NCC 'Leaders' Rebuff Two Constituency Motions From Sac Central Church

September 14, 2018

I believe what we are seeing is a new moral code, conceived in political ambience, and bequeathed to the church as the enrichment and transformation of Adventism. Transformed, yes. Enriched, no. Following the lead of their tumescent Division, most of the NAD Conference & Union leaders are now ambassadors for this new moral paradigm and are willingly dismantling the Adventist foundations of truth in order to rebuild Adventism in their own image. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Or is there?

http://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2018/9/12/ncc-leaders-rebuff-two-constituency-motions-from-sac-central-church

Larry Kirkpatrick wrote in the reader comments:
My conference president was right when I accepted the call to go serve in California for eight years in 2001. He said they were sending me "into the mission field."

The Pacific Union should be redesignated a union mission and leaders replaced by GC-appointed leaders until the union recovers to where it is a Seventh-day Adventist entity again. Formally voted letters seeking such GC action could be sent from NCC churches to the GC executive committee.

September 15, 2018

While there may be things that we need to question on both sides, don't forget that the Folcrum7 people, including Larry Kirkpatrick are just carrying on the torch of the people who started opposing Jones and Wagner, and the elderly Mrs. White calling her an apostate, willing to share her testimonies to others to push their views, but saw her sharp testimonies to them as coming not from God but people who were polluting Mrs. White's thoughts against them, and whom A. G. Daniels feared would destroy the church.

September 15, 2018

I have read the material on the Fulcrum 7 website as posted by Photodude. In this post, I will not comment on the issue of female ordination. Perhaps I will comment later? I will comment on the issue with the Chico congregation. I have concerns as to two aspects of this issue:

1) Mark Woodson in a cited letter, clearly states that the NCC has taken action on the issue with the Chico congregation and indicates that it continues to consider that situation. I will suggest that we should trust our leaders. We should trust that what Mark Woodson has said is true. The Chico situation was considered and action was taken. Yes, human leaders are human and not always correct. But, no person should be subject to continued trials simply because someone does not believe that a right decision was made. In trusting our leaders, we do not have to know every aspect of the case.

2) I take very seriously the statement that action has been taken. IOW, one might say that there has been a disciplinary trial and action has been taken. I do not believe that the facts of such trials and the disciplinary action taken should be published to inform the millions of SDA members around the world. I do not believe the every SDA member needs to know every fact and every disciplinary action taken in cases where it is alleged that there is misconduct on the part of a denominational employee. The NCC has made available on a limited basis additional facts about this situation that are not generally known. I am aware of these facts. I do not believe that the Adventist world at large needs to know of those facts. In addition, the Chico situation has resulted in a significant action. I do not believe that persons involved in such an action need to be further humiliated by publishing such to the world at large. Folks, enough is enough. Discipline has been taken. If such was inappropriate, let us leave it with God. Once a person has been tried, that should be enough. One should not be subject to continued trials that never stop, simply because someone does not think that a desired decision was made.

September 15, 2018

42 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

LK doesnt carry any "torch" for anything good

I am somewhat cautious about this. While I have criticisms of the type of Adventism that LK supports, that aspect is not like Kellogg or Ballenger, the view of Adventism that he represents has been a part of the church. What concerns me is how this group tends not to listen to the rest of the church, uses fear methods to make others distrust the church and avoids the methods of sharing the evidence and allow others to listen, evaluate and make up their own minds.

September 15, 2018

18 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

NCC 'Leaders' Rebuff Two Constituency Motions From Sac Central Church

I believe what we are seeing is a new moral code, conceived in political ambience, and bequeathed to the church as the enrichment and transformation of Adventism. Transformed, yes. Enriched, no. Following the lead of their tumescent Division, most of the NAD Conference & Union leaders are now ambassadors for this new moral paradigm and are willingly dismantling the Adventist foundations of truth in order to rebuild Adventism in their own image. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Or is there?

http://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2018/9/12/ncc-leaders-rebuff-two-constituency-motions-from-sac-central-church

Larry Kirkpatrick wrote in the reader comments:
My conference president was right when I accepted the call to go serve in California for eight years in 2001. He said they were sending me "into the mission field."

