Showing posts with label Historic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Donald Trump sweeps to victory in historic upset
By Marisa Schultz, Daniel Halper and Bob Fredericks
November 9, 2016 | 2:33am | Updated
Photo: Getty Images
Donald Trump scored a stunning and historic upset victory in the presidential election Wednesday morning, once again defying predictions and winning key battleground states to capture the White House.
Trump supporters rejoice as election swings to trump
Giddy supporters at the New York Hilton — who were sullen just hours earlier — erupted in cheers as the GOP nominee closed in on victory, chanting, “President Trump,” “Drain the Swamp,” and “Lock her up!” about Hillary Clinton.
The celebration grew wilder still when TV monitors showed people crying at Clinton’s party at the Jacob Javits Center.
Ed Rollins, who ran Trump’s Great America Super PAC, basked in the victory.
“We won the presidency, the Senate and House. When’s the last time that happened?” Rollins told The Post. “The polls were bad! Trump is going to be president. He’s won this thing. He caught the wave of public discontent and rode it. Washington has to be stunned.”
“I’m feeling great,” Trump ally Rudy Giuliani told The Post as he strode into the party.
“If I can think of an analogous election, it would have to be Andrew Jackson. This is the people revolting against the Republican establishment,” he said.
Supporters celebrate as they watch election returns for Donald Trump at the Colorado Republican election night party Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, in Greenwood Village, Colo.Photo: AP
Still, Clinton’s campaign announced early Wednesday that it would not concede.
But in a tweet to supporters, the former secretary of state seemed resigned to what had to be a heartbreaking upset after working for the former first lady — who had worked for years to become the first female president in the nation’s 240-year history.
“Whatever happens tonight, thank you for everything,” she wrote.
Supporters were equally downbeat.
Lena Dunham, the outspoken Clinton backer and “Girls” actress, was asked to comment about the election results as she left a Clinton VIP party at around 10:45 p.m.
“I’m sorry, not tonight,” Dunham told The Post.
InsideGov | Graphiq
“Somewhere, [Vladimir] Putin is laughing manically,” another Clinton supporter said as others broke down in tears.
Neera Tanden, a Clinton confidante whose blunt e-mails were among those released by WikiLeaks, was spotted leaving the Javits Center at 11:05 pm.
Asked about the results, Tanden said: “I’ve been through a lot of battles with her, and I’ve seen her come out strong.”
Asked about gloomy numbers coming out of Michigan and Wisconsin — blue states that are key to Clinton’s survival — Tanden said, “We’ll see how it goes.”
”I honestly feel a piece of my soul died,” said Katie Larson, a 25-year-old musician living in Manhattan. “We lost a piece of our dignity as Americans.”
Reaction around the nation and the globe was muted as people digested the shocking upset.
“After Brexit and this election, everything is possible from now on. A world collapsing before our eyes. Dizzying,” tweeted Gerard Araud, French ambassador to the US.
Chinese state media described the election as the embodiment of America’s democracy in crisis in contrast to China’s stability under authoritarian rule.
The state-run Xinhua News Agency said the campaign highlighted that “the majority of Americans are rebelling against the US’s political class and financial elites.”
Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra said a win by Trump in the US election would stall recent moves to improve relations between the countries.
She said the “more closed, isolationist and xenophobic” model represented by the Trump would have a negative impact on the world and relations with Latin America.
Silicon Valley bigs also freaked out.
Still, Clinton’s campaign announced early Wednesday that it would not concede.
But in a tweet to supporters, the former secretary of state seemed resigned to what had to be a heartbreaking upset after working for the former first lady — who had worked for years to become the first female president in the nation’s 240-year history.
“Whatever happens tonight, thank you for everything,” she wrote.
Supporters were equally downbeat.
Lena Dunham, the outspoken Clinton backer and “Girls” actress, was asked to comment about the election results as she left a Clinton VIP party at around 10:45 p.m.
“I’m sorry, not tonight,” Dunham told The Post.
InsideGov | Graphiq
“Somewhere, [Vladimir] Putin is laughing manically,” another Clinton supporter said as others broke down in tears.
Neera Tanden, a Clinton confidante whose blunt e-mails were among those released by WikiLeaks, was spotted leaving the Javits Center at 11:05 pm.
Asked about the results, Tanden said: “I’ve been through a lot of battles with her, and I’ve seen her come out strong.”
Asked about gloomy numbers coming out of Michigan and Wisconsin — blue states that are key to Clinton’s survival — Tanden said, “We’ll see how it goes.”
”I honestly feel a piece of my soul died,” said Katie Larson, a 25-year-old musician living in Manhattan. “We lost a piece of our dignity as Americans.”
Reaction around the nation and the globe was muted as people digested the shocking upset.
“After Brexit and this election, everything is possible from now on. A world collapsing before our eyes. Dizzying,” tweeted Gerard Araud, French ambassador to the US.
Chinese state media described the election as the embodiment of America’s democracy in crisis in contrast to China’s stability under authoritarian rule.
The state-run Xinhua News Agency said the campaign highlighted that “the majority of Americans are rebelling against the US’s political class and financial elites.”
Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra said a win by Trump in the US election would stall recent moves to improve relations between the countries.
She said the “more closed, isolationist and xenophobic” model represented by the Trump would have a negative impact on the world and relations with Latin America.
Silicon Valley bigs also freaked out.
Dejected supporters at a rally for Hillary outside the Javits Center in New York City on Tuesday night.Photo: Tamara Beckwith
Shervin Pishevar, co-founder of the venture capital company Sherpa Capital, which helped fund Uber, Airbnb and Slack, tweeted that if Trump wins, he would start funding a campaign to allow California to secede from the US and form a new country.
Hollywood lefties were also slack-jawed and angry.
“Xanax,” Mia Farrow tweeted.
“Putin’s gonna win this thing,” Sarah Silverman wrote on Twitter.
Before the polls closed, betting markets and national polls all gave Clinton the edge.
But as the results dripped in, Trump’s prediction earlier in the day took new prominence.
“I think a lot of the polls are phony,” he had said.
The mood among Team Trump had soured after Clinton widened her lead in the polls following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement Sunday that he would not be pursuing criminal charges over her email server.
SEE ALSO
Hillary's election party turns seriously depressing
But the candidate remained upbeat.
“I will be watching the election results from Trump Tower in Manhattan with my family and friends. Very exciting!” Trump tweeted.
By 11 p.m., sales at the New York Hilton party’s cash bar were brisk.
What began as a morose gathering — and nothing like a victory party — slowly turned joyous as Trump’s biggest fans began to sense that victory was in reach.
It’s looking “good” for Trump, George W. Bush’s former strategist Mark McKinnon said inside the filled ballroom.
“I think this is really a significant movement,” added Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), one of Trump’s biggest boosters.
Meanwhile, stock futures cratered, plunging 700 points at one point, and bonds rallied as the outcome of the election remained unclear.
Additional reporting by Carl Campanile and Post Wire Services
Source
Shervin Pishevar, co-founder of the venture capital company Sherpa Capital, which helped fund Uber, Airbnb and Slack, tweeted that if Trump wins, he would start funding a campaign to allow California to secede from the US and form a new country.
Hollywood lefties were also slack-jawed and angry.
“Xanax,” Mia Farrow tweeted.
“Putin’s gonna win this thing,” Sarah Silverman wrote on Twitter.
Before the polls closed, betting markets and national polls all gave Clinton the edge.
But as the results dripped in, Trump’s prediction earlier in the day took new prominence.
“I think a lot of the polls are phony,” he had said.
The mood among Team Trump had soured after Clinton widened her lead in the polls following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement Sunday that he would not be pursuing criminal charges over her email server.
SEE ALSO
Hillary's election party turns seriously depressing
But the candidate remained upbeat.
“I will be watching the election results from Trump Tower in Manhattan with my family and friends. Very exciting!” Trump tweeted.
By 11 p.m., sales at the New York Hilton party’s cash bar were brisk.
What began as a morose gathering — and nothing like a victory party — slowly turned joyous as Trump’s biggest fans began to sense that victory was in reach.
It’s looking “good” for Trump, George W. Bush’s former strategist Mark McKinnon said inside the filled ballroom.
“I think this is really a significant movement,” added Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), one of Trump’s biggest boosters.
Meanwhile, stock futures cratered, plunging 700 points at one point, and bonds rallied as the outcome of the election remained unclear.
Additional reporting by Carl Campanile and Post Wire Services
Source
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Toublers of Israel
TROUBLERS OF ISRAEL
DATE OF PUBLICATION: MAY 2002
I did not want to write about the ____ situation. I still don't. Some things you do not want to touch, for even getting near them makes you feel unclean.
We live in a time when everything is right. Anything goes, especially standards. Do anything you want. The only thing wrong is to say that something is. There are no rules, no standards. Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow well do it again, and there's no one to stop us. At least, they better not try. Besides, nearly everyone's doing it anyway. Don't risk being different; and, above all, don't say that something might not be right.
Kill the babies and protest if the government tries to eliminate the wanton murderers. Be sure to reelect the politicians and protect the big corporations. States should guard the rights of the homosexuals and accept payoffs from the pornographers and gambling industry. Congress had better remember on which side its bread is buttered. Money and friendships count; morality no longer does. That, in a nutshell, is life today in our secular world.
The churches—including our own are not doing much better. Think not that the Catholic bishops are the only ones moving problem pastors instead of firing them. We have been doing it for years.
In the 1980s, the late John Adam (a finance attorney based in Memphis who was the first to uncover the Davenport scandal before the bankruptcy occurred in our Davenport Syndrome;see our Financial Tractbook) learned that, after a church officer in the Alabama-Mississippi Conference had led a young Adventist girl into sin, the conference was planning to transfer him out-of-state so he could carry on his practices elsewhere. When Adam threatened them with full exposure, the conference buckled and discharged the vile minister.
There was the Adventist minister in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California who led his associate pastor, a woman, into sin. In order to hold onto her job, for a time she felt she dared not refuse him. But eventually, under pressure from her own conscience and her husband who knew what was happening, she went to the conference office in the hope of getting the senior pastor fired.
The conference president listened to what she had to say and then fired her!
She went to court over the matter. We have the complete papers here. Fully backing him, the Central California Conference paid all the adulterous senior pastors legal expenses, which included a costly, but persuasive attorney.
The judge ruled that, because both sides acknowledged that the adulterous relation had continued for a time, she could not collect damages for being fired because of what her supervising pastor did.
But that ruling meant that the conference fully acknowledged that he was a practicing adulterer, with a track record of over a year!
As soon as the trial ended, the man was transferred to the Southern California Conference, where he is today senior pastor of a major church, the one with the largest number of (active) homosexuals. They do well together, and the conference is happy because the cozy arrangement increases the number of offerings brought into church coffers.
And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel (1 Kings 18:17)?
Who was the troubler? The one who blew the whistle or the one actively involved in the sordid lowering of standards? Which one was destroying the nation of Israels moral fabric? Which one was trying to save it?
