Adventist Online

For Adventists in these last days just before the close of probation we need the Spirit of Prophecy, what about those Adventists that reject Ellen White? Will they be included in the remnant? Will they recieve the seal of God or the mark of the beast?

2Ch 20:20 Believe in the LORD your God, so shall you be established; believe his prophets, so shall you prosper.

There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.-- Letter 40, 1890. {1SM 48.4}

Where do you stand?

Views: 530

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Michael, these are your words: "I assumed that theological debate and attacking the position of others was allowed here." No that is not our intent as I understand it. We are trying to steer clear of attacks and simply illumine truth. I had not associated you with the word "unorthodox" but apparently you have. Can we try to focus on the ideas being conveyed instead? This is not a dueling match but a search for truth by which we can all benefit. Wouldn't that be a good thing?
This a is a case where I agree with Michael in principle somewhat.We are to disagree with the position of the poster if desired, but not to attack the poster personally. My motto is "with all long suffering and doctrine" which for me, counts far more than personal opinions that may depart from solid Biblical (when I say Biblical, I include EGW) perspectives."Attacking" may be a strong word, which I used in the premise of this discussion as applied to Satan, I will now choose the word "refute" or "debate" in this context, or simply disagreement.
Please explain what you mean by the comment, ""Placing EGW on par with canonized Scripture or the blasphemous assertion that Christ had a sinful nature gets a pass, "

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Quite obviously Christ, in His human nature, faced the possibility of sinning and eternal loss.When the devil tempted Him in the desert how did He respond? He did not say,"Get thee hence Satan, I cannot sin, I don't have a human nature." He met the devil instead with "It is written" in this, He is our example.
Had Christ not a human nature the devil would have known it, he would have left Him alone..

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. {DA 117.2}
Wow, if that was you not getting in to it... I don't think I'd want to see how much you'd post if you were getting into it! :-)

[Disclaimer: This is meant a humourous comment and should be taken as such.]

Seriously, feel free to start a new thread on this subject... I have adopted a certain position over the years but just recently I have come to question that position and am interested to see other Spirit-led explanations of the nature of Christ and the Bible/SoP quotes used to support them. I also note some seeming contradictions within the quotes that you have posted... but that is not for this thread.
Be prepared for a bit of hilarity here 'cause I have never seen the likes of this reasoning before! lolololol.

You first claim Michael that your posts are being skimmed over, no careful and thorough review. Were I to stare at this 'til day's end, I can assure you I would not have come to your conclusions regarding "unorthodox"! How could I not have associated the term with you though it wasn't used by you?! I should have been doing some mind reading! Whatever was I thinking? lololololololol

Now it seems to me that your thoughts are not altogether clear but should I assume that you would think that means: ludicrous, appalling, senseless, (to use a few of the 'your' words). Well of course not! though 'muddled' might fit the facts. sml. But don't hit the roof just yet, I think your 'frocks' already on fire. lolololol (It really does help to be able to laugh at ourselves).

Let me try to be serious. That EGW changed her views at times does not in the least bit worry me. The preponderance or weight of her writings does shed light. And again, it is a good thing, in my opinion to be able to revise our points of review as we learn new things. The ones who didn't, crucified the Lord of glory.

I am not sure why you seem to be fighting a case for "orthodoxy" because to fail to examine or add to your understanding of God and Scripture would suggest you are going nowhere. I have no problem with the word or concept per se, I just think that we can actually sacrifice "right deeds and theology" for RELATIONSHIP and I think that's what God is seeking. If that's in tact, there will be symmetry elsewhere, in my beliefs, faith and practice. But remember that is a growing experience....... I know all too well how much I need His guidance to see clearly and do the right thing in varying cirsumstances!

Now, I don't know why you brought up Christ's nature, because it is not at all the subject of this post and could be percieved as an attempt to deflect from the topic at hand. I don't think that's a good idea.

" I do not see it at all and never will". This may be the truest summation of your position as you stated it. We cannot see what we have determined not to. The funny thing is that we are not in disagreement. I believe EGW was inspired, brings a wonderful vantage point to many topics but as some other said, was human and therefore fallible. I do not agree with everything she has said. But it seems to me that the Holy Spirit can be very much at work in the heart of a finite human being. I do think her visions are inspired on par with that of the scriptures but that was not her role. Just thankful that God has provided a resource to assist us in getting from here to forever.
"A merry heart doeth good....." (for the one that's merry that is). But no offence taken Michael. It is obvious you are hurt and perhaps dissolutioned with what you see in the church, particularly from the vantage point of minister. Been there, done that. No, not a minister, myself. Nonetheless.....

Do I know what orthodoxy means? Well I did go to grad school ....... but let's see:

The definition I found is:
1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or designating the Eastern Church, esp. the Greek Orthodox Church.
7. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.
1575–85; < LL orthodoxus right in religion < LGk orthódoxos, equiv. to ortho- ortho- + dóx(a) belief, opinion + -os adj. suffix Source:

Is that good enough for you? The 'Orthodox' folk in Jesus' day never quite seemed to get it or perhaps they did somewhat and just didn't like it so sought to do away with it. Except that didn't work. For the One that they were trying to dismiss was the One they needed most! Orthodoxy did not and could not save them. Only He could! And while it is certainly a worthwhile endeavor to find unity of thought on a particular belief, you will be hardpressed to achieve, seeings as the church is comprised of true believers and the 'unconverted'. There will be unity however amongst the remnant and that is all that matters.

The point is not whether I can or cannot make the connection between 'cultic' and 'unorthodox'. The point is that you have made a premature and inaccurate assessment of the position by describing it as cultic. I addressed this more fully in an earlier post on Aug 29. You don't want to be wrongfully judged. Of that I am sure! and as indicated in your earlier post, you've had a fair amount of that. So I'm thinking you wouldn't want to do that to someone else!

I think John made a good suggestion of starting another thread if so interested on the nature of Christ. It is not the topic or intent of this thread to address that doctrine.

I used your quote to make the point that we only see that which we are willing to. Now I found your response to me quite rude and disrespectful. And a part of orthodoxy has to do with conforming to beliefs, attitudes or modes of conduct generally approved. Now if I were to judge you by the yardstick you have been using, you don't exactly measure up. sml.

I am sorry your experiences have been of the sort it has. We too want purity of thought and doctrine but not at the expense of souls. Each must be convinced in his own mind and not "excommunicated" if his opinion differs. I am sorry if my comments offended you. That was not my intent. Peace.
Michael, I have told you clearly that what I posted was not directed against any one in particular. I was not aware that you had used or were the only one using the phrases you had mentioned. The choice of words were mine, not dependent on them having been associated with anyone else.

I have apologised to you for any unintended slight that I caused you.

That you then go on to accuse me of lying ("Pardon me if I still think that the claim that the post was meant in a general sense is pure baloney, but I suppose I will try to give John the benefit of the doubt.") speaks a lot more about you than the many paragraphs that you have written in self-defence.

Michael, I will say plainly that I would expect more from someone who is a pastor in the SDA church and who has "lasted all these years in ministry".

I have apologised for any unintended slight against you, I have assured you that it was not meant personally. If your reaction is only to self-justify and accuse me of being a liar, I have nothing else to say except to repeat the end of my last post to you:

It is nicer to treat this thread as a discussion on what we believe rather than as an adversarial debate.
JohnB said, Michael, I have told you clearly that what I posted was not directed against any one in particular. I was not aware that you had used or were the only one using the phrases you had mentioned.

Michael responded, Again, how can anyone who has read my posts carefully not know I used the term both directly and indirectly many times? Once again, here are only a few examples:

Michael, if we have to analyse this further let’s be exact. You used the word “orthodox” twice (in the same paragraph) and the word “orthodoxy” once. Both instances are found on pages 28 & 29 (respectively) of the thread as it stands at the time of writing. “Orthodox” was used to refer to “any orthodox Christian”/ “orthodox Protestant denomination” and “orthodoxy” was used in the sense of a noun describing the defined beliefs of the church. The former was used in a definition of the words “ex cathedra” to ACNF and the latter in regard to the beliefs of the church to ‘hammer’. These posts were both on the 29th August, two days after ACNF had posted his comment. I used the word four days after ACNF’s post, two days after you had used the word.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone should suppose that just because you used the word “orthodox” in one paragraph in over 30 pages of comments, the next person to use the word must be referring to you. I used the word within a description of my personal stand in direct response to a question that I was asked by Charliebwoyo. I did not refer to you, allude to you, quote anything that you had said, in fact, I made no reference explicitly or implicitly to you. It was a personal reply to Charliebwoyo following questions that he had asked personally and directly to me.

Michael said, Now, since I have clearly been the main culprit who called out ACNF's view as unorthodox, what am I supposed to assume when you say you don't want this thread to turn into an unorthodox belief witch-hunt against ACNF? Anyone with two eyes to read cannot possibly say it is suprising I came to the conclusion I did.

I’m not sure what difference the number of eyes the reader has makes, but, again, to be accurate you never used the word “unorthodox” and neither did I. Re-read what I did say and you will see that I was speaking personally about my actions and made no mention neither alluded to anyone else. You may feel yourself a “main culprit” but I hadn’t noticed it – particularly as AFAIK you never used either words to directly refer to ACNF.

JohnB said, The choice of words were mine, not dependent on them having been associated with anyone else.

Michael responded, Fine. I said I would give you the benefit of the doubt and I will.

No, Michael, you did not say that you would give me the benefit of the doubt. After calling me a liar you said that you “suppose” you would “try” to give me the benefit of the doubt. There is a big difference. In fact, I was left with the impression that you were even more entrenched in your belief that I had attacked you and that you are convinced that I am a liar.

JohnB said, I have apologised to you for any unintended slight that I caused you.

Michael responded, I don't require an apology for anything. I just want people to stop with this nonsense that I am attacking ACNF instead of dealing with his belief. Do I have to rent a plane and write it across the sky for people to get it or are they going to continue with the false charge that I am getting personal with ACNF instead of dealing with the ideas and issues?

For Heaven's sake, the man himself plainly admitted his view was unorthodox twice! Why am I getting the gears for something he plainly says IS THE CASE? Sheesh!

It seems that the “gears” are all in your mind. Michael, you either accept what I say or you don’t. There is no point in making some grudging acceptance that you had misjudged my motives and then carrying on in the next sentence as if you had been right all along. Can you show me one place in any of my responses where I said that you are getting personal with ACNF? No. You can't. I didn’t apologise to you as a requirement, I apologised to you because I was sorry that you had been upset by misunderstanding my post. It was a gesture to assure you that I had intended you no harm. Certainly, I didn’t think that it would be thrown back in my face.

JohnB said, That you then go on to accuse me of lying ("Pardon me if I still think that the claim that the post was meant in a general sense is pure baloney, but I suppose I will try to give John the benefit of the doubt."

Michael responded, John, I have been on many forums where I have been attacked in very subtle ways and then the attacker feigns innocence and tries to feed me the tripe that it was not meant that way or he was not referring to me. All this when it is as plain as the nose on my face he was doing that very thing. I assumed this was just more of the same old, same old. I guess I was wrong, which is why I qualified my statement with the 'benefit of the doubt' addendum.

JohnB said, It speaks a lot more about you than the many paragraphs that you have written in self-defence.

Michael responded, This is pretty much just a patronizing cheap shot, so I will skip over it and not even deal with it.

Actually, Michael, it was an attempt to let you see how much your response has affected my opinion of you, as was the next sentence:

JohnB said, Michael, I will say plainly that I would expect more from someone who is a pastor in the SDA church and who has "lasted all these years in ministry".

Michael responded, John, one thing you will begin to see as you interact with me more and more is that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I can be quite blunt at times, but that is who I am. It is a quality many of my parishoners appreciate in me. There is no pretense with me and what you see is what you get in my posts.

One thing I have learned in ministry is that for every hundred people you interview, you will have a hundred different opinions and ideas of how a pastor should speak or conduct himself in discussion. I have also learned that you will never please everyone so don't even try. Maybe my forum demeanor is not to your liking. That's fine, but don't hold your breath for me to change who I am to fit your image of what a pastor should be and say, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Furthermore, if you are planning to play the convienient 'pastor' card every single time a comment of mine rubs you the wrong way, it's going to get old awfully fast. I know, because someone on another forum constantly used it to try and control me and continually implemented it as a tool of manipulation in a discussion. I can tell you the brother got frustrated very fast and he learned that he had only two options: Accept me for who I was or just stop interacting with me. He chose the latter, which was fine with me.

Michael, as you are known for bluntness then I would expect you would allow others to be equally blunt with you. As to “the convenient ‘pastor’ card”: there are many pastors on this forum, some who declare their role, some who don’t. Similarly, there are many who are involved in some form of ministry, some declare it, some do not. You have declared many times that you are a pastor and by doing so you place yourself in a certain position. Being a pastor should not be regarded as just another job, it is a vocation and I always assume that someone who takes on the role of pastor does so due to their deep commitment to their Lord and their commitment to spreading the Good News of salvation. We are all called to reflect Christ in our day-to-day lives, not the least those who take on the sacred role of pastor. However, I will admit that when it comes to displaying the love of Christ I do expect to find pastors especially displaying the love and courteousness that Christ exhibited…and, yes, your reaction did disappoint and sadden me. I had really thought that a pastor would take the higher ground and show some humility. (Michael, you can ascribe whatever motives you will to the last paragraph but to avoid any misunderstanding I will tell you now that I am sincerely letting you know how I feel in the hopes that you will take on board the fact that as a pastor you have a very responsible role in God’s church - as well as in this forum - and in my eyes you failed in that role. How you respond to what I have said is up to you but I write in love not with any sense of superiority or being “holier than thou”.)