The Pacific Union should be redesignated a union mission and leaders replaced by GC-appointed leaders until the union recovers to where it is a Seventh-day Adventist entity again. Formally voted letters seeking such GC action could be sent from NCC churches to the GC executive committee.

Why should we be surprise? The ordination of women is the right thing to do. I do not accept the SDA Manuel. Now EGW said our Manuel should be the Bible and I agree. Look to the Bible on how YAHWEH use both men and women to preach HIS Gospel.

The Bible said that homosexual is abomination and Rom Chapter 1 makes it plain. We must obey YAHWEH WORD period! Hate the sin but love the sinner. We cannot baptize anyone who is not married, so how can be baptize anyone who is still participating is something that the Bible preach against? However, I will say it again out loud, SDA is falling and a remnant will come out and finish the work. The Bible says it and that's enough for me! Also EGW saw it in her first vision!

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

September 20, 2018

Cardinal Müller: “Corruption of doctrine always brings with it the corruption of morals”

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/09/19/cardinal-muller-corruption-of-doctrine-always-brings-with-it-the-corruption-of-morals/

September 20, 2018

On 9/15/2018 at 12:57 AM, Kevin H said:

While there may be things that we need to question on both sides, don't forget that the Folcrum7 people, including Larry Kirkpatrick are just carrying on the torch of the people who started opposing Jones and Wagner, and the elderly Mrs. White calling her an apostate, willing to share her testimonies to others to push their views, but saw her sharp testimonies to them as coming not from God but people who were polluting Mrs. White's thoughts against them, and whom A. G. Daniels feared would destroy the church.

Larry Kirkpatrick as best as I know is not one of the Fulcrum7 people. And when I quoted him, it was from out of the readers comments.

However, I do think it would be best to state just how Larry Kirkpatrick is carrying on the torch and how he even opposes Jones, Waggoner, and EGW.

Also, if you are going to bring up a specific general conference which seems to be disagreeable to you, note how it is just so. Just noting the year of a general conference doesn't help much.

It also would help to know just how AG Daniells felt EGW was being polluted by those around her. That is a pretty serious charge to say that someone in EGWs place was deceived.

September 20, 2018

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

so what "torch" does he carry?

I believe Kevin H first used the term "torch" in this thread.

September 21, 2018

B/W Photodude: First a minor correction, I did not say "It also would help to know just how AG Daniells felt EGW was being polluted by those around her." However in those letters I read A. G. Daniels was one of those the letters accused of polluting Mrs. White's mind against the ministers who got those sharp testimonies from her.

I have been hesitant to name names; however I have from time to time.

Once again, when I was working on my masters at Andrews in Old Testament and the life and writings of Mrs. White, besides my study for classes I would from time to time just pick out a folder at random in the White estate and read them. Although I picked them at what ever sounded like an interesting topic at the time, I found myself frequently reading correspondence between either Mrs. White or Willie to a set of pastors. Since the letters kept covering a lot of the same information and since 2 or 3 of the pastors had last names that started with the letter "W" I first thought that it was all the same pastor. I got to a point where I'd start to read a letter and would say "Here is another letter to Pastor W again" but occasionally was surprised when I got to the end and it had a different name that did not start with a "W" then realized that even with the ""W" that there were 2 or 3 different "Pastor W's" but who still was part of this same school of thought.

The letters from Ellen or Willie basically kept telling them that despite their massive quoting of Mrs. White's writings, that they did not understand her message and that she was in disagreement with their message. Sometimes she or Willie would state what visions did and did not do for her, how she wanted her writings to be used and how they were abusing her writings. They were accused of using her quotes to try to make it look like there was divine authority for what they were teaching so that they could force their views on to the people.

The letters that they wrote back basically were friendlier if they were written to Ellen, and a bit less friendly if written to Willie (who they often compared to Samuel's sons and to Nadab and Abihu). They would try to argue that Mrs. White's or Willie's letter does not apply to them. They would defend themselves saying that they were only faithfully following what she had written, and often comments such as if people like Willie, or A. G. Daniels, or W. W. Prescott (the main three they would mention, but sometimes others or un-named others) were not polluting her mind towards them she would have never written them those letters. They would insist that they were indeed using her writings correctly and that if she had her facts straight she would not have written those letters but would have rather joined them in their ministry and fully embrace their message.