When I started typesetting tracts in the late summer of 1979, as explained in my autobiography (Story of My Life), I only intended to print missionary tracts. But after typesetting sixteen Great Controversy extracts as tracts, five summary ones (now in our Shelter in the Storm, Mark of the Beast, and Final Crisis Foretold) and several other tracts (Out of the Cities, You Can Overcome, etc.), I learned about the Desmond Ford crisis. Aside from discharging him, church leaders were careful to say little in refutation of his errors or in defense of our historic positions. They feared to rock the boat, lest the liberals among us become uncomfortable.
So, five years before Firm Foundation magazine was established, I prepared and sent out over thirty tracts in, what I called, my Firm Foundation Series; all of it was against Fordite errors (see our 320-page New Theology Tractbook).
As the years passed, there were other matters to be discussed, including:
Our college administrators were protecting new theology teachers. And, in October 1984, the General Conference got the Annual Council to pass an academic freedom ruling, permitting our teachers to do pretty much as they pleased (Theological Freedom, WM110).
Our conferences were protecting the new theology pastors who were graduating from our colleges while the North American Division was busy, hailing faithful believers into court in order to destroy their small congregations (see our various Trademark books).
Our General Conference was busily sending personal representatives to the World Council of Churches headquarters, in Geneva (see our Seventh-day Adventist/Vatican Ecumenical Involvement: Book 1: History, 80-pages, and Book 2: Documents), and working out secret agreements.
The notorious secret agreement over keeping quiet about the Sabbath proclamation, which occurred in the late 1990s, was one of the worst (Secret Interchurch Planning Agreement [WM906] and Update on the Secret Interchurch Planning Agreement [WM914]). We are now living with it, and are only beginning to feel the full brunt of its effects. That agreement was one of the causes of the current revolt among our laity in South America (see our explosion tracts). Leadership had carried out so many compromises with Catholicismthat our laymen decided to begin the open evangelism and proclaiming our historic beliefs to the world, teachings which church leaders wanted hidden.
All levels of our denomination have changed because our mores have changed. The Word of God is no longer the authority in the church. We had entered an era of no rules, no morals, no standards. Anything can be done as long as nothing negative is said about leadership. (See pages 3 and 4 for recent examples.)
I did not ask for the job I now have, but I was willing to accept it. Am I now to be quiet? Does not the world need more whistle-blowers rather than less?
There is no one in our nation able to stop the gambling interests. The moral foundations are gone. As far as the legislators are concerned, it is just a matter of who offers the biggest bribe. Nothing can stop the homos. They have the money on their side.
Ellen White predicted that the civilized world would be brought to its knees because Protestantism had thrown out the Ten Commandments. And so it has happened. A terrible condition of things has set in.
There are no longer moral standards, and whistle-blowers are treated like dirt. A similar condition exists in our own denomination. Those of you who have dared to speak up about the growing liberalism in your local church well-know what I am talking about.
If you are a church worker, do as you want; well protect you. And woe be to those who protest. We have a word for them: They are troublemakers and will be dealt with.
Every organization knows that whistle-blowers are a danger to their security and authority. And no organization will blow the whistle on another one. They want to live together in peace. Don't tell what I'm doing wrong, and I wont tell what you're doing wrong.
Yet it is the whistle-blowers who alone are able to slow the crumbling state of affairs in our nation and in our denomination. And even if they do not succeed, at least they did what they should do. It is better to do right and suffer and die for it than to go down to the grave in self-preserving silence.
In our culture today, it takes a crazy man to cry standards when things are sliding downward. Yet that is exactly what is needed. In past ages, people were burned at the stake for doing it. Do not expect roses and back-patting today for telling the truth about what is going on.
And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim (1 Kings 18:18).
Who are the troublers in our church? Those who are keeping the commandments or those who are forsaking them? Those who obey the standards laid down in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy or those who flaunt them and, by their example, lead still others into sin?
.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Seventh-day Adventist Newspaper Ad Sparks Sunday Law Debate
April 28, 2014 1:06 PM EDT
West Palm Beach, FL (PRWEB) April 28, 2014
A two-page, center spread, newspaper advertisement that appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on Sunday, April 27, 2014, pages 12, 13, is stirring up a heated debate on the Biblical Sabbath.
The ad headline reads "Liberty of Conscience Threatened" and predicts that Sunday laws will once again be enforced here in America. The two, full-page ad goes on to describe that the Bible commands us to observe the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
"The ad is part of a nationwide campaign to educate and warn the public that Sunday laws will become more and more increasingly dangerous to religious liberty," says Pastor Raphael Perez of the Eternal Gospel Church, an independent Seventh-day Adventist Church in West Palm Beach, FL that was founded in 1992.
Other ads have appeared in the New York Times, LA Times, USA Today, Miami Herald, and in over 250 daily newspapers according to the Eternal Gospel Church's website.
Pastor Perez believes that church and state will unite in the efforts to save our culture and family structures from completely deteriorating. He claims that a national Sunday law will be offered as a solution by these "interest groups" to combat the ills of society.
"What they don't understand is that in their efforts to 'save' our society, these Sunday laws will actually have a negative social impact because they are a threat to the freedom of conscience," Pastor Perez explains.
The advertisement cites many sources from both the media and from the Bible that seems to suggest that a Sunday law is in the horizon.
"The concern we have is that when the state begins to enforce religious festivals and compels people to observe the first day of the week [Sunday law], this will inevitably lead to discrimination and persecution and will trample the conscience of minority groups," Pastor Perez continues. "Seventh-day Adventists, Sabbatarian Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists are all entitled to equal rights and to impartial protection under the laws of government."
Pastor Raphael Perez, a former Catholic who once attended a Roman Catholic Seminary identifies himself as a "Seventh-day Adventist believer."
One the foundational tenets of the Seventh-day Adventist faith is that its members keep Saturday, the seventh day, as the Biblical Sabbath and not Sunday as do the Protestants and Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church is identified in the ad as the party responsible for the change of the day of worship.
The ad concludes with a one thousand dollar offer to anyone who can produce a Bible verse that states that Jesus or His disciples transferred the solemnity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week.
About the Eternal Gospel Church: The Eternal Gospel Church was founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist Believers, and has been engaged in a world-wide newspaper, radio, and billboard campaign for over 20 years with the goal of teaching people about the present truth for this time. They also have been giving a warning message about the dangers of Sunday laws, the union of church and state, and modern spiritualism.
Eternal Gospel Church
http://www.eternalgospel.com
eternalgospel(at)att(dot)net
1-800-769-2150
Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11800160.htm Something is wrong with this 'original link'.
Source
Search the Newspaper's (The San Francisco Examiner) site for the actual ad on pages 12&13: http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?eid=f08dd265-5d72-4ef9-a808-3f21c9078fcd&skip=true
.
.
.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Elder Ron Spear passed away on Friday, February 28th, 2014
Last week I was informed that Pastor Ron Spear had passed away and I was so saddened by his demise. I first met Elder Spear in 2003 in West Palm Beach. I saw him several times since then in Orlando, Florida, and was so happy when I heard he was retiring in Florida and would support the Eternal Gospel Ministry; However, he eventually returned to Washington state and I never saw him again. He was a longtime faithful servant of the Lord, lead many to Christ, and could recite the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy off the top of his head. I am so fortunate to have known Ron Spear.
Arsenio
P.S. Pastor Ron Spear introduced me to The Sanctified Life by Ellen G. White.
“The Voice of Truth in Perilous Times”
Elder Ron Spear passed away around 3:30AM on Friday, February 28th, 2014, at his home in Washington state.
Memorial Service plans have been made. The Memorial Service date is March 15, 2014 at the Loon Lake Church in Washington state. Please remember Ron's wife, Carmen, and Ron's family in prayer. Download memorial information. Sign Guestbook!
Respectfully yours,
Dean & Blanca Ferrell
Revelation 14:13, "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." -- Sleep in peace brother Ron. Thank you for loving Jesus and sharing His gospel message with so many.
Pastor Ron Spear writes from the state of Washington.
"God brings His people near Him by close, testing trials, by showing them their own weakness and inability, and by teaching them to lean upon Him as their only help and safeguard. Then His object is accomplished. They are prepared to be used in every emergency, to fill important positions of trust, and to accomplish the grand purposes for which their powers were given them. God takes men upon trial; He proves them on the right hand and on the left, and thus they are educated, trained, disciplined. Jesus, our Redeemer, man's representative and head, endured this testing process. He suffered more than we can be called upon to suffer. He bore our infirmities and was in all points tempted as we are. He did not suffer thus on His own account, but because of our sins; and now, relying on the merits of our Overcomer, we may become victors in His name.
God's work of refining and purifying must go on until His servants are so humbled, so dead to self, that, when called into active service, their eye will be single to His glory. He will then accept their efforts; they will not move rashly, from impulse; they will not rush on and imperil the Lord's cause, being slaves to temptations and passions and followers of their own carnal minds set on fire by Satan. Oh, how fearfully is the cause of God marred by man's perverse will and unsubdued temper! How much suffering he brings upon himself by following his own headstrong passions! God brings men over the ground again and again, increasing the pressure until perfect humility and a transformation of character bring them into harmony with Christ and the spirit of heaven, and they are victors over themselves." 4T 8
Source
.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Non Affiliated Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Publishes Controversial Billboards
A self-supporting Seventh-day Adventist pastor recently published two billboards in northwest Michigan that is grabbing the attention of people.
Eternal Gospel Seventh-day Adventist Believer's Billboards
West Palm Beach, FL (PRWEB) March 28, 2014
There are two controversial billboards that have recently been placed in northwest Michigan. One depicts the Virgin Mary and asks if Virgin Mary sightings are real and if the dead can really speak to us. The other describes Saturday as being the true Lord's day and claims that the day was changed to Sunday by the Antichrist. Both billboards offer a free book to those who call the phone number listed: 1-866-7TH-DAY-2.
Pastor Raphael Perez of the Eternal Gospel Church is responsible for the billboards. A look at his website describes his ministry as being founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist believers.
"We have been engaged in a campaign for over 15 years with more than 100 billboards in the major cities and highways across America," says the Florida pastor.
When asked if he thinks his message could be characterized as controversial, he says yes. "Every present truth that God has for His people will always been considered unpopular. And it is no different today," he explains.
Even though Pastor Raphael Perez is not part of the 18 million member Seventh-day Adventist denomination, he claims that the message of his billboards is deep-rooted in Seventh-day Adventist theology.
"Historically, our Seventh-day Adventist pioneers of the 19th Century used to engage in this same work. Sadly, during the last few decades, the leaders of the church have been shying away from this work in order to become more ecumenical," Pastor Perez continues.
Both billboards are located outside of Cadillac, Michigan, one on State Road 115 and the other is on Business Highway 131. Michigan is considered a central point in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The church was founded in Michigan in 1863 during its first world convention. Later their first hospital and college were established there also. The founding fathers of the church, James and Ellen White, are buried in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Pastor Raphael Perez's church was previously known as the Eternal Gospel Seventh-day Adventist Church. But as a result of its straightforward style of evangelism, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the highest governing body of the denomination, sued what they described in federal court as a "hate group" from using the denomination's name. A federal lawsuit was filed in 1999 over trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. The lawsuit ended with a settlement which resulted in the current name of the church - "Eternal Gospel Church, Founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist Believers."
