| Author | Message | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2005 |
Got this email forward this morning: Andrews University News Release Date: March 6, 2006 Released by: University Relations FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Headline: Actions of March 6, 2006 Andrews University Board of Trustees Meeting Berrien Springs, Mich. Ä March 6, 2006 Ä On March 6, the Andrews University Board of Trustees held its spring meeting on the campus of Andrews University. An executive session of the Board that day very carefully examined the recent strategic direction of the university and its related plans for the future. As it discussed these issues, the Board felt that the University needed to explore the opportunities that would be offered by new leadership and the ability it would provide to implement a new strategic direction that fulfills the mission and vision of the University. In connection with these strategies for the future, the Board announced some key changes in the administration of the University. They are as follows: Niels-Erik Andreasen has submitted his resignation from the office of the president of Andrews University, effective immediately. This resignation was accepted, with regret, by the Board. Even with this decision, he will continue to serve and advise Andrews while he seeks another position and the work of identifying his replacement begins. Patricia Mutch, vice president for academic administration, and Ed Wines, vice president of financial administration, also submitted their resignations today. The Board also accepted these resignations, with regret, to be effective June 30. Their work over the next few months will provide administrative direction for the University as theirs and the presidentís replacements are identified. In accepting their resignations, the Board commended these individuals for guiding the University during a significant and challenging time in the Universityís history. As the University prepares to move forward, search committees are being appointed and will have representation from the various constituencies that make up and represent Andrews University. Additionally, interim leadership will be appointed as soon as possible to provide additional leadership to the University during this time of transition. The Board also commends the faculty and staff who will continue to provide strong support on a day to day basis as this change in direction for the future of Andrews University is fully explored and implemented. As further information becomes available, the Board will communicate to the campus through the Office of University Relations. Does anybody know anything about this? That's a pretty huge change, and to happen so suddenly. And what did they mean by "challenging time in the University's history"? What's going on? Andrews is where I did my undergraduate studies, and this is a big shock to me. | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 297 Registered: 5-2004 |
I work here at good ëol AU and this turn of events was surprising, but no shock. Weíve been anticipating this for a couple of years and the Board seemed to be taking their own sweet time on it. Donít misunderstand that I have intense feelings of sorrow and sympathy for those who stepped down. I know this isnít easy for them or their families and on a personal level, my heart only goes out to them. However there have been HUGE issues here at AU that I do not have the time to thoroughly document at this point. Practically everyone on this campus who is in a position to be aware of whatís been going on realizes that this is the best and is praying that God will lead in the search for the new leaders. This university needs guidance from strong corporate leaders who are willing to take a business approach in financial and visionary matters. Not some GC cohort who is just climbing to the next rung. If left to go any longer the university was doomed to drive itself to destruction. Loma Linda went through something very similar several years ago and has seemed to rally and pull itself together for a bigger and brighter future because of it. Andrews faces a similar juncture: to either make radical changes or cease to exist. The current (yesterday) administration was not able to take a leadership role and make the decisions necessary to facilitate growth at AU. We have been in financial crisis for the past 4 years. The university has been annually falling short by the millions of dollars. Theyíve been selling property off to meet the gap, and cutting positions in support staff. Rather than make necessary decisions to cut small programs theyíve resorted to strangling them off financiallyÖand the whole university in fact just to squeeze anyone out they can. Anyway. I could go on for hours, but will wrap up saying that I really feel this is a good thing for AUís future and I feel that people on this campus are really seeking Godís intervention on itís behalf. | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow Esther, thanks so much for the info. Despite our current beliefs, Andrews still has a very special place in our hearts (especially for my husband, he LOVED that school). So we were very interested in finding out what was going on... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1129 Registered: 10-2004  |
"If left to go any longer the university was doomed to drive itself to destruction." I must honestly ask, what is wrong with that? Not that I want you to be out of a job, Esther.  But shouldn't we want this huge institution of deception to come to an end and "cease to exist"??? Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3503 Registered: 12-2003  |