So this was the basic correspondence that I kept coming across in the White estate vault. If I could go back in time I would have done a paper on these instead of just read them. But while I occasionally met someone who was teaching what those letters were teaching, due to us looking at different subgroups at Atlantic Union College, and at Campmeeting a couple from Union College, the Neals (or Neils?) the wife's name was Beatrice. Anyway they had a series on how the truth of Seventh-day Adventism has been ripped approximately in half by two groups, one group taking approximately half the truth the other group taking approximately the other half of the truth, and how they were using these portions of the truth against the rest of the truth. One extreme was Desmond Ford and those who thought like him. The other extreme was the ideas that you see in say Pastor Kirkpatrick's writings and Fulcrum 7. And there was also the writings of A. LeRoy Moore who also pointed out how the two groups were dividing the truth between them. But I thought that this group was a lot smaller than they turned out to be, and I thought that all of our colleges taught like AUC and Union College (and A. LeRoy Moore) giving a more complete message than those half truths that were being used against each other in the Ford camp and the conservative camp. I understood from this background, including the letters I read between the pastors of the one group and Mrs. White, that their views were equally as dangerous as Desmond Ford's views only to the other extreme. I thought that this conservative camp was more from the 1800s and was fizzling out by the time I was in college in the late 1970s to 1980s.

Now, besides these letters, in the White Estate vault I also came across flyers from the early 1900s that were circulating around as we see flyers and letters today. These were accusing Mrs. White of aposticy. The three major complaints was because she had accepted the heresy of the trinity, that she did not see every word in her writings as dictated directly from God in an absolutely infallible manner, and that she was opposing the truth about inspiration as taught in the pamphlets "The Fundamentals" that in attacking Fundamentalism, she was siding with the liberal scholars in their attacks on the scriptures. The third point that kept coming up was that she was critical of these faithful ministers who were using her messages from God faithfully (the ones she wrote the above letters to). There were other ideas too but were all sub issues from these 3 major topics. Some of these flyers said that it was others (one accused Prescott) of mixing trinitarian doctrine in to her writings, and that when she discovered what people were doing she did not correct her writings but stated that she indeed had written them, and became a trinitarian to go in harmony with those writings. A couple of these speculated that a Jesuit spy had gotten into her inner circle and was influencing her along these lines. One even suggested that she had converted to Catholicism and became a Jesuit spy using her former role as a prophet to now spread these heresies from Rome through the pen that at one time delivered messages from God. These pamphlets recommended that if you wanted to know what she wrote that came from God as opposed to what is coming from Willie, Daniels, Prescott or Rome to stop reading her directly and read her as quoted and taught by these same pastors who she wrote the above mentioned letters to.

After Andrews I joined the Army and was stationed at Fort Lewis Washington. Among a number of church members there was a journal that was quite popular titled "Our Firm Foundation". As I read that journal I came across the same details that were in those letters I read at Andrews. Sure enough looking at the footnotes I would over and over again see the footnote mentioning the name of different pastors who received those letters I had read. A couple of years later I was in Loma Linda California where I picked up a book called "With Cloak and Dagger" which was accusing some ideas of coming into the church recently. I found it interesting that these same heresies that they were coming recently into the church happened to be the same ones that these fliers from the early 1900s were accusing Mrs. White as at that time teaching and why you should not read her current writings.

September 21, 2018

Now as to our history, and the passing on of the torch: we find that a number of the names who I have been alluding to above we find were in 1888 united against Jones and Wagner. Then in the early 1900s were strong advocates of Fundamentalism and upset that the trinity was becoming so popular among us. There was a big debate, some friendly (such as between Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell) some not so friendly over Fundamentalism. (Haskell kept trying to convince Mrs. White to accept Fundamentalism and kept telling her how her writings came to be. She would disagree with him and tried to get him to give up Fundamentalism. Despite the frustration in not winning the other to their side, they remained close friends.) There was an uncle and nephew who in 1888 were united in their dislike of Jones and Wagner, but who ended up on the opposite sides of the debate over Fundamentalism.

