Leaderboard

Did anyone catch the hearings today? What a farce and a kangaroo court! Everyone (including Republicans) treated Ms. Ford with the utmost respect and courtesy. But when Kavanaugh came out, the Democrat's gloves came off. They treated an honorable and competent judge like some kind of a loathsome criminal, sex offender, and a hostile witness. They are asking Kavanaugh to prove he didn't do this. Anyone who has ever taken Philosophy 101 learned that it is impossible to prove a negative. Senator Lindsay Graham said it right when He called the Dem's tactics a scam and a stall tactic to take the confirmation past the 2018 elections. Let's see - Kavanaugh has letters signed by over 80 high school and college female friends saying the judge is completely honorably and respectful. Ms. Ford names three eye witnesses - all of whom refuted her testimony. Ms. Ford is a victim in this as well. The Dems set her up on a public soap box she never wanted. After watching those proceedings, I'm convinced satan must be a Democrat (no offense to my democrat friends).

fwiw, I believe Blasey Ford was probably assaulted at some point. But I don't believe it was Kavanaugh. And I don't think the Democrats are really concerned about *her* .... once she's served their purpose, which is to delay the vote (or remove Kavanaugh — as well as anyone else the POTUS chooses — from the process completely), she'll be either thrown under the bus and completely forgotten, or else the feminists will put her on a pedestal, as if she has done something remarkable (she hasn't)... The pandering that the Democratic senators did to her, as if they were so concerned, made me ill. I also believe Blasey Ford was coached as to the words that she used in her opening "statement" — for example, she read the term, "pin balling," in her *written* description, yet not once in her many subsequent descriptions did she ever use that term. I think she was also coached about being "afraid to fly" because of the purported incident .... that was a joke. And the "temperament" that Judge Kavanaugh displayed was, imho, *entirely* understandable. He has been attacked, mocked, called "evil", for weeks and weeks, without any proof whatsoever of wrongdoing. A person can only take that type of treatment for so long — especially when it is affecting his family. And this business of counselors stating they believe Blasey Ford because she conforms to a pattern they've "seen" of how sexually assaulted women behave? That in itself presents a problem.... Blasey Ford is supposedly a "brilliant" scholar in the area of psychology. Very easy to "conform" to a set of symptom criteria if you already know what they are. But, as I mentioned, I think she *was* assaulted at some point... or at least she *believes* she was assaulted — but not by Kavanaugh. An FBI investigation *would* be interesting.... of Blasey Ford.

I have no problem uniting in prayer with Catholics and other Protestants for the persecuted Christians and Jews in the world.

The only person who will be upset if the unity committee doesn't pass the proposed rules will be TW himself. He has a skewed opinion of his place in this denominational structure; he thinks (as did his father before him) that as president of the General Conference he is boss of the church. He can dictate when and how we should worship, for instance. As for myself, I'll just sit back and wait till TW's term of service is ended, and then the denominational activities can return to normal. Remember: The pastorate in our church is TO SERVE, not to boss the members. The strength of our church is at the grass roots -- in the membership. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for disallowing women in the ministry. Jeannieb

False allegations have been around for a long time!

The DEMS are certainly displaying selective moral outrage. They defended Kennedy, Clinton, etc. etc. etc. etc. They are using the current favorite cause victims (#MeToo) for political/power gain. It is a revelation of things to come - prophetically speaking, when the current of moral/political outrage will be turned against believers, against Jews, against the morally conservative. (It already is, but it will get worse.) The Beast with 2 horns (like a lamb) will speak smooth half truths, which most will believe. The testimony of false witnesses will seem "very credible". Watching the unrelenting attacks made me shiver, as I imagined myself in his place. My life before I met Christ, was not something I would want to hear detailed on news programs, or by attacking senators.

Interesting. But if schism comes, it will be a shock to the 99.9% of Adventists who don't follow church politics and who neither understand nor care what the whole dispute is about. Were I to poll my local congregation and ask them what is the biggest challenge facing the church today, I doubt one in a hundred would name women's ordination.