Well, in fact, I doubt the school would have destroyed itself for precisely the reason it hasn't: the GC won't allow that to happen. If it weren't for the involvement of the church, the institution itself would be far more vulnerable. The amazing thing is that the church has a way of shoring up the walls and averting crises, but the political compromise and financial corruption never really go away. Thanks, Esther... Colleen | ||
| Lindylou Registered user Username: Lindylou Post Number: 136 Registered: 1-2005  |
My ignorant guess would be that what is happening at AUC is not a new problem for the SDA college system. In fact, I think all SDA schools are struggling as more and more kids are choosing to go the less expensive route for their education. I'm not an insider at Walla Walla College, but from my perspective they have had their financial struggles also. They have closed all their businesses because of poor managment and turned property into parking lots. I will always remember Andrews as an isolated SDA fortress, with five women deans (who were always on high alert for couples engaged in PDA) and a security clearance gate at the entrance of the campus. I remember the thrill of escaping off campus in the middle of the night to sneak some icecream for a midnight snack. We also played at prank at the guard booth and stole the gate that blocked cars from going in and out! We cut it up into pieces for souvenirs. Those were the days! (Thank goodness they are long past!) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1394 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree with Jeremy on this one. Andrews University has been a monument to false theology since the Arian J.N. Andrews founded it. To have a University named in honor of someone who denied the full deity of Christ and then to claim that it is Christian is serious. I know that they have now claimed to distance themselves from Andrew's heretical views, still the history of Andrews University has been one of perpetuating a false gospel. Having said all that, I understand Grace and Esther that we all have emotional ties to our schools. I just attended my 30th reunion from graduating from medical school at LLU, and, yes, I want the school to succeed. But as long as they take a liberal view on abortion, I can't in good conscience support it. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1130 Registered: 10-2004 |
You make a very good point, Stan. If the SDA church was a true Christian church that cared about the deity of Christ, they would not have a university named after someone who denied the deity of Christ! The fact is, they do not really care about any Biblical doctrine and they will tolerate any belief, as long as it does not go against their "distinctive" heresies. (Especially if it's one of their "sincere pioneers" who just "didn't have all the light yet"--as if the Trinity was a yet-to-be-revealed doctrine!) They may now (finally) give lip service to the deity of Christ and use the term "Trinity"--but in reality, there are differing interpretations of "the Trinity" (including tri-theism) and anti-trinitarianism is very much tolerated. The official magazine of the SDA church, Adventist Review, teaches tri-theism. They still have not rejected their heretical roots, and many heresies about God and Christ are still taught by the SDA church--you just can't "reform" or "change" heresy into truth without ever renouncing or repenting of anti-trinitarian and anti-Jesus blasphemy. And especially without renouncing your prophet who teaches such blasphemies! But anyway, Andrews University is where SDA pastors are taught how to deceive millions of people in the seminary there. I cannot feel any different about it than I do about Brigham Young University. They both lead many people to hell. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 07, 2006) | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2366 Registered: 3-2004  |
I have no soft spot in my heart for LLU. When I was sent an e-mail asking for an update on my address, I replied that I was no longer Adventist and could not support the school because of the churches beliefs. I never thought of comparing it to BYU, but you have a good point there Jeremy. Diana | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 47 Registered: 2-2006 |
Jeremy, What is 'tri-theism'? I want to recognize this, if I come across it somewhere. If you have time to explain or to direct me to a link, which can, thank you. Cathy | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 298 Registered: 5-2004 |
I totally understand the problems with the AU system and this university in particular. I donít support the theology that is taught here. In fact I was a student here when the infamous JN Andrews statue was erected in front of PMCÖ some of the student body sacrificed a couple rolls of veggie meat in front of it It was a great statement really. However, I live and work in this community (well, until May anyway). When we first started studying and then left the church, I was soooo anxious to leave this place in the dust. I wanted to distance myself from anything Adventist asap. But looking back, Iím glad that God has allowed me to stay here for the past 2 years. I donít see things as black and white as I did then. Not regarding theology mind you. I still think there is so much wrong. But hundreds of people who are earnestly seeking God and His will come here and work here. I know all of the faculty and staff in my dept well, and there isnít a one that Iíd point out as being less than 100% dedicated to God. Unfortunately, that includes Adventism. But that doesnít mean theyíre not Christian, or that God doesnít have a plan for their lives either within the confines of SDA, or eventually to lead them out. They honestly believe they are doing what God requires from them. I believe than many people are saved while still SDA, and whether they die SDA or get to have a miraculous exodus like those of us here, theyíre still part of the family. Iíve had to learn to separate the people from the system. And besides, there are people all over this campus who are ìwaking upî and seeking truth, and asking questions. I learn of new ones each day. This year alone I know of 10 people whoíve left Dwightís church and no matter how he beguiles them from the pulpit it doesnít seem like he can stem the flow. And since I donít attend there, Iím sure thereís many more that what I would know about. Somehow, I canít help but feel that this place is where, like myself, so many SDA products of the system come. Theyíve been raised in SDA homes, in SDA churches, and SDA schools. College is almost the first time they start thinking for themselves, and the dissonance they learn here (especially in seminary) are seeds that God will tend and water and bring into bloom much later down the road. Currently, we have 3 theology students assisting in our office. We have some great conversations and while I donít say too much, I know that these people have heartfelt convictions about Adventism, and yet are grappling with so much disillusionment and cognitive dissonance that sooner or later, something will shake them enough that they will be receptive to the HS and the scales will fall away. But as we all know, itís in His time, and not our own. So I continue to bite my tongue in theological discussions, and talk about Christ at every opportunity that presents itself. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the future holds | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1131 Registered: 10-2004 |
Cathy, Tritheism literally means a belief in three gods. It refers to the heretical doctrine that "God" is three separate Beings (like the Mormons teach), as opposed to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, which is that God is three Persons in one Being. Here is a link on tritheism: http://www.carm.org/heresy/tritheism.htm Jeremy | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 48 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thank you, Jeremy. I believe in the three in one Being. When I looked back on what I was taught in SDA school and at home about the Trinity, I saw three seperate gods presented by Ellen White. So I was taught Tritheism without knowing the term. The dualism, conflict emphasis between Satan and Jesus is somewhat Gnostic.(Of course, not everything is) Thanks for the clarity. Cathy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1132 Registered: 10-2004 |
Cathy, I've also realized looking back, that growing up SDA I was taught three gods who were "one in purpose." Adventism basically just went from teaching bitheism (by denying the Holy Spirit as being a distinct person) in the very early days, to tritheism, and all they did in the last century was finally admit (by 1980) that Jesus is eternal (while still tolerating opposing views, of course). Here are some amazing quotes from EGW which directly teach tritheism:
Wow, I hadn't even seen some of these quotes until just now. I didn't know that she actually used the word "beings"! Here is a quote where EGW teaches bitheism:
Here, EGW says that Jesus is a separate being than "God." EGW frequently referred to the Holy Spirit as "it," denying His personality, and especially in her early writings about the Father and Jesus in the "heavenly sanctuary," etc., she left out the Holy Spirit. Early SDAs did not believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit--and they believed in bitheism. I have come to realize that EGW's whole religion is basically a modified version of gnosticism/dualism, from everything about physical things being evil (sex, animal foods, etc.), to her teachings about the Incarnation and denying Jesus' humanity and deity, to her "Great Controversy" theme, to her dualistic doctrine of a sinless nature combining with a sinful nature in Jesus, etc. No wonder she praised the Gnostic/Dualist Albigensians as preserving the true faith! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 08, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3506 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, these quotes are amazing. I hadn't remembered her referneces to the "three great powers", nor had I realized she referred to the Trinity as the greatest Beings in heaven. My goodness, these quotes make me understand so much better why I had such trouble understanding how to have a relationship with Jesus. Even though I was taught the Trinity, the power of the Trinity and the eternal oneness of God and His salvation of me never really made sense. In essense, I was taught orthodox words but unbiblical "reality". I couldn't understand how to have a relationship with Jesus based on love and gratitude and resulting in power because I was not taught who the Jesus of the Bible really was. The confusion over God's identity and sovereignty and my own role was a muddle I couldn't see through. All I can say is, I praise God that He called me to Himself and taught me who He is. You're right, JeremyóEGW's religion really is a gnostic dualism, and it keeps people from seeing God and from seeing the truth about themsleves. In short, it obscures truth and reality and leaves people in confusion, despair, and darkness. Praise the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for giving us hope and life! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1133 Registered: 10-2004 |
WOW!!! I found some more totally amazing quotes from EGW! First, here are some more quotes referring to "the gods" as "dignitaries of heaven":
Now look at this quote:
There you can't really tell whether she is talking about "the gods" or the angels!! But look at this amazing quote:
Here it sounds like she is calling the angels "dignitaries" of heaven--which is what she called "the three gods"! Not only that, but she says that the angels are "the highest dignitaries in the kingdom of heaven"--higher than "the three gods"?! But wait, I guess "Christ" is included with those angels that are "the highest dignitaries in the kingdom of heaven" since she includes "the archangel"! Wow. And we believed she was a true prophet of God! She was a true prophet, though--a true prophet of Satan. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 08, 2006) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1134 Registered: 10-2004 |
I would like to point out something about that first quote that I posted where Ellen G. White says "the heavenly trio." The word "trio" simply means a group of three--but the three are not one. This is definitely teaching tritheism. The word triune means three in one--but the word trio simply means a group of three! EGW never uses the words triune, triunity, trinity, or trinitarian at all, in any of her published writings. This is pretty amazing, especially considering her vast plagiarism. She was very careful to never use (or plagiarize) those words in all of her writings. She never taught or endorsed the doctrine of the Trinity, and the SDA church never included that term in a statement of beliefs until long after she died (and it was still pretty anti-trinitarian even though they used the term "trinity"). She also never spoke out against the anti-trinitarian teaching of the SDA church or their anti-trinitarian statement of beliefs which they had in her day. The fact is, she herself taught anti-trinitarianism and denied the deity of Jesus Chirst, throughout her whole life. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 08, 2006) | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 198 Registered: 11-2005 |
I have seen lots of Ellen White quotes here but I haven't seen a single quote from the Bible. Please forgive me for my ignorance, but to my little brain it either seems like something "is", or it "isn't". Like a person is, or they are not. Like a Being is, or they are not. How do we have three Beings in one Being? Or three persons in one person? That sounds like something the Jehovah Witnesses would teach. In fact years ago I had some come by, and try to convince me there was no such thing as the Trinity, and that there was only one person that made up "God". I said, "Ok. How then do you suppose that at Jesus' baptism, Jesus was physically being baptised, while the Holy Spirit descended like a dove on His head, while a voice from God the Father in Heaven said 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. They are one in purpose, but in this instance there are three different entities described."? They left scratching their heads, and said they would return with an answer (which they never did). My wife and I are one in purpose (most of the time), but that doesn't make us one person, or being. "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" Matthew 3:16-17 I also don't know of anyone that would deny that God the Father was in Heaven, at the same time that God the Son was on this earth. "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son'?" Hebrews 1:5 Nor that when God the Son is "sitting at the right hand" of God the Father, he is sitting on himself! "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2 Also how would a person (or Being) be their own Son? I have never even heard of this logic before. I'll admit that there is a lot we don't understand about Heavenly Beings, or the way the Holy Spirit "dwells" within us, but I have never even heard of some of the comments being proposed here. Where are the Bible verses? Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1115 Registered: 7-2003  |
Gilbert, There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is one being and three beings or if we said that God is one person and three persons. We are not saying either of those things. The terms ìpersonî and ìbeingî denote two different very different concepts, therefore we can say without contradiction that God is one being that eternally exists as three persons. God is one in essence or substance and yet He as a being is defined by eternal relationships of love of and communication. There are real personal subject-object distinctions between the Father, Son, and Spirit and yet they are only one God. There are three eternal personal distinctions (persons), but only one God (being). Another way of saying this is "There is one 'what' and three 'whos'". You asked for scripture and I believe you will find mountains of direct supporting scripture in the following threads where we discussed the biblical teaching of the Trinity at length: WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART I WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART I WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART II WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART III WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART IV WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART V WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART VI WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART VII WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF PART VIII Gilbert, if you still have questions after youíve read through the Bible study at the links above, please let me know. I would ask that you read first because there is an awful lot of scripture there and it is laid out in a systematic way. Once youíve had a chance to do that I would be more than happy to discuss it at length with you. Chris | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 199 Registered: 11-2005 |
Chris -- thank you for your thoughtful reply. I guess my theological understanding is so screwed up that I just don't know where to begin. I feel like a student in school that is being repeatedly asked to regress to an earlier grade. It is all quite depressing. |