There was the 1919 Bible conference that Haskell and the pastors who I've been alluring to were quite upset about. And in the 1922 General Conference the Haskell party and the party of the pastors who I've been talking about united together to form a majority to remove Daniels from office, demote Prescott, and while Willie White got to "keep" his job, it was basically stripped of any authority or influence. He could just work with the books and was other wise for all practical purposes fired but allowed to keep coming to his office and receive his pay check. The religion department at Columbia Union College, faithful men, were fired by the church (actually Daniels fired them hoping to ease the pressure that was mounting against him, Prescott and Willie), and there were witch hunts for those who did not accept Fundamentalism. Now the new General Conference President, Elder Spicer, was seen as just as big a heretic as the ones they were throwing out of office in 1922, but unlike Daniels who believed in actively fighting Fundamentalism, Spicer would keep his heresy to himself (and he was a Fundamentalist as far as the scriptures was concerned.)

The Haskell party became the majority view of the church and developed into your typical Adventist. The other pastors's party remained a minority but like I said was popular in say "Our Firm Foundation" journal and the ideas we see today in say Fulcrum 7 and similar groups, and what Pastor Kirkpatrick teaches.

Again, I do see them as being a part of Adventism, and often brings up things the rest of us might overlook. I do not see them as any of those who have left the church. I support them having a voice in our church and I'd be horrified in their voice being stifled. However, I do see them as the ditch on the right as Ford is a ditch on the left. I am uncomfortable with how they divide us up into two groups: those who fully agree with them and Fordites. For a long time Pastor Kirkpatrick and I were on a web discussion group like this one. We would comment on the same posts. I do not remember him once making a comment on any of my posts. I'd often point out that his two sided argument was not right and how there were other subgroups and possibilities besides the two views that he said we were all on either the one side or the other. He had a few times posted a list he had showing the two views of Adventism, his side and ideas that sounded like Ford. I'd directly confront him and show several other subgroups views and other possible applications. He never once acknowledged that information. I hope this helps.

September 21, 2018

16 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Then in the early 1900s were strong advocates of Fundamentalism and upset that the trinity was becoming so popular among us. There was a big debate, some friendly (such as between Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell) some not so friendly over Fundamentalism.

Given that fundamentalism is defined by some as a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. So, how is that bad exactly for a church that historically has been known as the "people of the Bible"?

16 hours ago, Kevin H said:

and what Pastor Kirkpatrick teaches.

For a long time Pastor Kirkpatrick and I were on a web discussion group like this one. We would comment on the same posts. I do not remember him once making a comment on any of my posts.

Understandably, you may not have had to interaction you wished from Kirkpatrick in forums, but what is important is "what do you see as being what Kirkpatrick preaches? Where exactly is he biblicly wrong?"

So, this is the quandry I ponder. With so many ready to convict the "leaders" of heresy from both sides, what is the average Joe Christian who hasn't been able to get to one of the institutions of higher Adventist thought to do to figure out what to believe? This brings us around to my other recent thread I post:

https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/73790-few-there-be-that-find-it/?tab=comments#comment-779704

I still tend to believe few will figure out the true meaning of the Bible by the time that Jesus returns

September 22, 2018

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Do you really want to open that [Pandora's] box?

Enquiring minds want to know!

No cocaine for this hound.

(It is rumored that criminals would spread cocaine on their trail to numb the noses of the blood hounds tracking them and they could no longer track their target.)

September 22, 2018

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Are you saying thats a "rumor" by Larry?

I was only making a comparison to starting an enquiry and "someone" trying to throw me off the trail! Had nothing to do with LK. I called it a rumor as I have often heard this, but did not have time for a full internet search to verify the possibility of it being true.

Danish Jews escaping Nazi deportation to concentration camps in 1943 were smuggled out of Denmark on fishing boats heading towards Sweden. To fend off the Nazi maritime patrols equipped with bloodhounds, scientists developed a concoction of rabbit’s blood and cocaine, distributing it to the captains of the boats. Dogs attracted to the blood were incapable of tracking anything, as their sensory ability was disabled after sniffing the cocaine. The precious cargo aboard the boats remained undetected, enabling them to survive.

https://www.nutralifepet.com/blog/a-dash-of-pepper.html

Now, ... back to the question ... where exactly is Larry Kirkpatrick biblicly wrong?

September 22, 2018

--> Wanderer:

Questions can ease the problem of confusion!