This whole thing was such a disgusting display by the Democrats including Senator Feinstien. She basically proved that women can be just as dirty and unethical as some men can be in politics. Senator Graham was spot on. https://www.facebook.com/realCalebHull/videos/470137273491104/

If he were impersonating the Pope, she would've said the "Pope" and not human being!! Besides why would he need to impersonate the Pope? Isn't he already doing what satan needs?? I'm not convinced about the Pope!!

To all: HCH does not reflect SDA thinking. Period. Further, his approach to Scripture (the Bible) reflects what is known as Eisegesis. This is not the way that one should understand the Bible. In addition, there is much in what HCH says that can not be said to reflect the thinking of Ellen White. It should be noted that HCH has in the past often made specific, time-related, predictions that did not come to pass as he had predicted. I fine it interesting that HC'H understands the Bible to be saying that a day in God's sight represents 1,000 years. Is he telling us that the Biblical prophecy of the 2300 days actually represents 2,300,000 years? I could be wrong, but I once thought that HCH believed that such a day represented one year and that an hour represented about 2-weeks, not 83+ years. By the way, there is absolutely no Biblical support to relate an hour in prophecy to any time period of either weeks or years.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever" (John 14:16) [Jesus said] "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt. 28:20) Equivalent statements, or just coincidence?

They say that God's desire or will, cannot fail to be accomplished. God wants everyone to be saved - therefore they will. I believe God's desire is subverted to the FREE WILL He has allowed for human beings. He will not violate our will. Michele stated outright, that she believes we do NOT HAVE free will. We cannot resist the will of God, and so everyone will eventually be drawn to Christ, and will surrender. (How can one surrender - an act of the will - if he has no free will?) I told her, if that is true then our God is a monster. He knew all the time, that HE was going to override FREE WILL. He should have done that - in the first place - and skipped all the PAIN!

I remind people reading this thread that it is posted in a section where people are allowed to post almost at will, material that would be subject to moderation if posted elsewhere. The suggestions that HCH makes are usually well beyond what the SDA denomination teaches and are also outside of accepted Christian scholarship as to what the Bible teaches. Contrary to what he sometimes says, others have sometimes suggested the same ideas that he presents. He is not the only one for some of what he posts. In addition, he has a history of making statements that are demonstrated to be wrong as they fail according to his proposed time frame. In every case he has within a few months come back with alleged new light from God as to how and why he went wrong. We will continue to allow him to post in this section, but read his writings with caution.

Helps to understand what a "decided message" is. Seems to be a term that EGW used frequently thru her writings. The adjective decided means recognizable, marked, or distinct. synonyms - definite: precise; explicit and clearly defined https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/decided It seems that today, a decided message is no longer desired as many want to placate the world rather than obey God. There are many verses in the New Testament regarding doing this. And again, I am not sure that many know what the decided message is.

