| Author | Message | ||
     Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1448 Registered: 9-2004 |
Why Dale Ratzsliff is there, and not Dr. Ford is puzzling, unless you understand that no SDA apologists wants to deal with Dr. Ford. Why? Because they cannot refute what he has published. So they ignore him and trot out the lightweight critics that Dr. Ford does not endorse so they can have a better chance at proving their legalism. So there are tricks a plenty from the TSDA's. It never stops with them. In fact, it is very dishonest for any TSDA to quote from E. J. Waggoner as if he supports Traditional Adventism. Why? Because he was the enemy of Uriah Smith when it came to both the Two Covenants and the Gospel. Waggoner repudiated Traditional Adventism, which is why he left the church and strongly denounced the IJ in no uncertain terms. So here is more deception for those not acquainted with the facts. With such a select handful of cultic and confused sources it is no wonder that this site contains utter nonsense and false doctrine. But this is how the SDA's operate. They shun the true Protestant theologians like Luther and Ford, who are experts on the Two Covenants and the Gospel, so that they can wallow in the mud with the legalistic SDA apologists. There is no search for truth taking place here, only a carefully orchestrated propaganda event that is meant to defend legions of false and legalistic SDA doctrines. Propaganda is not truth, and neither is any doctrine that has to use such awful and incomplete sources to support it. Here is Hubs joke of a reading list: Such a list will guarantee confusion and false doctrine, and so it has. Andreasen ML: The Book of Hebrews. Review and Herald, 1948. Bacchiocchi S: The Sabbath Under Crossfire. Biblical Perspectives, 1998 Dameron P: Jewels in the Sand: The End-Time Message of the Sanctuary. Jacobsen Publ., 1995 Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Review and Herald, 2000, p. 276-278 Hasel GF: Covenant in Blood. Pacific Press, 1982.Johnsson WG: The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier: Hebrews. Pacific Press, 1994 Knight GR: Exploring Galatians and Ephesians. Review and Herald, 2005 Knight GR: Exploring Hebrews. Review and Herald, 2003 LaRondelle HK: Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology. Andrews University Press, 2005 MacCarty S: In Granite or Ingrained? Andrews University Press. 2007. Reiner EW: An offer You Can’t Refuse. The Covenants. Southern Publishing, 1967. Reiner EW: The Atonement. TEACH Services Inc., 2001 Penno PE: The Law and the Covenants in SDA History, Vallejo. 2004 Penno PE: The Everlasting Covenant and the Three Angel’s Message Ratzlaff D: Sabbath in Crisis. Life Assurance Ministries, 1990 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald, 1953 Shelton D, Quinn SJ: Ten Commandments Twice Removed. Three Angels Broadcasting Network, '05 Shewmake CJ: The Many Faces of God. Review and Herald, 2004 Waggoner EF: The Everlasting Covenant. Glad Tidings Publishers, 2002 Waggoner EJ: The Glad Tidings: Galatians Made Clear. Glad Tidings Publishers, 2002 White EG: Patriarchs and Prophets. Pacific Press, 1913. p. 370-373 Wieland RJ: Galatians for Today’s Youth. Glad Tidings Publishers, 2003 http://www.everlastingcovenant.com/index.htm This modern brand of Traditional Adventism that is represented in this site has as much credibility as what the Mormon's or Scientologists teach. It is an abomination that should be cursed by all that understand the Gospel and Adventist history. Especially by all those in the Adventist Community who have come to understand the difference between the Old And New Covenants. In fact, this site is a memorial to SDA legalism and hierarchical corruption. It is nothing more than a trite and uneducated attempt to promote SDA propaganda. It proves that modern SDA's are so far away from understanding correct theology and church history that it is beyond pathetic. It is surreal and bizarre. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1449 Registered: 9-2004 |
Traditional Adventism, no matter how it is presented, is poison. It does not reflect the Prophetic fundamentals of Historic Adventism, and in fact refutes them. Nor does it have any support from the Apostles or the Reformers, or Ellen White. Even though the dishonest leaders have claimed the opposite all these years. Traditional Adventism is based on a false Gospel and a false Judgment in a false version of the 1st Angels Message. It has a false view of the Two Covenants as well as about food and drink laws and tithe, and hermeneutics, and on and on…. This is far too much error to be ignored or tolerated by anyone that claims to be Protestant or Adventist. It is madness to try and promote so much error and still think that God is pleased with the SDA church. This is not really possible, nor does the NT teach such a thing. Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, So Hub, congratulations on your TA web site. While the site looks very nice, the contents represent much error and false doctrine that you are not able to defend. Your site does not even contain the Gospel, much less the correct teaching about the Two Covenant or the Three Angels Messages. Sorry. Besides, no one is going to embrace TA because of your apologetic, because if they found your site, you can be sure they will find other sites from the many SDA's that know exactly what you trying to say and teach. So they will quickly expose your legalism and then the whole exercise will be for nothing. Tradition dies hard. And so too those that have lived their entire lives promoting a false version of the Gospel Story. Pity. Hubert F. Sturges said: Neal, Thanks for a careful reading of my site. Tom failed to notice that I clearly identified myself as a "third generation SDA" and that this was my work." Sorry Hub, I did not read it that carefully, I was just taking a quick look to find the Gospel, and of course it was not there. This is the problem with the entire site. It promotes a false SDA Gospel and a false view of the Two Covenants. For the record, I too am a third Generation SDA, and my wife is a 4th generation. So I know how the SDA world operates as well as you do. In fact, because I grew up in Takoma Park, and have lived here all my life, I rubbed shoulders with many of the leaders and their families. Thus I had a ringside seat at the world headquarters. Which is one reason why I was allowed entrance into the White Estate. Hub said: As you might know, recent attacks of the Sabbath and on the Law of God have centered about the Covenant. (See J. Mark Martin's article on the "Sabbath and Sunday") Do you think this is a new phenomenon? If so, think again. The 19th century SDA's had many strong and vocal critics as they tried to promote the Sabbath. And this included many who claimed the law, and the Old Covenant had both been done away with. Consequently, Uriah Smith invented a counter-argument to blunt this attack on the Sabbath and the law. This is where the SDA's came up with this absurd position that the 10 Commandants are not part of the Old Covenant. It was an original position with them, just like the IJ. And it served them very well up to a point. Then it became a catastrophe. Smith's unique Covenant position caught on with all the SDA debaters, and it soon became sacred and accepted doctrine that all SDA's embraced and promoted. Canright also became a big proponent of this position and he even wrote a book about the Two Covenants because he too, like Smith, had become an "expert" on this unique interpretation. But guess what? Young E. J. Waggoner discovered Luther's writings about the law and the Gospel. And thus he attacked Smith and Canright's position about the Two Covenants. This was the basis for the famous 1888 debate that actually started about two years prior. I repeat, it was this debate over the Two Covenants that led to the great 1888 debacle and the subsequent self-destruction of the Battle Creek Empire. It was all about the Two Covenants and the relationship of the law with the Gospel. Canright was the first to understand--and admit-- that Waggoner, and Luther, were correct and that Smith and the SDA's had the wrong position about the Old Covenant and the Gospel. That's why he left the church in 1887. It was specifically because of Waggoner's position about the Two Covenants. Smith on the other hand refused to admit that he was wrong, and so he stayed on to fight Waggoner and then Ellen White who quickly sided with Waggoner. What a pity that the church has covered up this 1888 debate about the Two Covenants. Their deliberate deception in this matter has fooled and confused many SDA's about the Two Covenants and the Gospel, even as the church has promoted Smith's doctrines and suppressed the fact that Ellen White sided with Waggoner and Luther. It is never good to lie and deceive and it is no wonder that it is destroying the SDA church. I say the lies need to stop and the record corrected. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1450 Registered: 9-2004 |
So Hub, your position reflects that of Smith, not Waggoner, or Ellen White, or Luther. It is the wrong position. And it is time that all SDA's come to know this historical and theological fact. I have told you this before, but for some reason you must think I am shooting blanks, but I assure you that this is not the case. I have been in the White Estate and discovered the hidden 1888 documents that tell the true story about the debate over the Covenants. It is a fact of history regardless of how many people know it. Hub said: I have found a variety of opinions within Adventist writers and speakers on what the covenant is. We do not have a unified understanding on the covenant that I could find. Of course there is massive confusion about the Two Covenants within the SDA Community. That is to be expected with so much deception and cover up about 1888 and Ellen White. So some think X happened in 1888 and some think Y. And the leaders claim that no one will ever know for sure. But this is all a ruse. A twisted cover- up. Because the facts were in the White Estate all the time and thus there is no excuse for everyone to be on different pages about such historical facts. The record is clear, there is no longer any reason for all this confusion and dishonestly to prevail about the Two Covenants or the Gospel. Arthur White is the most dishonest man in the history of the SDA church and this fact needs to be understood by all. Hub said: Tom is correct in that this is an attempt to teach what I regard as the truth about the covenant. More than 90% of what I have written has come from Bible study. I thought this to be important as most