Apostasy of a most startling nature....

One of the teachers went to our original church as it is the primary church for the SDA school. So they do a yearly presentation of the teachers and so on for the start of the school year. Well guess what she found in the calendar:

Roman Catholic Theology
September 12, 2018 7:00 PM

So after the introduction of the din they call music and "Spiritual Formation" training they are now starting classes on Roman Catholic Theology, and its every week much like the other classes. Our church leaders in our little group also had found out and we were to say at the least "aghast"....

Can this really be happening or am I in a bad dream...

"Even in the Adventist Church

We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world. Unbelievers have a right to expect that those who profess to be keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, will do more than any other class to promote and honor, by their consistent lives, by their godly example and their active influence, the cause which they represent. But how often have the professed advocates of the truth proved the greatest obstacle to its advancement! The unbelief indulged, the doubts expressed, the darkness cherished, encourage the presence of evil angels, and open the way for the accomplishment of Satan's devices."—Selected Messages 1:122 (1887). {LDE 156.2}

Basically we would need more information to really comment intelligently on this matter.

Like, what is the purpose of these studies?
What has triggered the decision to have them?

For example -- in our region there have been seminars on "Muslim Theology". I have not attended any of them (yet) not sure if I will in the future. As I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea, for the Moslem religion, at it's core, is purely a "works" theology (which to a large extent is also true of the Catholic religion).

But the idea behind those lessons, is to "find ways to reach the Moslem community".
In which case, for those serious about bringing the gospel to Muslims, finding some common stepping stones to lead them to salvation in Christ, would be a helpful and useful tool.

But of course, I do not know if this is the case of the "RC theology lessons" in you original church.

Too often, in these inter-faith "lessons" the goal is to promote the idea that all religions lead to God, just respect them all and don't agitate any "right" or "wrong" -- they are all good in their own way. Yet this is a key mindset which lies at the foundation of the ecumenical program. We need to be alert to its infiltration into our thinking. Revelation makes it clear that not all "worship" leads to God.

I suppose another possible reason for those lessons could be part of preparing for the merging factor in our health institutions, that seems to be occurring -- I don't know if the school you referenced is the Adventist Health University in Florida, nor have I heard anything of it considering joining the merging trend.
However, there have been several moves elsewhere of Adventist Health systems "yoking together" with the Catholic Health systems.
There is the AMITA (a joint venture of Catholic Ascension's Alexian Brothers Health System and Adventist Midwest Health) There is the Adventist Health and the Catholic St. Joseph Health are yoking together in several western states.
That, in my view, is apostasy -- a complete reverse of the purpose for which our health institutions were founded and our health message given -- they were to be the right arm to help proclaim the three angel's message!

Yes, you are correct, I checked their site before I posted the thread and tried to get a more comprehensive view, but it just shows it as a weekly meeting. We are looking to see what contacts we have to see if we can find out more details or a description of the classes purpose, but from how they fiercely pushed the "Spiritual Formation' agenda, I fear it is more of the same. I will see what comes out and update accordingly, but the decision to have them appears to come from the same idea as before, to force another type of worship on the members left there.

Well, some of our members made contact with our old church, and it was not good. They talked with the pastor over at the old church, and even invited him to the VOP series we were having The Appearing with Shawn Boonstra of Christs coming and they were shocked at the response. He told them not to invited them to the series as they 'no longer were giving that message'. I don't know what to say...

Is your old church still officially affiliated with the SDA denomination?

Well technically yes, but we are really pondering if any of the Florida Conference is still part of the Adventist church, as they have forced the old pastors to retire in many of the churches saying they did not have enough money to support them. Then they brought in these pastors trained in spiritual formation and Willow Creek philosophy to replace them, and destroyed what were once vibrant faithful congregations. To top it off they will not allow any new churches to be formed without the group leaders being sent to these Willow Creek/spiritual formation classes, its like they are either forcing the congregations to comply whether new or established, or destroying the membership.

Can anything be done to salvage the situation? Does the General Conference have any input into these sort of activities in Florida, or is it strictly a matter for local jurisdiction? Or, has the invasive spiritual formation movement infected the General Conference level of Church administration?

That is a good question, as we were shocked by the Florida Conferences insistence that all new groups wanting to become churches have to send their leaders for spiritual formation training. We argued with the conference to no avail and came up with what must have been divinely inspired solution. We sent one of our primary leaders to present to the conference how they had strayed from truth and call them out. This fulfilled the requirement while at the same time not betraying what we felt was the path God had for us. Others are seeing what the conference is doing and ungodly nature its displaying, so we shall see.

Attacks on the church appear to be intensifying. Both inside and from outside.
The venomous hatred poured out on youtube is breathtaking! And I see that we still have some trolls on site, here! It appears that the devil is becoming more wroth by the day. His time is growing short!

So the only real question to be asking is: "Am I part of the problem, or part of the solution?"
Then ask yourself if you like the answer.

Signed: JAK the Troll.