September 22, 2018

On 9/19/2018 at 11:29 PM, The Wanderer said:

The Bible says that a lot of things are an "abomination," and no one is any worse than the next. It is pointless, and un-biblical to single out a specific people group like this, and dont forget whenever your finger is pointing at someone; there are other fingers on the same hand pointing right back at you. God has no more problem with gays than he does a dirty liar. (Im not calling you a liar).

I never said that one is worst then the other, they all equally worst, they all are an abomination to YAHWEH. However, we are dealing with obedience and to follow the example of YAHSHUA, love the sin hate the sinner. We do not accept the sin and embrace wrong doing that is one of the abomination to YAHWEH. If they stop sinning whether they be gay or adultery then and only then should they be baptize! Sexual orientation should not control how we treat anyone but when it comes to following and keep the standard of truth including a liar we must take a stand when baptizing anyone. We become more hung on jewelry and less on those sins that we know are against the Commands of YAHWEH. I never thought you were calling me a liar never!

Blessings!

September 23, 2018

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 7:53 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Given that fundamentalism is defined by some as a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. So, how is that bad exactly for a church that historically has been known as the "people of the Bible"?

Understandably, you may not have had to interaction you wished from Kirkpatrick in forums, but what is important is "what do you see as being what Kirkpatrick preaches? Where exactly is he biblicly wrong?"

So, this is the quandry I ponder. With so many ready to convict the "leaders" of heresy from both sides, what is the average Joe Christian who hasn't been able to get to one of the institutions of higher Adventist thought to do to figure out what to believe? This brings us around to my other recent thread I post:

First I'd like to say that between myself and Larry Kirkpatrick, the difference is probably more in application and methods rather than the basic principles. That may be different from others. The answer to your quandary is to first of all trust in God. God is more interested in a teachable spirit than in who is right or wrong. Are you honestly willing to study and listen to the evidence? All one person can give another is information. We compare that information with our backgrounds and what we already know. The Bible and Mrs. White gives us two ditches we have to worry about, the first represented by the dragon of Revelation 12, Satan and directly demon activity, and his original attack on the law of God. The idea that there is no right and no wrong except for what we preserve as right or wrong with in our own existential experience. The philosophy called "existentialism".

Now our existential experience is important. The ideas of Maslow and his hexarchy of needs and William Glasser's choice theory/reality therapy are called existential psychologies. But what that means is looking at what is important to us. ExistentialISM on the other hand sees the idea of what is important to us as the only authoritive truth. That all truth for you is only inside you, that there is no right or no wrong except for what is right and wrong for you. When we look inside for truth we end up trusting our feelings. This trust in our feelings destroys the will and we become slaves of our feelings. A large number of the lost are going to be lost because they become slaves of fear that God is going to get them, and thus are unable to will to trust in his love for them. The dragon in Revelation 12 is a counterfeit Holy Spirit.

The other ditch is represented by the beast of Revelation 13. The beast is any organized group that we allow to replace Christ in our lives. It is a counterfeit God the Father. As the dragon is symbolic of us looking for truth inside ourselves, the beast is an external power that we submit to. While the beast itself is ANY organization that replaces Christ in our lives, the 7 heads and 7 [sacred] mountains (thus the 7 hills of Rome is too narrow an application) are the 7 periods of someone else ruling over God's people than the son of David: They are Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, the Holy Roman Empire (with Papal supremacy), the deadly wound (a period of no great world empire ruling most of God's people, but a period of independent nations, the crowns are on the horns, not the head) and the deadly wound being healed; another world empire but which is different from others since it is not political and conquest, but the world uniting under the merchants of the earth, or the corporations, in voluntary cooperation and submission.) but which shall ultimately not join together and after a short time of looking like the prophecy of Daniel 2 failed, and a period of peace and prosperity before, yet it being a fragile system where everyone has to cooperate to keep it from falling apart. Everyone will find something in their conscience that they would have to surrender for the good, or else be tempted in wanting to force those who might yield to their conscience to yield to the system, and liberty of conscience is threatened.