people have a Bible, and do not have commentaries and history books. Hub, let's be real. While you may think what you are saying comes from the study of the Bible, it does not. It comes from a life of misinformation and indoctrination about theology and church history. It comes from Uriah Smith, not from Luther or even Ellen White. It is not correct doctrine or history. Besides, you are not a theologian, or anywhere close to being qualified to teach theology to anyone. You have not studied this trade like you did when you became a doctor, so what makes you think you can now become a theological expert without any real study at the college level? If I read a lot of books about medicine and put up a web site, does this mean that I can treat the sick? Can I prescribe meds and do some minor surgery? How about some major life saving surgery? Would you trust me to do this on your body? I hope not. Because I don't have the necessary qualifications. Well guess what-- neither do you when it comes to dealing with sinners and their Eternal Life. So forget this self-serving nonsense about you have studied the Bible and have reached this or that conclusion. Who cares what you think you have discovered? You are not qualified to opine on such matters because you are not qualified. You are worse than an amateur, because you don't recognize yourself as such. In fact, you need to repent and sit at the feet of those Protestants, like the Dr. Luther, or Dr. Ford and learn from them--not ignore what they teach and go your own way. Because you have neither the qualifications nor the knowledge to teach theology to anyone. And no one should be foolish enough to trust his or her soul to your incompetent spiritual care. No doubt you are qualified and competent in medical manners, but don't presume that you are also qualified in doctrinal matters because you are obviously not. Sorry. Hub said: Is it all true? I hope so. It is not true. Very little of what you and the SDA's teach is true. Your version of the Two Covenants is false. So too your position on the Law and the Gospel. It is not Protestant theology. Nor does it reflect what Ellen White promoted after 1888. Sorry. Hub said: I am looking for someone who will go over it and make suggestions. Too bad that Uriah Smith and Andreasen are not here to congratulate you on your site. They would both approve. But not Luther or Ellen White or Waggoner or Ford. Only those that are confused about the Gospel will accept what you have to say. Besides, I have already pointed out your major mistakes. Uriah Smith is the world's worst theologian, and you have made a horrible mistake to follow his position on the Covenants. Like I said before, the 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant regardless of his legalistic double-talk. The law is not to be confused with the Gospel, unless one is a Roman Catholic. Thus you need to determine if you want to be Protestant or Catholic-- and at this point you have embraced the latter, even though you claim to be the former. You can't have it both ways. Here is a good suggestion; go read Luther's Commentary on Galatians. And read it over and over until you become clear on the difference between the law and the Gospel. Keep reading it until you know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. Such an exercise may save your soul if you can ever get the courage to repudiate a lifetime of false doctrine and historical fraud from the White Estate. Anyone who dares pontificate about the Gospel must read what the best Protestant scholars have to say on the topic. Most all of those that you listed are not credible scholars, and thus they do not count. You must read the credible Protestant material about the law and the Gospel, not just what the perfection minded SDA's say. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1451 Registered: 9-2004 |
Don Sands said: Tom, here is my summary of what you are teaching. Am I right? 1) Only the Protestant Gospel and the Second Coming are featured in the original version of the Three Angels' message. Yes. This is a historical fact that cannot be refuted. The ONLY Gospel in the 1st Angles Message is the Protestant version. And the only JUDGMENT in the 1st Angels Message is the Second Coming. While I realize that all modern SDA's have been taught that the IJ is the Judgment in this prophetic message, this was NEVER true at anytime. Not even Uriah Smith taught this error. This means that Glacier View was a total sham. And that Traditional Adventism cannot be correct. It has no endorsement from the Pioneers as advertised. The IJ is not a part of the foundations of the Advent Movement as the leaders claimed at Glacier View. It was never a part of Historic Adventism. Which is why Clifford Goldstein cannot show his face around here. His key position has been exposed as myth and fraud and now he is in hiding. 2) The Investigative Judgment is not taught by the Bible writers. Correct. No Bible writer, in either the Old or New Testament ever taught the IJ and 1844. Although the SDA church says otherwise, they have not been able to prove such an absurd claim. It is not true and every honest theologian in the world knows this fact. 3) The Gospel is Justification by Faith, not Justification by Faith blended with Sanctification. Correct. There is only one Gospel. And the Protestant, Pauline version is the one that all SDA's should embrace. This idea that JBF is for past sins, while God gives us the power to obey the law for salvation is utter nonsense and blasphemy that comes from Rome and Battle Creek. 