring this man of God to their terms, because they could not lord it over him, since he refused to be amenable to them, they cast him out.

There is nothing new under the sun.

And by your question you are only attempting to confuse the issue and therefore distract the readers from the content of the introductory post.

sky

[Woody]

I agree that it is important to know the standing of the author in relationship with the church.

[ClubV12]

In internet forums, some are identified as,

"poser"

A person who attempts to blend into a specific social group.

Like, Seventh-day Adventists.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

And by your question you are only attempting to confuse the issue and therefore distract the readers from the content of the introductory post.

Actually it is an attempt at claification and validity of comments.

[JoeMo]

Exactly what is a "member in good standing"? Does one have to blindly swallow everything in the Fundies and prevailing SDA culture to be "in good standing" Does one have to equate the authority of the writings of EGW to scripture to be "in good standing"? Does one have to actively participate in church leadership and have their names on the books to be a "member in good standing"? Does one have to be a tea-totalling vegetarian excercise freak who locks himself in a room to exclusively read scripture and SoP outside of actively participating in church service) to be a " in good standing? What about all those corrupted SDA leaders discussed in another thread - are they "members in good standing"?

I'll admit that I do not agree with Sky on everything he posts. But he is consistent and productive in what he says; and he seems to walk his talk. I must respect and honor him for that; whether he is a "member in good standing" or not.

Our entire congregation was summarily dismissed from the SDA organization; yet I amintain my personal membership in the Conference church. I really don't care a rat's pitoot whether or not that makes me a "member in good standing" in the SDA denomination. I care about whether or not I am a "member in good standing" in the Kingdom of God. There is not necessarily a correlation between the two.

Amen to you, Sky, for clearly and honestly sharing your position. I disagree with it; but I respect you for posting and defending it. Your status as a "member in good standing" in the SDA denomination means nothing to me. You being a tried and true spokesman for what you believe to be the Word of God means everything - whether or not I agree with it.

[ClubV12]

A member in good standing with the Seventh-day Adventist Church can hold office, vote on various issues of the Church, be elected by the local Church as a respresentative to a counsel, such as a Conference or World Church counsel.

A person may attend the Church and be welcome, but cannot hold office. This is not complicated. Lets not take something simple and shroud it in mystery.

There are several who attend MY local Church that also claim to be Seventh-day Adventists. This has resulted in significant confusion for visitors and true members alike. We see the same thing here on the forum.

"Walk the talk."

Skyblue says,

"After some years of doing that I left that independent ministry and re-joined the church, that is in 1988."

There is no confusion on what this is meant to imply/suggest to others. That Skyblue is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He can hold office and has a voice in Church affairs, can vote, etc.

I do not believe this is the case, it is a misleading statement that will surely, at least, confuse Brother Bachelor and many others. We see that happening already. By their fruits...

[Ted Oplinger]

Club,

Even if Sky did "leave the church" to join an independent ministry, the critical question would have been if he asked for his name to be removed from the SDA church membership. If not...then he could be gone for years, then step back in at the precise time of a business meeting, and is eligible to vote.

If Sky didn't ask for the removal (nor sinned as to warrant being disfellowshipped), the church cannot remove his name from the rolls without his specific approval - even for being absent for years. That is right out of the Church Manual. Coming back to the church, all he need do is transfer his membership to wherever he is attending.

Likewise, there are a great many independent ministries that are Adventist in good standing - the reason why they are 'independent" is that these Adventists do not like to deal with the organizational red tape in order to do what God has called them to do. The SDA church does recognize this well, as they are quite willing to hold memberships at the Conference level for such, in the event they want to rejoin the organizational effort later.

Blessings,

[JoeMo]

, as always.

No wonder they call you the "Iron Deacon"!

[ClubV12]

Simple question remains Ted.

Skyblue, are you currently a member of the organized, officially recognized by the State and Federal Government Seventh-day Adventist Church? Brother Bachelor and members of this forum and been led to believe that is the case.

I believe we have the answer due to the continual avoidance and confusing statements in response to the question. No, he is not currently a member of the Church.

This is relevant because of the letter/statement to Brother Bachelor and the members of this forum. Said statement strongly implying that the organized, sanctioned Seventh-day Adventist Churches "probation has closed". The end result being that the Church is no longer recognized or favored by God as the remnant Church.

I have seen the impact such statements and suggestions have. It has directly resulted in people removing their membership from the Church. Some continue to come and "prey" on members of the Church. Some go into ministries well outside the Church, typically these are considered "off shoots".

Ted, I am not speaking about self supporting ministries recognized, accepted and encouraged by the Church. Such ministries outside the "regular lines of work" are carried on by members of the Church.

I am not pursuing what status Skyblue has in any other organization, OTHER THAN his statement that alludes to his membership in this Church.

Ted, I am well aware of Church law and it's various requirements to attain and retain membership. But thanks for clairifying some of the particulars to the readers of this thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

A person may attend the Church and be welcome, but cannot hold office. This is not complicated. Lets not take something simple and shroud it in mystery.

Actually, a local congregation may elect whomever they chose to elect, whether or not a member.

I am aware of a SDA congregation who once had a Methdist in charge of fund raising for a new SDA church building.

NOTE: In that same congregation a Presybyterian pastor made a personal loan of $10,000 to the SDA church in a time of crisis which allowed the congregation to build their church.