"It is true that my church suspended my membership and even sued me in federal court, but I am still a Seventh-day Adventist believer," says Pastor Raphael Perez when asked about the lawsuit. "The message I believe in and preach is still the same message that the church once taught and still teaches," he continues. "It's not me who has changed. They have changed."
Pastor Perez says that the work of his ministry is supported by people from both within and without the denomination.
About the Eternal Gospel Church: The Eternal Gospel Church was founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist Believers, and has been engaged in a world-wide newspaper, radio, and billboard campaign for over 20 years with the goal of teaching people about the present truth for this time. They also have been giving a warning message about the dangers of Sunday laws, the union of church and state, and modern spiritualism.
Eternal Gospel Church
http://www.eternalgospel.com
1-800-769-2150
Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11711645.htm
Also:... .http://www.wnd.com/markets/news/read/26777094
.
.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Organization and Religion: The Difference 150 Years Makes
Submitted: Mar 28, 2013
By Monte Sahlin
“Organization” was a big issue in 1863 when the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was started and 150 years later it is still a major issue in different ways, but fundamentally the same. Because of the way they had been treated by their various denominations and local congregations when they became part of the Adventist movement through the efforts of William Miller and his allies, early Adventists saw organized religion as a kind of idolatry or apostasy from authentic Christian faith.
Throughout its history, the Adventist Church has been slow to develop rigid organizational rules. The Church Manual was not created until the 1930s and it was originally considered to be largely advisory, not a type of canon law. The official statement of Fundamental Beliefs was not adopted until 1980 and is still in a state of flux, much to the consternation of those who want to see it as a pristine statement of eternal truth.
Today the Adventist movement is increasingly affected by the major religious trend in America; the growing numbers among the population who prefer no religion, although they are not atheists and have a definite interest in spiritual questions. One in five American adults indicated this attitude in the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS), up from about one in 20 when the question was first asked by the GSS in 1972. Those with this view are growing “at a nearly constant rate of 0.6 percentage points per year,” report three noted sociologists of religion in a report published two weeks ago (March 7) by the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues at the University of California.
These data make it possible to project that by 2063, the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Adventist denomination, the majority of Americans will prefer no religion. In fact, a third of young adults have already adopted this position, and it is today the majority view of native-born, white young adults on the Pacific coast and in the Northeast. By the end of the current decade in 2020, the majority of white Americans will likely have moved to this view.
It is important to understand what is meant by “religion.” It is not the same thing as faith or values or ideology. Six out of seven of those who say they prefer no religion also say that they believe in God. There has been little change in this reality over the decades. In fact, historians generally believe that, although survey research had not yet been invented, more Americans were atheists or agnostics in the 19th century than today.
“Religion” is a social construct. It is sometimes more specifically labeled “organized religion,” and this is what large numbers of people have difficulty with. Growing numbers believe that faith is a private matter and reject the social structure that religion places around it.
In some ways this is a uniquely North American issue. The same trend toward private faith is well developed in Europe, but in a different context. Because Europe comes out of a tradition of state religions, faith has taken on the primary form of vast numbers who are nominally part of the established church but do not participate. In many ways Europe is both more secular and more religious than North America. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, are more like the most secular regions of North America, or perhaps a picture of the soon-to-arrive future in North America.
Except for a number of the former Soviet nations and very secular Japan—where ideologies much like a state church crashed and burned—the rest of the world is much more religious than North America. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America religious ferment is booming because there is widespread interest in religion. And the Adventist Church is increasingly defined by this reality as its membership grows rapidly in this context, already containing the overwhelming majority of Adventists.
Half of native-born Seventh-day Adventists in North America are age 60 or older. As the Baby Boomers among the clergy retire, it will soon become true that the majority of the pastors in North America are immigrants or ethnic minorities. The trend toward “no religion” among North Americans is already depleting the Adventist Church, causing significant enrollment declines in Adventist schools. Surveys conducted by the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University show that volunteer ministries in local churches are also in significant decline.
How will Adventist faith and values function in a context where “no religion” becomes the norm? Is our faith dependent on organization for its existence? Or, will new networks of faithful believers emerge as a kind of informal, unorganized expression of what it means to be Adventist? Dr. Samir Selmanovic, an ordained Adventist minister and community activist in New York City, advocates responding to this trend with “disorganized religion.” He is part of an independent congregation, not formally affiliated with the denomination, but without any theological differences nor schismatic purpose. In fact, there are more than 70 local churches in the NYC metro area not affiliated with the denomination and probably about 500 across North America.
Almost all major metropolitan areas in North America now have at least one Adventist group that is a functioning, healthy fellowship of believers, but post-denominational in organization or a local church affiliated with a conference, but largely disengaged from that relationship. These are often the congregations that attract the significant numbers of the next generation. They have no mechanism for seeking publicity and often would rather be unknown than get into conflict with denominational representatives. They are most likely the future face of Adventist faith in North America, alongside vigorous immigrant churches and institutional communities like Collegedale, Tennessee; Berrien Springs, Michigan; and Loma Linda, California; where an attitude somewhat akin to the relationship Europeans have with the state church exists at a local level.
As these trends grow will “organization” become a testing truth for Adventists? There is already a kind of shunning of independent structures. The current discussions about ordination and whether or not there is a need to tighten up the statement on creation in the Fundamental Beliefs document may result in the global south clamping down on the North American need for more latitude. Will that escalate to the point where a proposal will be put forward to make belief in rigid structure a necessary part of being officially Adventist?
If such a proposal becomes a center of debate how will it be greeted by a generation of young adults already heavily influenced by the “no religion” attitude? How would we avoid substituting “organization” for the basic Bible truths that launched our movement; the Second Advent, the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, etc.? In other words, how would we seek to avoid what happened to the church of Paul and Peter and John in the second, third and fourth centuries? I do not believe that anyone intends to get to that point, but there is a slippery slope already under our feet.
“Organization” was a big issue in 1863 when the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was started and 150 years later it is still a major issue in different ways, but fundamentally the same. Because of the way they had been treated by their various denominations and local congregations when they became part of the Adventist movement through the efforts of William Miller and his allies, early Adventists saw organized religion as a kind of idolatry or apostasy from authentic Christian faith.
Throughout its history, the Adventist Church has been slow to develop rigid organizational rules. The Church Manual was not created until the 1930s and it was originally considered to be largely advisory, not a type of canon law. The official statement of Fundamental Beliefs was not adopted until 1980 and is still in a state of flux, much to the consternation of those who want to see it as a pristine statement of eternal truth.
Today the Adventist movement is increasingly affected by the major religious trend in America; the growing numbers among the population who prefer no religion, although they are not atheists and have a definite interest in spiritual questions. One in five American adults indicated this attitude in the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS), up from about one in 20 when the question was first asked by the GSS in 1972. Those with this view are growing “at a nearly constant rate of 0.6 percentage points per year,” report three noted sociologists of religion in a report published two weeks ago (March 7) by the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues at the University of California.
These data make it possible to project that by 2063, the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Adventist denomination, the majority of Americans will prefer no religion. In fact, a third of young adults have already adopted this position, and it is today the majority view of native-born, white young adults on the Pacific coast and in the Northeast. By the end of the current decade in 2020, the majority of white Americans will likely have moved to this view.
It is important to understand what is meant by “religion.” It is not the same thing as faith or values or ideology. Six out of seven of those who say they prefer no religion also say that they believe in God. There has been little change in this reality over the decades. In fact, historians generally believe that, although survey research had not yet been invented, more Americans were atheists or agnostics in the 19th century than today.
“Religion” is a social construct. It is sometimes more specifically labeled “organized religion,” and this is what large numbers of people have difficulty with. Growing numbers believe that faith is a private matter and reject the social structure that religion places around it.
In some ways this is a uniquely North American issue. The same trend toward private faith is well developed in Europe, but in a different context. Because Europe comes out of a tradition of state religions, faith has taken on the primary form of vast numbers who are nominally part of the established church but do not participate. In many ways Europe is both more secular and more religious than North America. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, are more like the most secular regions of North America, or perhaps a picture of the soon-to-arrive future in North America.
Except for a number of the former Soviet nations and very secular Japan—where ideologies much like a state church crashed and burned—the rest of the world is much more religious than North America. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America religious ferment is booming because there is widespread interest in religion. And the Adventist Church is increasingly defined by this reality as its membership grows rapidly in this context, already containing the overwhelming majority of Adventists.
Half of native-born Seventh-day Adventists in North America are age 60 or older. As the Baby Boomers among the clergy retire, it will soon become true that the majority of the pastors in North America are immigrants or ethnic minorities. The trend toward “no religion” among North Americans is already depleting the Adventist Church, causing significant enrollment declines in Adventist schools. Surveys conducted by the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University show that volunteer ministries in local churches are also in significant decline.
How will Adventist faith and values function in a context where “no religion” becomes the norm? Is our faith dependent on organization for its existence? Or, will new networks of faithful believers emerge as a kind of informal, unorganized expression of what it means to be Adventist? Dr. Samir Selmanovic, an ordained Adventist minister and community activist in New York City, advocates responding to this trend with “disorganized religion.” He is part of an independent congregation, not formally affiliated with the denomination, but without any theological differences nor schismatic purpose. In fact, there are more than 70 local churches in the NYC metro area not affiliated with the denomination and probably about 500 across North America.
Almost all major metropolitan areas in North America now have at least one Adventist group that is a functioning, healthy fellowship of believers, but post-denominational in organization or a local church affiliated with a conference, but largely disengaged from that relationship. These are often the congregations that attract the significant numbers of the next generation. They have no mechanism for seeking publicity and often would rather be unknown than get into conflict with denominational representatives. They are most likely the future face of Adventist faith in North America, alongside vigorous immigrant churches and institutional communities like Collegedale, Tennessee; Berrien Springs, Michigan; and Loma Linda, California; where an attitude somewhat akin to the relationship Europeans have with the state church exists at a local level.
As these trends grow will “organization” become a testing truth for Adventists? There is already a kind of shunning of independent structures. The current discussions about ordination and whether or not there is a need to tighten up the statement on creation in the Fundamental Beliefs document may result in the global south clamping down on the North American need for more latitude. Will that escalate to the point where a proposal will be put forward to make belief in rigid structure a necessary part of being officially Adventist?
If such a proposal becomes a center of debate how will it be greeted by a generation of young adults already heavily influenced by the “no religion” attitude? How would we avoid substituting “organization” for the basic Bible truths that launched our movement; the Second Advent, the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, etc.? In other words, how would we seek to avoid what happened to the church of Paul and Peter and John in the second, third and fourth centuries? I do not believe that anyone intends to get to that point, but there is a slippery slope already under our feet.
.
.
Friday, January 18, 2013
The Mark of the Beast - James Arribito
Mark of the Beast - James Arribito - Documentary
ReligiousMatrixTV 
Published on Jul 13, 2012
The Mark of the Beast is a controversial matter, and there are many misconceptions of this subject.