4) Only the Apostles have doctrinal authority in the Church. Ellen White's writings are not to be used to determine doctrine. Correct. This was the position of the Pioneers. But after Ellen White died, the Takoma Park apologists made her into something that she never was and something that she would never support. 5) The Church must not financially organize itself using the practice of Old Testament tithing. The SDA hierarchical structure is not Biblical. Correct. There is no such doctrine in the church as tithing. Even though the SDA's claim it is sacred, it is no such thing. Also a Roman Catholic hierarchy is against the Gospel and against the teaching of Jesus. There is no excuse for the way the SDA church is organized-- it is not Protestant. Which is why the Gospel has been repudiated and Dr. Ford exiled. 6) Adventists are confused about the two Covenants. Their practice of tithing, distinguishing between clean and unclean foods, and Pharisaical Sabbath observance stems from this covenant confusion. Correct. The 1888 debate was all about the Two Covenants. Had this debate been made public to the SDA Community all would know the difference between the Old and New Covenants. And they would know that the Moral law is part of the Old Covenant, and that Uriah Smith was terminated from the Review at the end of his life because he would not embrace the truth about the Two Covenants. 7) Adventists should not teach abstinence from alcohol. Observing the Lord's Supper with unfermented wine is incorrect. Correct again. It is the Muslims that teach abstinence. Not the Jews or the Christians. The SDA's have no right or authority to make up doctrines about anything for any reason. If they don't like Alcohol, then they need to become Muslims. They teach that it is a sin, which means that they would never be allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper unless they repudiated the Koran. So the doctrine of abstinence is actually a very cleaver way to repudiate the Gospel because the symbol of Christ's blood is viewed as sin. Why would any Protestant be so foolish as to embrace the anti-Gospel teachings of the Muslims on this point? But this is what the SDA's have done without knowing it. How pitiful. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1452 Registered: 9-2004 |
8) SDA's need to keep the New Covenant Sabbath not the Pharisaical Sabbath. The post-apostolic church was wrong on this, too. Correct. There is a Gospel Sabbath for the church, and it is on the Seventh Day, which is the Lord's Day. But it has not been taught or understood correctly by the SDA's or any post-apostolic church for that matter. All the SDA's know is the legalistic Sabbath of the Old Covenant, so this reform will be interesting for them to develop. 9) The Pre-Advent Judgment is Revelation 3:14, not Daniel 8:14. The Laodicean Message is the Pre-Advent Judgment Message. The Investigative Judgment Message is not the Pre-Advent Judgment Message. Correct again. Only the LM fits the requirements of a pre-Advent Judgment of the church. Dan 8:14 is primarily about Hanukkah. It is not talking about the church. 10) The Adventist expectation of Sunday laws as the start of the time of trouble is not supported in the New Testament. Correct again. The NT is clear on this point. Which means that the SDA's need to update their eschatology. This point is not meant in any way to go soft on the Sunday fraud, rather it is meant to conform the church to what the NT teaches about eschatology. In fact, the real point here is that once the SDA's correctly understand the Three Angels Messages, they need to develop the 4th Angels Message. This is the last message that finishes the work of the church. Too bad that the incompetent leaders are not even trying to figure this final Message out. The leaders do not care about developing a credible and defensible Gospel version of eschatology. They are comfortable with the 19th century legalism that comes from Uriah Smith and company. --------------------------------------- Good for you Don. That was not so hard was it? I have been promoting these positions for years now, (and so too has Dr. Ford long before I became involved with Adventist Reform). As you know I even asked Clifford Goldstein to show me where these points are wrong. But he refuses to deal with these issues. No one from the Denomination wants to deal with the many problems about church doctrine or history. They think they have all the truth they need, but this is obviously not true. The SDA church is dying because Millions CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR DOCTRINES ARE WRONG. And there is no possibility that this will ever change. Rather, it is the church that must confess its errors and repent. So these points will not go away, nor can the SDA's disprove them. Which means they have a problem. A big problem. And these are not the only points that can be made. The health message has been ruined by the incompetence of the leaders and this also needs to be confessed and reformed. There is so much work to do in order to set the SDA's back on the right track. It will be a monumental task, but well worth the trouble. But if they don't repent and reform, the Advent Movement will die. It is dying now for all to see. Without genuine Gospel Reform, it will never survive. So I say it is time to tell the truth and Reform the SDA church. Enough of all this dishonesty and double-talk. There is a clear and credible path for the SDA's to take. The leaders must repent for deceiving the church about 1888 and then they must set the record straight about the Two Covenants, Ellen White, and many other things. They must also repudiate Glacier View and apologize to Dr. Ford, even as they embrace the Protestant Gospel and the correct Judgment in the 1st Angels Message. This is the beginning of Adventist Reform. I hope this helps. Tom Norris for Adventist Reform | ||
