| Author | Message | ||
| Jtree (Jtree) |
copied from Dirk Anderson's site http://www.ellenwhite.org/ Analysis of the errors reported by SDA Theologian, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph.D. Great Controversy chapters 3, 4, 15, 25, and 35 This article is an analysis of the errors found in Ellen White's Great Controversy as reported by retired professor of theology and church history, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. These errors were reported in Dr. Bacchiocchi's electronic newsletter, Endtime Issues, which is sent via e-mail primarily to Adventists, but also to some non-Adventist subscribers. The issue we will be examining is from Endtime Issues number 87, "A Reply to Criticisms Part I 'The Use of Ellen White's Writings in Interpretting Scripture'" (August 1, 2002). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Bacchiocchi has done the SDA church a great service in exposing a number of serious historical errors in Ellen White's Great Controversy. In his newsletter, Dr. Bacchiocchi, former professor at Andrews University, describes himself as a "committed Adventist" with a "deep respect" for Ellen White's writings. Despite this, he has chosen to break ranks with the SDA's and Ellen White, by proposing a different interpretation of the 1260-day prophecy. In so doing, he exposed a number of errors in The Great Controversy. We will be examining those errors below: Was the Papacy Established in 538 A.D.? In the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy Mrs. White wrote: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798." (p. 266) "This period, as stated in the preceding chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, 'He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." (p. 439) And in the 1911 edition the words have been somewhat modified: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A. D. 538, and would terminate in 1798." (page 266) "This period, as stated in preceding chapters, began with the supremacy of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled,' He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.'" (p. 439) In his newsletter Dr. Bacchiochi points out that the papacy was not established in 538 A.D.: In my dissertation [From Sabbath to Sunday] I have shown that the development of the papal primacy began already in the second century, when the Pope exercised his ecumenical authority by imposing on Christian churches at large Easter-Sunday, weekly Sunday, and by condemning various movements like the Montanists. Dr. Bacchiocchi is certainly not the first Adventist historian to question the 538 date. For years Adventist historians and theologians have searched in vain for any evidence that anything significant happened to the papacy in 538. To this point in time, nothing has been found. However, one thing is certain: the papacy was not established in 538. When did the supremacy of the papacy begin? Dr. Bacchiochhi writes: The development of the "supremacy of the papacy" began long before 538. In his book on The History of the Christian Church--which has served for many years as the standard text book for church history classes-Williston Walker devotes chapter 6 to the "Growth of the Papacy" during the fourth and fifth centuries. He points out that during this period there were influential popes like Damasus (366-384), Innocent I (402-417), and Leo I, called "the Great" (440-461), who greatly advanced both the spiritual and temporal power of the papacy. For example, the last Pope mentioned, Leo I, known as "Leo the Great," greatly increased the political prestige of the papacy by threatening with hell fire Attila the Hun, when he was approaching Rome in 451 with his terrifying soldiers. Attila obeyed the Pope and withdrew beyond the Danube. Later Pope Leo secured concessions from the Vandals when they took Rome in 452. He is called "Leo the Great" for advancing and consolidating the power of the papacy. The development of the supremacy of the papacy is a gradual process that can hardly be dated from 538. The process began already in the second century as the primacy of Bishop of Rome was widely recognized and accepted. Dr. Bacchoicchi goes on to point out that the papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories. Now that we have established that the 538 date corresponds to nothing significant in history, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? On page 579 of the 1888 Great Controversy Ellen White writes: "The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798." And in the 1911 edition: "The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798." While 1798 is a day of some significance for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the "downfall" of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy. In his newsletter Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798: The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799. The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the "abolishment" or "the downfall of the Papacy." It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor. The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France. The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ... The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy. Anyone who has studied Christian history can quickly see that the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately represent the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was consolidating power centuries before 538, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy. The Origin of Sunday On pages 52-53 of The Great Controversy Mrs. White wrote: "In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts." Notice here that the word "centuries" is plural. This indicates that for a minimum of two centuries the Sabbath was observed by "all Christians." Mrs. White seems to have believed that all Christians observed the Sabbath until "the early part of the fourth century [when] the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire." (p. 53) Dr. Bacchiocchi writes in his newsletter: What is problematic is the impression many people get from EGW's statements that the Sabbath was observed "by all Christians . . . in the first centuries" until "the early part of the fourth century [when] the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public holiday." (pp. 52-53) ... The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to be historically accurate the term "centuries" should be changed to the singular "century." Sunday and the Power of the State Yet another inaccuracy is found in chapter 25 of The Great Controversy. Ellen White claims that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was accomplished by the Pope with the "power of the state": "It was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" (page 447) She makes another similar statement later in the book: "Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained its position of honor in the Christian world." (page 574) Before we read Dr. Bacchoicchi's assessment of these quotes, let me remind the reader that Dr. Bacchiocchi is widely regarded as the SDA theologian who is certainly the most knowledgeable person in the entire church on church history pertaining to Sabbath-Sunday issues. There is simply no one in the church more qualified to assess Ellen White's statements than Dr. Bacchiocchi. Here is his assessment: Both statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the state did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the second and third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather hostile toward Christianity. They were more interested to suppress Christianity than to support church leaders in their promotion of Sunday worship. The bishop of Rome could not have resorted to "the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" Eventually, beginning with the fourth century, some Roman emperors actively supported the agenda of the church, but this was long after the establishment of Sunday observance. In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown that the Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship, but he did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the need