Published on Jul 13, 2012
The Mark of the Beast is a controversial matter, and there are many misconceptions of this subject.
.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Seventh-Day Adventists/Sign change
Expert: Dennis Wicklund - 5/1/2010
Question
Can you explain why the adventist changed the 3 angels message sign to the flickering flame? God Bless
Get the answer below
Answer
I have read on their website that they say the new trademarked "logo" of the three-banded flames encircling the globe with the Bible as the foundation is the first "official" one. Regretfully, this follows all the other changes which the prophetic gift envisioned:
" The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? -- The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath, of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." {SpTB07 39.3}
We must mark well the fact that this current church is based on "human power", and "nothing would be allowed to stand in the way" of all of it. There is nothing to do but pray and remain faithful ourselves. Call it out to those requiring a thus saith the Lord.
I have seen other websites calling this an Egyptian symbol with the cross and a sphere, and the all seeing eye. I believe they are correct. This is full proof of the wrong people taking over the offices since Christ has left her.
I believe the reason "why" they have done this logo is to deface the purity of the SDA pioneer Church and make any other such naming, etc... illegal thereby empowering protection from the state.
It's been a while since I had initially posted an answer to this question. I did actually stumble upon some additional information regarding this issue.
Apparently, just before the church officially changed their logo, there were many SDA publications showing up with three wavy lines. In the occult a serpent equates to the number six and the three wavy lines had made their appearance on such publications as, Zondervan's NIV Bible, the book: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM), and other World Council of Churches publications. Isn't it a curious matter that the SDA Church would give heed to the number 666 in their church periodicals?
And since the SDA Church followed suit in their publications it must mean they sought to make a haughty and rebellious show of such matters of apostasy.
This information can be gleaned from the following video:
http://www.adventistonline.com/video/prophecy-countdown-the-jesuit (Video is no longer there.)
Question
Can you explain why the adventist changed the 3 angels message sign to the flickering flame? God Bless
Get the answer below
Answer
I have read on their website that they say the new trademarked "logo" of the three-banded flames encircling the globe with the Bible as the foundation is the first "official" one. Regretfully, this follows all the other changes which the prophetic gift envisioned:
" The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? -- The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath, of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." {SpTB07 39.3}
We must mark well the fact that this current church is based on "human power", and "nothing would be allowed to stand in the way" of all of it. There is nothing to do but pray and remain faithful ourselves. Call it out to those requiring a thus saith the Lord.
I have seen other websites calling this an Egyptian symbol with the cross and a sphere, and the all seeing eye. I believe they are correct. This is full proof of the wrong people taking over the offices since Christ has left her.
I believe the reason "why" they have done this logo is to deface the purity of the SDA pioneer Church and make any other such naming, etc... illegal thereby empowering protection from the state.
It's been a while since I had initially posted an answer to this question. I did actually stumble upon some additional information regarding this issue.
Apparently, just before the church officially changed their logo, there were many SDA publications showing up with three wavy lines. In the occult a serpent equates to the number six and the three wavy lines had made their appearance on such publications as, Zondervan's NIV Bible, the book: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM), and other World Council of Churches publications. Isn't it a curious matter that the SDA Church would give heed to the number 666 in their church periodicals?
And since the SDA Church followed suit in their publications it must mean they sought to make a haughty and rebellious show of such matters of apostasy.
This information can be gleaned from the following video:
http://www.adventistonline.com/video/prophecy-countdown-the-jesuit (Video is no longer there.)
Monday, October 03, 2011
Vatican police show off new hardware on feast day
Uploaded by romereports on Sep 30, 2011
no description available
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Driven With the Wind
March 1997
By Ralph Larson
On November 15 and 16, 1996, Elder Willard Santee, a minister of the Oregon Conference, delivered a series of five messages in a tent on the grounds of Prophecy Countdown in Mt. Dora,Florida. As a result of these messages, as well as some more private conversations, the leader of Prophecy Countdown, John Osborne, along with some of his staff, responded to an altar call by Elder Santee in which he appealed to them to "return to the Seventh-day Adventist Church."
As he stood on the platform beside Santee, John Osborne said, "I don’t want to be a historic Seventh-day Adventist."
These words created consternation on the part of many historic Seventh-day Adventists who have been trusting in the leadership of John Osborne and have been giving generous financial support to his ministry. What did these words mean?
A historic Seventh-day Adventist is by definition a person who is holding steadfastly to the principles of truth that were established by the pioneers of our church, and that have been repeatedly confirmed and re-confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Had John Osborne decided to abandon these principles of truth? This was the question that troubled many hearts, and triggered many anxious inquiries. An apparent attempt to answer these questions was made one week later by Dianne Osborne, the president of Prophecy Countdown. She stood before the television cameras and made a statement that included these lines:
"We are seeking to have unity with God’s Church, but we will not unify with apostasy. We must be separate from the evil practices, from apostasy, and from sin both inside and outside the church . . . We realize that you cannot go where error is being preached, nor allow your children to go where error is being taught . . . We will continue to defend the truth."
.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
A Great Reformation
"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.'
Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pp. 204, 205.
.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Appointment of New President of Hartland Institute
May 4, 2010
Appointment of New President of Hartland Institute
At the bi-annual meeting of the Board of Directors held on Sunday, May 2, Norbert Restrepo, Jr. was elected the new President of Hartland Institute by unanimous vote. Brother Restrepo, age 40, has been the Director of Las Delicias Institute located in Armenia, Colombia, South America, for the past 14 years.
For some years, the founding president of Hartland Institute, Colin Standish, has encouraged the Board of Directors to choose, under the Lord’s direction, the next president of Hartland Institute. The process of selection began in 2009. Nine individuals were nominated and eventually, four nominees, after much prayer, agreed to be considered. At the board meeting, all candidates were interviewed. There was deep seeking of the Lord for divine guidance of the minds of the board members.
When the consideration was narrowed to 3 nominees, the board invited students and staff to come together for earnest prayer. This was a solemn prayer session, where groups of students, staff, and board members sought for God’s plain direction. How those prayers were answered! Some stayed to continue praying as board members earnestly continued their deliberations. The board members were fully aware that God alone knew whom He had ordained to be the President. When the final vote was taken by secret ballot, the Holy Spirit had brought the 18 Board members present into one mind. It is hard to explain the sacred joy we experienced.
There will be a period of time before Brother Restrepo assumes the Presidency, when he, his dedicated wife Ivonne, and two daughters, Ivonne Alejandra, age 13, and Nelsy Giovana, age 2, will be able to move here. We will keep you updated in the future.
Some may be interested in Dr. Standish’s plans for the future. In his own words, “As long as the Lord gives me strength and opportunities, I will continue to teach, preach, and seek to warn and enlighten God’s people and those who are in darkness. I will do all I can to hold up the hands of Brother Restrepo and his family, and pray for God’s guidance in his leadership. I am deeply honored to have as my successor a man of God.”
The constituency and the Board have given Dr. Standish the title of President Emeritus. While he, his wife Cheryl, and daughter Alexandra will continue to live on campus, he and Cheryl will remain on the staff and will represent Hartland around the world.
May God bless Hartland’s partners worldwide.
J. H. Shin
Secretary of the Corporation
May 3, 2010
P.S. Please feel free to share this good news with anyone who might be interested in God’s leading here at Hartland.
Appointment of New President of Hartland Institute
At the bi-annual meeting of the Board of Directors held on Sunday, May 2, Norbert Restrepo, Jr. was elected the new President of Hartland Institute by unanimous vote. Brother Restrepo, age 40, has been the Director of Las Delicias Institute located in Armenia, Colombia, South America, for the past 14 years.
For some years, the founding president of Hartland Institute, Colin Standish, has encouraged the Board of Directors to choose, under the Lord’s direction, the next president of Hartland Institute. The process of selection began in 2009. Nine individuals were nominated and eventually, four nominees, after much prayer, agreed to be considered. At the board meeting, all candidates were interviewed. There was deep seeking of the Lord for divine guidance of the minds of the board members.
When the consideration was narrowed to 3 nominees, the board invited students and staff to come together for earnest prayer. This was a solemn prayer session, where groups of students, staff, and board members sought for God’s plain direction. How those prayers were answered! Some stayed to continue praying as board members earnestly continued their deliberations. The board members were fully aware that God alone knew whom He had ordained to be the President. When the final vote was taken by secret ballot, the Holy Spirit had brought the 18 Board members present into one mind. It is hard to explain the sacred joy we experienced.
There will be a period of time before Brother Restrepo assumes the Presidency, when he, his dedicated wife Ivonne, and two daughters, Ivonne Alejandra, age 13, and Nelsy Giovana, age 2, will be able to move here. We will keep you updated in the future.
Some may be interested in Dr. Standish’s plans for the future. In his own words, “As long as the Lord gives me strength and opportunities, I will continue to teach, preach, and seek to warn and enlighten God’s people and those who are in darkness. I will do all I can to hold up the hands of Brother Restrepo and his family, and pray for God’s guidance in his leadership. I am deeply honored to have as my successor a man of God.”
The constituency and the Board have given Dr. Standish the title of President Emeritus. While he, his wife Cheryl, and daughter Alexandra will continue to live on campus, he and Cheryl will remain on the staff and will represent Hartland around the world.
May God bless Hartland’s partners worldwide.
J. H. Shin
Secretary of the Corporation
May 3, 2010
P.S. Please feel free to share this good news with anyone who might be interested in God’s leading here at Hartland.
.
.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Conspiracy Behind The European Union: What Every Christian Should Know
Date Posted:11/16/1998
A Lecture delivered at the Annual Autumn Conference of the United Protestant Council in London on Saturday,
November 7, 1998
Professor Arthur Noble
------------------------------
The Vatican and the EU
Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that is the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, now numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.
Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that is the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, now numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.
Read More: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=conspiracyDevelopments in Europe are not planned to end with merely economic and political union. The envisaged European superstate plans to go even further.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
About Oakwood University
Oakwood University ► About Us
Mission
Oakwood University, a historically Black Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning, provides quality Christian education that emphasizes academic excellence; promotes harmonious development of mind, body, and spirit; and prepares leaders in service for God and humanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePnJrKd4cWkhttp://
Strategic Goals
- Spiritual Vitality - Promote a Christ-centered, Seventh-day Adventist worldview.
- Educational Excellence - Demonstrate academic excellence in quality of teaching and learning.
- Nurturing Environment - Facilitate a supportive environment that is sensitive to the needs of students and all other constituents.
- Operational Efficiency - Ensure efficient service and resource management.
- Resource Development - Provide sufficient financial resources to support all aspects of the institution.
- Institutional Relations - Enhance the reputation and relationships of the institution
Technology Leadership - Maintain a technologically progressive campus.
Core Values
Aim: Education, Excellence, Eternity
Motto: Enter to learn; depart to serve
Source: http://www.oakwood.edu/about-oakwood
.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
NONE DARE CALL IT APOSTASY Part Two
NONE DARE CALL IT APOSTASY
Part one: Dr. John J. Grosboll
Part two: Dr. Ralph Larson
Part Two
Introduction
Since many have asked, the following is a statement that was prepared by Elder Ralph Larson to present to the “Prex- Ad” Council of the Pacific Union Conference on February 18, 1992. This is a group of about twenty administrators of conferences, colleges, hospitals and ethnic groups who consult together before meeting with the Union Committee.
