Thank you. You illustrate my point. You were making assumptions that Mark had not read the book. Your "questions" in the above were framed in a hostile manner that did not invite a response from Mark. They were really just accusations. Why should he answer them? Your mind was already made up.



If you have read nothing of what Johnsson has written, and you haven't read the review (it quoted Johnsson), why worry about Mark's, or anyone's for that matter, perspective on his theology? You also establish my point: You accuse others of basing their beliefs on someone else's thoughts, but you are doing what you have accused your brother of doing--not even knowing if he has read the book or not.

Folks...this should be a Christian forum, not a platform for snapping at each others' throats.

In all honesty, I begin to contemplate closing my account here. Between the theological errors, the strifes, the warring among the members, and the frivolous discussions--this forum has fundamentally changed since I signed up nearly a decade ago. Back then, we used to have actual Bible study discussions. Now, it's mostly devil's rabbits. Belief in a plain reading of Scripture and of Ellen White has certainly deteriorated. Most here seem only to believe and accept them now when they correspond to their private opinions--while vainly claiming to accept the inspired writings in their entirety.

I'm a truth seeker. My compulsion for posting here is motivated mostly by a desire to see the truth prevail against ignorance and error. I can hardly bear to see the false theologies coming in like a flood. It seems nearly impossible to withstand them.

Yes, the Testimonies are being rejected. They are not always simply discounted or discredited. They are being displaced by private interpretations and subjected to "higher criticism" that turns their precious truths into fallacies. But William Miller's dream will come true. The dross will yet be purged away from the treasure.

ROTFL - - Did you read the review that Mark linked to? Talk about accusations! The review calls Johnsson a disgruntled former employee. Is that fair? I guess you think so by your reply above. I agree, there are many false theories being presented. And when they are shown to certain individuals, they bristle. Jesus is the answer, He is the ONLY one that should be lifted up. He IS the truth. But many reject the testimony that He has given. Many want to separate Christ from the people, and divide them, usually on gender lines. But putting on Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male of female. Johnsson in his book is in the right direction. But the enemy of Christ will continue to obscure the truth.

Green, you missed the point.

Do you really think that whether someone agrees or disagrees has anything to do with proper form of investigation of a subject?

Perhaps you should take a introductory science course and learn about something called "the scientific method". The principles can apply elsewhere, to help you investigate things rather than just choosing to believe or not.

Why do you advocate a method you do not choose to follow? I realize that is the essence of modern science, however. You're in good company.

If you wish to convince me that you are a real scientist, you might begin with reading the review, including the quotes from Johnsson. If you wish to persuade me that you are a Christian, you might follow that with making some apologies.

I watched the video of the interview of Johnsson. I have also read the Review article. What stood out to me in the interview is that Johnsson is focused on human intellectual ability, on scholarship, not upon the revelation that comes from God. His praise of people is for their intellectual ability, not how well they know God and are much they are in subjection to His will. This is a very dangerous path.

This is the same trap that the Jews fell into under the influence of Greek education, and led to their rejection of Christ. Our culture is under the same exact influences as the Jews were, and unfortunately the so-called intellectuals in the church are going to the same place the Jews did.

Green, I hope you don't decide to close your account. You, and those like you, are the reason I haven't abandoned this place. I have basically no fellowship of any kind outside of Maritime SDA. The numerous other Adventist forums I have visited were overrun by trolls, SOP deniers, and outright atheists. As bad as Maritime gets at times, it is still the best SDA forum, I have found. While the steadily increasing animosity has caused me pain many times, I still believe this place is worth fighting for.

I agree with Green Cochoa, the last several years have seen a gradual deterioration of decorum on this site. While some of this is due to infiltration by a number of agents provocateurs, (yes, we know you are here) a great deal of harsh feelings and resentment appear to have originated in the Woman's Ordination debate and have only intensified since the vote.

The ad hominem sniping on this thread is merely the latest iteration of the enemies' broadcast sewn discord. One only has to look at the too swiftly formed opposing sides.
The majority of those supporting Johnsson, are also passionate proponents of WOPE.


As Gary K said so well: "What stood out to me in the interview is that Johnsson is focused on human intellectual ability, on scholarship, not upon the revelation that comes from God."

No, I have not watched the interview, or read the entire book in question, only the Kirkpatrick review as well as several other mostly positive reviews, some biographical info, and what snippets of the book I could find online. Sorry, I'm on a fixed income and am not willing to fork out money for a work that frankly doesn't interest me. It seems unlikely that any of the upcoming offerings of the Pacific Union's Oak & Acorn will open my wallet.