The truth is a straight and narrow path through these ditches. These two ditches tend to attract people to one side or the other. Someone who sees the danger in the one side often believe they are safe by yielding to the other. But in God's kingdom the two sides work together. There is a very definite truth, the truth about who God is, his character and the law of self sacrificing love. The members of the trinity exist in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other based on the law of self sacrificing love. But all of us individually are at different locations. We all have different needs assessments, interests, quality world, personalities and situations. The true Holy Spirit works with us where we are, so that we can apply a righteousness by faith relationship with this precious God, based on the law of self sacrificing love to our existential experience.

From this background I can turn specifically to Larry Kirkpatrick, it's late so I'd like to close tonight with what I like about Larry, although as you read the above you may see some of my concerns about him. I like that Larry is within the framework of Adventism. That he and I both hold in one way or another the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists (the 27 and then the 28th were specifically written in a fairly vague way to be more inclusive.) And from this I am assuming that we also hold in common our landmarks:

"The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary."

I am a Seventh-day Adventist because I am in agreement with the landmarks and with in the framework of the 28 fundamental beliefs. Before I move on to further likes and concerns, we see another concern I have of Larry Kirkpatrick here. I fear that he has a specific reading the 28 that clears up the vague language for himself, just as we all should, but I fear that he see's his specific understanding of the 28 as the ONLY correct understanding and that unless we accept his specifics that he sees us as changing the old landmarks. That he is just as imaginary as those who Mrs. White wrote the passage to. I look at these as principles and welcome the vagueness that the 28 were written in to celebrate the inclusiveness of that language. I see room in Adventism for both him and for me. Sadly, I don't see him going beyond his own existential understanding of the 28 and while he may not use these words, that he has a spirit that there is no room to include in true Adventism anyone outside of his specific understanding and application of the 28. He can be quite beastly in wanting to force his specific understanding and application on the rest of us.

Getting back to what I like about him; I like it that we are both more Franciscan/Arminian/ Wesleyan than the more "evangelical" people who tend to be more Augustinian/Lutheran in our approach. I believe in a cause and effect relationship between justification/conversion and sanctification, that our relationship with God does change our lives and that there is a last generation righteousness.

However his understanding of last generation righteousness is based on a tradition that grew in Adventism that I can go into more detail about, but basically the school of thought that has appealed to Larry Kirkpatrick is that the last generation righteousness is a different QUALITY of any generation before. And that people from his approach has a tendency to end up focusing on does and don'ts in trying to reach this quality.

At AUC we spent much time looking at Mrs. White's quotes and she does NOT see the last generation as having a different QUALITY of anyone before, but that she saw a different QUANTITY than ever before. She sees every generation of having some people who have developed a relationship with Jesus where they fully love him (they may even be of a different background where they may not be aware of the word "Jesus" or even aware of the word and that a person of that name lived, but have not yet come to the understanding that Jesus is their precious friend. But they understand that they have a precious friend out there who they love and trust, thus this experience can occur in all cultures and religions). And on the other extreme there are people who have fully hardened their hearts towards Jesus. But most of us are in the middle (I divide it up into 4 groups. Group A. are those who have grown into an unshakable love for Jesus, Group B are those who have accepted him but have not yet reached this unshakeable trust. Group C are those who have not accepted him but who could accept him, and Group D are those who are fully hardened against him.) Every generation has had people in these groups. But in Mrs. White's teachings the final generation has from the increased working of both Satan and the Holy Spirit, everyone from groups B and C will end up in either group A or D. And while self examination is important here, that our major focus is not on the "Do's and Don'ts" but on learning more about the Bible, that learning more about the Bible can teach us more about God, If we use this to learn more about God we fall deeper in love with him and by beholding we become changed.

I will come back later and talk more about how I understand the fight in us between our sinful nature and our attitudes towards the outside world, the role that the investigative judgement plays (although that is touched on in the last sentence of the above paragraph) the nature of Jesus and it's implications, as well as the what Mrs. White said about what visions do and don't do for prophets, as opposed to how I see Larry Kirkpatrick again looking for how tradition teaches how they should be. But I hope that the above gives you some ideas to think about.

October 6, 2018

B/W Photodude. Have you had the chance to read what I wrote? any questions? Any comments? Have not heard from you in a while.

October 6, 2018

When we live by our biblical understanding, in stead of by faith, then our grip in scripture is death grip nothing can pry loose, and this results in fundamentalism. When faith becomes ungrounded in scripture we drift to the notes of our own fallen nature.