Although Dr. Larson had been told that he would be given thirty minutes and had prepared his paper accordingly, he was cut off when fifteen minutes had passed and was told that the administrators could read the rest of the paper later. Yet the council made their decision to affirm their denial of his honorary ministerial credentials after Dr. and Mrs. Larson left the room, apparently without waiting to read the paper, a tragic lack of due process.
This information is being shared, not for purposes of malice or revenge, but so that others may understand what actually was said and what they may possibly encounter when placed in similar circumstances. Our trust must be wholly in the Lord and in His truth, and we must firmly resolve to stand for the right though the heavens fall.
Part two by Ralph Larson
We come before you today because we understand from the Lord's counsels that this is our Christian duty. We are sure all would recognize that a hearing conducted after judgment regarding my credentials has already been made, would not be described as justice in any judicial system in the world. We find this principle expressed in the question put to the Pharisees by Nicodemus: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” John7: 51.
In our situation, the answer would appear to be, yes, it does. More troubling still, to those who are concerned about the principles of fairness, is the fact that this group is not the proper body to either conduct a hearing or make judgment regarding my case. Proper procedures would have required a hearing
before the Union Conference Committee, which has been empowered to issue credentials, and that such a hearing have been conducted before judgment was made.
And there is yet another cloud over these proceedings. Elder Castillo wrote to me:
“At our past Union Executive Committee, it was voted to deny your honorary ministerial credential.”
Yet, four members of the committee have stated that my name was not mentioned in their meeting, and so was neither discussed nor voted upon. Elder Mostert, while conceding that the minutes contain no record of an action denying my credentials, told me over the phone that my name was placed before the executive committee and the reasons for denying my credentials were fully explained. He suggested that the four committee members might have all happened to be out of the room at that particular time.
In any case, it would seem that basic principles of fairness would require that if a minister who has given his life to the service of the church, whose life and character have never been questioned, whose theology and preaching is the same as that presented in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and whose ministry has resulted in more than five thousand persons being added to the church by baptism, is to be denied honorary ministerial credentials, this should be properly done by a duly authorized body, and the action and reasons for it should be fully and specifically stated in the committee records and announced to the church. This would, of course, require that a hearing be conducted before a decision is made, and that the accused be provided an opportunity to face his accusers and respond to their accusations.
This proper procedure has not been followed. Yet the editors of Ministry magazine have quickly seized upon the action that was taken, and in spite of the grievous irregularities, announced to its world- wide constituency that my credentials had been denied. Since no reason has been given, speculation is now arising as to whether I have been found guilty of financial fraud or gross immorality. Questions of this nature are reaching us and are very troubling, not only to us but also to our two children who are workers in God's cause. We do not believe the Lord appreciates this manner of dealing with one who has rendered Him a lifetime of service and whose present problem is simply that he has been found defending the principles of our faith as set forth in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe.
We would do well to remember that in every judicial proceeding, not only is the accused on trial, but the court is also on trial. We do not believe that you ~‘ gentlemen have served yourselves well by the manner in which you have dealt with this case. Neither have you served well the church or the Lord. We believe this group has a moral responsibility to set this matter right, and it should be done now, not after my death, as in the case of Elder M. L. Andreason. We believe I am entitled to a fair trial regarding my theology and ministry before the Union Executive Committee. If that committee, after a fair trial has been conducted, votes to deny my credentials, we believe a full statement of the specific reasons for that action should be made, and the statement published in Ministry magazine.
But now may we suggest that we lift our eyes from the individual tree we have been examining and spend a few moments considering the forest as a whole. it is apparent that there is division in the church. We would like to offer a few thoughts regarding:
Division: Its Nature, Its Causes, and Its Cure.
Division is most easily defined as the opposite of unity. We all believe that unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples (John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Millerite Movement.
What is the basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” verse 14.
Ellen White describes the search for unity in 1844:
“We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided” TM 24. [All emphasis supplied.]
Their prayers were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous advantage to be able
to tell our converts they were uniting with a worldwide church that had a oneness in faith and doctrine over all the earth.
But notice how God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based upon faith and doctrine:
“Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and fulse, misleading . . . . I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis” 1 SM 175.
“We are to unify, but not on a platform of error” Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47. Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity. The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.
At various times in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound declines. Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology, lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.
Our doctrinal book states: “Christ exercises His authority through His church and its specially appointed servants, but He never transfers His power. No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word' SDA ‘s Believe 146.
“Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God's Word will be ratified in heaven” 7T 263.
“The church . . . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven” DA 806.
This brings us immediately and specifically to the heart of our present problem. There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction among many church members, especially in the North American Division, Australia and Europe, that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about It, but rather are saying that we will all keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so we will never sin again. This makes our sanctuary doctrine nonsensical and invalidates the Spirit of Prophecy, which repeatedly endorses the sanctuary doctrine.
These concerned church members recognize that this strange new doctrine is out of harmony with our historic faith, out of harmony with the Scriptures, and out of harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy in which there are literally thousands of statements affirming the reality of victorious Christian living, and at least forty- eight warnings against the idea that Christ will change our characters when He comes. (See our Tell of His Power.)
This is manifestly a theological problem, and it needs to be dealt with on a theological level. Church members do not see this as a minor issue. They see it as one which vitally concerns their eternal salvation. But when they question or challenge this strange new doctrine and ask, “Why is the church not saying about sin what God says about it as stated in Seventh- day Adventists Believe?” they often find, to their bewilderment, that they are accused of being divisive trouble- makers who are attacking the church.
More tragically still, the response of church officialdom to questions, appeals, and protests, consistently reflects a desire to ignore the theological dimensions of the problem and to issue appeals for unity, supported by stem admonitions about the authority of the church. Within the last thirty days I received a letter from a conference president which said frankly, “Most of my response will be from a practical point of view, rather than a theological approach,” yet the matter at hand was theological in nature.
Thus we see a tension between a concept of truth and a concept of church authority. When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin, they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions of truth about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed one question only, Do you submit to our authority?
Result— the church was split.
When Martin Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor, they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles of scriptural truth. But they were confronted with the same question, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.
Today we find ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect about the past. It has been said that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat history. Surely the lesson of history is clear that theological questions must be
There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction. . . that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about it.
given theological answers, and that unity will result if the theological answers are sound and persuasive because they bear up well under scriptural investigation. The introduction of false doctrines into our platform of truth cannot but bring division. Fair- minded people everywhere will judge that the division is caused by those who introduce changes in our theology, not by those who prefer to maintain our historic theology unchanged.
It cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, truth is divisive. Note the words of Jesus on this point:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- in- law against her mother- in- law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household” Matthew 10: 34- 36.
When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?
This leads us to the questions of responsibility and guilt Jesus unquestionably created division when He came to this earth. But was this wrong? Should He have stayed in heaven in order to avoid creating division? Would the unity that might have resulted been desirable? Clearly the apostles created division wherever they went. But again we ask, Was this wrong? Would it have been better for them to have hushed their voices for the sake of unity?
One of the most bitter accusations hurled at us as a people has been that by preaching the Sabbath we created division among Christians. But has this been wrong and has not the accusation of divisiveness been hurled at all reformers? We read in Signs of the Times, January 28, 1886:
“Reformers of the present day will meet with the same discouragements as did their Master.”
Neither is there anything new about the same, strange misjudgment we meet today: “When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited with causing disturbance” ST, 10- 17- 95.
The following counsel is timely: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition.... Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic.... This spirit will increase more and more. . . .
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers” GC 458- 459.
When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?
Several months ago we received an urgent request to conduct a seminar in a church in this Union. The people there had many questions, which we answered from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As we were leaving, they gave us a tape and suggested we listen to it on the way home.
The tape turned out to be a message that had been presented to them by their conference president a few weeks before our visit. On several points, he had told them the exact opposite of what we had shown them. Here is a sampling of the president's opinion regarding perfection of character.
“Is it not extremely discouraging to us to discover, as we look back through the annals of history, to discover [sic] that no one except Jesus has ever reached that perfect standard, at least so far as we know? If Jesus is the only one so far who has reached that perfect standard, it doesn't give us a great deal of encouragement, does it, to be able to accomplish what the great spiritual giants of the past were not able to accomplish.”
We, of course, had known nothing about this, so we had walked right into trouble. We had shown them our research report entitled Tell of His Power, which contains 2,500 statements from Ellen White's writings, all of which strongly affirm the possibility of character perfection through the power of Christ. Worse yet, we had shown them a chapter in our book which records 48 warnings from Ellen White that there will be no change of character when Christ comes. We had also shown them a chapter which contains 37 statements from Ellen White regarding persons who have achieved character perfection. Jesus was not the only one, according to the Lord's messenger. Her list of champions includes the patriarchs, the apostles, Enoch, Elijah, Joseph, Daniel and John. She writes:
“Souls that have borne the likeness of Satan have become transformed into the image of God” AA 476.
“Thousands have set the Lord before them, and by beholding have been changed into the same image” COL 133- 134.
“Some few in every generation from Adam resisted his (Satan's) every artifice and stood forth as noble representations of what it was in the power of man to do and to be— Christ working with human efforts, helping man in overcoming the power of Satan” RH 3- 3- 74.
“In every phase of your character building you are to please God. This you may do; for Enoch pleased Him though living in a degenerate age. And there are Enochs in this our day” COL 332.
This is only a sampling. We had shown them many other Spirit of Prophecy passages that could not be harmonized with the opinions of the president. As we were driving along and listening to the tape, Jeanne turned to me and said, “This is it, Ralph. This is going to cost you your credentials.”
So— on that day we began to prepare our minds for the experience through which we are now passing. Yet, what else could we have done? Should we have
Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding It necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching. ”
withheld the truth from the people in order to protect our position? No doubt the president's visit, followed by ours, created some division of thought in that district Who is responsible for that division? What would be a fair judgment? And what would be God's judgment?
We are not suggesting that this is the only dynamic working in the situation. We had earlier incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Division. Elders Bradford, Crumley and Dale had asked Dr. Frank Holbrook of the Biblical Research Institute to prepare a theological rationale to be used against independent ministry leaders. This paper was then sent to Ron Spear, along with warnings that he must submit to the authority of the church.
But, unfortunately, Dr. Holbrook had spread his net in such a manner that the first victim would have been Elder Bradford himself. After comparing independent ministry leaders with the rebel Satan and the rebels Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Dr. Holbrook had set forth two theological aberrations that called for disfellowshipping members from the church, views we historic Adventists hold regarding 1) the human nature of Christ, and 2) righteousness by faith.
When this paper came into my hands, I wrote to the Division leadership, pointing out that on November16, 1988, Elder Bradford had written a letter to me containing the following lines:
. . . . my views on the human nature of Christ are almost identical with some that you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large gatherings and camp meetings around the world.”