to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian. After suppressing the Second Jewish revolt, known as the Barkokoba revolt (132-135), which caused many casualties, the Emperor Hadrian decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way by suppressing the Jewish religion. Hitler was determined to liquidate the Jews as a people and Hadrian was committed to suppress Judaism as a religion. To accomplish this objective Hadrian outlawed in 135 the Jewish religion in general and Sabbathkeeping in particular. It was at this critical moment that the Bishop of Rome took the initiative to change the Sabbath to Sunday in order to show to the Roman government the Christians' separation from the Jews and their identification with the cycles of the Roman society. But, at this time the Bishop of Rome could not call upon "the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as the 'Lord's Day,'" because in the eyes of the Romans Christianity was still a suspect religion to be suppressed, rather than to be supported. It is clear from Dr. Bacchiochi's assessment that the pope did not resort to the power of the state, as Mrs. White wrote. Rather, the Roman Bishop instituted Sunday worship without any assistance from the state. Sabbath Condemned by Ecumenical Councils? Mrs. White wrote of "vast councils" that supposedly attempted to "press down" the Sabbath in order to exalt Sunday in its place. She writes: "Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondently exalted." (page 53) There were seven councils held (Nicaea I in 325, Constantinople I in 381, Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680, and Nicaea II in 787). However, Mrs. White seems to have been ignorant of their content. Dr. Bacchiocchi writes: The problem is with the second part of the statement which speaks of the Sabbath as being "pressed down a little lower" in almost every general council. In all my reading of the seven ecumenical councils, I have not found a reference to the Sabbath/Sunday question being debated in such councils. Presumably the reason is that Sunday observance was no longer a debated question- it had become widely accepted by Christians. How could the Sabbath have been "pressed down" a little lower in these councils when it was not even discussed? This is simply another case of Mrs. White inventing history in her writings, and then claiming it was inspiration from God! Innacuracies Regarding the Waldenses Mrs. White would have us believe the Waldenses observed the Sabbath: "Through ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest tempests of oppositions they maintained their faith." (page 65) "Some of whom [Waldenses] were observers of the Sabbath." (page 577) Dr. Bacchiocchi has probably done more research on the Sabbath than any living human. Did he find evidence that some of the Waldenses observed the Sabbath? I spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi--(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbathkeeping among the Waldenses. Dr. Bacchiocchi is not the first Adventist to search for evidence of the Waldenses keeping the Sabbath. The only thing they have found are some documents which refer to the Waldenses by their nickname, "insabbati." Unfortunately for Mrs. White, the term has nothing to do with the Sabbath. It refers to the sandals the Waldenses were known to wear. The Latin word for sandals is sabbatum. Thus, the Waldenses were insabbati--"sandal wearers." Apparently Mrs. White wanted to have a line of unbroken Sabbath-keeping, from the time of the apostles, to the Waldenses in the mountains, all the way through to the time of the Seventh-day Adventists. Unfortunately, such a continuum does not exist. Sunday-keeping began much earlier than Mrs. White realized, and the Waldenses never kept the Sabbath at all. Another inaccurate statement Mrs. White made about the Waldenses is: "Behind the lofty bulwarks of the mountains . .. the Waldenses found a hiding place. Here the light of truth was kept burning amid the darkness of the Middle Ages. Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith." (pp. 65-66) The Waldensian movement was established by Peter Valdes around 1176. The Waldenses were not excommunicated from the church until 1184. Therefore, the move to the mountains could not have taken place until after 1184, and the persecution of the Waldenses had subsided by the late 1600's, so it would be impossible for the Waldenses to have kept the light of truth burning for "a thousand years" during the Middle Ages. 500 years is a more likely number. | ||
| Jtree (Jtree) |
RESPONSES Samuele Bacchiocchi Fires Back Dr. Bacchiocchi's Response to our Article And Three Selected Responses to Dr. Bacchiocchi's Response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's Note: Below is Dr. Bacchiocchi's e-mail response, received Sep. 2, 2002, entitled "Protest about the misuse of my newsletter." Dear Deceiver: It has been brought to my attention that you have excerpted material from my newsletter No. 87 and used it in your defamation campaign against Ellen White. Your arbitrary selection of my material, without explaining my position regarding the limitations of the gift of prophecy in the NT, is pure deception. It is evident that the Evil One has corrupted your mind and is using you as an instrument of evil, that is, to act as a bulldozer, rather than a builder of God's Kingdom. Frankly, I have no respect for people like you who spent their life collecting and distributing garbage. If only you could accomplish 1% of all the contributions that Ellen White has made and is still making to the spiritual enrichment of millions of people around the world, you would have reasons to thank God for your ministry. Instead, you have reasons to grieve for serving the cause of the Evil One, in attacking the immeasurable contributions of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. Your attempt to discredit Ellen White on the basis of her uses of sources or inaccuracies found her writing, reveals your ignorance of the nature of the prophetic gift. The messages of the prophets are to be examined for their accuracy, Several times Paul speaks of evaluating Christian prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29). The human limitations and inaccuracies in the prophetic messages seem to have been so apparent, that some Christians despised them, like you do. But, in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 Paul warns the congregation against rejecting them: "Do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good."10 The admonition to test the messages of the prophets, and retain what is good, suggests that their messages were a mixed bag, with positive and negative elements. The same admonition to carefully evaluate the speech of the prophets is given in 1 Corinthians 14:29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others weigh what is said." The implication of the Greek word diakrino, here translated "weigh what is said," is that members were to listen critically, sifting the good from the bad. The fact that prophets sometimes may say or write inaccurate things, does not make them false prophets. Please note that the admonition is to "hold fast what is good," not to reject everything as you do. Experience has taught me that ignorant people like you are the most arrogant. The reason is simple: Ignorance breeds arrogance. You are a perfect example of this phenomenon. Please do me a favor. Post in your website my response to your arbitrary use of my material so that all your readers will know that you arrogant defamation of Ellen White is the fruit of your ignorance of the prophetic gift-ignorance which the Evil One is using to make you an arrogant deceiver and an instrument of his destructive cause. Christian regards Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Retired Professor of Theology and Church History, Andrews University 4990 Appian Way Berrien Springs, MI 49103 Phone (616) 471-2915 Fax (616) 471-4013 E-mail sbacchiocchi@qtm.net samuele@andrews.edu WWW HOMEPAGE: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com The NEW WEB SITE offer you over 3000 pages from the 16 books and over 100 essays that I have authored. Feel free to visit and use my library. Response #1: Dirk