| robert d lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 1531 Registered: 9-2004 |
Well Don and Tom and Hubb and Cliff and Bill. Tom's points that Don Sands presented in a very concise and clear way would be the position that pratically every protestant church or denomination other than the SDA (tradiational I suppose) denomination would support. All denominations in the protestant world that I know anything about would say "amen" to Tom here with the possible exception of some pentecostals who may want to connect sanctification to salvation and the gospel. Sanctification, as Tom and Dr. Ford would say, is the fruit of being ALREADY saved. Not part of what produces salvation. Salvation is NOT produced by keeping the 10 commandments, doing good works, living a clean life and paying 10 percent. Salvation is produced by becoming a believer in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven and no other name or way is possible including OT Judaism and strict commandment keeping. Then accepting your salvation as a gift from God through grace and faith alone apart from the law, apart from works plus nothing. SDA Jackson says one of the reasons the SDA church was raised up was to bring balance to the gospel for the protestants "took it too far". If Jerry Falwell or J. Vernon McGee would come up out of the grave today, they would blow Jackson out of the water with the NT, Paul's gospel and Scritpure upon Scripture. Natually most protestants would say the Lord Day is Sunday except for the Seventh-Day Baptists, Seventh-Day Church of God etc. so Tom and Dr. Ford would not support be EXACTLY like the Lutherans or Baptists. But becoming fully protestant in its doctrine is what the rub is with many Adventists, especially those who are traditional or close to traditional. Several years ago a traditional Adventist told me "if we went with all Ford teaches, even though he continues to support the seventh-day Sabbath, we would be just like all the other protestant denominations except for the possible positions on the state of the dead, the rapture and hellfire. We would loose our distinctives..what sets us apart from the rest of the protestant world and proves that we are the remnant church". But the unique doctrines of the SDA church are EXACTLY what provokes many protestants in other denominations to charge the SDA church with having an extra-Biblical authority or legalism or being a cult. | ||
| Dennis J. Fischer (Dennisfischer) member Username: Dennisfischer Post Number: 225 Registered: 2-2002 |
The "investigative judgment" (now frequently referred to as the "Pre-Advent Judgment" to sound better to the uninformed) is the foundational pillar of Seventh-day Adventism. If in doubt, read the Great Controversy and many other Ellen White comments on this topic. In short, Adventism was founded on deception. There is absolutely no way to dance around this fact. Interestingly, the SDA beliefs about soul sleep, nature of man, nature of salvation, nature of Christ, etc. are wholly dependent upon the investigative judgment alibi. They are all tied together to intensify and support the original deception. Obviously, for example, SDA apologists cannot allow the saints to be in heaven before the IJ clears their name. However, there is one major exception according to Ellen White. This exception applies only to those who have kept the weekly Sabbath and then gave it up. Technically, former Adventists (notably former Sabbatarians) do not come under the scrutiny of the investigative judgment. Ellen White has already sternly pronounced their fate as follows:
His grace still amazes me, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 190 Registered: 7-2006 |
Hubb, Is what Tom said really true? Are you using your discussions in this place to buff up your resume as a defender of historic Adventist faith? If so, perhaps some special consideration is in order. Is it really fair of you to take up our time when you have no intention of changing your position, but are only posturing, with an eye to enhancing your credibility among other Adventist wackos? Frankly, I'm a bit offended to think that you have been using some of us in this way. I'm not a prison inmate. I don't expect to hear "You got nothing comin'" when I broach the subject of remuneration. What about it, Hubb? (Message edited by Hansen on June 25, 2007) | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2180 Registered: 2-2002 |