This is precisely the fault for which Dr. Holbrook had recommended disfellowshipping— holding a “wrong” view about the human nature of Christ and disturbing church members in other countries about it. He had also argued that our view regarding righteousness by faith is not in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe. It is actually stated in that book l40 times!
I pointed these things out in a letter to the officers of the Division, and they were most displeased. Therefore, when Elder Mostert told me that the Division officers were in favor of denying my credentials, I was not surprised.
This paper by a member of the Biblical Research Institute may be taken as a sampling of the incredible theological confusion that exists in the church today. It is beyond question a theological problem which urgently needs to be dealt with on a theological level. The longer this is delayed, the greater will be the damage to the church. Our people have historically had an orientation toward truth. Many have left other churches and united with our church for the sake of truth. They have recognized that placing confidence in church leaders above devotion to the truth is a danger to be avoided. They have accepted the principle of individual responsibility for studying and knowing the truth and have turned away from the concept that the church is the interpreter of Scriptures. They have accepted Ellen White's statement that:
“The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone” ST 331.
Therefore, it is a serious mistake to meet their urgent questions and concerns about our “truths that have been held sacred” with evasions and dissimulations. Suggestions by leadership that historic Seventh- day Adventists think they are the only ones in the church who know the truth, or that they are setting themselves up to be the judges of the church, or that they consider themselves to be the only holy ones, are recognized by many church members as simply throwing dust into the air. These tactics have a disastrous effect upon their confidence in leadership.
The historic Adventists, numbering in the thousands, are most emphatically not a group of crackpots and weirdos. They are not a group of malcontents and fanatics who turn to independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit They are, for the most part, loyal, steadfast church members who have faced Sabbath tests, endured opposition from families and friends and have persevered in their devotion to the Lord and His sacred truth in the face of formidable odds. They turn to the independent ministries for a reason that has been well stated by our own Union president, Elder Mostert. On May 1, 1990, Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.”
Where will they go to hear basic Adventist teaching when the independent ministries have been destroyed, as seems to be the intention of the present church leadership? No doubt you have heard of the addresses given by our General Conference president at such places as the camp meeting in Hope, British Columbia, in 1991, which seemed to be a declaration of open season on the independent ministries and those who support them. I have tapes of those messages, and some of the statements are as awesome as they are inaccurate, intemperate and inflammatory.
But these messages have apparently set the pace, and in response, equally inaccurate and intemperate tirades have already been published by two Union presidents in their Union papers. I am finding it increasingly difficult to persuade the church members to whom I minister that these false accusations are made in ignorance and not in malice.
If the independent ministries are successfully destroyed, what can we expect to happen then? Can anyone seriously suppose that those church members who, as stated by our Union president, have had to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching will then meekly submit to authority and give their support to those who have destroyed the independent ministries? Can we expect them to just forget that their theological questions have not been answered? And, are we remembering a fact that was expressed to me recently by a retired Union Conference president:
“I hope that our brethren will remember that our conservative members are the financial backbone of our church.”
Which leads us inexorably to the question of tithe. As I have testified that the historic Adventists are not weirdos and crack- pots who support independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit, I also wish to testify that neither do they send tithe to independent ministries because they prefer to do so. They would much rather send their tithe through church channels but feel they cannot conscientiously support the preaching of false theology.
I wish to address myself to an enormous misunderstanding that I regard as one of the major factors in our present problem. We hear much talk and many accusations about the independent ministries soliciting tithe. No independent ministry of my acquaintance has ever solicited tithe. Brethren, I plead with you to believe me when I say that the independent ministries do not solicit tithe, because they do not need to solicit tithe. It comes to them unsolicited, unbidden, unrequested. It is freely and voluntarily contributed by church members who are trying to relieve their consciences of a heavy burden.
This is the effect. What is the cause? The cause is the lack of preaching basic Seventh- day Adventist truths in their home churches and often supplanting them with either empty pablum or errors borrowed from Babylon. The cause is emphatically not the eloquence and trickery of a group of skillful con men who are leading independent ministries, as some seem to believe. To suppose that crushing the independent ministries and leaving the problem in the churches unresolved is a fearful mistake.
It was in response to the many urgent questions of such church members that I researched the matter and published my findings in the September, 1991 edition of Our Firm Foundation, in an article entitled, “The Tithe Problem, Who Is Responsible?” This article was a straight- forward and factual report of my findings on that subject. I stand ready to modify or correct my conclusions at any time evidence is presented to me that would justify such a modification or correction.
Unfortunately, some of the responses to that article have been something less than straightforward and factual, so much so that the office of the White Estate has made clear that the article on tithe published in the Review was a private project of Roger Coon, done entirely independent of either the White Estate Board or the White Estate staff. Of the many problems in the Roger Coon article, I would mention two. Coon argued that when Ellen White used the word “means,” this generally referred only to offerings and not to tithe. We are presently aware of 168 occasions when Ellen White went into print using the word “means” in a way that included tithe. Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?
Again, Coon faults those who make reference to the “Watson letter,” since Ellen White had stated she did not desire her diversions of tithe to be widely
“God has a church. It Is not the great cathedral, neither Is it the national establishment . . . It Is the people who bye God and keep His commandments ” UL 315.
advertised. This overlooks the fact that the entire relevant portions of the Watson letter were published by the White Estate itself in 1981 (see Ellen G. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, 395- 396), and again in 1987 (see 2MR 99- 100). Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?
In summary, may I quote the second sentence of the letter written to me by Elder Mostert on May 1, 1990:
“Obviously, one of the most unmet needs in the church at the present time is the lack of opportunity for leaders to dialogue with members in a meaningful way that does not create further frustration.”
I agree with and heartily applaud this statement It echoes the cries we hear from hurting and bewildered historic Adventists all across the continent: Why will not our leaders talk to us? Why will they not listen to us? Why will they not investigate our condition to determine whether our appeals are valid? Why are we considered trouble- makers because we are holding to the doctrines that are set forth in the book Seventhday Adventists Believe? Can our leaders not recognize that antagonistic doctrines are being preached in many of our pulpits, taught in many of our schools, printed in our publishing houses and circulated in the Review? Is it their intention to support these false doctrines?
Further, they ask, Why do our leaders identify us as evildoers and enemies of the church when we finally give up appealing to them and turn in despair to places where our historic faith is being defended? Why do they use their power and authority against a minister who is widely known as a defender of our historic faith, while the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to one who is equally well- known as an enemy of our historic faith?
Jeanne and I are presently ministering, by their invitation, to thousands of historic Adventists in this country and in other countries. In the year 1991 we spent forty of the fiftytwo weekends conducting seminars in defense of our historic faith. (We pause to mention that we receive no remuneration whatever for conducting these seminars. The people pay only our expenses. We are sure you can understand how perplexed the historic Seventh- day Adventists are when they read in a Union paper that we are doing this for our own financial benefit.) We are presently fully booked for 1992 and into 1993.
We are able to report to you that the conviction is spreading among these historic Adventists that they are going to be hounded out of the church. They feel this is the only possible understanding of the inflammatory tirades that are being published against them. They are observing closely those situations in which illegal church discipline is being applied and disfellowshipping has already begun in flagrant disregard of the provisions in the church manual. One of the most evident characteristics of these actions has been and is continuing to be a lack of “due process.”
The historic Adventists remember that when Dr. Desmond Ford launched a vigorous assault against our sanctuary doctrine, the principles of “due process” were carefully followed. Every effort was made to ensure his case was dealt with in a fair and prudent manner, and rightly so. The historic Adventists are also noting that even though Dr. Ford is now attacking much more than our sanctuary doctrine and contributing very largely to the present apostasy in the church, the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to him.
They are contrasting this with the fact that in a Pacific Union Recorder of 1991 an announcement stated Ralph Larson would conduct a seminar in the Beaumont Church on July 26 and 27 entitled “In Defense of the Sanctuary.” Before six weeks had passed, he had lost his ministerial credentials, without due process. This speaks volumes to the historic Seventh- day Adventists. Why, they are asking, is there so much patient tolerance toward those who attack our faith and so little toward those who defend it?
These developments are causing historic Adventists to consider carefully the proper relationship between the truth, the church and church authority. They are asking, Is it a valid theology of church authority that requires us to surrender the truth and accept false doctrines or is this a misuse and abuse of church authority? Is it a valid theology of stewardship that requires us to give financial support to the preaching of false doctrines? Is it a valid theology of church order that brands the preaching of truth as
The present division in the church Is a tension between our true historic faith, as described In Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the Incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism.
“divisive,” while tolerating the preaching of untruth? And, in the ultimate sense, what is the church? Let the Lord through His chosen messenger provide us with the answer:
“God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment . . . it is the people who love God and keep His commandments.” UL 315.
We are directing your attention to the reality that the present division in the church is a tension between our true historic faith, as described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism. We hold that it is unreasonable and unfair to charge this division upon those ministers and church members who wish to cling to our historic faith. The responsibility for division should be laid at the door of those who are promoting the false doctrines of Calvinism among us.
We believe that every administrator has a sacred obligation to encourage and support those who are defending our historic faith and not let himself be manipulated or maneuvered into an attitude of opposition toward them by camouflaged accusations of divisiveness, etc.
We are presently hearing that Dr. Desmond Ford is broadcasting that many of our scholars and administrators are now accepting his theology. This charge cannot be well met by silence and inaction, which will cause people to conclude that the allegation must be true.
Kenneth Sample, successor to Walter Martin, reports that when he took a survey of fifty- six ministers in a single conference in this Union, fourteen admitted to disbelief in the biblical basis of our sanctuary doctrine and thirteen more passed by that question while answering the other questions in the survey. Thus, about half of those surveyed could not bear a positive testimony in regard to the doctrine of which Ellen White wrote:
“The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith” Letter 208, 1906; EV 221.
Surely it is time for the officers of this Union to resolutely lead the way in ascertaining what persons, in the classrooms of our schools and the pulpits of our churches, are teaching the doctrines described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and what persons are substituting for those doctrines antagonistic and incompatible doctrines.
And it is time for a thorough investigation of my particular case, and a full and fair trial to be conducted by the Union Conference Committee. At that trial I will submit evidence that
1. I have appealed to our church leaders and scholars to recognize our theological problem by an investment of much time, many written appeals, and several thousand dollars worth of our two major research reports, The Word Made Flesh and Tell of His Power, that have been distributed among them.
2. I have sought no speaking appointments anywhere, but have simply responded to urgent requests for help from the suffering historic Seventh- day Adventists.
3. The evidence presented in our research reports has not been challenged by biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence from anyone. It has been met by sneers, jeers, and arguments against the man.
4. My theology is precisely the theology that is set forth in Seventh- day Adventists Believe.
Therefore, those who oppose my ministry and our doctrinal book are the ones who are divisive.
We are to unite, but not upon a platform of error.