Anderson, editor, ellenwhite.org E-mailed to Dr. Bacchiocchi on Sept. 8, 2002 Dear Dr. Bacchiocchi, Our web site deals with facts and evidence, not personal opinions. We used seven quotes from your newsletter where you dealt with facts and evidence. The greater portion of your newsletter was your opinions and rationalizations regarding how Ellen White could make mistakes and still be a prophet. That may be of interest to your newsletter readers, but it is of little interest to our readers. The real issue with Ellen White is not whether or not she made a mistake here or there, but whether or not she passed the Biblical tests of a prophet. We have substantial evidence and facts proving she failed five of the six Biblical tests. If this is true, then who is the real deceiver? You or me? I would like to challenge you to an internet debate on whether Mrs. White passed or failed the tests of a prophet. Let us get the issues out in the open and see who is the real deceiver. Finally, we would not think of posting your e-mail on our web site as it might lead many people to question whether or not you have a Christian experience. If you can craft an e-mail response in a Christian spirit, we will consider posting it. God bless, Dirk Anderson http://www.ellenwhite.org Editor's Note: Dr. Bacchiocchi replied to my above e-mail insisting that I post his e-mail. I was reluctant to do this, as I felt Dr. Bacchiocchi had written the e-mail out of anger and emotion and it did not rightly represent his true character. However, at his insistence, I decided to post it, and you can draw your own conclusions. Dr. Bacchiocchi has declined our challenge to a debate on whether Ellen White passed the tests of a prophet. That in itself speaks volumes, doesn't it? Response #2: Robert Sanders, editor, TruthorFables.com Dear Deceiver: Dr. B, when did God die and leave you in charge of judgment? There are two things certain in life. One there is a God, and you are not him! Is a deceiver one that upholds a false prophet's Bible contradictions over the Word of God and calls it inspired? This is exactly what you are doing. Jesus tells us to get the logjam out of our eyes before judging others. You will need to take off your EGW glasses so that you can see the true Word of God before judging others. It has been brought to my attention that you have excerpted material from my newsletter No. 87 and used it in your defamation campaign against Ellen White. Your arbitrary selection of my material, without explaining my position regarding the limitations of the gift of prophecy in the NT, is pure deception. It is evident that the Evil One has corrupted your mind and is using you as an instrument of evil, that is, to act as a bulldozer, rather than a builder of God's Kingdom. SDAs have a history of using EGW's writing to corrupt the minds of Christians. You are using one of the SDAs patent sayings with people that disagree with EGW/SDAs "that they are being led by the Evil One". The only thing that is "evident" is the fact you follow the teachings of a false prophet instead of the pure Word of God. You cannot serve two masters. It is evident that EGW is your master. Frankly, I have no respect for people like you who spent their life collecting and distributing garbage. I have no respect for people who knowingly promote a false prophet. SDAs have been promoting EGW's "Spirit of Nonsense" (GARBAGE) now since about 1845 WHICH IS ABOUT 150 years. How can you have respect for the SDA Church whose main focus is distributing EGW's books and teachings that contradict the Bible? If only you could accomplish 1% of all the contributions that Ellen White has made and is still making to the spiritual enrichment of millions of people around the world, you would have reasons to thank God for your ministry. My ministry points people to Christ and his word. Your ministry points people to the non-Biblical teachings of EGW. Yes, I have reasons to thank God, for all the people that have had their eyes opened and have been freed from EGW's bondage. Corrupting minds with the myths of EGW is not "spiritual enrichment". Instead, you have reasons to grieve for serving the cause of the Evil One, in attacking the immeasurable contributions of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. Here are some the "immeasurable" contributions of EGW. Here is a short list of her garbage: The Sabbath is the Seal of God for Christians. Not so, it is the Holy Spirit. Sunday keepers will receive the MARK OF THE BEAST. Not so. SDA Church is God's "Remnant Church." Not Biblical. No denomination is called the Remnant. Investigative Judgment began in 1844. Most all SDA Scholars know this is a joke. You can get leprosy from eating swine. Not so. Pigs cannot get leprosy. Ha! God wants his people to be vegetarians and follow EGW's health reform which is part of the "Three Angels Message". Not Biblical. Thank God EGW's contributions are limited to the SDA Church and not the Christian world. Her teachings have screwed up the minds of the SDA people so that they cannot see her perversion of Bible texts because of the wild "I saw" and "I was shown" hogwash. Your attempt to discredit Ellen White on the basis of her uses of sources or inaccuracies found her writing, reveals your ignorance of the nature of the prophetic gift. When EGW tells us her words were given to her by God and then she steals the words from her over 1200 book library was she truthful? She was a liar and you support this liar. What Bible prophet made a living selling their writings and visions AND lying about their sources? How is it that us "ignorant people" can see it, but the ones with University degrees are blind as bats? The messages of the prophets are to be examined for their accuracy, Several times Paul speaks of evaluating Christian prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29). We can agree with Paul. When EGW is put to the test, she fell flat on her face with non-Biblical doctrines and non-Scientific health reform garbage. Jesus is the last day prophet. Did E.G. White Claim to Be Equal to the Prophet and Apostles? Yes. EGW: ìIn ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly then He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue.î Testimonies 4 p. 147 and in Testimonies 5 p. 661 (1876) Bible: ìIn the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.î (Heb 1:1,2 NIV) Jesus will speak to men in the last days and E.G. White says it is the Testimonies of His Spirit. Which do you believe? Was this instruction to a small group of SDAís in 1876 more earnest than when God instructed Israel by the prophets, or people of the world by Noah and more earnest than the teaching of Jesus when he was on earth or was it E.G. Whiteís vivid and colorful imagination? Here EGW gives herself a promotion, that her work is ìmore earnestî than that of the prophets, apostles and that of Jesus. Is this not infallibility? The human limitations and inaccuracies in the prophetic messages seem to have been so apparent, that some Christians despised them, like you do. I do not despise prophets of God or their message. There has been no known true prophets since the Apostolic Church. The mid 1800s spawned a rash of these nut cases. There was Joseph Smith of the LDS, Charles Taze Russell associate of the Millerites and founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mary Baker Eddy founder of the Christian Scientist, EGW founder of Adventists, etc. All fanatics. But, in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 Paul warns the congregation against rejecting them: "Do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good."10 The admonition to test the messages of the prophets, and retain what is good, suggests that their messages were a mixed bag, with positive and negative elements. Paul is not suggesting that true prophets have a "mixed bag" of true and false teachings. It is you Dr. B, that is suggesting this in order to prop up your prophet's gross mistakes. Paul is saying after testing the prophets hold to the good teachings they are teaching you. If the prophet is proven to be false you can still hold on to the good. We can do the same with the false prophet EGW. When she quotes scripture we can agree with the text, but not when she perverts the text or