Well, you are not a member of the SDA church and definitely not a friend of it or it’s members. Also, the vast majority of your posts appear to be extremely negative. I’m going to guess that you have an axe to grind, and are here to troll
the members of your former denomination?

So, I must reluctantly agree with you, JAK. You are "part of the problem", and definitely not "part of the solution". And no, I do not "like the answer". I wish there was a way to heal your bitterness, but it appears that you feel your only escape is in tormenting Christians with whom you disagree.

To have sought out this site and spent so much time lashing out at the people here, you must be in great pain. You will be in my prayers, JAK.

Rick, here is a recent article from Fulcrum7 concerning a possible membership response to divisions, particularly NAD, abandoning Adventist teachings:
Time For The Nuclear Option? November 29, 2018
https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2018/11/27/time-for-the-nuclear-option

I read the article. Actually I've read several articles, both pro and con, from Spectrum and Fulcrum 7 and Atoday. What concerns me the most is the inflammatory language used by both parties.
A church should be able to work out their differences without resorting to name-calling, half-truths and misrepresentation of both their "side," the other "side," and indeed, the situation generally.
After all, one of the signs of discipleship is love evident towards our brothers and sisters. IMO, many of these articles lack that component.

It is clear from the article and the comments WHO is actually going to break up the church.

I wonder if they should read this quarter's lesson....

What are your thoughts on the makeup of a church? That is to say, what is it that constitutes a denomination? If it is merely the purported belief in God, then there are no distinctions between denominations, and no SDAs. If it is a shared list of dogmatic beliefs, then some divisions broke apart from the SDA denomination when they ceased to share those beliefs. Does this mean that the church has broken up, or are parts of it being “shaken” out, while the church itself remains intact? After all, it is the people that make up the church. The departure of a particular administration does not mean all of the members have left the denomination.

As in our lesson this quarter, repentance, reconciliation and unity are part of our Christian life. This is the way to go...

We, with our imperfect understanding, created denominations. Do you think God, with His perfect understanding, recognizes any of our man-made divisions?

Nadi, are you a member of a particular church or denomination? If so, why? If not, why not?

By supporting leadership that is normalizing practices such as baptism of lesbians, worship led by gays, forced participation in Jesuit meditation techniques, abandonment of the Sabbath, etc. Do we become partakers in those rebellious acts?

And supported the Nazis in WW2, and whose retirement fund is heavily invested in the arms trade.

Tell me JAK, do you attend church anymore? If so, what is your denomination?

I'm just a sinner saved by grace.

Given our past history I can't imagine why you would want to know that except to flame me.

I just like to know who I’m talking to, but if you prefer to hide in the shadows that’s up to you. It’s easy to sling mud from a place of concealment; although, not terribly brave...

Well we as we saw in the lesson today the Sabbath is part of Creation, and foundational when it comes to worship. So whose authority you follow when it comes to worship, the Beast with its mark on the hand or forehead, or Gods mark of authority the Sabbath, does make it much clearer.

That's one way to understand it.

Well in the end, we can choose all ways. But I rather stick with what is tried and true...

"Here we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic church, without any authority from the Bible." (Ellen G. White, The Mark of the Beast, page 23)

"The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850.)

"The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church." ... "The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark." (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 281.

"Then I saw that the seven last plagues were soon to be poured out upon those who have no shelter; yet the world regarded them no more than they would so many drops of water that were about to fall. I was then made capable of enduring the awful sight of the seven last plagues, the wrath of God. I saw that His anger was dreadful and terrible, and if He should stretch forth His hand, or lift it in anger, the inhabitants of the world would be as though they had never been, or would suffer from incurable sores and withering [65] plagues that would come upon them, and they would find no deliverance, but be destroyed by them. Terror seized me, and I fell upon my face before the angel and begged of him to cause the sight to be removed, to hide it from me, for it was too dreadful. Then I realized, as never before, the importance of searching the Word of God carefully, to know how to escape the plagues which that Word declares shall come on all the ungodly who shall worship the beast and his image and receive his mark in their foreheads or in their hands. It was a great wonder for me that any could transgress the law of God and tread down His holy Sabbath, when such awful threatenings and denunciations were against them.

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord is unchangeable, therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has exalted himself above God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts of holiness, justice, and goodness. He has trampled underfoot God's sanctified day, and, on his own authority, put in its place one of the six laboring days. The whole nation has followed after the beast, and every week they rob God of His holy time. The pope has made a breach in the holy law of God, but I saw that the time had fully come for this breach to be made up by the people of God and the waste places built up.

I pleaded before the angel for God to save His people who had gone astray, to save them for His mercy's sake. When the plagues begin to fall, those who continue to break the holy Sabbath will not open their mouths to plead those excuses that they now make [66] to get rid of keeping it. Their mouths will be closed while the plagues are falling, and the great Lawgiver is requiring justice of those who have had His holy law in derision and have called it "a curse to man," "miserable," and "rickety." When such feel the iron grasp of this law taking hold of them, these expressions will appear before them in living characters, and they will then realize the sin of having that law in derision which the Word of God calls "holy, just, and good."......Early Writings

ProdigalOne, I really think what JAK was intending with this was that EACH PERSON should ASK THEMSELVES if they are part of the problem or solution.

So to hypocritically claim that JAK is part of the problem immediately makes you......part of the problem.

The now-banned poster "JAK" was no more part of the problem than you or HCH or APL or Alchemy or dedication or anyone else who posts here. IMO he was a lot more honest than most, although he didn't use the best language to express it.


So...I don't see YOUR name anywhere.

Everyone has their reasons for participating on this (and other) forums and many times those reasons include inquiry in a safe environment. And by "safe" I mean "anonymous," because the SDA church really does not tolerate questioning The Prophet or The Doctrines.

So as part of the solution everyone, Nadi included, should let their responses sit for a bit and come back and read them and then ASK THEMSELVES:

Does this response address the post or the poster?
Is the tone of the response polite and inquiring or inflammatory and sarcastic?
Is this a response that will help others see the beauty of Jesus?
Does this response show the joy and character of being an SDA?

Just sayin'

Interesting. I am reminded of the trinity of verses I know is quite popular among SDA:

• "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples: if ye look very solemn on Saturdays." John 13:35
   
• "For God so loved the world that He gave us Saturday that whosoever keepeth it holy shall not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
   
• "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for ye from the foundation of the world: for ye fought tooth and nail to rest on Saturdays." Mat. 25:34-36

Read them for yourselves! I ALWAYS encourage my audience to read the original source materials lest they become so duped by second-hand quotes and smooth misinterpretations that they wander around blindly before crashing into the ditch. Does a wise student study UFO sightings for a Chemistry exam? Why then do I see so many peering through telescopes and pouring over plates of grainy photography?

///

And,

Never strive to keep the commandments because you will fail anyway so why try.

WELL SAID! You are not far from the truth.

No one strives to not do something when he is actually enjoying doing something else. An idle mind is the devil's workshop. Jesus said so.

"When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation." Mat. 12:43-45

But LOVE fulfills the law and a humble state is more stable than a high and mighty. James 2:12-13, "So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." It is evident that the LAW OF LIBERTY is compassion and forgiveness with the assurance that compassion and forgiveness will be returned in kind. And where there is compassion and forgiveness, there is peace and happiness.

///

It would be interesting to hear how it is decided who here is "honest," and who is not??

Just how "evident" that is may depend upon how one looks at it, what is the POV of said "evidence?" There is a time & place for everything, including deciding what is right and wrong. Jesus said it: or But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.(John 3:21)

IMO means In My Opinion...

So, from that whole post this is the part you feel needs commenting on?

OK then.

And kill those who you disagree with.

questioning people's "honesty" isnt exactly "unimportant." IMO

Came across my name in this thread even though I never had posted in it. Took the time to read the entire thread.

Ellen's comment is worthy of consideration:

I would ask, how did Christ discern who was 'honest' and true angel of God in the wilderness verses the 'tempter'. That discernment is available to us today...

Matthew 4:10-11 King James Version (KJV)

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

You make it sound so easy.

As I reminded Green in another thread: God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That was contrary to God's teaching. Abraham could have refused to obey because he knew that God would never tell him to do such a thing. But he knew the voice of God, because he had a close relationship with God.

Jesus had a relationship with the Father and He discerned error when it was presented to Him.

Nadi's discernment is impressive.

Shall we delve into that a little bit?

Upon what basis can you make the claim that God's instruction to Abraham "was contrary to God's teaching"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, there was "dishonesty" involved in said scripture, it would be better called "deception." But as far as anyone posting here as being "dishonest" its a pretty big gap from that to the text in Mat 4.

Was it "contrary to God's teaching" that His own Son was killed on the cross? God does not tell us to do anything "contrary to His teaching." Not sure how you would prove otherwise.

God did NOT kill His own Son. Sin killed His Son.

What scripture would you recommend to prove that?

Just to clarify, in my comment re Jesus being "killed" I did NOT say that God killed Him. I simply said that "Jesus was killed." And my question was simply, was THAT "contrary to God's teaching?"

As far as I know; God "GAVE" His Son...John 3:16. Im not saying how Jesus died, only that He did and I am asking is THAT against God's principles?" Some posting here seem to think so?? THAT act of "giving His Son" could be construed by some as on par with God killing His Son, as God is in the active and decided business of destroying "sin," and scripture adds, further, that "He [Jesus" became sin for us:

Scripture shows a variety of perspectives on the death of Christ.

The sacrificial offerings were ordained by God to be to man a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of his sin and a confession of his faith in the promised Redeemer. They were intended to impress upon the fallen race the solemn truth that it was sin that caused death. {PP 68.1}
 
If to save the body from death, the foot or the hand should be cut off, or even the eye plucked out, how much more earnest should the Christian be to put away sin, which brings death to the soul! {AA 312.2}
 
Expel sin from your hearts, for sin caused the death of the Son of God. {RH, July 22, 1884 par. 9}
 
Cease to cherish and excuse sin; for sin caused the death of the Son of God. {GW92 466.2}
 
Keep before the people the cross of Calvary. Show what caused the death of Christ--the transgression of the law. Let not sin be cloaked or treated as a matter of little consequence. It is to be presented as guilt against the Son of God. Then point the people to Christ, telling them that immortality comes only through receiving Him as their personal Saviour. {6T 54.1}
 
He will see that it was the transgression of the law that caused the death of the Son of the infinite God, and he will hate the sins that wounded Jesus. As he looks upon Christ as a compassionate, tender High Priest, his heart will be preserved in contrition. {TM 220.1}
 
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." While it is a disgrace to sin, it is no disgrace to confess sin, and to forsake it, as the hateful thing it is,--that which caused the death of the only begotten Son of God. {RH, December 9, 1890 par. 4}
 
Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}

I did not ask JAK for his name, "Nadi". That is irrelevant. I merely wished to know what his denomination was. This site is a popular target for religious trolls. The Seventh Day Adventists on this site are not ashamed of their beliefs. Hiding denominational affiliation, while constantly sniping at the faith of members of other churches is the act of a coward!

I see no mention of a home church in your profile. Would you care to share your denominational background, so that we can converse on an equal footing?

Incidentally, I revealed my name the day that I joined Maritime. You are welcome to search it out if you like, "Nadi". I use ProdigalOne to avoid confusion, since I have the same name as another member.

Good references to keep in mind, thank you. What about scripture? Are there specific texts that would lend support to this?

I like that text in your signature!!

Those who deliberately choose to see a one-sided picture will, in the end, learn that their view must be adjusted. When we choose to look at just one edge of the spectrum, not only are we imbalanced, but we risk an entire misinterpretation. Scholars must be prepared to consider all of the relevant passages on a topic collectively, lest they be found to wrest the meaning of those which they have favored.

There are, naturally, passages that seem nearly opposite those which APL likes to quote relative to Christ's atonement. Here is one of them.



Balance is so important. Truth wrested becomes error. Earth has not yet seen what God will do.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think that this idea is so important and often overlooked in Biblical scholarship. This is why it is so important to have one's ideas critiqued by other competent Bible students.

When others disagree (in a Christian manner) this reveals flaws and misunderstandings in ones ideas, and ultimately, if you are willing to learn, strengthens your position.

Well-said, Green & Nadi

Just an FYI to clarify, all I was questioning was this statement by hch.

biAnd Green refuses to take all that is written to come to the truth. God is NOT the source of death. Sin and the devil is. God wrath is not like the wrath of men or the devil. God's wrath comes when He lets us have our own wishes. This is the Eternal Gospel spoken about in Revelation 14.

Everyone does; there is no need to single out Green. He sees things different than you. Just state your position without attacking other forum members. It takes effort to create a safe environment for discussion.

I agree; I know I fail miserably at it sometimes, but am grateful for people's patience.

APL; I am still interested to hear from you about scripture that supports what you said about how "sin killed Jesus." I did enclose several texts which reflect varied perspectives on the death of Christ. Just wondering how you see it.

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:

God's will for His son to die for us was not His will for your son (if you have one) to die for us.

His Child,

Could you next explain to me how Abraham was able to read Jeremiah's writings?

For all we know, the practice of offering sons to Baal came from Abraham's example. Can you show that it pre-existed Abraham's story?

If not, we are back to the same question: Upon what basis can you make the claim that God's instruction to Abraham "was contrary to God's teaching"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,
God's principles are eternal. as Jeremiah said, "to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings...which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind." In Eden, God promised to give a redeemer "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15

Prior to God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, there was no command to sacrifice your sons to atone for your sins in place of the promised redeemer. It is interesting that after God's encounter with Abraham regarding Isaac, the Bible speaks of the abomination of the Ammonites, Chemosh, and Molech, (they practiced child sacrifice).

Furthermore, God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him." Genesis 17:19

Thus Abraham had the promise of a coming redeemer, and that Isaac would receive the promise of the covenant that stated that Abraham would be the father of nations and through Isaac's seed the covenant would be fulfilled. No matter how you want to frame the issue, God appears to be contradicting Himself by commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, who had no "seed" (children) at that time.

This is a clear case of an apparent contradiction in God's word that only faith could resolve through the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures available to Abraham did not settle the issue as you pointed out. Abraham knew God and followed him. That is the only safe course that we have today especially when so many are twisting the Scriptures to make them say what they do not say as it might be illustrated by the Amorites who substituted the sacrifice of their children for Christ's atonement.

The example of circumcision in Paul's day illustrates how difficult it was to rightly divide the word of truth. 'the pro party had the Scriptures in their favor. Paul understood that Christ had fulfilled the law and by the Holy Spirit he taught that circumcision was no longer required. It is the same way today with the woman's ordination issue. Those that see that Christ has fulfilled the law trying to move forward in faith against the will of those who do not understand the truth as it is in Jesus.

"This [is] the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Zechariah 4:6

Christian regards

Maybe you have not been here long enough. I won't pull out my greenisms now.

Here are a few: Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:17; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Isaiah 41:10; Ephesians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3; 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 2:14; Philippians 2:5-7; Galatians 4:4-5; Matthew 8:17; Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:7; Isaiah 53:12; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56; James 1:15; Isaiah 53:6 and particularly, John 14:9. If my view of God does not fit the last one, they quite simply, I'd be wrong.

In fact I have been here substantially longer than you have; that point means nothing.

Maybe you are unwilling to actively and intentionally create a safe environment for all posters.

Please confine your comments to moving the discussion in a positive direction.

I appreciate the effort you went to to post this. I have looked at the first couple so far, nothing that says "sin killed Jesus." Or dod I not get the point?

SIN, when IT is full grown, brings death. Sin pays it wage. It is not God. Do YOU have anything to bring to the table on this? Look at the sacrificial system, now did the victims die? The the High Priest kill the lambs? It was the SINNER. The sinner brings the death upon himself. God destroys no man. And if you have seen the life and character of Father revealed by the Son, then you know what God is really like.

Yep.

And God murdered Saul for talking to a woman.

1 Chronicles 10:13,14

APL: Registered: 01/31/11
Nadi: Registered: 07/16/16

Yes, well the name "Nadi" has been posting since 07/16/16.
The person who posts as "Nadi" had been posting since 2002.

I freely admit, I am mixed up now. lol Are there 2 Nadis?

2. (1Ch_10:3-6) Saul dies in battle.
The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and abuse me.” But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died. So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.

Well then, you should then know of what I was speaking. Good.

looks like somebody took a vacation (posting pause)

I believe Nadi is admitting he is in violation of having multiple registrations.

Of course you are correct. Students of the Bible would readily understand that. The Bible verse directly and distinctly says God killed Saul. However the Bible, when one sets out to understand it, says differently than what one may attempt to make it say. The comment was to Green, and if you knew the background of past conversations, you would see it hit on two (or more) issues dealing with him.

Yeah, that would be General Forum Rule #12.
However, it is hardly as nefarious as one would hope. Truth is that I get frustrated by the un-Christian atmosphere and stupidity and arrogance of some of the posters here and take a break from participation. After I calm down I return to the forum, but by that time I have forgotten my username and password, so I make a new one.

No big deal.

Especially in light of the fact that General Rule #7, and Conduct Rules #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are violated on a regular basis, often by the moderators themselves, and violent and abusive posters are allowed to carry on much longer than they should. JAK and James Son of Thunder come to mind, for example.

So no one really gives a rat's _ _ _ about rules or Christian conduct, which is why I am trying again, as "Nadi" (which, by the way ProdigalOne, was taken from the Spanish for "nobody" or "nothing") and exhorting all participants (including Nadi) to examine their posts and attitudes to ensure a safe and Christian environment for all posters.

It is up to us, as ADULT, CHRISTIAN posters, to create the environment that we want and that reflects our Christian values, since Daryl and his moderators cannot or will not enforce the rules of conduct.

I have contacted several of the posters who used to post here to see if they could return and help build a positive environment. Everyone who responded said the same thing: "Maritime is too dark and negative for me."

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, and everyone will get their hackles up and be all offended and defensive, but you know I'm right on both points: 1-The forum is dark and un-Christian and 2-it is up to the participants to change that.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Is there a reason for this "paradox" that we are seeing? Or, would you call it something else? I agree, the text says that. But when it says that, what does it mean?

Every forum has its own unique atmosphere. I dont worry about all this stuff. I know its just online and I cant possible know a lot about most members. Relax, talk about Jesus. He is The Light. (of the world).

This apostasy topic has gotten off-track. May I ask what your take is on the "most startling nature" phrase? And how does the church member who wants to lift up Jesus respond?

A church with a woman prophet at its inception, won't let women in leadership roles is of a "most startling nature"

Women are leaders in their own homes, equal to men in every way.

The desire for money and honour among men however has corrupted the earth. Now if a women is not allowed by a group of self-organized men to be lord over a few, she rebels in her heart and feels devastated and worthless. But for what exactly was she fighting if not for money and honour among men!

Imagine that.

If men decided the greatest potato-eaters would be payed handsomely and given medals, I tell you -- suddenly women would say in their hearts, "God wants me to eat potatoes!" And if the men should say, "See now, we would not eat potatoes anymore; but any man who jumps off a cliff in sacrifice would be remembered forever and their surviving family would be wealthy," as sure as night follows day, women would abandon the humble potato and demand instead and as well to be allowed to cast themselves of the bridge in droves.

Put a premium on child-care and the ship would be set aright.

///

Is this still happening now Rick? That is of a very "startling nature." I am reminded of the following two passages which illustrate the point at hand: These two quotes point out the MO for God & for the devil. Makes it plain to see how the counterfeit can be so close to the reality and truth. In the end; all the devil can do is to try and get vicious about it, once he sees that he cannot win by sleight of hand or deception. It seems apparrant that apostasy of a startling nature would be fast, hard, and sudden. Unexpected even.

Exactly what I'm saying!

Yes Nadi, "My Name Is Nobody", very clever. I parsed your name months ago, when I realized that you were yet another in the long line of those who come here to attack the faith of Seventh Day Adventists from the safety of the shadows. Although, I will credit you with being subtler than most.

It is easy to decry the "un-Christian atmosphere and stupidity" (what did Jesus tell us about calling others stupid? "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22) "and arrogance of some of the posters here" when you refrain from sharing your denominational affiliation with us. If you are Catholic, perhaps a discussion of church tradition superseding scriptural authority would be in order? If you are Charismatic or Pentecostal, we could discuss present day employment of tongues versus its use during the apostolic period? If you fall back on the old "I'm just a sinner saved by grace" non-denominational trope, we could discuss the authority behind Sunday keeping?

Nadi, you gave, "the SDA church really does not tolerate questioning The Prophet or The Doctrines" as a reason for anonymity, so perhaps you are a disgruntled employee of an SDA Division? If so, we could discuss what has led you to become so disillusioned with Seventh Day Adventism? I have no quarrel with pen names, only with hidden affiliations and the shady motives that so often accompany them.


I suppose it is easier to criticize the faith of others without allowing them an equal opportunity to examine yours? Since, you haven’t replied to my question on pages 2 or 5 of this thread, I will ask it again. In the interest of fair, open, and honest discussion, will you do us the curtesy of sharing your denominational affiliation?

Perhaps This should be posted in a thread called Nadi. Unless your point is that Nadi is bringing the "Apostasy of a most startling nature."

ProdigalOne is probably not a real name either

SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White. Desmond Ford tried to show that the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical and he was excommunicated from the pulpit.

///

and HOW would you prove this "James?"

By "this" do you mean:
1. SDA, generally speaking, indeed do not tolerate any skepticism about Ellen White.

or

2.the EGW doctrine of an IJ was not Biblical

I think you know what I mean; but I can humor you for a bit. I was talking about your first point. Re EGW HOW would you prove that?

The IJ was discovered only after the early Adventists got the right date, but the wrong event. It is confirmed by FAITH, and faith only. Unless of course one would believe the eye witness report by EGW, who told of how she saw the fulfilment of prophecy when she was transported to heaven in vision.


Faith and an eyewitness. And then there is that other eye witness who refused to heed God's call and take the message to the world.


summary: the evidence is sufficient, the faith is lacking.

Have you even read this thread? Why not take a break from thinking up prophesy fulfillment dates and actually read before commenting? The pen name was never the issue and the topic has been previously addressed.

Incidentally, knowing who you are talking to in a spiritual/doctrinal sense is pertinent to every discussion of a religious nature.

"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20: 30

He did not agree with the beliefs of the majority of Adventists.
Why would any church employ a preacher who does not agree with its tenets?
The logical course is for that person to find a church that he agrees with or start his own group.

By the way, what is your church denomination?

Since you did not respond to my previous post by sharing your denominational affiliation with us, I presume you intend to remain hidden in the shadows with Mr Peterson?

I will answer you, if you answer me concerning Jesus Christ, "To what denomination of Judaism did He belong: Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene or Zealot?"

Mat. 21:24-25

///

As it was never Christ's intent that His Church would break off into countless denominations, I would say that Christ belonged to no denomination of Judaism and no denomination of Christianity.

I can also say that there will not be any denominations of any sort after the Second Coming.

AMEN!!

What are you so afraid of?
A one sided conversation, where you maintain an artificial advantage by hiding, is not the act of a child of the Light, but that of a troll!
If you are unable to defend your beliefs, perhaps they are wrong?
If you are ashamed of your denomination, perhaps it is time for a change?

All for your information and guidance:



///

Here is a typical Saturday at what was our old (newly built) church...take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/NaplesSDAChurch/videos/320539048609925/

Sooo...
Are you saying this is good... or bad?

I guess then this is ok for a Sabbath morning,....

http://adventmessenger.org/motown-musical-madness-at-mt-rubidoux-seventh-day-adventist-church/

....?

So then what I understand you to be saying is that this music and this type of worship in an SDA church is OK.

I think he is trying to say that it isn't OK.

It happened at our other SDA church too back in the east coast, they dropped the use of the hymnal and brought in the 'praise team'. Then the 'band' showed up and at first played softly, but then they got electric instruments and it got "amplified". Soon it was just "jamming" and people that felt the beat got up and danced. We had to leave that church that my own sister had help start, and we seemed to have jumped out of the pot and into the fire.

We came to a church on the west coast of Florida that worshiped reverently and with all the sacredness you would expect in a Adventist church. Then after years of raising money and getting our building fund were we needed, we built a new church, and it started all over again. Here is how they started the "praise team" and "band" with their instruments and of course the drums, on the pulpit at the 'newly built' church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LK_ljg7NFU

Soft at first, and we let it go, but then they had the band perform on a Saturday night in which they dropped all pretense and blasted away where even other churches asked us what was going on. We then had a wedding for a church member and the band played and people were asked to "get out on the floor and dance" and "show their best moves". It went from bad to worse, there was no longer any reverence to speak of, and the church soon emptied out, and it was devastating, but we left it.

Sounds very nice and soft. I noticed the video was 4 years ago and couldn't find more recent ones listed there.

So far as church music goes I enjoy a light rock beat. I usually do not enjoy organ music.

Well, that video was one of the first times they got up there, so it was soft, but then they hired a 'band' who rocked it, but they had to let them go as it put the church into debt, after we had paid off the mortgage. So I don't know who they are using now, but I heard them a few weeks back 'warming up' before the second service when I visited, and they were 'rocking' it, but that never gets into the video....

Oh, yeah, a family has started a first service at 8 am, holding a "traditional" SDA worship service so I went to check it out, with hymnals and what I would say reverence and the sermon and Sabbath School in between. Then those who like the rock, come for second service, when the band is there.... as the old saying, 'separate but equal'.

I am happy to say that I am not aware of anything like that happening in our Conference.

I read you as saying the lack of awareness is due to the lack of such activity rather than having it happen under the radar while unknown to you.

It will start with the Youth, as they are the most impressible minds and those most susceptible. Take a look in your conference at the youth programs or ask the Pathfinder leaders and ask them if the electric guitars and drums have been introduced to the Sabbath programs or up front at the sermon or pulpit at the camporees. Using the simple songs from their songbooks they then "rock" them up so the kids get used to it, then they spread it across the board to any youth program such as AY or special programs in church such as presentations of the new youth members in the club. Then once they get it in the church, they bring in what the youth like, the tech, sound boards, monster speakers really not needed indoors, and video all around such as for the words of the song since they don't come from the hymnbook. Then once they have it in place its just a matter of 'cranking up the volume' and soon they have the whole church filled with what I can only call 'rock and roll' and the members numb and complacent.

Are you attempting to justify hiding in the shadows, by saying that Jesus did not have a denomination, and there will be no denominations in heaven? Your straw man argument is obvious: I never claimed that Jesus belonged to a denomination or that they would exist in heaven. Your words, not mine.

The fact is that what differentiates denominations is their doctrines. And God’s Word is filled with doctrine. "I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law." Proverbs 4:2
The SDA denomination does not "forsake the law". We acknowledge all Ten Commandments as the definition of sin. Does yours?

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.". John 7:16

The present day attacks on the Seventh Day Adventist church by other denominations are because it accepts the doctrines of the Father and the Son. Does yours?

Quit cowering behind pharisaic sophistry. I have shared my denomination. Show me the same respect, share yours. If your doctrine is so strong, so biblical, what do you have to fear from the weak, unbiblical teachings of Seventh Day Adventists?

Thank you for the allusion to John 7. I was trying to remember it in reference to your false accusations against me.

"My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"

-- John 7:16-19

///

The only "accusation" I have against you is that you do not have enough confidence in your own denomination to share it with the Seventh Day Adventists that you continually attack.

Hear ye, O mortal, the word of the LORD, the Everlasting God: "I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, 'I am of [Ellen White],' and another, 'I am of [Joseph Smith],' are you not carnal? ... Let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: whether White or Smith or Russell, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s." 1 Corinthians 3

///

Paul and Apollos, in your misquoted verse, were both faithful Christians who accepted the Word of God. They were working for the same purpose: "I (Paul) have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." 1 Corinthians 3:6
Therefore, it was irrelevant which of them evangelized a particular person.

Replacing Paul with Ellen White and Apollos with Joseph Smith is rather disingenuous since Smith was not a Christian. They would never gave been working for the same purpose. Are you inferring that you are not a Christian?

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?"

2 Corinthians 6:14-16

Are you trying hard to suggest that Joseph Smith, Ellen White and Charles Russell were NOT Christians, NOT working to bring people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ? Yours is a vain attempt at sectarianism which Paul condemns in 2 Cor. 3.

Joseph Smith, Ellen White and Charles Russell were NOT leading others into idolatry. Idolatry was something Paul condemned saying, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" 2 Cor. 6:14-16.

READ THE CONTEXT BEFORE JUMPING OFF THE CLIFF SO CLUMSILY.

But wait, aren't SDA the ones who bow before Saturday singing in solemn adoration, "Welcome, welcome, ever welcome, Blessed Sabbath day! Welcome, welcome, ever welcome, Blessed Sabbath day ..."? There's a whiff of tobacco in the air, isn't there?

///

Well I finally got confirmation of what I saw with my own eyes, and we kept hearing in bits and pieces. I talked to one of my longtime friends last night and he confirmed even worse than I had imaged. They have been directed to only teach the most basic elements of Christianity, nothing in any way of real truth from the lesson and much less from Adventism or Ellen White. The 'band' I saw rocking and rolling on the pulpit as they 'practiced' is brought in every Sabbath to play a gig just as they would at a club, and they aren't even members and of course don't participate in any Sabbath or church activities except to play the gig. We were wondering why the church was 'paying' the 'band' to the point it was putting them in the red, as most visitors leave after hearing the noise and most members left, and those that want to hear the 'band' I would say are there more for the 'free concert'. Its very sad what our former church has turned into, with the few people coming to it in shorts and T-shirts to basically socialize, with a short sermon given you could hear at any non-denominational church, and wiped clean of any 'controversial' Seventh Day Adventist message.