Don, Expression Web is the new upgrade of Microsoft Front Page 2003. It strongly presents Cascading Style Sheets as the basis for making web sites. Front Page and Expression Web are both programs designed for people who do not like to write code. I always begin the web pages using the program. However, I have found that the program tends to be rather "messy" with their coding, and this bothers me. So I spend a lot of time cleaning up the code. The main competing program is Dream Weaver by Adobe. I know nothing about Dream Weaver. If you are thinking about making your own website, it is possible. Of course, it also depends on how many pages you want, and how sophisticated you want to make it. But, plan to spend lots of time doing it. You have to be motivated, and it helps if you find it to be fun. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3378 Registered: 5-2006 |
In short, Adventism was founded on deception. There is absolutely no way to dance around this fact. That seems to be kind of a leap. I have read nothing that would lead me to believe that the Adventist pioneers who saw their way through the "Great Disappointment" intended to deceive. One may consider the conclusion that something happened in heaven as a "deception", but it is better described as an "interpretation", IMO. I suppose all this is in the eye of the beholder. I personally see nothing incompatible with the idea of a judgment, such as the one described in Daniel 7 and warned about in Revelation 3:14-22. I do believe the traditional ideas of the IJ need restating. But, there is enough in Scripture alluding to a judgment process before the end of all things to warrant doctrinal development on the topic. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2181 Registered: 2-2002 |
Glenn, I am a little surprised to see that you think that Tom's ad hominem attacks against me and all other believing Adventists are true. Am I using my discussions in Atomorrow forum to "buff up my resume as a defender of Adventist faith?" That is a strange question from a person who classifies all believing Adventists as "wackos." I will be honest with you; In posting to and reading the Atomorrow forum I have learned what the questions are that people ask. I have learned a little bit in how to defend my position. Is that bad? On a number of occasions I have clearly stated that I did not expect to change any one's mind on this forum. That the only reason I posted to the forum was because I found it to be fun. If it no longer is fun, I will quit. Am I being paid for my presentations? Absolutely not. Rather, it works the other way. I pay tithe and offerings to them. Glenn, read over what Tom said in response to my comments on the covenant, and his response to things I have said on my website: his response is to make endless derogatory attacks against me personally. But he never does challenge the substance of what I said. So how can I answer him? Hubb | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3379 Registered: 5-2006 |
Is it really fair of you to take up our time when you have no intention of changing your position Glenn, I get no indication from you that you intend to change your position. The strength of dialogue is not in changing one's position as much as in developing one's thinking and model for living. Hubb's work is impressive. I can imagine that even Tom's criticism is useful to him. I don't see Tom changing his 10 point agenda, nor intending to. I think Tom's persistence re: the ten points is useful to all. Reduce the quantity and focus on how to accomplish the desired task. I am not in agreement with Tom's ten, but I like that he is out there challenging Adventists to rethink their doctrines. Hubb's work is clear and sensibly presented. It is a personal model of thought rooted in Scripture. Hubb, while I wait to be approved on your forum I will address a minor issue here. In your Adam and Eve section, you mention about Adam naming the animals over a period of days. Of course, at the end of the naming process, Eve is created and he names her. However, in Genesis 1 both male and female are said to be created on the sixth day. Out of this "naming over several days" spins several issues:
| ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2182 Registered: 2-2002 |
Tom and others, About that reading list: These are largely Adventist sources. My first goal in the website is to show that what I have to say is in conformity with Church understandings. Mainly, what I have to contribute is to answer some of the hard questions, and to try to put it all together in a unified whole. Your statement: . . . "Anyone who dares pontificate about the Gospel must read what the best Protestant scholars have to say on the topic. Most all of those that you listed are not credible scholars, and thus they do not count. You must read the credible Protestant material about the law and the Gospel, not just what the perfection minded SDA's say." "Pontificate?" Not sure who is doing the pontification here? I have read a number of websites of variant viewpoints on the covenant. I do have Dr. Ford's article on the covenants. I hope to respond to these in time. Tom here is another of your statements, that are representative of your posts: . . . "Your site does not even contain the Gospel, much less the correct teaching about the Two Covenant or the Three Angels Messages. Sorry." You accuse me of running away, but how can I answer a statement like the above? It says nothing about the substance of my belief in the "two covenant." In fact, if you had read my material, you should have found that I strongly promote a unitary "everlasting covenant" and believe that our use of "old covenant" and "new covenant" are semantic terms only, and unfortunately lead one to dispensationalism. Well, enough for now, Hubb | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2183 Registered: 2-2002 |