read into the text what is not there. We still hold to the good.We then have "contempt" for the false teachings and false prophets and hold to the good that we know to be true. Dr. B, if you think Bible prophets have a mixed bag of truth and error, how can you tell what is true and what is false in the Bible? If you approach the Bible in this manner, do you accept the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the World. Perhaps the prophets were lying to you! The same admonition to carefully evaluate the speech of the prophets is given in 1 Corinthians 14:29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and the others weigh what is said." The implication of the Greek word diakrino, here translated "weigh what is said," is that members were to listen critically, sifting the good from the bad. The fact that prophets sometimes may say or write inaccurate things, does not make them false prophets. Please note that the admonition is to "hold fast what is good," not to reject everything as you do. Yes, the members were to listen to the prophets and judge or weigh what is said. This is the only way to tell if they are a true prophet. Do prophets writing under inspiration really write "inaccurate things". It has been shown that what is seen as inaccuracies in the Bible has been made by copies of the ancient manuscripts and not the prophets themselves. Experience has taught me that ignorant people like you are the most arrogant. The reason is simple: Ignorance breeds arrogance. You are a perfect example of this phenomenon. Again did God die and make you judge! If ignorance breeds arrogance, then you seem to be well bred. Having a degree in theology does not make a person Biblically intelligent. Dr. B, you really ought not to through stones. Please do me a favor. Post in your website my response to your arbitrary use of my material so that all your readers will know that you arrogant defamation of Ellen White is the fruit of your ignorance of the prophetic gift-ignorance which the Evil One is using to make you an arrogant deceiver and an instrument of his destructive cause. I follow the Word of God to find my duty, and you Dr. B, follow the ravings of a religious fanatic that contradicts the Word. I have a Bible that is about a 1-1/2 inches thick and can find my duty towards God as most Christians do. I do not need six feet of EGW books that contradict the Bible. Cult members need a source outside the Bible to teach them what the Bible means such as The Book of Mormon, The Watchtower, etc. EGW's Testimonies is the Adventist Crutch to interpret the Bible. Shame! Ellen White is a false prophet. She had failed visions and contradicted the Bible. She was a health reform hypocrite, as she ate meat and oysters most all her life and condemned others for doing the same. She was a liar as she said her words came from God and they came from uninspired authors. She was a thief as she stole those words without giving credit to those authors. You should know what Jesus says about false prophets, hypocrites, thieves, liars and those that support them. EGW is a false prophet. Now Dr. B, DEAL WITH IT! God bless, Robert K. Sanders Visit Truth or Fables at: http://www.truthorfables.com Exposing Seventh-day Adventist Fables John 17:17 (NIV) "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." Response #3: Max Chugg, Australia Dirk: I have just read, with amazement, the outburst that you received from Dr. Bacchiocchi, particularly when he concluded his judgmental tirade with the words "Christian regards" He commences by calling you a deceiver. The Oxford Dictionary says of deceive that it is: "to ensnare; to catch by craft; to overreach; to mislead; to cause to believe what is false; to lead into error." I am at a total loss to understand how you can be accused of any of these things. Since I first came into contact with your site I have NEVER taken your word for anything, and always checked out your statements to the best of my ability. On three occasions I have raised objections to things I have read on what Dr. B. would call anti-EGW sites because of the critical view I take of all such articles. If you are a deceiver, then so is Arthur Patrick. Patrick confirms the accuracy of many of the charges levied against Mrs. White, but then goes on to attempt to defend the indefensible. A lie is always a lie, deceit is always deceit. What I found interesting about Arthur Patrick was the comment he made about a former champion of EGW, Francis Nichol. I think the comment was that Nichol's defence of EGW now is woefully inadequate. In my view, the worst aspects of Dr. B's tirade against you was the claim that "ignorant people like you are the most arrogant" and "ignorance breeds arrogance." As I found Dr. B to be completely arrogant, by his own judgment, he is ignorant. You are criticised for failing to understand his "position regarding the limitations of the gift of prophecy in the NT". The obvious question is "since when has Dr. B. been the final arbiter on the legitimacy or otherwise of prophecy?" To suggest that he has this authority is the height of arrogance as far as I am concerned. As it progresses, the argument becomes even sillier. You are given all sorts of advice about how to deal with prophecy, which you must examine, and sift the good from the bad. The problem with this argument, and the texts given to support it, is that it has skipped ahead of the first scriptural requirement that you must test the prophet before you even consider the prophecies that he made. If the prophet fails the test, he is to be rejected, along with everything he has to say, and your attitude towards EGW is supported by scripture, if not by Dr. B. To suggest that a prophet of God will give a message that contains both truth and error, which must be separated, is simply nonsense. Return to the Oxford Dictionary's defenition of a deceiver. Part of the definition was to "cause to believe what is false; to lead into error." Consider Mrs White's account of the Israel Dammon affair, as compared with the newspaper report of the event. Does that not make her a deceiver? In 1869 Mrs White wrote "I have not changed my course a particle since I adopted the health reform. I have not taken one step back since the light from heaven upon this subject forst shone on my pathway. I broke away from everything at once, from meat and butter, and from three meals...I left off these things from principle. I took my stand on health reform from principle." Testimonies, Vol. 2, pp. 371 - 372. As we now know that when she wrote these words they were totally untrue, was this not deceit? Mrs White had a devastating influence upon the earlier Adventists such as Kellog, Jones, Canright and even members of her own family such as Franklin Belden. But what about non-Adventists? Consider what Harriet Austin had to say to H.E. Carver about one of the more prominent visitors to the institution operated by Dr. Jackson: "What motive has induced Elder and Mrs. White to make such reports as you mention, and which I had before heard they were making, I know not; but if in their so called divine revelations they do not get nearer to the truth than they have in the statements in regard to the dress I wear, they never will lead any soul to Heaven, but rather towards the darkness." Prophets should be chosen with care. Revelation 20:10 is quite clear on the fate of the false prophet, and Rev. 22:15 says that amongst those outside are those who love and make a lie. The innumerable failures of his prophet do not allow Dr. B. to accuse others of allowing the Evil One to corrupt their minds. At present he appears to be attributing his own personal weaknesses to others. If Dr. Bacchiocchi is as firm a believer in the testimonies of Mrs. White, he must believe the following quotes from his prophet: "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies He has sent, then you are rebelling against God, as were Korah, Dathan and Abiram" Testimonies Vol. 5, p. 66 She continues "In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books." Despite Mrs. White's claims that everything she writes comes directly from God, you gave five examples of what appeared to be solid disagreement between Dr. Bacchiocchi and Mrs. White: Mrs. White said that