The Closing of a Texas Church

[B/W Photodude]

I have always since a grade schooler on up been told that someday "members" of the Seventh-day Adventist would become among the most agressive persecutors of God's people. Sadly, it has been happening for some time now and is apparently even being ramped up. Seems the Texas conference has shut down and locked a church, fired the pastor, and seized their funds. As the article described, the pastor of the church believed in the King James Bible, was against women's ordination, and (horror of horrors) was a believer in Last Generation Theology. The article in the link will provide some of the quotes from SOP regarding unfaithful church officials acting as the Texas Conference has done. Seems these actions have gone out in 1200 letters to all the constituents and a constituency meeting is coming May 19. This will be important to keep an eye on as a last days event.

“Northwest was one of the fastest growing churches in [the Dallas-Ft. Worth area],” said Brother D. “We had many Bible studies, baptisms. Now many newly baptized members are so discouraged they don't wanna' come back. They are scattered. They go other places, and they don't feel the same. For me, it's a stumbling block that's gonna' come back to bite us.”

Can anyone see the work of demons in these actions?

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/4/3/the-closing-of-a-texas-church

[Kevin H]

Other extreme from the Desmond Ford issue, equally wrong. If it was right to remove Ford from the ministry it is just as correct to close this church. 

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Other extreme from the Desmond Ford issue, equally wrong.

I do not think it good to just say this pastor was the other extreme. True, he was a KJV person, but that is a minor thing. The WO crowd are likely to be upset, but that was the will of the representative body of the church. As far as the Last Generation issue goes, in my studies I have concluded that this theology is in keeping with EGW, mamy of the other pioneers of the SDA church, and the Bible. The theology just has a name applied. So, pray tell exactly what is at variance with the Bible in the theology of the Last Generation?

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

If it was right to remove Ford from the ministry it is just as correct to close this church. 

Given that this pastor in Texas was into retirement years, and his salary was in part being paid by the local church and apparently he was liked enough to for them to keep him on as pastor, so no he should not  have been removed without good cause and you haven't supplied one other than to accuse him of being the opposite of Ford, which may have been a very good thing.

The church was not built by the conference. It was built by the sacrifice of the local church. And the local church funds were also given thru sacrifice by the local church. For the conference to raid the funds and close down the building leaving many with no place to go was not right.  And it certainly was not good to those new to the church who now will leave and not come back. Satan won on this one.

In every way I have seen this was an evil act by this conference. And I see no reason to change my earlier statement - "someday "members" of the Seventh-day Adventist would become among the most aggressive persecutors of God's people."

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

 

 to accuse him of being the opposite of Ford, which may have been a very good thing.

 

Despite being the father of lies, Satan ultimately does not usually cause blatant lies but he likes to divide the truth in approximately half and use it against the rest of the truth. People tend to be attracted to either the one side or the other and Satan is willing to accommodate them and make them comfortable. 

As Jesus said the truth is straight and narrow, and few people like the straight and narrow, they are so comfortable in one ditch or the other. 

I do have to apologize for not pointing out that my big issue with both Ford and many of the people who believe what you described this group as teaching tend to be quite dogmatic in their heresies demanding the rest of the church to follow suit, which is unscrupulous to take money from the church to have that spirit of grabbing the rest of us by the button hole and making the demands whether it's against the Investigative Judgment like Ford did, or the points of this church. 

I would have a much different opinion of both groups if they would be less dogmatic but were to have a spirit of "I know that Adventism has different views and I will share my understanding but study and listen to our collective understanding of Seventh-day Adventism. Follow what you understand, have listening love for the others. While there will be things different pastors say that you would like, let's not form into major political parties. We should be only a political party of two, you and Jesus. 

[Kevin H]

No, the WO issue is not the WILL of the REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE CHURCH, but a group bulldozing an idea through at the expense of another that has shown a lot of merit. The Holy Spirit works through a lot of honest discussion and with something as popular as this to have worked out a compromise. This bulldozing through is basically telling the Holy Spirit to shut up. The Holy Spirit will not stay where he is rejected. And where the Holy Spirit is not welcome then Satan does not care about our wills and will force his way in among us. 

As for last generation; true Mrs. White does teach it. But her view and their view are very different.  The popular preaching of last generation is very legalistic and mixes Mrs. White with a point that Wesley was wrong on. They are seeing a difference in quality. Mrs. White saw last generation as a difference in quantity.

[JoeMo]

On 4/4/2019 at 7:20 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Seems the Texas conference has shut down and locked a church, fired the pastor, and seized their funds.