Now as to our history, and the passing on of the torch: we find that a number of the names who I have been alluding to above we find were in 1888 united against Jones and Wagner. Then in the early 1900s were strong advocates of Fundamentalism and upset that the trinity was becoming so popular among us. There was a big debate, some friendly (such as between Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell) some not so friendly over Fundamentalism. (Haskell kept trying to convince Mrs. White to accept Fundamentalism and kept telling her how her writings came to be. She would disagree with him and tried to get him to give up Fundamentalism. Despite the frustration in not winning the other to their side, they remained close friends.) There was an uncle and nephew who in 1888 were united in their dislike of Jones and Wagner, but who ended up on the opposite sides of the debate over Fundamentalism. There was the 1919 Bible conference that Haskell and the pastors who I've been alluring to were quite upset about. And in the 1922 General Conference the Haskell party and the party of the pastors who I've been talking about united together to form a majority to remove Daniels from office, demote Prescott, and while Willie White got to "keep" his job, it was basically stripped of any authority or influence. He could just work with the books and was other wise for all practical purposes fired but allowed to keep coming to his office and receive his pay check. The religion department at Columbia Union College, faithful men, were fired by the church (actually Daniels fired them hoping to ease the pressure that was mounting against him, Prescott and Willie), and there were witch hunts for those who did not accept Fundamentalism. Now the new General Conference President, Elder Spicer, was seen as just as big a heretic as the ones they were throwing out of office in 1922, but unlike Daniels who believed in actively fighting Fundamentalism, Spicer would keep his heresy to himself (and he was a Fundamentalist as far as the scriptures was concerned.) The Haskell party became the majority view of the church and developed into your typical Adventist. The other pastors's party remained a minority but like I said was popular in say "Our Firm Foundation" journal and the ideas we see today in say Fulcrum 7 and similar groups, and what Pastor Kirkpatrick teaches. Again, I do see them as being a part of Adventism, and often brings up things the rest of us might overlook. I do not see them as any of those who have left the church. I support them having a voice in our church and I'd be horrified in their voice being stifled. However, I do see them as the ditch on the right as Ford is a ditch on the left. I am uncomfortable with how they divide us up into two groups: those who fully agree with them and Fordites. For a long time Pastor Kirkpatrick and I were on a web discussion group like this one. We would comment on the same posts. I do not remember him once making a comment on any of my posts. I'd often point out that his two sided argument was not right and how there were other subgroups and possibilities besides the two views that he said we were all on either the one side or the other. He had a few times posted a list he had showing the two views of Adventism, his side and ideas that sounded like Ford. I'd directly confront him and show several other subgroups views and other possible applications. He never once acknowledged that information. I hope this helps.