NONE DARE CALL IT APOSTASY
Part one: Dr. John J. Grosboll
Part two: Dr. Ralph Larson
Part Two
Introduction
Since many have asked, the following is a statement that was prepared by Elder Ralph Larson to present to the “Prex- Ad” Council of the Pacific Union Conference on February 18, 1992. This is a group of about twenty administrators of conferences, colleges, hospitals and ethnic groups who consult together before meeting with the Union Committee.
Although Dr. Larson had been told that he would be given thirty minutes and had prepared his paper accordingly, he was cut off when fifteen minutes had passed and was told that the administrators could read the rest of the paper later. Yet the council made their decision to affirm their denial of his honorary ministerial credentials after Dr. and Mrs. Larson left the room, apparently without waiting to read the paper, a tragic lack of due process.
This information is being shared, not for purposes of malice or revenge, but so that others may understand what actually was said and what they may possibly encounter when placed in similar circumstances. Our trust must be wholly in the Lord and in His truth, and we must firmly resolve to stand for the right though the heavens fall.
Part two by Ralph Larson
We come before you today because we understand from the Lord's counsels that this is our Christian duty. We are sure all would recognize that a hearing conducted after judgment regarding my credentials has already been made, would not be described as justice in any judicial system in the world. We find this principle expressed in the question put to the Pharisees by Nicodemus: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” John7: 51.
In our situation, the answer would appear to be, yes, it does. More troubling still, to those who are concerned about the principles of fairness, is the fact that this group is not the proper body to either conduct a hearing or make judgment regarding my case. Proper procedures would have required a hearing
We would do well to remember that in every' judicial proceeding, not only is the
accused on trial, but the court is also on trial.
before the Union Conference Committee, which has been empowered to issue credentials, and that such a hearing have been conducted before judgment was made.
And there is yet another cloud over these proceedings. Elder Castillo wrote to me:
“At our past Union Executive Committee, it was voted to deny your honorary ministerial credential.”
Yet, four members of the committee have stated that my name was not mentioned in their meeting, and so was neither discussed nor voted upon. Elder Mostert, while conceding that the minutes contain no record of an action denying my credentials, told me over the phone that my name was placed before the executive committee and the reasons for denying my credentials were fully explained. He suggested that the four committee members might have all happened to be out of the room at that particular time.
In any case, it would seem that basic principles of fairness would require that if a minister who has given his life to the service of the church, whose life and character have never been questioned, whose theology and preaching is the same as that presented in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and whose ministry has resulted in more than five thousand persons being added to the church by baptism, is to be denied honorary ministerial credentials, this should be properly done by a duly authorized body, and the action and reasons for it should be fully and specifically stated in the committee records and announced to the church. This would, of course, require that a hearing be conducted before a decision is made, and that the accused be provided an opportunity to face his accusers and respond to their accusations.
This proper procedure has not been followed. Yet the editors of Ministry magazine have quickly seized upon the action that was taken, and in spite of the grievous irregularities, announced to its world- wide constituency that my credentials had been denied. Since no reason has been given, speculation is now arising as to whether I have been found guilty of financial fraud or gross immorality. Questions of this nature are reaching us and are very troubling, not only to us but also to our two children who are workers in God's cause. We do not believe the Lord appreciates this manner of dealing with one who has rendered Him a lifetime of service and whose present problem is simply that he has been found defending the principles of our faith as set forth in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe.
We would do well to remember that in every judicial proceeding, not only is the accused on trial, but the court is also on trial. We do not believe that you ~‘ gentlemen have served yourselves well by the manner in which you have dealt with this case. Neither have you served well the church or the Lord. We believe this group has a moral responsibility to set this matter right, and it should be done now, not after my death, as in the case of Elder M. L. Andreason. We believe I am entitled to a fair trial regarding my theology and ministry before the Union Executive Committee. If that committee, after a fair trial has been conducted, votes to deny my credentials, we believe a full statement of the specific reasons for that action should be made, and the statement published in Ministry magazine.
But now may we suggest that we lift our eyes from the individual tree we have been examining and spend a few moments considering the forest as a whole. it is apparent that there is division in the church. We would like to offer a few thoughts regarding:
Division: Its Nature, Its Causes, and Its Cure.
Division is most easily defined as the opposite of unity. We all believe that unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples (John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Millerite Movement.
What is the basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” verse 14.
Ellen White describes the search for unity in 1844:
“We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided” TM 24. [All emphasis supplied.]
Their prayers were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous advantage to be able
“No one has any Independent authority apart from Christ and His word” SDA‘s
Believe 146.
to tell our converts they were uniting with a worldwide church that had a oneness in faith and doctrine over all the earth.
But notice how God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based upon faith and doctrine:
“Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and fulse, misleading . . . . I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis” 1 SM 175.
“We are to unify, but not on a platform of error” Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47. Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity. The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.
At various times in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound declines. Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology, lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.
Our doctrinal book states: “Christ exercises His authority through His church and its specially appointed servants, but He never transfers His power. No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word' SDA ‘s Believe 146.
“Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God's Word will be ratified in heaven” 7T 263.
“The church . . . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven” DA 806.
This brings us immediately and specifically to the heart of our present problem. There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction among many church members, especially in the North American Division, Australia and Europe, that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about It, but rather are saying that we will all keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so we will never sin again. This makes our sanctuary doctrine nonsensical and invalidates the Spirit of Prophecy, which repeatedly endorses the sanctuary doctrine.
These concerned church members recognize that this strange new doctrine is out of harmony with our historic faith, out of harmony with the Scriptures, and out of harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy in which there are literally thousands of statements affirming the reality of victorious Christian living, and at least forty- eight warnings against the idea that Christ will change our characters when He comes. (See our Tell of His Power.)
This is manifestly a theological problem, and it needs to be dealt with on a theological level. Church members do not see this as a minor issue. They see it as one which vitally concerns their eternal salvation. But when they question or challenge this strange new doctrine and ask, “Why is the church not saying about sin what God says about it as stated in Seventh- day Adventists Believe?” they often find, to their bewilderment, that they are accused of being divisive trouble- makers who are attacking the church.
More tragically still, the response of church officialdom to questions, appeals, and protests, consistently reflects a desire to ignore the theological dimensions of the problem and to issue appeals for unity, supported by stem admonitions about the authority of the church. Within the last thirty days I received a letter from a conference president which said frankly, “Most of my response will be from a practical point of view, rather than a theological approach,” yet the matter at hand was theological in nature.
Thus we see a tension between a concept of truth and a concept of church authority. When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin, they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions of truth about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed one question only, Do you submit to our authority?
Result— the church was split.
When Martin Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor, they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles of scriptural truth. But they were confronted with the same question, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.
Today we find ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect about the past. It has been said that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat history. Surely the lesson of history is clear that theological questions must be
There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction. . . that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about it.
given theological answers, and that unity will result if the theological answers are sound and persuasive because they bear up well under scriptural investigation. The introduction of false doctrines into our platform of truth cannot but bring division. Fair- minded people everywhere will judge that the division is caused by those who introduce changes in our theology, not by those who prefer to maintain our historic theology unchanged.
It cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, truth is divisive. Note the words of Jesus on this point:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- in- law against her mother- in- law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household” Matthew 10: 34- 36.
When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?
This leads us to the questions of responsibility and guilt Jesus unquestionably created division when He came to this earth. But was this wrong? Should He have stayed in heaven in order to avoid creating division? Would the unity that might have resulted been desirable? Clearly the apostles created division wherever they went. But again we ask, Was this wrong? Would it have been better for them to have hushed their voices for the sake of unity?
One of the most bitter accusations hurled at us as a people has been that by preaching the Sabbath we created division among Christians. But has this been wrong and has not the accusation of divisiveness been hurled at all reformers? We read in Signs of the Times, January 28, 1886:
“Reformers of the present day will meet with the same discouragements as did their Master.”
Neither is there anything new about the same, strange misjudgment we meet today: “When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited with causing disturbance” ST, 10- 17- 95.
The following counsel is timely: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition.... Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic.... This spirit will increase more and more. . . .
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers” GC 458- 459.
When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?
Several months ago we received an urgent request to conduct a seminar in a church in this Union. The people there had many questions, which we answered from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As we were leaving, they gave us a tape and suggested we listen to it on the way home.
The tape turned out to be a message that had been presented to them by their conference president a few weeks before our visit. On several points, he had told them the exact opposite of what we had shown them. Here is a sampling of the president's opinion regarding perfection of character.
“Is it not extremely discouraging to us to discover, as we look back through the annals of history, to discover [sic] that no one except Jesus has ever reached that perfect standard, at least so far as we know? If Jesus is the only one so far who has reached that perfect standard, it doesn't give us a great deal of encouragement, does it, to be able to accomplish what the great spiritual giants of the past were not able to accomplish.”
We, of course, had known nothing about this, so we had walked right into trouble. We had shown them our research report entitled Tell of His Power, which contains 2,500 statements from Ellen White's writings, all of which strongly affirm the possibility of character perfection through the power of Christ. Worse yet, we had shown them a chapter in our book which records 48 warnings from Ellen White that there will be no change of character when Christ comes. We had also shown them a chapter which contains 37 statements from Ellen White regarding persons who have achieved character perfection. Jesus was not the only one, according to the Lord's messenger. Her list of champions includes the patriarchs, the apostles, Enoch, Elijah, Joseph, Daniel and John. She writes:
“Souls that have borne the likeness of Satan have become transformed into the image of God” AA 476.
“Thousands have set the Lord before them, and by beholding have been changed into the same image” COL 133- 134.
“Some few in every generation from Adam resisted his (Satan's) every artifice and stood forth as noble representations of what it was in the power of man to do and to be— Christ working with human efforts, helping man in overcoming the power of Satan” RH 3- 3- 74.
“In every phase of your character building you are to please God. This you may do; for Enoch pleased Him though living in a degenerate age. And there are Enochs in this our day” COL 332.
This is only a sampling. We had shown them many other Spirit of Prophecy passages that could not be harmonized with the opinions of the president. As we were driving along and listening to the tape, Jeanne turned to me and said, “This is it, Ralph. This is going to cost you your credentials.”
So— on that day we began to prepare our minds for the experience through which we are now passing. Yet, what else could we have done? Should we have
Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding It necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching. ”
withheld the truth from the people in order to protect our position? No doubt the president's visit, followed by ours, created some division of thought in that district Who is responsible for that division? What would be a fair judgment? And what would be God's judgment?
We are not suggesting that this is the only dynamic working in the situation. We had earlier incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Division. Elders Bradford, Crumley and Dale had asked Dr. Frank Holbrook of the Biblical Research Institute to prepare a theological rationale to be used against independent ministry leaders. This paper was then sent to Ron Spear, along with warnings that he must submit to the authority of the church.
But, unfortunately, Dr. Holbrook had spread his net in such a manner that the first victim would have been Elder Bradford himself. After comparing independent ministry leaders with the rebel Satan and the rebels Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Dr. Holbrook had set forth two theological aberrations that called for disfellowshipping members from the church, views we historic Adventists hold regarding 1) the human nature of Christ, and 2) righteousness by faith.
When this paper came into my hands, I wrote to the Division leadership, pointing out that on November16, 1988, Elder Bradford had written a letter to me containing the following lines:
. . . . my views on the human nature of Christ are almost identical with some that you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large gatherings and camp meetings around the world.”