This also happened to a church plant in my conference.  Admittedly, that church had departed considerably from the denominational model, and by denominational standards, and the denomination pulled the pastor's credentials and confiscated all the funds the church had in the Conference account.  While I can arguably justify the denomination pulling the church's and pastor's credentials, I cannot justify them confiscating all of that church's financial assets.

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

No, the WO issue is not the WILL of the REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE CHURCH, but a group bulldozing an idea through at the expense of another that has shown a lot of merit. 

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. And it is disingenuous to refer to it as" bulldozing." The General Conference in session is a representative body of delegates from throughout the world. What is becoming clear is that those in disagreement with the General conference decision are as implacable as a bunch of Democrats carrying on about Trump. It does well represent "the spirit of lawlessness."

General Conference in Session Highest Authority—I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body .... God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.—Testimonies for the Church 9:260, 261. – {ChL 1.8}

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

As for last generation; true Mrs. White does teach it. But her view and their view are very different.  The popular preaching of last generation is very legalistic and mixes Mrs. White with a point that Wesley was wrong on. They are seeing a difference in quality. Mrs. White saw last generation as a difference in quantity.

Whenever a group wants to denigrate people following the Bible as best they can, it seems the term "legalistic" gets brought out. I do not see legalism as part of the Last Generation concept. What I do see is that they will be a group who would do anything not to displease God in any way.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Its not like they need the money! Why would the GC even do that? I admit; I know very little of church finances.

It wasn't GC, it was the Texas conference per the article.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Its not like they need the money! Why would the GC even do that? I admit; I know very little of church finances.

The article noted that the conference did it by persuading the outgoing treasurer into surreptitiously sending the churches funds to them. As I read it, the board was unaware until after the fact. I am a little aware of church finances as I am my churches treasurer. I recently had to stop my pastor from having me transfer funds (you can't do that!) without bringing it up to the board first. He tends to be a little bit autocratic and treats the church as his property!

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

so how far should one go before they "qualify" to get the boot? Have you drawn some lines re what you would find "acceptable?" How does the GC draw the line? Certainly, they do not do it impulsively. It usually takes quite some time before they do this kind of thing.

This is a very important question. My response is when they leave the realm of listening love and open discussion to using external control psychology and demands to push their views. 

When we discuss we can point out things. We can defer to other views and encourage people to study and to listen to the different possibilities. There are very, very important points. I will use some examples. I'll start with what I posted about the recent death of Desmond Ford. We all know in part and we prophecy in part. But we forget this. Desmond Ford was a good New Testament scholar for his time, and an outstanding scholar of reformation theology. He knew what Christian writers said about Paul. He knew that Christian writers said about other parts of the Bible. He did not know about the culture of ancient Canaan except for something that may have casually been mentioned by a Christian writer. He never read the Baal myths. He did not know about Egyptian history and culture. He only knew the Bible as interpreted by a Christian context. He stood up at PUC and said "There is no day-year principle in the Bible. "  and everyone blindly accepted this claim. I have a sneaking idea that if I was there that day that I could have walked over to the PUC library and have found on the book shelf a little book "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others 1946 University of Chicago Press. a book that proves that statement of Desmond Ford's as wrong. 

Again Ford did not read that book nor other books in this field. There would have been a big difference between saying "From what I have studied I do not see and understand the day-year theory, but I will defer this to those who have studied the Old Testament and the ancient near east for what they know and find." and announcing "There is no year-day principle in the Bible."

And like with the people at this church. Elder Wilkinson, who wrote the book on the King James Only, his education was in modern language. Not ancient languages, not in Biblical studies. His theology came from his mentor Elder Washburn, but even then it was more of a casual learning instead of s serious study.

I do not like that they call themselves "Historical Adventists". They are ONE version of historical Adventists. I believe that my theological heroes such as A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, Willie White, G. E. Fifield, Lynn H. Wood, were just as much deserving the title of Historic Adventists as the Washburn/Wilkinson camp.

But they all know different parts of the truth.I feel comfortable allowing the different voices their say and our evaluation. I feel uncomfortable when  They all see things and don't see things. They all know in part and prophecy in part. I'm upset when representatives of the part tries to be the total and want to force their view on the rest of us. 