B/W Photodude: First a minor correction, I did not say "It also would help to know just how AG Daniells felt EGW was being polluted by those around her." However in those letters I read A. G. Daniels was one of those the letters accused of polluting Mrs. White's mind against the ministers who got those sharp testimonies from her. I have been hesitant to name names; however I have from time to time. Once again, when I was working on my masters at Andrews in Old Testament and the life and writings of Mrs. White, besides my study for classes I would from time to time just pick out a folder at random in the White estate and read them. Although I picked them at what ever sounded like an interesting topic at the time, I found myself frequently reading correspondence between either Mrs. White or Willie to a set of pastors. Since the letters kept covering a lot of the same information and since 2 or 3 of the pastors had last names that started with the letter "W" I first thought that it was all the same pastor. I got to a point where I'd start to read a letter and would say "Here is another letter to Pastor W again" but occasionally was surprised when I got to the end and it had a different name that did not start with a "W" then realized that even with the ""W" that there were 2 or 3 different "Pastor W's" but who still was part of this same school of thought. The letters from Ellen or Willie basically kept telling them that despite their massive quoting of Mrs. White's writings, that they did not understand her message and that she was in disagreement with their message. Sometimes she or Willie would state what visions did and did not do for her, how she wanted her writings to be used and how they were abusing her writings. They were accused of using her quotes to try to make it look like there was divine authority for what they were teaching so that they could force their views on to the people. The letters that they wrote back basically were friendlier if they were written to Ellen, and a bit less friendly if written to Willie (who they often compared to Samuel's sons and to Nadab and Abihu). They would try to argue that Mrs. White's or Willie's letter does not apply to them. They would defend themselves saying that they were only faithfully following what she had written, and often comments such as if people like Willie, or A. G. Daniels, or W. W. Prescott (the main three they would mention, but sometimes others or un-named others) were not polluting her mind towards them she would have never written them those letters. They would insist that they were indeed using her writings correctly and that if she had her facts straight she would not have written those letters but would have rather joined them in their ministry and fully embrace their message. So this was the basic correspondence that I kept coming across in the White estate vault. If I could go back in time I would have done a paper on these instead of just read them. But while I occasionally met someone who was teaching what those letters were teaching, due to us looking at different subgroups at Atlantic Union College, and at Campmeeting a couple from Union College, the Neals (or Neils?) the wife's name was Beatrice. Anyway they had a series on how the truth of Seventh-day Adventism has been ripped approximately in half by two groups, one group taking approximately half the truth the other group taking approximately the other half of the truth, and how they were using these portions of the truth against the rest of the truth. One extreme was Desmond Ford and those who thought like him. The other extreme was the ideas that you see in say Pastor Kirkpatrick's writings and Fulcrum 7. And there was also the writings of A. LeRoy Moore who also pointed out how the two groups were dividing the truth between them. But I thought that this group was a lot smaller than they turned out to be, and I thought that all of our colleges taught like AUC and Union College (and A. LeRoy Moore) giving a more complete message than those half truths that were being used against each other in the Ford camp and the conservative camp. I understood from this background, including the letters I read between the pastors of the one group and Mrs. White, that their views were equally as dangerous as Desmond Ford's views only to the other extreme. I thought that this conservative camp was more from the 1800s and was fizzling out by the time I was in college in the late 1970s to 1980s. Now, besides these letters, in the White Estate vault I also came across flyers from the early 1900s that were circulating around as we see flyers and letters today. These were accusing Mrs. White of aposticy. The three major complaints was because she had accepted the