JohnB said, I have apologised for any unintended slight against you, I have assured you that it was not meant personally.

Michael responded, I didn't ask for an apology, but thanks anyway. If you say you did not have me in mind with that post, I will accept it.

JohnB said, If your reaction is only to self-justify and accuse me of being a liar, I have nothing else to say except to repeat the end of my last post to you.

Michael responded, No, I believe you. But I hope you understand that my past experiences on other forums has pretty much damaged my trust factor almost beyond repair. I am going out on a limb with this by taking your word for it, but what the heck.

??? “going out on a limb” ??? I don’t understand, how is taking my word for it “going out on a limb”? Brother, I have given you my assurances several times. The only other person to comment on the post in question has also stated that they did not see it as you did. I don’t want you to go out on a limb. You either accept what I say or you don’t. You either have evidence to show that I am a liar or you don’t. I am a Seventh Day Adventist Christian and take the keeping of the commandments seriously. Please do not judge me by others.

JohnB said, It is nicer to treat this thread as a discussion on what we believe rather than as an adversarial debate.

Michael responded, I happen to love debate and don't find it to be a negative thing at all. Others here do not like debate apparently, so I will save the debate tactics for other places.

Yes, good idea. This forum should not be the place to display “debate tactics”. As a Christian forum the first rule of thumb should be to not just treat others as we would want them to treat us but to treat them as we would want Jesus to treat us. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said “adversarial debate”. Who is going to look with sympathy on any position that I forward if all I do is attack people who do not seeing things my way? I am not interested in winning a debate, I am interested in going to heaven. More than that, I am happy to share my conclusions with other like-minded seekers of heaven. In any exchange of ideas either I will be confirmed as being on the right path or I will be enlightened and pointed to the right path. As long as I approach all discussions in this way I am in a win-win situation. EGW firmly condemns using the “cut and thrust” of debate in our discourses, recognising that you might win the debate but you turn the “losing” soul away from the light.

I would suggest that you read the site rules again, particularly rules: 1, 3-6 & 12. Perhaps that will help you to understand the type and method of discussions that are encouraged in this forum.
Michael said:
"Unless 'my mind' entails the rebuking I have been recieving from Clark, no, not the case."

I have not been meaning to rebuke you in our private messages. I prayerfully and privately approached you with my concerns. I have been trying to get your behavior to conform to the rules of this site. I did that in private because I was not interested in shaming you or making you look bad in any way. It was not my intent to rebuke and if that was the case, I am sincerely sorry.

That said, you are now, in a public forum, accusing me of rebuking you. That is unseemly and not welcomed. Do you wish that I would only and always communicate with you publicly so that others can be the judge of my "rebukes"? I don't do that so that I don't point out every rule that is being broken and distract from this excellent topic AND I have no interest in publicly pointing out the sin in other sinners (too easy and not at all helpful).

You say you don't make the rules, but you CAN. All of our rules have been made by this community and we will improve them at every opportunity. There is a discussion thread dedicated to just that (here). If you would like to help improve the rules, that is the place.
From Michael- "You strike me as being a tad oversensitive John. That's fine. But I am not."

This is kind of funny to me. I have never seen John offended by others positions or behavior. He is so well spoken and behaved that I feel wildly reactionary by comparison. When I get to heaven, maybe THEN I'll be as good at loving discourse as John is. :-)

Now to the part about Michael claiming he is not oversensitive. Really? It looked to me like he had a minor meltdown because he thought John was describing his behavior because he used the word "orthodox" and Michael had used that word before... twice (and 'orthodoxy' once)?... in a 39 page discussion. THAT really seems to me to be oversensitive and reactionary. :-)

Michael, perhaps you see yourself as not "oversensitive" but your writing communicates something much different. How many exclamation points and frustrated outbursts do you need to show oversensitivity? Let me quote some of yours: "Sheesh!", "Oh brother. I give up.", "I mean, please!", "Unbelievable.", "you really take the cake.", "your post almost made me choke on my dinner in horror.", "Oh come on!", "For Heaven's sake", etc., etc.

These quotes, along with accusing others of lying, etc. show me that you are much more "oversensitive" than you would want to believe. It's fine to be sensitive. I am. But let's just recognize things for the way they really are.
you are also entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is, and like Ian said, CASE CLOSED!
I don't see anything 'well spoken' or 'well behaved' about any of the actions towards Michael. Maybe this is just not my 'cup of tea'. If it is your's ... I guess maybe I am just in the wrong place. It seems I need to join Charlie and the other liberals that are being driven away by the ill mannered conservatives here. Pretty soon all you cons can have a chance to preach to the choir about all your beliefs. And then the rules here will be easier for you all to abide by. At least then ... you can be nice to each other.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service