An additional concern I have about the views of this church in Texas. I have read many letters between Mrs. White or Willie and the pastors who developed and taught the views that were being taught in this church. The Whites complained that despite their massive quoting of her writings, that they did not understand her message. The White's complained that they were using her writings to force their views on to the people and the White's protested what they were doing and told them they were wrong. How are we going to deal with what Mrs. White and Willie told them? Are we going to do as some of their followers did in the early 1900s and say that Mrs. White no longer believes that she is a prophet and that she has apostatized and that we should stop reading Mrs. White directly (especially what she wrote since 1888) and only read Mrs. White as quoted by people like Elder Washburn? If Mrs. White said that this view was wrong 115 years ago, what makes them right now? 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

so how far should one go before they "qualify" to get the boot? Have you drawn some lines re what you would find "acceptable?"

For me, I think it's a matter of how one's message is presented as much as the message itself.  I personally hold a lot of the views proposed by guys like Des Ford and Raymond Cotrell; I even talk about some of them here. But I would never preach them in church; and I would be hesitant to teach them in a Sabbath School.  I hold some views that some think are WAY outside of the SDA box.  That doesn't mean my views are right and the church's views are wrong.  My theology has "evolved" over the years.In some ways I am a much more conservative SDA than I was 15 years ago; and in some ways I am more liberal.  Some things about which I used to be dogmatic I now completely reject; and vice-versa.  So I have no right to call myself right and someone else wrong when it comes to most spiritual issues when my position "evolves".  That's one of the reasons I call myself the "Resident Chameleon". I also must have the discretion to keep my opinions to myself in certain company.

That being said, I think the church did Des Ford dirty; and I think the Texas Conference took things too far by confiscating that church's financial assets. 

[B/W Photodude]

It continues in Texas. See the link for updates. The pastor has now been "banned" from speaking anywhere in the Texas conference. 

UPDATE (4/11/19):

I just received this official communiqué via email from the Texas Conference.  Joe Gresham has been banned from speaking anywhere in the Texas Conference, inluding in “companies or groups.”  The Texas Conference officers state, 

“We write today to inform you that Joe Gresham should not be allowed in any pulpits in churches, companies or groups within the Texas Conference. While we cannot go into detail, please be assured that this was a prayerful decision made with counsel.

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/4/3/the-closing-of-a-texas-church

[Kevin H]

I wish that I could sit down and talk with this pastor. The problem is not so much with what he is teaching than that he is taking one aspect of Adventism, using it for Adventism as a whole and excluding the rest of Adventism. 

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/5/2019 at 10:24 PM, JoeMo said:

While I can arguably justify the denomination pulling the church's and pastor's credentials, I cannot justify them confiscating all of that church's financial assets.

Well, I cannot and I know what I am about to say some will not like. The problem around ordination started when the word men and not male was put in the Bible. This started a bag full of errors from the beginning in the Bible! Let's read these verses:

So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE, in THE IMAGE of God created HE him; male and female created HE them. Gen 1:27

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in THE LIKENESS of God made HE him; male and female created HE them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Gen 5:1, 2  KJV

Now, if you read the beginning of these verses, they actually don't make sense! HE made man is that correct? No, it is not correct, YAHWEH created "'âdâm," H120! Now, what does this word means, it means ruddy. But most read a portion of Strong and stop at the word ruddy, which means this being is made with blood! "'Adam," H119 Strong says: "To show blood," all flesh beings flush and show blood in the face. I do not care how dark or lite you are you will blush and show that you have red blood in your body!

YAHWEH created male and female and these two words have to do with producing. They are defined by our sex organs! Read Strong it is there. In Gen Chapter Two, YAHWEH was speaking to both Adams male and female to dress and keep the Garden. Everywhere you see the word man it is Adam and means flesh beings or beings with blood! It was referring to male and female. The word him alone is not in the original Hebrew. Illustration:

took-H3947 (H853) the man,-H120 and put-H5117 him into the garden-H1588

If you look you would see error him into is incorrect and so is man. It should say flesh beings were placed in the Garden! YAHWEH told the flesh beings together not to eat from the tree of good and evil. Here is where most get confused with the structure of the Bible. The Europeans translators did not help with the formation of verses and chapters. This is why many do not understand that the Bible gives summations a lot and then go back and break things down. Ministers know and are aware of these techniques especially Biblical historians. So now YAHWEH shows that the male adam was made first and Gen 2:18 explain in detail that he was made alone at that particular time.

The male was bought all of the animals who he named! Men today would like to believe that this was done to make male over female! It was not and the Bible tells why because the male could see that all of the animals had both male and female. YAHWEH actually did this so the male would appreciate his helpmate who would be shortly created on the very same day. But that is not the mystery that I will show. For the very first time, YAHWEH used another word called 'âdâm-H121 and not 'âdâm-H120 or 119? Gen 2:19 Now, just like man is wrong so is woman wrong because the words are "'ishshâh  nâshı̂ym," that means female wife! Adam-H121 said that she would be properly addressed as my female wife!

Now, Chapter Five actually gives why Hebrew 121 is used. Male and Female created HE them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, H121in the day when they were created. H121 became both of their names; H 119 and H120 explains they were made to be flesh beings male and female and then YAHSHUA named them together H121 Adam. They were both rulers of the earth. There were no king or queen that was done by male ego overtime! The male Adam gave the female Adam a love name call Eve which means she would be the mother of all children because she was the original child bearer.

Here comes the great untruth:

 Unto the woman HE said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:16

I cannot for the life of me see how the male would think that mean all female. It did not! The KJV nicely used the word husband and then used the word woman instead of the male flesh beings wife. They were married, and only her desire would be to her husband and he (it did not them or all male) now will rule her! Where on earth did men read that all male were to rule all female? That's the problem and YAHSHUA proved it with Miriam, Deborah, Zipporah, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, Mary, Mary Magdalene and more. Some females became apostles and preached. This is what is wrong with SDA and why it is falling. The Bible never called or used that name, YAHSHUA said a remnant of the female seed because we would get hung up being bias! Male beings think they only should be anointed, well guess what when did they become a deity? The anointed is by THE HOLY SPIRIT and I am glad. It is sad that we do not respect what YAHSHUA created. I hope you will see that we are equal and will finish the work together, male and female both anointed to preach!

Happy Sabbath and blessings!

[R. G. White]

While, at first glance, the actions of the Texas Conference may seem to have been rather extreme, I think we'll need to hear the whole story before passing judgment. Promoting the KJV may appear to be a small thing. However, if the basis for this promoting is false information, and the pastor in question is making a big deal out of it, then it seems to me that this could be rather pernicious. Combine this with a blasphemous heresy on the human nature of Christ, with all of its legalism, and a legalistic view of last generation theology, and we could conceivably be looking at a full-blown apostasy here.

To allude to a certain Scripture, be careful what you call a conspiracy.

[B/W Photodude]

8 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

a legalistic view of last generation theology, 

As i study last generation theology, I am mystified by the frequent reference to it as legalistic. I do not see legalism anywhere in there. 

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

As i study last generation theology, I am mystified by the frequent reference to it as legalistic. I do not see legalism anywhere in there. 

That would probably depend on how it was presented. We must never lose sight of our helpless dependence on divine grace. Nor can we ever adopt any suggestion, however subtle, that we can pull ourselves up by our own boot straps, so to speak. Yes, we are to work as if everything depended on our own efforts, but we must also understand that only God is due the glory for the results, results that only His grace could achieve.

[R. G. White]

On 4/5/2019 at 12:50 AM, Kevin H said:

Other extreme from the Desmond Ford issue, equally wrong. If it was right to remove Ford from the ministry it is just as correct to close this church. 

I agree. In case no one remembers, this is the Robert Brinsmead doctrine from the 1950s and 1960s.

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, R. G. White said:

I agree. In case no one remembers, this is the Robert Brinsmead doctrine from the 1950s and 1960s.

Yes. What is sad about Brinsmead is he is like the story of the 6 blind men and the elephant.  One touches the leg and thinks an elephant is like a tree, another the body and thinks that the elephant is like a wall, a third touches the trunk and think it's like a snake, the fourth touches the tusk and think it's like a spear, the fifth touches the ear and think the elephant is like a fan the 6th touched the tail and thinks the elephant is like a rope and they leave arguing  their 6 views. 

So with Brinsmead he kept finding one aspect of Adventism and would think his current discovery is the church and Christianity as a WHOLE recanting his previous views, and finally he walks away believing that there is no such thing as an elephant. 

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

As i study last generation theology, I am mystified by the frequent reference to it as legalistic. I do not see legalism anywhere in there. 

B/W You have asked me a few times about the difference between Mrs. White's and the Bible's teaching about the last generation and the counterfeit last generation theology that you say sounds good to you. Despite my frequent reply's you act like some of those drive by posters who ask a question and move on.  

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Yes. What is sad about Brinsmead is he is like the story of the 6 blind men and the elephant.  One touches the leg and thinks an elephant is like a tree, another the body and thinks that the elephant is like a wall, a third touches the trunk and think it's like a snake, the fourth touches the tusk and think it's like a spear, the fifth touches the ear and think the elephant is like a fan the 6th touched the tail and thinks the elephant is like a rope and they leave arguing  their 6 views. 

So with Brinsmead he kept finding one aspect of Adventism and would think his current discovery is the church and Christianity as a WHOLE recanting his previous views, and finally he walks away believing that there is no such thing as an elephant. 

I do know that he recanted his views around 1970, but I believe this was his original position, the one that got him a following:  The Sanctuary Awakening Fellowship. If they could be perfect enough, they might get their final atonement at any time. My father was in the ministry, countering this thing, so I remember a few of the particulars although I was very young.

Does the church need a sanctuary awakening? Probably. Is this it? Absolutely not. We are never going to get ourselves anywhere by making Jesus out to have been sinful in His human nature.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

B/W You have asked me a few times about the difference between Mrs. White's and the Bible's teaching about the last generation and the counterfeit last generation theology that you say sounds good to you. Despite my frequent reply's you act like some of those drive by posters who ask a question and move on.  

Perhaps without writing it all over again, you can put a link to the posting which did that. I have looked and do not see it.

[Kevin H]

I don't remember where it was, and for a while I was looking for your reply but it never came. 

Anyway in a nutshell, the popular last generation movement is a mixture of some of what Mrs. White says (with a rejection of other things she said) and mixing that with something that John Wesley said. While John Wesley said a lot of good things and is light-years beyond Luther, not everything he said was perfect and this was probably one of the worst things he said. He speculated that there was a higher form of Sanctification than anything that he had written about or experienced, and he never knew of anyone who experienced it but he theorized that he was out there. 

There has been two groups that I'm aware of who has grabbed Wesley's speculation and ran with it. One group is the Pentecostals who say that the speaking in tongues is that level of Sanctification that Wesley theorized existed. Another group are Seventh-day Adventists who are looking for the last generation of reaching that level, that it is a level that never existed before and that the last generation was to have a different QUALITY of perfection than anyone else in human history. And they tend to have a long list of dos and don'ts that this last generation will have and they struggle to climb this dos and don't list and they have a very cookie cutter list of perfection.  From our pre-trinitarian days there was a seeing Jesus as having the sinful nature and gaining at least close if not the only one before the last generation to have reached that level of perfection. And they being westerners read into the word "Perfection" the view of perfection from the pagan Greek philosophers. Something very ridged. 

As I said they take part of what Mrs. White says and ignore other things she says about it.  Mrs. White differs in that she DOES NOT SEE THE LAST GENERATION AS HAVING A DIFFERENT QUALITY than ever before. She sees the perfection in the last generation as a different QUANTITY then ever before. 

Mrs. White sees people from all ages as at different levels in their spiritual growth that runs the bell curve from those who have come to completely and totally trust in God that there is no way that their faith can be shaken and runs the gamete to the unpardonable sin where there is so complete rejection of God that nothing can shake their unbelief and rebellion with most of us someplace in between. Some of our leaders have pointed out that her description of perfection sounds a lot like descriptions of John Wesley. Rather than seeing a level of perfection way above people like Wesley, she saw perfection in people like Wesley. She saw people in every generation who has reached perfection, and she did not see it as cookie cutter of reaching all our dos and don'ts, but just a total trust in Jesus that can withstand anything, and that we may not recognize them as having reached perfection because they are from different backgrounds and cultures and might not be doing everything we think a believer should be doing, but their works are perfect for their state of growth and experience, but they totally trust in God  just as Wesley faced many hardships, stoneings being beaten up personal hardships but would continue to move on sharing his love for Jesus. Despite that fact that this had not been discovered in her day,, Mrs. White rejects the ridged Greek view of perfection and goes for the eastern and especially Hebrew view of Perfection (see Boman's monumental work on the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought) where something is perfect for where it currently is in it's state of growth.  

Mrs. White sees that with the increased work of the Holy Spirit and increased work of the demonic that the events of the last days will either make the members of the last generation kind and selfless willing to help others who are suffering to suffer less even if it means we must suffer more, or else so selfish and controlling that they only live for themselves. That there are only those who completely trust in Jesus or those who commit the unpardonable sin, but while in history there were only a few people at the two extremes and most of us in the middle, at the last generation there are larger numbers in the extremes and no one in between.  

B/W, do you see the difference between the two views?