It is the power of the Holy Spirit that makes the word a living power in our lives. The danger for us is we can have the bible without the Holy Spirit and we can use the scriptures to express authority that is not the Authority of Christ. And this can seem so correct and right, and we can find our comfort in being so right. The same thing is done with the writings of EG White. Conversely we can be moved to exercise authority believing our personal inspirations to be the moving of God.

when we are secured by nothing but the cross, we will have the balance.

Paul said i am determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified. The power of the cross crucifies our own way, in whatever direction our own way will lead us. It does not help to climb out of one ditch to into the other.

The walk in the way of Christ is not something anyone can spell out for anyone else. it is something only the Holy Spirit can lead each person into individually because our personal errors and our deliverance from them is intimate and completely individual. Yet we can uplift the way of Christ in our personal walk as witnesses, but each person has their own completely personal experience in Christ.

God's work in us it has external and internal aspects that will not contradict

October 29, 2018

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Crying Larry is having a religious field day with this one! I have never seen him so "happy." (Proverbs 25:16)

You really could speak more politely about a brother in the faith. Quite frankly speaking, I have never heard him cry or complain. Read one of his books and found it to be sound.

October 29, 2018

32 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I was being polite!

Sorry, but messing with someone's name in a derogatory fashion isn't polite.

October 29, 2018

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Sorry, but you dont get to play Judge Wapner here.
It is not up to you to say who is "polite" or who is not.

I think I just did! Now, if I valued Kirkpatrick, how would it be ...
if I just let things slide by and didn't say a word for him?

October 30, 2018

We need to be careful in what we say about others. And we have a right to defend people we appreciate. As for my self and brother Kirkpatrick, except for his misunderstanding on the nature of Christ and speculation built on that error, and the idea that ideas are sneaking into the church and he is faithful to the truth, I find that the rest of what he says is fairly sound, the big problem is that he tends to latch on half the truth and uses that against other sound ideas. That he teaches the same ideas that Mrs. White and Willie were quite critical of. But they are not outright errors, but portions of the truth divorced from a more balanced and complete truth. And again his view on the nature of Christ is an outright error.

October 30, 2018

3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

We need to be careful in what we say about others. And we have a right to defend people we appreciate. As for my self and brother Kirkpatrick, except for his misunderstanding on the nature of Christ and speculation built on that error, and the idea that ideas are sneaking into the church and he is faithful to the truth, I find that the rest of what he says is fairly sound, the big problem is that he tends to latch on half the truth and uses that against other sound ideas. That he teaches the same ideas that Mrs. White and Willie were quite critical of. But they are not outright errors, but portions of the truth divorced from a more balanced and complete truth. And again his view on the nature of Christ is an outright error.

Exactly what, to you, is his misunderstanding on the nature of Christ and why is it an outright error?

October 31, 2018

23 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Exactly what, to you, is his misunderstanding on the nature of Christ and why is it an outright error?

It's late and I'm tired I can write a lot here, however if you could order the George Rice recordings from (they use to be called "American Cassette Ministries") from the White Estate he points this out. Sadly we don't have his classroom lectures as he goes into even deeper study than he does for ACM, but he still does a good job on the ACM lectures.

They now call themselves "American Christian ministries. https://www.americanchristianministries.org/
His lectures are at https://www.americanchristianministries.org/index.php/search-by-speaker?s_name=522

George Rice, a graduate of Atlantic Union College with a degree in theology, entered the ministry in Southern New England Conference upon graduation. Further studies included earning an MA from the SDA seminary and a PhD from Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Rice held professorships at Southern Adventist University, Atlantic Union College, and the SDA Seminary at Andrews University. He also served as Associate Director of the White Estate at the General Conference and has since retired in 2008.

November 1, 2018

Kevin what years did he spend at AUC?

Sign In

NCC 'Leaders' Rebuff Two Constituency Motions From Sac Central Church

Recommended Posts

B/W Photodude

Kevin H

Gregory Matthews

Kevin H

stinsonmarri

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

Kevin H

Kevin H

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

stinsonmarri

Kevin H

Kevin H

debbym

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

B/W Photodude

Kevin H

B/W Photodude

Kevin H

phkrause

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity