3ABN fires Ryan Day is it justified?

 I was listening to Advent Media Connect where he went over an interesting case in Adventism. An employee of 3ABN was fired from his job, or as Ryan Day said in his update told it was time to "separate". Listening to Ryan Day was interesting as he described his doctrinal questions and his experience. It is about 2.5 hours but it is well said and not hard to listen to, even if a bit long. Then the following day, Advent Media Connect presented the sermon to Ryan Day's home church in the video titled: "Pr. John Lomacang Warns His Church on Ryan Day's Unbiblical Position." This is where things really get interesting for me.
                                                            Picture below   Ryan Day

John Lomacang begins at 1:17 saying: "And not too long ago at 3ABN um a sad decision was made uh but not on the basis of anything incorrect but there was a decision made that was facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church and our dear brother uh Ryan Day decided that he no longer could be a part of 3ABN.                                    Picture Below  John Lomacang

He continues at 3:01

"And I've said it pains all of us to know that such a young man with grand potential would make a decision that he felt that our doctrines were so out of harmony with the Bible that he could no longer be a part of our church Well let me tell you he was an elder of our church also And nothing is further from the truth The seventh-day adventist church throughout its existence have maintained one standard and one continuous standard is that everything we teach must be based on the unerring word of God. If it is not we don't we don't embrace it "

Notice the cute little switch that makes it appear like Day left 3ABN rather than Day being fired (he did get severance pay). We have learned so far that a decision was made facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church, and that Day felt our doctrines were out of harmony with the Bible. Further that the SDA church is only based upon the Bible, and if not in the Bible, we don't embrace it. 

So Ryan Day, by John Lomacang's own words, feels that there are some doctrines out of harmony with the Bible. So, apparently, if they can both agree that their doctrines should come from the Bible, why would 3ABN feel it necessary to fire a fellow Bible believer? 

It must be something to do with something that is not really from the Bible. Lomacang's warning was that Day's departing from the "doctrinal integrities" of our church. That is interesting, as Lomacang has said that the SDA church only embraces things found in the Bible. But as we will see, that is not even true in Lomacang's own sermon. 

At 7:25 Lomacang says: "Examine our doctrines You know many people just like the fall of Lucifer from heaven Lucifer's fall was not based on the fact that he proved God wrong He made many accusations but because he could not prove God wrong He was expelled And the Bible talks about the influence of anyone who goes and walks away from truth Revelation 12:4 When Lucifer fell his tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth  One third of the angels rebelled with Lucifer And they did not rebel on the basis of the fact that Lucifer was right But they joined with Lucifer on the basis that they sympathized with him When you sympathize your reasoning capacities are shut down When you sympathize God's word is no longer your guide "

I will simply note here that there is no Bible teaching that lucifer is satan, that tradition that misidentifies lucifer as satan is not a biblical doctrine. But Lomacang goes much farther and says that the fallen angels sympathized with satan and their reasoning capacites were shut down. Where does anyone find that in the Bible? If you only embrace things found in the Bible, how can Lomacang make such a statement? 

Lomacang continues: "Every point of rebellion seeks to create new victims on the following points: One; they lack experience on doctrinal points that are being used to deceive them. Two; they fall for the belief that somehow the accusations made have some credible merit without going and asking for counsel from those of experience. And thirdly; they sympathize with the accuser The servant of the Lord wrote in councils for the church He said "Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in the general ruin that is coming upon the earth As the coming of Christ draws nigh he will be more determined and decisive in his efforts to overthrow them." Listen to what she says, and by the way, Ellen White's going to be attacked tonight on their broadcast also..."

So we can finally see where the problem lies. It is not a problem of Bible doctrines; there is no Bible doctrine that angels sympathized with Satan, that is, from Ellen White's addition, known in Adventism as the Great Controversy theme. An entirely unbiblical exposition on the happenings in Heaven before the earth was even created. Questioning how Ellen White is a prophetic authority is the "doctrinal integrities of our church". Taking Ellen White as a prophet is not a Biblical doctrine either, so very clearly, Adventist doctrines are in fact not derived from the Bible. Lomacang has very well demonstrated that his presupposition about the Adventist church's doctrines coming from the Bible is not true!

Here is an example of Ryan Day's apparent attack that Lomacang expected, from Ryan Day's Update: 

2:31:36 "Let's get back to the Bible Let's put Christ back in the church back in the center Make him the cornerstone of our existence Not a woman who contradicts scripture not a woman who plagiarizes and tells everyone she got it from Jesus We shouldn't have to say "Well, Ellen White says for every little thing that we we say but my goodness you go on these Adventist forums and I did one a few a few months back where I asked a question and and here we go Here I go." Very few Bible texts a plethora of Ellen White says "Have mercy Have mercy." We cannot call ourselves a people of the book if we're using Ellen White as a crutch to get us through. So that being said, my friends back to the Bible."

It is interesting that Ryan explains how he came to the view that we should go back to the Bible:
31:27 "so often early on in a and even as recent as when I was at 3ABN you hear this all the time and that is well there's nothing that the Adventist church teaches that cannot be rooted and grounded in scripture or found in scripture You'll hear people say "We don't need Ellen White to teach any of our doctrines All we need is the Bible." Uh the Bible and the Bible alone you can prove all of our doctrines and everything we believe from the Bible and the Bible alone And and that always stuck with me."

What Adventism claims and what it actually does are two very different things. That is something that a denomination that is proclaiming God to the world cannot do!

Goldstein...you don't belong!

Today I saw and interview with Clifford Goldstein on 3ABN The show was 3ABN Today. I saw it on 5-16-2015 though I don't know if that was the original air date or not. In this portion which I have recorded and placed on YouTube Goldstein the following is stated:

Interviewed by Shelly Quinn on 3ABN Today; speaking of a new series Goldstein is introducing on the 3ABN channel:

“…Why would Adventists want to watch your program, who already believe in the Bible?”

Goldstein:

“Well we are all assaulted by this in the church being assaulted by this, we are also in the church being assaulted by evolution by a lot of you know even professed Adventists who believe in evolution and I am sorry if you believe that God used millions of years what they now call neo-darwinian synthesis to create life you do not belong in the Seventh-day Adventist church.”

Quinn:

“I agree”

Goldstein:

“You don’t  belong  here, some people say they can reconcile it well I think they are being deluded. But there are a lot, particularly our young people who tend to be a lot more honest  and if I were a young Seventh–day Adventist and I were convinced that evolution were true I don’t know how I could remain a Seventh-day Adventist…”

 

There are a number of problems here. First he miss defines Neo-Darwinian synthesis apparently conflating it with Theistic Evolution.  The definitions follow later. The really key problem here is that his view produces a self fulfilling prophecy. His view is that if Adventists believe that God used millions of years then you don't belong in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church. Then in his estimation if you are a young person who believes in evolution (apparently any kind, I don't know, let us for this article assume he just means that evolution was a involved in millions of years to get to life that we see today) then you simply could not remain an SDA. Why would that be? The simple answer is because people like him say that you don't belong. He then thinks that these young people are more honest then those older deluded Adventists who came to realize the reality as they see it in the principles of evolution and the evidence for an earth that is much older then traditional Adventism says. These older people did not have people in General Conference leadership roles telling them they did not belong in the SDA church. Well he clearly is out to fix that! They simply don't belong!

 

The Adventist church has somewhat allowed the divergent beliefs of those who can synthesize modern science and theology but it has become an exceedingly unfriendly place for such people. After all why be part of a group that says you don't belong. Not something I would fight to remain in, but that may be because I find so many other problems in the SDA church.

 

If any of you think that this is simply about the wording of a fundamental belief to be decided at the upcoming General Conference session...you are in for a disappointment.

 

Now for some definitions.