[R. G. White]

12 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I don't remember where it was, and for a while I was looking for your reply but it never came. 

Anyway in a nutshell, the popular last generation movement is a mixture of some of what Mrs. White says (with a rejection of other things she said) and mixing that with something that John Wesley said. While John Wesley said a lot of good things and is light-years beyond Luther, not everything he said was perfect and this was probably one of the worst things he said. He speculated that there was a higher form of Sanctification than anything that he had written about or experienced, and he never knew of anyone who experienced it but he theorized that he was out there. 

There has been two groups that I'm aware of who has grabbed Wesley's speculation and ran with it. One group is the Pentecostals who say that the speaking in tongues is that level of Sanctification that Wesley theorized existed. Another group are Seventh-day Adventists who are looking for the last generation of reaching that level, that it is a level that never existed before and that the last generation was to have a different QUALITY of perfection than anyone else in human history. And they tend to have a long list of dos and don'ts that this last generation will have and they struggle to climb this dos and don't list and they have a very cookie cutter list of perfection.  From our pre-trinitarian days there was a seeing Jesus as having the sinful nature and gaining at least close if not the only one before the last generation to have reached that level of perfection. And they being westerners read into the word "Perfection" the view of perfection from the pagan Greek philosophers. Something very ridged. 

As I said they take part of what Mrs. White says and ignore other things she says about it.  Mrs. White differs in that she DOES NOT SEE THE LAST GENERATION AS HAVING A DIFFERENT QUALITY than ever before. She sees the perfection in the last generation as a different QUANTITY then ever before. 

Mrs. White sees people from all ages as at different levels in their spiritual growth that runs the bell curve from those who have come to completely and totally trust in God that there is no way that their faith can be shaken and runs the gamete to the unpardonable sin where there is so complete rejection of God that nothing can shake their unbelief and rebellion with most of us someplace in between. Some of our leaders have pointed out that her description of perfection sounds a lot like descriptions of John Wesley. Rather than seeing a level of perfection way above people like Wesley, she saw perfection in people like Wesley. She saw people in every generation who has reached perfection, and she did not see it as cookie cutter of reaching all our dos and don'ts, but just a total trust in Jesus that can withstand anything, and that we may not recognize them as having reached perfection because they are from different backgrounds and cultures and might not be doing everything we think a believer should be doing, but their works are perfect for their state of growth and experience, but they totally trust in God  just as Wesley faced many hardships, stoneings being beaten up personal hardships but would continue to move on sharing his love for Jesus. Despite that fact that this had not been discovered in her day,, Mrs. White rejects the ridged Greek view of perfection and goes for the eastern and especially Hebrew view of Perfection (see Boman's monumental work on the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought) where something is perfect for where it currently is in it's state of growth.  

Mrs. White sees that with the increased work of the Holy Spirit and increased work of the demonic that the events of the last days will either make the members of the last generation kind and selfless willing to help others who are suffering to suffer less even if it means we must suffer more, or else so selfish and controlling that they only live for themselves. That there are only those who completely trust in Jesus or those who commit the unpardonable sin, but while in history there were only a few people at the two extremes and most of us in the middle, at the last generation there are larger numbers in the extremes and no one in between.  

B/W, do you see the difference between the two views?

Nicely said, brother. I seem to recall Mrs. White describing "Christian perfection" (notice the qualifier) as that state where the impulse to bless others springs constantly from within. I believe it is a biblical view that God has predestined every believer to reach that state, now in this life, conformed to the image of His Son. If we don't have the faith to take hold of this promise, it could be argued that we are not really believers at all. It's all by the power of God's grace, combined with our effort. Why would it also be dependent on our own efforts? Otherwise, it would probably violate our free will. We've got to be wholeheartedly with the program, but only God can perfect our Christian character, and only He knows how and when that is accomplished.

Besides the inherently blasphemous nature of the "sinful Christ" heresy, it tends to make us our own saviours, in a kind of competition with Christ (as in, "He can't have had any kind of advantage over us"), rather than in reliance on Him and on His righteousness alone.

[Kevin H]

On 4/28/2019 at 8:00 AM, B/W Photodude said:

Perhaps without writing it all over again, you can put a link to the posting which did that. I have looked and do not see it.

B/W Photodude, I hope you are ok, have not seen your posts for a while and I again wrote about the difference between the last generation view that you find with say the Fulcrum7 in contrast to the view you find in Mrs. White. I've written a few times to answer the questions, you've asked me a few times, but then no comments from you on what I shared with you.