From Gary K's analysis, which I have no reason to doubt, this sounds an awful lot like the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation...

This might seem off-topic to begin with, but it is not.

Have you ever read the Talmud? I have copies of both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. What I have found in them is pretty amazing. The Jews were applying "reason" to scripture. It was their "modus operandi", for lack of a better term. They went down some amazing rabbit holes of logic. These were really intelligent people too. That's obvious from reading their logic. But, their logic had them so twisting scripture as to make it unrecognizable. Their "scholarship", their scientific reasoning, led them directly away from God.

What the Jews did was go down the road of rationalism, the same road our theological seminaries are going down now. The hallmarks of it are unmistakable. For an example I will give a synopsis of a discussion on WO that I read on another forum.

One of the posters was talking about how "new scholarship" had proved that Paul had used a term that could mean either man or woman in ITimothy 3, and that bit of scholarship invalidated taking that passage of scripture as it reads. The upshot of this is that someone else on the thread got curious about this "scholarship" and began researching this for although he was not an expert in Greek he couldn't see anything there that was unisex in Paul's usage of words. So, he began going through Bible versions to see if any Bible translators had actually translated the Bible that way. He ended up going through around 80 versions of the Bible and only found one version of the Bible that agreed with this "new scholarship".

That version of the Bible is called the "Open Bible", and is based upon another NT translation called the Twentieth Century New Testament. That is based upon some rather shaky manuscripts, but even that version didn't disagree with the rest of the versions of the Bible he investigated as far as ITimothy 3 goes. So, he started looking at who was behind this version of the Bible that disagreed with all the others. What he found was that the "scholars" involved in this re-writing of the NT had close ties to the Jesus Seminar. The leader of this group, in fact, was a co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, and it was at the urging of the founder of the Jesus Seminar that this project was started. And, the group assembled to created this Bible version was a collection of radical left-wing ideologists who started the project with the idea of creating a version of the Bible that agreed with their socialist agenda.

What is the Jesus Seminar? A group that doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, etc.... The founder of this group says Jesus was a stand up Jewish comedian whose body dug up and eaten by dogs after his death. This group, by what it clearly believes, is clearly satanic in origin. Yet this so-called scholarship is what a graduate of Andrews was quoting as an argument for women's ordination.

This "scholarship" has it roots in the rationalism of the Greeks and that arose again during the French Revolution which deified the goddess of reason. It is the effects of rationalism that caused the mainline Protestant denominations to reject the 1844 movement, for the rationalism of that day had rejected everything the Jesus Seminar rejects. If someone rejects the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Christ will they want to hear that Jesus is coming soon? It is utter nonsense to anyone that accepts rationalism.

The "scientific method" does not work when studying about God, for the "scientific method" is purely human reasoning. And purely human reasoning can never come to the truth about God, for it cannot rise above the level of humanity. It acknowledges nothing greater than itself. Science cannot prove God exists. It requires faith to find God and to accept Him. And without faith it is impossible to please God. To go down the rabbit hole of science is to go down the same rabbit holes the Greeks, Jews, French, and Protestants have gone down. It is the rabbit hole of believing in human ability over and above the revelation that comes from God.

What are you saying? That we should not have scholars in the SDA church? That we should turn off reason when we study the Word of God? That we should stop mining the Word for the veins of Gold it contains? That there are not new truths to discover? Are there any teaching we must UNLEARN?

I would agree with your assessment of the forum being the best available. Thank you for your kind words toward me, though I am not sure they are deserved. I sometimes feel most here would prefer if I did not participate. It's hard to understand how people can reason as they do.

But I am certainly not perfect either. I have sometimes said things with the wrong attitude. Jesus didn't always tell people everything, because they weren't able to bear it: I feel guilty of sometimes not doing likewise. I sometimes wonder if it is my duty to defend truth in this forum, or if it is my duty to refrain from casting pearls before swine. And I am not sure I have the answer. Perhaps similar to you, I have no one beyond this forum with whom I can engage in deep Bible study. I work among people who do not even know the Bible, and many who have one read at less than a fourth-grade level. Current church issues, like women's ordination, have little direct impact here, unless some visiting church dignitary chooses to inconsiderately push his or her agenda as a guest speaker--little knowing that it crosses the cultural boundaries so significantly as to render their time thus spent worse than wasted. But I have other callings, too. Perhaps it is not my place to defend church doctrines among North American "window friends" whom I have never met. My work here deserves my full attention. If I didn't crave for deeper fellowship, . . . I might have left this forum some time back already.

I do appreciate your posts here, Prodigal. Thank you.