Don, Thank you for your thoughtful question: . . . "Hubb, while I wait to be approved on your forum I will address a minor issue here. In your Adam and Eve section, you mention about Adam naming the animals over a period of days. Of course, at the end of the naming process, Eve is created and he names her. However, in Genesis 1 both male and female are said to be created on the sixth day. Out of this "naming over several days" spins several issues: * The unity of Genesis 1 and 2. * The "literal human history" view of the creation story. * The number of species needing to be named and the "literal natural history" view of the creation story." The "Covenant Forum" is not intended to compete with the "Atomorrow Forum." In fact there are certain qualifications necessary to participate. you would be most welcome, I am hoping to make a forum where scholars would feel welcome. It has not gotten off the ground yet. When I get the latest web site put up, I will promote the forum and hope to get some action. Would you permit me to post your question and my answer on the Covenant Forum? Adam named all the animals, birds, fishes, and insects? I don't know how long this took, but if Adam lived in "real time" it may have taken months. We don't know. I DON'T think it all happened on that first Friday! Genesis 1:27 says that "male and female created he them." I can only make several proposals: 1. God created within Adam the DNA for female humans too. 2. The statement was in prolepsis for when Eve would be actually created. Genesis 1 is strictly chronological. Genesis 2 gives us more detail in certain areas, and suggests that those events extended beyond the first six days. These are my thoughts. I would be glad to here what you have to say. Hubb | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3380 Registered: 5-2006 |
Would you permit me to post your question and my answer on the Covenant Forum? Certainly. I have also, a day or two ago, registered there. Adam named all the animals, birds, fishes, and insects? I don't know how long this took, but if Adam lived in "real time" it may have taken months. We don't know. I DON'T think it all happened on that first Friday! Genesis 1:27 says that "male and female created he them." I can only make several proposals: 1. God created within Adam the DNA for female humans too. 2. The statement was in prolepsis for when Eve would be actually created. I don't think the story intends to solve the details. I agree that naming the animals would take some time. It seems essential that the creation of Adam and Eve, both, be understood to have happened on Day 6, otherwise the creation is incomplete. Another way of looking at it, is that the Bible presents a 7 Day Creation Week, everything was good. If woman comes later, the spinoff ramifications are unacceptable. I have come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 do not contain all the necessary elements to adequately understand that original week. Eve was created at the end of the animal naming process. It is possible to imagine a token naming process, Adam becomes aware of his aloneness, God creates Eve. In this "model" Adam could go on naming the animals at his leisure.  The story is meant to convey basic concepts, IMO, not to resolve all related questions. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 192 Registered: 7-2006 |
Yes Hubb, I think "Adventists" who blather on and on about Sr.White and have read one or two of her books are wackos. So are the ones who cling to "Amazing Facts" type theology, or the kind of thinking espoused by Kevin Paulson, or GreatControversy.org. I can't access your website so I don't know what you are saying about the covenants. I know what the NT message is: There was a covenant with Abraham based on promises and later one with Israel based on laws. The true covenent is the one based on promises, the Abrahamic one. This was what Paul was saying in both Romans and Galatians. It is faith in God's word through which we relate to God, not laws. If your covenant teaching is much different than this, you don't understand Paul's theology and are unable to help others understand it. Your entire relationship to God would be skewed. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3382 Registered: 5-2006 |
Wackos Glenn, I have been thinking about your view of who is "Wacko" and who is not. I suggest that "Wackoness" is in the eye of the beholder and reflects a personal worldview. I have noted that you consider many Adventists "Wacko". That suits your agenda. Those who bring their children to Loma Linda University Medical Center for medical help may differ with you. I have recently become acquainted with some of those who work at ADRA Canada. Some are wonderfully eccentric, especially those who get things done. There is something to be said for those who espouse a cause with energy and dispatch. My colleagues where I teach are people of reasoned effectiveness in their classrooms, staff meetings, and life in general. John Wesley a wacko? Probably so. He is also one of my heroes. Martin Luther is another. A wacko? Most certainly, at least on his view of the Jews. Some of the things he said against Jews makes Neo Nazis seem tame in comparison. His vitriolic scatological comments about the pope are notorious. Tom, who seems somewhat outspoken, admittedly does not get near to Luther's attitude. Wacko, maybe. Wonderful, powerful human being. IMO, yes. In a room of reasoned thinkers, why do some people resort to ad hominem assertions? Could it be an anti-social tendency? Is it possibly a result of feeling that one's case is not strong enough based on reason alone? It has been said that sanctification is a work of a lifetime. Reasoned participation in a forum such as this is as well. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1708 Registered: 9-2004 |
Don said.... "It has been said that sanctification is a work of a lifetime. Reasoned participation in a forum such as this is as well." Did you say, "reasoned", Don? There must be some degree of sanity before we can use such a word as "reasoned". What I find interesting about many, if not most, on this forum is the fact no one seems to "cut to the chase" and deal with the basic difference that divide the discussions. Does the bible teach a judgment according to works? Most on this forum say "no". And then accuse anyone who does, as being a legalist. It is assumed, ipso facto, if you believe in a judgment according to works, you are necessarily a legalist. They apparently have no mental capacity to distinguish between a moral judgment vs. a legal judgment. We can only assume they were legalists before they formulated a new heresy, and thought they could merit heaven by their own good works. And once they arrived at the conclusion that Jesus merited heaven for them, they are now under no obligation to obey the law. So, for them it is legalism, or nothing. And since some of us see the law as having another function which is not for the purpose of determining who has merited heaven, but rather to show who has accepted Jesus as Lord, we are called legalists. The fact is, unless this issue is resolved, any futher discussion is fruitless. Unless you first deal with the basic issue of difference, all other discussion is meaningless. If, as they claim, EGW Adventism is a system of legalism, you will never convince them otherwise unless you can convince them the law has a more comprehensive application than to see who has merited heaven. They will always impute their own ignorance to you and assume you are not one of the "highly enlightened" souls like themselves who have no need for the law and the law has no application to them. I don't care how many times you deny the charge of legalism and confess that Jesus alone has merited heaven for you, if you confess a judgment according to works, you are still a legalist in their immature judgment. And it does not matter how many scriptures you quote to prove your point, they will claim it is an old covenant mentality that does not apply to a new covenant believer. Even new testament quotations have no effect to challenge their thinking. Their delusion has an incredible power to deceive and control the mind. Now the cross can be interpreted in only two ways, 1. Jesus came and did away with the law. 2. Jesus came and established the law forever. Most on this forum accept No. 1 as the only viable conclusion. And in many and various scenerios it is taught in the Christian community in general and now is being taught in much of modern Adventism. It is stated in a number or ways but the most popular deception is this... "Obedience to the law has nothing to do with salvation." Never was a greater lie advocated by the Devil and embraced by many in the SDA church. Those who make this statement never qualify what they mean and leave the statement as valid with no qualification. If they stated "obedience to the law has nothing to do with meriting or earning salvation" all true believers could say, "amen". But many see no difference between the first and second statement, and thus, deception abounds and the devil rejoices. In reference to this, EGW has well said..... -PC- RH -PT- Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald -DT- 12-22-85 -AT- Christian Growth -PR- 10 -TEXT- The easy position so pleasing to the carnal heart is, that Christ has done all, that personal striving is unnecessary, and would be an evidence of unbelief. But the Bible tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Self-complacency will never save us. Those who imagine that because Christ has done all that is necessary in the way of merit, there remains nothing for them to do in the way of complying with the conditions, are deceiving their own souls. There are higher attainments for us. Are we indeed channels of light to the world? Then how important that we seek perfection of character. Said Christ, "I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth." Many SDA ministers today are simply apostate Protestant Sabbath advocaters "who worship, they know not what." Those who suppose that since Jesus has merited heaven for us and offers it as a free gift, they have been delivered from a judgment according to works will find themselves on the outside looking in when the new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven. Sorensen |