heresy of the trinity, that she did not see every word in her writings as dictated directly from God in an absolutely infallible manner, and that she was opposing the truth about inspiration as taught in the pamphlets "The Fundamentals" that in attacking Fundamentalism, she was siding with the liberal scholars in their attacks on the scriptures. The third point that kept coming up was that she was critical of these faithful ministers who were using her messages from God faithfully (the ones she wrote the above letters to). There were other ideas too but were all sub issues from these 3 major topics. Some of these flyers said that it was others (one accused Prescott) of mixing trinitarian doctrine in to her writings, and that when she discovered what people were doing she did not correct her writings but stated that she indeed had written them, and became a trinitarian to go in harmony with those writings. A couple of these speculated that a Jesuit spy had gotten into her inner circle and was influencing her along these lines. One even suggested that she had converted to Catholicism and became a Jesuit spy using her former role as a prophet to now spread these heresies from Rome through the pen that at one time delivered messages from God. These pamphlets recommended that if you wanted to know what she wrote that came from God as opposed to what is coming from Willie, Daniels, Prescott or Rome to stop reading her directly and read her as quoted and taught by these same pastors who she wrote the above mentioned letters to. After Andrews I joined the Army and was stationed at Fort Lewis Washington. Among a number of church members there was a journal that was quite popular titled "Our Firm Foundation". As I read that journal I came across the same details that were in those letters I read at Andrews. Sure enough looking at the footnotes I would over and over again see the footnote mentioning the name of different pastors who received those letters I had read. A couple of years later I was in Loma Linda California where I picked up a book called "With Cloak and Dagger" which was accusing some ideas of coming into the church recently. I found it interesting that these same heresies that they were coming recently into the church happened to be the same ones that these fliers from the early 1900s were accusing Mrs. White as at that time teaching and why you should not read her current writings.

Some of us, to include me, may say that the SDA denomination has elements of the Catholic church in is theology and practice. This may not bad. The following article takes a look at one element as to how EGW may have considered this issue. https://spectrummagazine.org/arts-essays/2018/where-run-paths-rome

It is ABOUT POWER.

Chap. 354 - The Most Dangerous of Foes The adversary of souls is constantly seeking to divert our minds by bringing in side issues. Let us not be deceived. Let enemies handle your name and mine as they please. Let them distort, misrepresent, our words and deeds. Let them fabricate falsehoods as best pleases them. We cannot afford to allow our minds to be diverted from Jesus and the preparation of soul which we must have in order to meet Him in peace. . . . In Christ's stead, I beseech you to pray as you never prayed before, to seek earnestly for faith and love, that seem to be almost banished from the earth. Live each day as in the sight of God. . . . {OHC 360.2} Let not false teachers confuse your minds and unsettle your faith by casting reproach upon those whom God has sent you with messages of warning and instruction. Remember that it is not mere men whom you have to meet, but "principalities and powers, and wicked spirits in high places." Now is the very time when Satan is working with all deceivableness of unrighteousness. {OHC 360.3} Many are in reality fighting his battles while they profess to serve under the banner of Christ. These traitors in the camp may not be suspected, but they are doing their work to create unbelief, discord, and strife. Such are the most dangerous of foes. While they insinuate themselves into our favor, and gain our confidence and sympathy, they are busy suggesting doubts and creating suspicion. They work in the same manner as did Satan in heaven when he deceived the angels by his artful representations, placing darkness for light, and making the forbearance and mercy of God to appear as harshness and severity. As he worked at the beginning, so he works in the end, only concealing himself more perfectly from view. . . . {OHC 360.4} It is not enough that we have the theory of the truth; its principles must be inwrought in the soul, and exemplified in the life, or we shall fall a prey to the delusions prepared for the last days. {OHC 360.5}