As I said, be ready, this is what lies ahead for the church and the faithful remnant...

And this is happening in the Florida Conference???

When numbers are important, some forget the purpose. A free concert brings in the numbers. They are counted, reported, and then it's considered the church is growing and doing things right. Why, look at the numbers, it must be working!

That's why we must must consider that there is some point, regardless of whether it's bringing the numbers, we must consider that it is not right, nor proper.

This is happening in the Adventist churches who are picking up these ideas, from what other church members are reporting, not just Florida. It is happening in all the churches that are following the various aspects of the Willow Creek/Spiritual Formation under many names. I saw it in our church my sister helped start in Miami, the same things, but they were so subtle that I didn't recognize it. I went along till finally something allowed me to discern and become aware that it was slowly taking us away from God and His truth.

What is spiritual formation?

Well, they are not only having 'concerts' but "Free Sunday Community Breakfast" to bring in people on Sunday, I don't even want to speculate on that.

is salvation by a day or by grace through faith? are all who go to church on sundays going to be lost because they go to church on sundays?

Obedience to God is a result of salvation not as a means of salvation for Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly says that we are saved by faith and not by works, and James 2:20-21 also clearly states that faith without works is dead and that Abraham was justified by works.

This, however, is another topic for another thread.

it would seem so, but the "apostasy" rick is describing is "going to church on sundays". but that is NOT apostasy, but rather returning to the church as it was in its early glory. see acts 2: 46, "So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart"

the early church was actually engaging in "Free Sunday (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday) Community Breakfast" and moreover God was blessing them as it is written, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." acts 2:47

the obsession and zealousness for saturday is going to cause massive division among sda to the point that many will cast out (and have killed) the innocent and think they are doing God service.

john 9:16, "Therefore some of the Pharisees said, This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them."

I think that was more a "daily worship" program, which we should all have. Every day we need to spend time in worship. Prayer breakfasts during the week are great, as are afternoon bible studies.

This however isn't to be confused with a special DAY when we put aside all our daily work, trusting in the Lord to meet all our needs, and just come apart and spend the whole day with HIM.

I don't think Rick is worried about people meeting together for prayer meetings and Bible study during the week. He is worried about setting apart Sunday and acting as if it were the Sabbath God blessed and hallowed.

Christ kept the seventh day Sabbath. It was His custom to attend the synagogue on Sabbath. and I'm pretty sure His carpenter's shop was closed every Sabbath.
Christ viewed the Sabbath as a day of restoration spiritual and physical. Rules that conflicted with the meaning of the Sabbath, Christ discarded -- but Christ kept God's law PERFECTLY.

Just a quick update, yesterday in Sabbath School one of the members from our old church came up and related something that left me very sad. He stated that the leaders of our old church called him, and ask him to come as Santa Claus for their church service. He told me he couldn't even bring himself to try to explain to them how wrong this was, and told me this is the 'third year' in a row they have asked him to do it. I didn't know what to say.....

For the leaders to be leading the congregation astray, that is an apostasy of the most startling nature

Well, I just found yesterday that it has spread into the Spanish Adventist church, nearby, and much like ours the first elder and others were shown the exit door. And they had just finished buying the building for the church and the property not long ago. I will update once I know more..

There is more ahead: The RCC male priesthood model is being embraced by the GC. And our stand on abortion that was settled over 50 years ago is being tweaked to align more closely with the RCC position. Positions that have withstood time are being chipped away by our leaders (oh no say it ain't so) and apostacy of a most startling nature is already here.

That is a bit of stretch as it was a change that was turned down, not a shift.

So you think that these issues have been laid to rest?
Anti-WO is RCC theology embraced by the GC and promoted as a panacea for Adventism.
The abortion issue as it has been settled for decades in Adventism is not aligning with the RCC view and changes are being urged upon us.

His child,

Are you, therefore, Pro-WO???

Since the Bible is proWO, I have to go with the Bible.
So Daryl are you against the proWO biblical teaching?

The Lord ordained EGW as His messenger! Who is the Lord's messenger?





God has already made the redeemed kings and priests unto God. Would you preach that women will not be saved? Thus, this does not apply to them?





Those who reject Christ's making His people kings and priests, reject the change in the law.





The evidence is clear that while man is forbidding God to call men and women to ministry and man is ignoring what God has put in His word and what God has done to move the work forward, man is bringing the RCC teaching about the male priesthood into the SDA Church.

All I wanted to know is whether you were Pro-WO.

A simple yes or no is all I wanted.

As we have a forum regarding WO, I do not want any further posts about this in this thread.

Daryl, can you clarify: do you believe WO is "apostasy of a most startling nature"?

From reading the first several posts of this thread it seems that Spiritual Formation was it.

As far as WO goes, I believe that it is presently a church issue.

Here is something that speaks to what is happening...

http://www.sdadefend.com/WolvesinFleeces/Organized%20Apostacy.htm