[ClubV12]

Gregory, do you think the Seventh-day Adventist Churches probation has closed? That this Church is no longer the remnant Church, raised up by Him to deliver the three angels message? Do you feel the responsibility for that ministry has been removed from this Church and given to another group of believers?

If so, would you work to spread that news to any and all that remain in the Church to "come out" in some way? By removal of their membership, starting their home church, prostelize existing members to your doctrinal beliefs, theology and interpretation of Ellen White and the bible. Stop paying tithe, etc. There are many ways to discourage members of an organization to cease their support for that organization.

But more to the point of your post: IF you did feel this way or knew of someone that was actively engaged in this type of "ministry" (I use the term very loosely here), would you elect them or approve of them being elected to office in the Church? Would you elect them if they donated enough money to the Church (buy an office or buy an indulgence)?

[skyblue888]

I read from Desire of Ages, p.450. It is about Jesus and the church leaders of His day:

"To avoid useless conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem, He had restricted His labors to Galilee. His apparent neglect of the great religious assemblies and the enmity manifested toward Him by the priests and rabbis, were a CAUSE OF PERPLEXITY to the people about Him, and even to His own disciples and His kindred. In His teachings He had dwelt upon the blessings of obedience to the law of God and yet He Himself seemed to be indifferent to the service which had been divinely established: His mingling with publicans and others of ill-repute, His disregard of the rabbinical observances, and the freedom with which He set aside the traditional requirements concerning the Sabbath, all seeming to place Him in antagonism to the religious authorities, excited much questioning. His brothers thought it a mistake for Him to alienate the great and learned men of the nation. They FELT that these men must be in the right and that Jesus was at fault in placing Himself in antagonism to them."

Was it a mistake for Him to alienate the great and learned men of the nation? It was not. Was Jesus at fault in placing Himself in antagonism to them? He was not. But there were those who thought that He was. And why did they think so?--Oh, just because "they felt that these men were in the right." And why did they feel that these men must be in the right?--Oh, just because these men occupied position and place, they "must be in the right;" and, of course, just because of this, Jesus must be "at fault" in placing Himself in antagonism to them.

But in all this Jesus was not at fault in any sense whatever. He was eternally right all the time; and the real antagonism was not at all on His part.

Therefore disagreement with church leaders, to dissent from "religious authorities," even to occupy an attitude of antagonism to them, is never, in itself, any evidence of error or fault. No man, no association or combination of men, ever has any authority because of any official position or place in the church of Christ, or in any church professing to be the church of Christ. And when any man or set of men ever does have it in any church it is because that church is of men only and not of Christ. "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you." Matt.20:25.

sky

[ClubV12]

Well now that we've cleared up your status within the Church, Skyblue, we may address the issues you bring up with full knowledge that you oppose the Seventh-day Adventist Church and believe it's probation has closed. That it is no longer the remnant Church and has been rejected by the Father as His representative Church on earth.

Members of this forum also should be advised that your definition of what constitutes the Church opposes the definition of what constitutes the Church by Ellen White.

Let us review her definition of the Church as she applies it to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

"Acts of the Apostles".

Chapter one, paragraph one.

"The church is God's appointed agency for the salvation of men. It was organized for service, and its mission is to carry the gospel to the world. From the beginning it has been God's plan that through His church shall be reflected to the world His fullness and His sufficiency."

Jesus was also a member of Gods chosen people, His divinely appointed agency to carry the gospel to the whole world. That organized body of believers known as the Jewish Nation. He wasn't just a member in name, but a member in good standing! He preached in the synagogue, read from the scriptures to the congregration on the Sabbath day, have every right and privilege granted to any Jewish male in good standing with the Church of His time. In His time, salvation could only be found through His Church, which He not only recognized, it's what He preached!

[skyblue888]

Notice what ClubV12 is doing in order to distract from the issue introduced in this thread. First he raised the matter of membership which has nothing to do with the issue and second he infers that what I have posted means that probation has closed for the church when this matter is not even considered.

In my second post I did say something about probation for the church as a reply to a comment that was made in regard to it. It is absolutely true that if the church persists in rejecting the warnings that God has sent to her the time will come when probation will have closed for the church and the bearers of the message will turn to the world and their message will swell into the loud cry to the world.

sky

[skyblue888]

Again I read from Desire of Ages, page 550:

"In the kingdoms of the world, position meant self-aggrandizement. The people were supposed to exist for the benefit of the ruling classes. Influence, wealth, education, were so many means of gaining control of the masses for the use of the leaders. The higher classes were to think, decide, enjoy, and rule; the lower were to obey and serve. Religion, like all things else, was a matter of authority. The people were expected to believe and practice as their superiors dictated. The right of man as man, to think and act for himself, was wholly unrecognized...

"Christ was establishing a kingdom on different principles. He called men, not to authority, but to service, the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak. Power, position, talent, education, placed their possessor under greater obligation to serve his fellows. To even the lowliest of Christ's disciples it is said, 'All things are for your sakes'...

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression: no compulsion of manner. The angels of Heaven do not come to earth to rule, and to exact homage, but as messengers of mercy, to co-operate with men in uplifting humanity."

Is not ClubV12 doing the very things we are warned not to do in these statements?

sky