Very sad🙁

HCH, your reference to EGW presents her as stating that Satan will appear in human form, It does not state that Satan will impersonate any specific person. Yes, it does state that Satan will impersonate Jesus Christ, I do not argue that point. You cannot reasonably state that Satan will impersonate any Pope.

I have also wondered about this text. Could it mean that it just won't take them by surprise, that they will be ready to meet Jesus? Or could it mean that for those people who are really studying deep, that maybe they could get additional light or more details towards the end that maybe hasn't previously been shown to man?

there is nothing in Scripture that clearly states Satan will impersonate a catholic Pope. That is NOT in the picture.

In this day and age, a couple tassels might be appropriate.

First I'd like to say that between myself and Larry Kirkpatrick, the difference is probably more in application and methods rather than the basic principles. That may be different from others. The answer to your quandary is to first of all trust in God. God is more interested in a teachable spirit than in who is right or wrong. Are you honestly willing to study and listen to the evidence? All one person can give another is information. We compare that information with our backgrounds and what we already know. The Bible and Mrs. White gives us two ditches we have to worry about, the first represented by the dragon of Revelation 12, Satan and directly demon activity, and his original attack on the law of God. The idea that there is no right and no wrong except for what we preserve as right or wrong with in our own existential experience. The philosophy called "existentialism". Now our existential experience is important. The ideas of Maslow and his hexarchy of needs and William Glasser's choice theory/reality therapy are called existential psychologies. But what that means is looking at what is important to us. ExistentialISM on the other hand sees the idea of what is important to us as the only authoritive truth. That all truth for you is only inside you, that there is no right or no wrong except for what is right and wrong for you. When we look inside for truth we end up trusting our feelings. This trust in our feelings destroys the will and we become slaves of our feelings. A large number of the lost are going to be lost because they become slaves of fear that God is going to get them, and thus are unable to will to trust in his love for them. The dragon in Revelation 12 is a counterfeit Holy Spirit. The other ditch is represented by the beast of Revelation 13. The beast is any organized group that we allow to replace Christ in our lives. It is a counterfeit God the Father. As the dragon is symbolic of us looking for truth inside ourselves, the beast is an external power that we submit to. While the beast itself is ANY organization that replaces Christ in our lives, the 7 heads and 7 [sacred] mountains (thus the 7 hills of Rome is too narrow an application) are the 7 periods of someone else ruling over God's people than the son of David: They are Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, the Holy Roman Empire (with Papal supremacy), the deadly wound (a period of no great world empire ruling most of God's people, but a period of independent nations, the crowns are on the horns, not the head) and the deadly wound being healed; another world empire but which is different from others since it is not political and conquest, but the world uniting under the merchants of the earth, or the corporations, in voluntary cooperation and submission.) but which shall ultimately not join together and after a short time of looking like the prophecy of Daniel 2 failed, and a period of peace and prosperity before, yet it being a fragile system where everyone has to cooperate to keep it from falling apart. Everyone will find something in their conscience that they would have to surrender for the good, or else be tempted in wanting to force those who might yield to their conscience to yield to the system, and liberty of conscience is threatened. The truth is a straight and narrow path through these ditches. These two ditches tend to attract people to one side or the other. Someone who sees the danger in the one side often believe they are safe by yielding to the other. But in God's kingdom the two sides work together. There is a very definite truth, the truth about who God is, his character and the law of self sacrificing love. The members of the trinity exist in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other based on the law of self sacrificing love. But all of us individually are at different locations. We all have different needs assessments, interests, quality world, personalities and situations. The true Holy Spirit works with us where we are, so that we can apply a righteousness by faith relationship with this precious God, based on the law of self sacrificing love to our existential experience. From this background I can turn specifically to Larry Kirkpatrick, it's late so I'd like to close tonight with what I like about Larry, although as you read the above you may see some of my concerns about him. I like that Larry is within the framework of Adventism. That he and I both hold in one way or another the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists (the 27 and then the 28th were specifically written in a fairly vague way to be more inclusive.) And from this I am assuming that we also hold in common our landmarks: "The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary." I am a Seventh-day Adventist because I am in agreement with the landmarks and with in the framework of the 28 fundamental beliefs. Before I move on to further likes and concerns, we see another concern I have of Larry Kirkpatrick here. I fear that he has a specific reading the 28 that clears up the vague language for himself, just as we all should, but I fear that he see's his specific understanding of the 28 as the ONLY correct understanding and that unless we accept his specifics that he sees us as changing the old landmarks. That he is just as imaginary as those who Mrs. White wrote the passage to. I look at these as principles and welcome the vagueness that the 28 were written in to celebrate the inclusiveness of that language. I see room in Adventism for both him and for me. Sadly, I don't see him going beyond his own existential understanding of the 28 and while he may not use these words, that he has a spirit that there is no room to include in true Adventism anyone outside of his specific understanding and application of the 28. He can be quite beastly in wanting to force his specific understanding and application on the rest of us. Getting back to what I like about him; I like it that we are both more Franciscan/Arminian/ Wesleyan than the more "evangelical" people who tend to be more Augustinian/Lutheran in our approach. I believe in a cause and effect relationship between justification/conversion and sanctification, that our relationship with God does change our lives and that there is a last generation righteousness. However his understanding of last generation righteousness is based on a tradition that grew in Adventism that I can go into more detail about, but basically the school of thought that has appealed to Larry Kirkpatrick is that the last generation righteousness is a different QUALITY of any generation before. And that people from his approach has a tendency to end up focusing on does and don'ts in trying to reach this quality. At AUC we spent much time looking at Mrs. White's quotes and she does NOT see the last generation as having a different QUALITY of anyone before, but that she saw a different QUANTITY than ever before. She sees every generation of having some people who have developed a relationship with Jesus where they fully love him (they may even be of a different background where they may not be aware of the word "Jesus" or even aware of the word and that a person of that name lived, but have not yet come to the understanding that Jesus is their precious friend. But they understand that they have a precious friend out there who they love and trust, thus this experience can occur in all cultures and religions). And on the other extreme there are people who have fully hardened their hearts towards Jesus. But most of us are in the middle (I divide it up into 4 groups. Group A. are those who have grown into an unshakable love for Jesus, Group B are those who have accepted him but have not yet reached this unshakeable trust. Group C are those who have not accepted him but who could accept him, and Group D are those who are fully hardened against him.) Every generation has had people in these groups. But in Mrs. White's teachings the final generation has from the increased working of both Satan and the Holy Spirit, everyone from groups B and C will end up in either group A or D. And while self examination is important here, that our major focus is not on the "Do's and Don'ts" but on learning more about the Bible, that learning more about the Bible can teach us more about God, If we use this to learn more about God we fall deeper in love with him and by beholding we become changed. I will come back later and talk more about how I understand the fight in us between our sinful nature and our attitudes towards the outside world, the role that the investigative judgement plays (although that is touched on in the last sentence of the above paragraph) the nature of Jesus and it's implications, as well as the what Mrs. White said about what visions do and don't do for prophets, as opposed to how I see Larry Kirkpatrick again looking for how tradition teaches how they should be. But I hope that the above gives you some ideas to think about.