This is precisely the fault for which Dr. Holbrook had recommended disfellowshipping— holding a “wrong” view about the human nature of Christ and disturbing church members in other countries about it. He had also argued that our view regarding righteousness by faith is not in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe. It is actually stated in that book l40 times!
I pointed these things out in a letter to the officers of the Division, and they were most displeased. Therefore, when Elder Mostert told me that the Division officers were in favor of denying my credentials, I was not surprised.
This paper by a member of the Biblical Research Institute may be taken as a sampling of the incredible theological confusion that exists in the church today. It is beyond question a theological problem which urgently needs to be dealt with on a theological level. The longer this is delayed, the greater will be the damage to the church. Our people have historically had an orientation toward truth. Many have left other churches and united with our church for the sake of truth. They have recognized that placing confidence in church leaders above devotion to the truth is a danger to be avoided. They have accepted the principle of individual responsibility for studying and knowing the truth and have turned away from the concept that the church is the interpreter of Scriptures. They have accepted Ellen White's statement that:
“The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone” ST 331.
Therefore, it is a serious mistake to meet their urgent questions and concerns about our “truths that have been held sacred” with evasions and dissimulations. Suggestions by leadership that historic Seventh- day Adventists think they are the only ones in the church who know the truth, or that they are setting themselves up to be the judges of the church, or that they consider themselves to be the only holy ones, are recognized by many church members as simply throwing dust into the air. These tactics have a disastrous effect upon their confidence in leadership.
The historic Adventists, numbering in the thousands, are most emphatically not a group of crackpots and weirdos. They are not a group of malcontents and fanatics who turn to independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit They are, for the most part, loyal, steadfast church members who have faced Sabbath tests, endured opposition from families and friends and have persevered in their devotion to the Lord and His sacred truth in the face of formidable odds. They turn to the independent ministries for a reason that has been well stated by our own Union president, Elder Mostert. On May 1, 1990, Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.”
Where will they go to hear basic Adventist teaching when the independent ministries have been destroyed, as seems to be the intention of the present church leadership? No doubt you have heard of the addresses given by our General Conference president at such places as the camp meeting in Hope, British Columbia, in 1991, which seemed to be a declaration of open season on the independent ministries and those who support them. I have tapes of those messages, and some of the statements are as awesome as they are inaccurate, intemperate and inflammatory.
But these messages have apparently set the pace, and in response, equally inaccurate and intemperate tirades have already been published by two Union presidents in their Union papers. I am finding it increasingly difficult to persuade the church members to whom I minister that these false accusations are made in ignorance and not in malice.
If the independent ministries are successfully destroyed, what can we expect to happen then? Can anyone seriously suppose that those church members who, as stated by our Union president, have had to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching will then meekly submit to authority and give their support to those who have destroyed the independent ministries? Can we expect them to just forget that their theological questions have not been answered? And, are we remembering a fact that was expressed to me recently by a retired Union Conference president:
“I hope that our brethren will remember that our conservative members are the financial backbone of our church.”
Which leads us inexorably to the question of tithe. As I have testified that the historic Adventists are not weirdos and crack- pots who support independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit, I also wish to testify that neither do they send tithe to independent ministries because they prefer to do so. They would much rather send their tithe through church channels but feel they cannot conscientiously support the preaching of false theology.
I wish to address myself to an enormous misunderstanding that I regard as one of the major factors in our present problem. We hear much talk and many accusations about the independent ministries soliciting tithe. No independent ministry of my acquaintance has ever solicited tithe. Brethren, I plead with you to believe me when I say that the independent ministries do not solicit tithe, because they do not need to solicit tithe. It comes to them unsolicited, unbidden, unrequested. It is freely and voluntarily contributed by church members who are trying to relieve their consciences of a heavy burden.
This is the effect. What is the cause? The cause is the lack of preaching basic Seventh- day Adventist truths in their home churches and often supplanting them with either empty pablum or errors borrowed from Babylon. The cause is emphatically not the eloquence and trickery of a group of skillful con men who are leading independent ministries, as some seem to believe. To suppose that crushing the independent ministries and leaving the problem in the churches unresolved is a fearful mistake.
It was in response to the many urgent questions of such church members that I researched the matter and published my findings in the September, 1991 edition of Our Firm Foundation, in an article entitled, “The Tithe Problem, Who Is Responsible?” This article was a straight- forward and factual report of my findings on that subject. I stand ready to modify or correct my conclusions at any time evidence is presented to me that would justify such a modification or correction.
Unfortunately, some of the responses to that article have been something less than straightforward and factual, so much so that the office of the White Estate has made clear that the article on tithe published in the Review was a private project of Roger Coon, done entirely independent of either the White Estate Board or the White Estate staff. Of the many problems in the Roger Coon article, I would mention two. Coon argued that when Ellen White used the word “means,” this generally referred only to offerings and not to tithe. We are presently aware of 168 occasions when Ellen White went into print using the word “means” in a way that included tithe. Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?
Again, Coon faults those who make reference to the “Watson letter,” since Ellen White had stated she did not desire her diversions of tithe to be widely
“God has a church. It Is not the great cathedral, neither Is it the national establishment . . . It Is the people who bye God and keep His commandments ” UL 315.
advertised. This overlooks the fact that the entire relevant portions of the Watson letter were published by the White Estate itself in 1981 (see Ellen G. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, 395- 396), and again in 1987 (see 2MR 99- 100). Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?
In summary, may I quote the second sentence of the letter written to me by Elder Mostert on May 1, 1990:
“Obviously, one of the most unmet needs in the church at the present time is the lack of opportunity for leaders to dialogue with members in a meaningful way that does not create further frustration.”
I agree with and heartily applaud this statement It echoes the cries we hear from hurting and bewildered historic Adventists all across the continent: Why will not our leaders talk to us? Why will they not listen to us? Why will they not investigate our condition to determine whether our appeals are valid? Why are we considered trouble- makers because we are holding to the doctrines that are set forth in the book Seventhday Adventists Believe? Can our leaders not recognize that antagonistic doctrines are being preached in many of our pulpits, taught in many of our schools, printed in our publishing houses and circulated in the Review? Is it their intention to support these false doctrines?
Further, they ask, Why do our leaders identify us as evildoers and enemies of the church when we finally give up appealing to them and turn in despair to places where our historic faith is being defended? Why do they use their power and authority against a minister who is widely known as a defender of our historic faith, while the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to one who is equally well- known as an enemy of our historic faith?
Jeanne and I are presently ministering, by their invitation, to thousands of historic Adventists in this country and in other countries. In the year 1991 we spent forty of the fiftytwo weekends conducting seminars in defense of our historic faith. (We pause to mention that we receive no remuneration whatever for conducting these seminars. The people pay only our expenses. We are sure you can understand how perplexed the historic Seventh- day Adventists are when they read in a Union paper that we are doing this for our own financial benefit.) We are presently fully booked for 1992 and into 1993.
We are able to report to you that the conviction is spreading among these historic Adventists that they are going to be hounded out of the church. They feel this is the only possible understanding of the inflammatory tirades that are being published against them. They are observing closely those situations in which illegal church discipline is being applied and disfellowshipping has already begun in flagrant disregard of the provisions in the church manual. One of the most evident characteristics of these actions has been and is continuing to be a lack of “due process.”
The historic Adventists remember that when Dr. Desmond Ford launched a vigorous assault against our sanctuary doctrine, the principles of “due process” were carefully followed. Every effort was made to ensure his case was dealt with in a fair and prudent manner, and rightly so. The historic Adventists are also noting that even though Dr. Ford is now attacking much more than our sanctuary doctrine and contributing very largely to the present apostasy in the church, the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to him.
They are contrasting this with the fact that in a Pacific Union Recorder of 1991 an announcement stated Ralph Larson would conduct a seminar in the Beaumont Church on July 26 and 27 entitled “In Defense of the Sanctuary.” Before six weeks had passed, he had lost his ministerial credentials, without due process. This speaks volumes to the historic Seventh- day Adventists. Why, they are asking, is there so much patient tolerance toward those who attack our faith and so little toward those who defend it?
These developments are causing historic Adventists to consider carefully the proper relationship between the truth, the church and church authority. They are asking, Is it a valid theology of church authority that requires us to surrender the truth and accept false doctrines or is this a misuse and abuse of church authority? Is it a valid theology of stewardship that requires us to give financial support to the preaching of false doctrines? Is it a valid theology of church order that brands the preaching of truth as
The present division in the church Is a tension between our true historic faith, as described In Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the Incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism.
“divisive,” while tolerating the preaching of untruth? And, in the ultimate sense, what is the church? Let the Lord through His chosen messenger provide us with the answer:
“God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment . . . it is the people who love God and keep His commandments.” UL 315.
We are directing your attention to the reality that the present division in the church is a tension between our true historic faith, as described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism. We hold that it is unreasonable and unfair to charge this division upon those ministers and church members who wish to cling to our historic faith. The responsibility for division should be laid at the door of those who are promoting the false doctrines of Calvinism among us.
We believe that every administrator has a sacred obligation to encourage and support those who are defending our historic faith and not let himself be manipulated or maneuvered into an attitude of opposition toward them by camouflaged accusations of divisiveness, etc.
We are presently hearing that Dr. Desmond Ford is broadcasting that many of our scholars and administrators are now accepting his theology. This charge cannot be well met by silence and inaction, which will cause people to conclude that the allegation must be true.
Kenneth Sample, successor to Walter Martin, reports that when he took a survey of fifty- six ministers in a single conference in this Union, fourteen admitted to disbelief in the biblical basis of our sanctuary doctrine and thirteen more passed by that question while answering the other questions in the survey. Thus, about half of those surveyed could not bear a positive testimony in regard to the doctrine of which Ellen White wrote:
“The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith” Letter 208, 1906; EV 221.
Surely it is time for the officers of this Union to resolutely lead the way in ascertaining what persons, in the classrooms of our schools and the pulpits of our churches, are teaching the doctrines described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and what persons are substituting for those doctrines antagonistic and incompatible doctrines.
And it is time for a thorough investigation of my particular case, and a full and fair trial to be conducted by the Union Conference Committee. At that trial I will submit evidence that
1. I have appealed to our church leaders and scholars to recognize our theological problem by an investment of much time, many written appeals, and several thousand dollars worth of our two major research reports, The Word Made Flesh and Tell of His Power, that have been distributed among them.
2. I have sought no speaking appointments anywhere, but have simply responded to urgent requests for help from the suffering historic Seventh- day Adventists.
3. The evidence presented in our research reports has not been challenged by biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence from anyone. It has been met by sneers, jeers, and arguments against the man.
4. My theology is precisely the theology that is set forth in Seventh- day Adventists Believe.
Therefore, those who oppose my ministry and our doctrinal book are the ones who are divisive.
We are to unite, but not upon a platform of error.
NONE DARE CALL IT APOSTASY
Part one: Dr. John J. Grosboll
Part two: Dr. Ralph Larson
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)