the years of papal supremacy began in 538 A.D., Dr. Bacchiocchi says that papal supremacy began in the second century. Mrs. White says that papal supremacy ended in 1798, Dr. Bacchiocchi says that in that year the papacy suffered a "temporary humiliation." Mrs. White says the Sabbath was changed to Sunday on the authority of the Pope, working in conjunction with the civil authorities. The SDA church has also maintained this argument vigorously until recently - for example, refer to the H.M.S. Richards helps in the backs of old SDA Bibles. Dr. Bacchiocchi says that the Pope made the change alone, without the support of the state. Mrs. White refers to vast councils pressing down the Sabbath and exalting Sunday. Bacchiocchi disagrees with this statement. Mrs. White says the Waldenses observed the Sabbath, Bacchiocchi disagrees. If Mrs. White's claim that everything she wrote was not her idea, but a message from God, then Dr. Bacchiocchi's contradictions of his prophet are wrong, despite the amount of study he has done and the qualifications he has obtained. His own prophet puts him in the same category as Korah, Dathan and Abiram and he is irrelevant. She condemned others for much, much less! If Dr. Bacchiocchi is right and Mrs. White is wrong, then Mrs. White is a false prophet, and she is irrelevant. The only remaining consideration is that some of Mrs. White's writings are inspired and some are not. In this situation she is unique as a prophet, and also useless, because the question arises as to how her believers separate the messages from Heaven from personal opinion. The other problem that makes nonsense of this position is that it makes a liar of her because she clearly stated that EVERYTHING she wrote comes from God. There is absolutely no possibility that God would choose a liar for a prophet, so in the end we must decide who is right, White, Bacchiocchi, or neither. | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
Let me see if I got this straight (so to speak): The prophets are sent from God to explicitly communicate to His people what the truth of a particular matter is. However, the prophecies which are delivered to us for our benefit may also contain lies. It is then entirely up to us to determine on our own which part of God's message is true and what part of God's message is false? | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I love your summary! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
I have paid very close attention in the Lutheran services I attend as well to reading my Lutheran devotionals and other Lutheran materials, magazines, etc., and paid very close attention whenever I hear someone of the Lutheran denomination quote from Martin Luther and I have not ever heard Martin Luther referred to as a prophit. He generally is referred to as The Great Reformer. Yes, where I attend services at St. John's Lutheran Martin Luther is referred to with a tone of respect, he has never been placed above the Bibical writers or above the teachings and life of Jesus. believe me, after being raised SDA when I first began attending St. John's I was very observent to listen for that. My opinion is the attitude presented by Dr.B. about EGW appears to break the "thou shalt have no other God's before me" commandment because it seems EGW's writings are being given a higher ranking than the writings of God, the Holy Bible. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Susan 2, I almost can't read the Review anymore! It makes me so confused and angry. My mom still gets it but I told her it may be keeping her in confusion. Most of the articles don't make any sense or are trying to figure out what is wrong with the denomination! | ||
| Clay (Clay) |
This has been an interesting read. Wow! I can only say, "You will know them by their fruits" and the way Dr.B communicated with such hate and bitterness is a good indication of the kind of fruit he bears. I am sure he is furious that his own comments have been used against EGW and maybe he should pay attention to his own words. I just thank God for the 'freedom' I have from the grips of EGW. If Dr.B is right than God has a problem with his communication to his prophets. Somehow his message's are not getting to the prophets accurately so people have to correct them as they see fit. I am so glad we can believe all His word.c | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I read an article yesterday while I was proofreading the next Proclamation! magazine that was really good. (Many of you will see it soon!) It's by Rodney Nelson, and he wrote it a while ago for Good News Unlimited. I won't summarize his article, but here's the point I saw so clearly after I read it. Nelson comments on a publication by Herbert Douglass, past president of Wiemar Institute, who explains that the Great Controvery Theme is the grand "theory of everything" that completely explains the Bible and existence. In a nutshell, here's the Adventist position as gleaned from EGW and The Great Controversy: The purpose of redemption is to restore us to the image of God. God had Jesus die in order to reveal His character to the universe and to vindicate his reputation which has been smeared by Satan's claims that God's way--Love Me and Obey Me--is impossible to accomplish and is much better replaced by Satan's way--Self Determinism. Hence, The Great Controversy explains and ties together all the supposed disparate statements in the Bible about salvation, judgment, etc. When one understands that God is proving Satan to be wrong, then the "plan of salvation" finally makes sense! SEE? (I don't either!) What I realized in a more focussed way after reading the article is how thoroughly Adventism undermines God's sovereignty. God has to prove himself to NO ONE! He is God. He doesn't owe anyone an answer for why he is God or how he is God, and he doesn't have to live up to any standard--He is the standard. Loyalty and faithfulness and fairness and justice and mercy are not qualities which God has to prove in himself; they are intrinsic to himself. God is faithful not primarily to us or his word or to truth--he is faithful to himself, and he glorifies himself. God is over all, and Satan is not in doubt about who's plan is "better". Satan is already defeated, and he is a created being--facts he knows. He's under no illusion about God's sovereignty. He may be trying to deceive US about God's sovereignty (and appraently he's done a pretty good job of deceiving many!), but he's in no doubt! Further, salvation is not about restoring us to God's image. The Bible never says that! Ellen is the one that says God is waiting to see his character perfectly reproduced in humans. The Bible, in fact, never says that we've lost God's image. Salvation is about redeeming us from a death sentence--incurable, inherited sinfulness. Salvation isn't about making us good so we look like God; it's about redeeming us in our sins because God loves us. It's about transforming us through a relationship with him so he can be intimate with us. Jesus' death had nothing to do with vindicating God's character or proving Satan is wrong. God is in no contest with Satan. Jesus died because that was absolutely the only way God could redeem mankind. There was no other way out of our death sentence. It had nothing to do with proving anything to Satan. It was all about God's sovereign mercy and love choosing to redeem us so he could be intimate with us. Salvation is about God, and it's for us. It's NOT about Satan. The Great Controversy really undercuts God's sovereignty and mercy. At no time does God have to answer to Satan or prove him wrong. He has PROMISED us that he will eventually eradicate evil from the universe, but the certainty is not the result of his successfully proving himself to be trustworthy or right. The fact that we have to wait (from our perspective inside time) for that eradication is because God is patient and merciful, not willing that any should perish. The wait is not about God successfully completing his PR campaign to prove Satan wrong. One of the biggest changes in my thinking as time passes "after Adventism" is the growing realization of how limitless and sovereign God is. We cannot explain him, dictate to him, assign him motives based on our human reactions, or understand him. We can trust him because he IS sovereign, he IS the Creator; he IS just and merciful, even when we can't see everything. He DOES call us and has chosen us from before creation. His word does contain all we need for truth and godliness, and nothing happens on earth or in all of cretaion without his permission. Praise God for being God! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Great points Colleen. I accepted the great controversy theme when I was in Adventism quite frankly because that's what I had been taught. But even then, I always wondered where in the Bible it said that Satan accused God of being unjust. I know that he said that the only reason Job served God was because God had "bought" his loyalty, but that has more to do with Job than it does with God. The only other place I know of that Adventists point is Satans mantre about wanting to be like the Most High. However, one would have to read an awful lot into the text to support a foundational doctrine that Satan was accusing God of being unjust. The more you get away from Adventism, the more you see things that just don't add up. What amazes me is that there are a lot of people who I really respect (Doug Batchelor for example), who converted to Adventism (as opposed to being socialized into it), who have bought into this house of cards. I have never understood that. Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I have wondered about that phenomenon also, Doug. The explanation that keeps returning to my mind is that those who bought into this house of cards must never have understood the new covenant nor have truly been Bible readers. If all you believe is that the law is eternal and is authoritative for everyone for ever, then logic would impel one to say that the fourth commandment is still part of that law. I've no idea if this rationale explains everyone who converts to Adventism, but I can't think of any other way to explain so many of them. Of course, there may be some whose lives were out-of-control with addictions or other compulsive sins who were drawn to the rigid requirements of Adventism by which they could manage their lives. Colleen | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
Yes, the NEW Covenant's focus on JESUS and now being SPIRIT-led...versus living under the OLD Covenant's "10 Commandments" is a major factor in much confusion. How about the Ten Commandment monument in that Court building... and the controversy it has caused? Why do so many Christians have to always look BACK to the LAW given at Sinai? One of James Dobson's recent "Focus on the Family" magazines included article by R. C. Sproul advocating an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. I think there also was a poster or something you could order for kids...(can't find the magazine now.) Doesn't this tend to confuse people when they read, "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy..."??? And I know the "Westminster's Confession" that the Presbyterians use as a guideline is defintely Old Covenant based. It seems like a real ploy by Satan to take away the New Covenant's complete rest in Christ... It is more widespread then I first realized. Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Not only is it more widespread, it is older than you may realize. It seems that Catholicism went down this path, and then when the reformers came out of the Catholic church they still carried the taint of Old Covenant thinking. So, these reformers adopted/wrote/created confessions that really seem odd to those of us rooted in what is called 'New Covenant Theology'. There are still churches rooted in this past, soldiering on today. An example of this is what I found tonight. An online friend and I were e-mailing back and forth and she knows the area around Tahoe rather well. I visit in Tahoe frequently and was hoping to find a grace oriented, EV Free type church somewhere in the Carson area. (There are E.V. Free churches in Reno, but that's about an hour away from Tahoe!) Anyway, she gave me the name to a very popular church in Carson and I looked up the website. The website is: www.gracenevada.com The church has Baptist roots and uses a confession that dates back to 1689! It claims that the seventh day Sabbath was observed from creation to Christs' death and was then changed to Sunday---and that the Ten Commandments are the moral law and are eternal! And yet, this is a growing, popular and contemporary church where folks are just blindly swallowing this error (and many others). Go to the link and click on 'what we believe'. I'm just shocked at how people can still believe this stuff! | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
You are right, Lone Viking! It's very sad to read... Except for the Sunday change, sounds very Adventist on the Law! A few quotes: "The Moral Law doth foever bind all, as well justified persons as others to the obedience thereof..." It is "a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty." Even says the "threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve." And this is for pre-Christians AND Christians...those who have believed and accepted Jesus! Where is walking with the Holy Spirit's leading? ...and no longer being under the "supervision" of the Law??!! Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
So, does this mean that I have to lead a sinless life? Maybe my thinking is clouded, but that is how I interpret it. And, what is with the "pretence of Christian liberty?" Do I have it or not? Doug
| ||
| Chris (Chris) |
I believe the pervasive view of the Decalogue as the ultimate law of God to be dangerous and unfortunate. It is dangerous in the sense that it creates a pool of candidates primed for proselitization by legalistic sects. If the Decalogue is truly the ultimate standard by which all must live, then why not carefully observe the sign of the covenant embedded in the very center of the covenant document? Why not observe the 4th commandment EXACTLY as written? I used to wonder how other Christians could be so dense as to not accept the seventh day "Sabbath Truth" so clearly set forth in the Ten Commandments. Now that I grasp the concept of the covenants I still don't understand how Christians can promote the Decalogue as the ultimate revelation of God while modifying it to fit New Testament teaching. This must create cognitive dissonance when they are confronted with the contradiction, and this confusion set them up to believe what a cult member is telling them must be true. It is unfortunate in that the Ten Commandments were given to the spiritually immature Hebrews who were just coming out of 400 years of bondage. These commands are easy to teach and fairly simplistic and are in fact only a partial revelation of the holiness of God and the ultimate revelation He would give through His Son. Jesus not only fulfilled all the law and the prophets, but the New Covenant He ushered in far surpassed the old in terms of the revelation of God's holiness and His desire for us to love and serve Him without reserve and to love our neighbors as ourselves. How much better that we teach new covenant believers how to live in the Spirit within the new covenant. Perhaps it's just easier to lay down 10 rules and say, "Do this!", but it is unfortunate because believers are now allowed to fully mature in Christ and grow in the precepts that so far surpass the old covenant commands. Instead they remain at the same spiritual level as the Hebrews, still needing milk when they should be advancing to the real meat. I believe those of us that have come out of traditions such as Adventism or the WWCOG have a lot to share with Christians that have never had a reason to fully consider covenant theology. Chris | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Colleen and Doug, I can speak to your question as one who was very solidly Christian before converting to Adventism. The way we were hooked was by focusing on endtime prophecy. If a person is looking intently at endtime prophecy, and someone comes along and starts saying, "well see, the book of Revelation, here, explains what Jesus was saying, here, in Matthew 24...." it all begins to sound plausible. And that leads to the rest of the connected garbage also sounding plausible. It is for that reason that I am enormously concerned when I hear Christian friends showing a real fascination with the subject. I know they are open to having their focus skewed as well. For us personally, I do believe the Lord allowed us to go in that direction for a time (and, I believe actually prodded us in that direction....and I'll answer your questions on that because I know it is an odd statement for someone to make) so that we would have the opportunity to make contact with 3 people in particular for witnessing and ministry. One was a lady who was in an abusive marriage (we met her about a year into Adventism, she later left the denomination when we did). The other two were our Adventist next door neighbors. Certainly by going into their church we were better able to build a friendship with these folks. THE mistake, absolutely beyond a shadow of any doubt, that we made was in forgetting to step back and ask the Lord the all important questions later on. You know the ones: "well, how come if this sounds plausible then these scriptures over here don't fit" and "well, if you want us to keep the 7th day sabbath, then how come you were always answering our prayers before?" And "how come we see you answering the prayers of our friends and family who are not sabbatarian?" "If this is truth we are following, then how come we no longer truly have peace, why do we always have these niggling thoughts of being condemned, and how come this truth is seperating us from the rest of your children now?" Actually, to be far more correct, we WERE asking the questions. We just made that spiritually deadly mistake of NOT SHUTTING UP AND TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN FOR HIS ANSWERS! Yeah, typing in caps is like shouting, and that's precisely what I mean to do. NEVER make the mistake we did. It isn't the asking the questions that is key, it is the listening for the answer that is most vital! We can look back now and realize that, at most, the Lord only intended for us to be in Adventism for 2 years...we stayed for 8. (Or as the Lord put it to me when I DID finally listen, "I" and there was huge emphasis on that 'I'!, "NEVER said I wanted you to stay!" I was walking down a road at the time and it brought me up short like I had literally run into a brick wall!) It was because we foolishly didn't listen and stayed for those additional years that we became so ingrained in the crap that it took years after we were out to get our thoughts untangled. We had made the conscious choice to believe the garbage in spite of the truths we already had in our heads. We weren't passive listeners like so many of you who were raised in the garbage. We were our own worst enemies! And you know, it causes us grief to look back and wonder how many folks we might have been able to reach had we not stopped listening to God for those answers. As it was we challenged many on the issue of assurance of salvation, the character of God, that forgiven sins are forgotten by God, etc. And I fully believe that the Lord will take what little we did and maybe help some others to leave someday. BUT we could have been used far more effectively as tools in His hands had we not been so foolish. What wasted opportunity! Our church right now is doing a series on Revelation, very balanced, very scriptural stuff. But I STILL am having a huge battle sitting through it. As I sit there my mind is just screaming "I HATE this whole subject, I don't care a flip how it all happens!" ha Anyway, I do think there is a second big avenue that satan uses to get some folks trapped in Adventism, and that is focus on health. I'm sure all of you can think of someone who is really into diet/exercise who could be a real sucker for someone feeding them the Adventist line on the subject. By the way, while we were on vacation we went to a seminar David's brother was teaching on creation science. Don't know anyone in their church and have only visited a handful of times. So I was more than a tad shocked when one lady came over and sat beside me. After we had said hello, she suddenly turned to me and said emphatically, "well there is one question I really want to get an answer to tonight. How come we as Christians aren't keeping the 7th day sabbath when the Bible says we are supposed to!" I nearly fell out of my chair! haha Is God good at His job or what?! | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Lydell, thanks for the explanation. You are right about SDA's focus on prophecy. In fact, evangelistic series are almost entirely focused on providing answers to end-time senarions. The Gospel is a sidelight, and the covenants are not discussed at all. I am having a discussion with an Adventist on another forum and he is explaining to me how we are "Spiritual Israel," and therefore the instructions provided to the COI are relevant to us today. He says they were to be representative of the group to which God wanted to extend his salvation. He has no understanding of the difference between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant--but he can explain every possible end time scenario. Chris, I found my self saying amen over and over as I read your response. You are so right about the conflict between those who tout the ten commandments, but then look to a supposed new testament interpretatoin of the 4th commandment. Either they are binding or they are not. If they are binding, they must all be binding and immutable. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Doug, I am right there with you, debating with an SDA Dr. on Israel for about 6 months now. Maybe we could share info! It is a very civil debate and going well I think. Regarding Sunday being the Sabbath: It appears to me that the "church" has thought this for a long time now and just recently a large majority of them are realizing that there is more. I've noticed that most legalist just don't seem to have a real relationship with God. I don't want to judge but I know one who is constantly wanting to talk about the church not being holy enough and sacrificial enough and she wears me out! I know the Baptists traditionally teach that the 1st day is the Lord's Day, my pastor said something really interesting last Sunday. He said there is nothing more spiritual in going to church vs. eating a whopper, you do it ALL to the glory of God, you aren't different on Sunday than the rest of the week, if you want to go golfing or mow the grass on Sunday, you do it to the glory of God, everyday, everything. He's right! When I asked God "what do I do about the Sabbath?" two years ago He told me "In all you do, do it to the Glory of God". Another thing my pastor said that got me thinking is in Revelation where it speaks of the Laodicean church. Jesus says, "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hear My voice and opens the door I will come in and sup with him and he with Me." He is saying this to a part of the church. One out of 7 churches was actually found spotless and the rest have problems, this part, I feel, doesn't know Him at all, He is standing there knocking patiently for someone to stop all of their religious nonsense and ask Him in! He just wants relationship. When we know Him we just aren't concerned with all of these external rules, we have internal conviction and it is more compelling than a list of rules. It wouldn't hurt to drop a note to that gracenevada church. They may not even be aware of such doctrines. Blessings to all! | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Great comments Sabra. I am assuming you are talking about Dr. B. I think some people are too intelligent for their own good, so I am not sure that I would have anything substantial to add. But I wish you the best. Lydell, my Pastor did a study on the book of Revelation last summer. It was so refreshing. It was an overview, and did not attempt to identify every single symbol and timeline (which to some degree worried me), but what I really liked was the fact that it all pointed to Jesus. Instead of it being a book that left you fearful and full of dread for the future, I saw that it is actually a book of comfort and hope. He made it clear from the very beginning that this was a book that was to be read and understood by the church of that day, and therefore was not a "closed book" or "present truth" (as the Adventists like to call it). He said the prophecies in the book are not a checklist that we can go down and mark off one by one until they are all fuflilled (we are not living between two verses of scripture--ever hear that one?), but instead are cyclical in nature, being repeated over and over throughout the course of history. I need to go back and read it again, but perspective certainly makes a difference, and seeing it through the eyes of Jesus' completed work made all the difference in the world. Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Lydell, thanks for your input. That totally makes sense. The health aspect, too, is a big draw. And Chris, I completely agree with your observations. I understand your discomfort with the Revelation series, Lydell--I feel like you: it doesn't matter to me HOW it happens! I just don't want to be deceived; I'm grateful for the prophecies that will make sense as events unfold. That said, I did enjoy our pastor's Revelation series. I'm not sure I completely agree with all his interpretations, but he did leave certain things open-ended. I enjoyed seeing that there may be ways to read Revelation in connection with many of the OT prophets that makes it possible not to throw out half the Old Testament because it was conditional and never fulfilled! I'm enjoying seeing things through new lenses, but I'm still not set in stone about just how things will happen. Speaking of mixing Adventism and health with Christianity--there is an Adventist coffee house in Redlands called The Upper Room Christian Cafe which has been opened a year. They claim to be interdenominational, but they're closed on Sabbath--at least they do not sell merchandise on the seveneth day. (Their original plans was to "do ministry" on Sabbath.) They bring in Christian musicians, etc., to have Friday evening programs, etc. They sell pastries, sandwiches, coffee, frappacinos, etc. Just two days ago there was a story about this coffee house in the local paper. The two owners (a brother and sister) were quoted as saying the business end of the operation has been taking up too much of their time. They and two of their friends (her fiance, for one) all had "messages from God" on "about the same day" telling them they have to refocus their ministry. Further, their establishment is "a house of prayer" and God's temple, and they shouldn't be selling in God's temple. Consequently, they are going to stop selling coffee and other caffeinated drinks as well as desserts. Instead, they will be making smoothies from milk, fruit, honey, and dates and distributing bread products for "donations or prayers". They will walk with their "customers" to their tables and ask how they can pray for them, etc. They are letting all of their paid empolyees go, and they will be staffed by ministry-minded volunteers. Since they made this decision, they said, the miracles haven't stopped. One local woman, who credits The Upper Room with her improved spiritual life, has sold her house and is supporting the cafe with her proceeds--as well as paying for her missions trip to Africa. I know they have been incorporated as a for-profit California corporation, but our suspicion is that perhaps business hasn't quite kept them afloat, and they may be re-incorporating as a non-profit ministry. I also know that several financially secure SDA professionals in this area helped fund the establishment of this cafe. Whatever the case, they are completely changing their public face, even contemplating dropping the "Christian Cafe" part of the name and just being "The Upper Room" because one isn't supposed to do business in God's house, according to the news story. (Interestingly, their incorporation name is The Upper Room--Christian Cafe was not part of their legal name.) I wondered if they felt guilty after a year of selling coffee and desserts and felt they had to return to "the blueprint" in order for God to bless their operation. Or maybe their SDA donors wanted a more Adventist face...? I have no answers for the questions that the article raised, but I find it very interesting that while they're re-organizing, they're creating a much more traditional Adventist menu while continuing to insist it's interdenominational. The whole thing has bothered me all along because of people's not understanding what this operation really was. Even those who knew often supported it anyway because it was projecting a Christian face. So, yes--the health factor is compelling, and it's a definite hook. For people who have no answers for their anxiety and fears, clean, healthy living certainly appeals as at least a partial answer to life's concerns. Praising God for setting us free! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
As I was reading the description of the ministry, I was thinking, "wow, what a great idea!" I cannot believe that they are actually scaling it back. Just think of the opportnities the cafe had to break down barriers and to minister to each other previously. As usual, it appears that the Adventist message takes precedence, and so what they will end up with is a SDA clientele. There is a coffe shop not far from the church that I attend that has become the church's annex. In fact, this evening I will be going there with three other guys to participate in a "Bible Read Through." Usually, when I attend, there are at least two or three other tables of people from the church meeting for different purposes. The church also has a coffee shop in its lobby (along with a book store) that they have started opening during the week so members can come congregate and fellowship. I think it would be great to have a Christian Coffee House that was not so rigid (i.e. "walking" people to their table), but took opportunities as they presented themselves to share the good news of the gospel. For whatever reason, coffee brings people together--especially these days. By excluding it for the sake of a disputable doctrine they will miss so many opportunities to share Christ, but I am sure He will honor the fact that they have "reamined pure before the Lord." Tell me again how the health message is the right arm of the gospel? Doug | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Believe it or not, there's the Oxford Coffee House directly across from the campus of the University of Florida that doubles as a Christian study center. The menu there is excellent, even rivals the Starbucks down the street! The owners are Christians who felt a calling to reach out to the student population of Gainesville and are doing a awesome job. They bring in some good speakers, including some UF professors to discuss Christian topics, or apologetics. They work very well with the campus Christian groups and if nothing else, its a great place to relax and study! | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Doug, It is not Dr. B. In fact, I doubt if he would correspond with me for 6 months. It's Ted Noel, a physician in FL, and a fellow church member of my mom and step dad. He has written quite a few books and has a website, but I don't remember the name of it. Seems like a very nice man. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
There are several coffee houses in this community (it's a college town; Loma Linda and the U of Redlands as well as Cal State San Bernardino), and Christians often go there and study with each other and have conversations with people they meet. My older son frequently has such meetings. A Christian coffee house is such a great idea. At the beginning of it's operation the Upper Room invited some non-SDA Christian musicians to perform on Friday nights. A prticular youth pastor from a nearby town led praise and worship there a couple of evenings, and he told my husband that the evenings had been wonderful. People were responding to Jesus when he invited them, and there was a palpable feeling of worship and God's presence. After the second (or third?) time he led worship, the cafe owners asked him not to return. They said they didn't like his spirit--or words similar to that. I thought that was quite amazing and very telling. Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
I'll just stick with Jamba Juice. |