        

Theistic evolution is the teaching that God used natural evolutionary processes to bring     life  to its current level of speciation. Theistic evolution would deny the specific creative act of God in bringing the person of Adam, who would be the first human and the representative of mankind, into existence.https://carm.org/dictionary-theistic-evolution

 

Theistic Evolution would include most of the variants of Intelligent Design and has been the view of notable Christians such as C.S. Lewis: "C.S. Lewis clearly believed that Christians can accept evolution as common descent without doing violence to their faith. This is what Lewis was getting at when he wrote to evolution critic Bernard Acworth, "I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if evolution is true."¹⁸ In Lewis's view, whether God used common descent to create the first human beings was irrelevant to the truth of Christianity. As he wrote to one correspondent late in his life, "I don't mind whether God made man out of earth or whether 'earth' merely means 'previous millennia of ancestral organisms.' If the fossils make it probable that man's physical ancestors 'evolved,' no matter." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/darwin_in_the_d_1079231.html

 

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php1. T

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (also called the "Synthetic Theory of Evolution")

• formulated during the decade 1937-1947.

• updated Darwin's ideas using new information from many scientific fields.

• main features of this view are mutation and natural selection.

• genetic mutations produce variation within a population (Darwin could not explain variation).

• natural selection preserves the most fit varieties within a species, as explained by Darwin.

• macroevolution is simply microevolution extrapolated.

• evolution is slow, gradual, and continuous, as held by Darwin.

• this view has difficulty explaining the fossil record with its lack of transitional forms.

In the 1930s and '40s evolutionists worked to incorporate new data from various subdisciplines of biology into a revised version of classical Darwinism. The primary focus on natural selection was maintained, but other aspects of Darwin's thinking were updated.  http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124&Itemid=62

 

You can see that there is a large division between Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design...that being the unseen hand of God somehow at work. Which makes Goldstein's use in the sentence completely wrong. "I am sorry if you believe that God used millions of years what they now call neo-Darwinian synthesis to create life you do not belong in the Seventh-day Adventist church.” If he meant to say that naturalistic atheistic evolution then I could agree because why be a part of a theistic church if you don't believe there is a God then I would not have a problem with his view. But since in the sentence he specifically said "if you believe that God used" and then reference an entirely naturalistic evolutionary process his statement does not work on any level. Sadly like the interviewer Shelly Quinn there are far to many people who will simply agree with Goldstein's incorrect logic and use of terms.

 

 

 

3ABN on Dish Network

The following is from Abundent Rest Blog:

We just received an e-mail update from Sky Angel notifying us of two major events for 3ABN:

1. It is now available in the regular DISH network line-up! After years of prayer and petitions, DISH has picked up 3ABN on their normal secular satellite feed for North America. It is included in the basic package, and is available to all DISH network subscribers on channel 9710.

2. For Sky Angel users, 3ABN is back in it’s slot on channel 9710! This means that those of us who have asked the question “where did 3ABN go?” now have it back! If you’ve already purchased another Adventist satellite system to replace your Sky Angel system, then consider donating your Sky Angel system to a friend or relative that may not know the three angel’s messages! It is a great witnessing opportunity with 3ABN, Safe TV, and other Adventist ministries reaching out with programming on a variety of channels now on Sky Angel.

Pass the word on to anyone you know who is interested in watching 3ABN or sharing 3ABN with their neighbors, friends, and relatives. With inclusion into the DISH line-up, it is now easier than ever for North American viewers to hear and see the three angel’s messages in action!

While it is true that 3ABN is on Dish Network the channel is not on popular Dish Network Satellites. As one Satellite discussion site post says:

My bother has DISH Programming off from 110. Would he be able to get 3ABN?

Currently, the only way to get 3ABN with E* or SA is using a dish at 129W and/or 61.5W. Right now it is not on the core slots at 110W/119W or the west coast at 148W.

It is apparently not on SkyAngel but will be available to SkyAngel subscribers. As the discussion on the above site continues:

"I am sorry if the title of this thread is a little misleading. 3ABN is not returning to SkyAngel but since it is returning to 61.5, SkyAngel subscribers will be able to receive it."

I just wanted to point this out in case someone heard it was available and tried to find it, odds are it is not on your Dish network system satellites if you have the most common entertainment packages.

More on 3ABN

There are a few interesting news items regarding 3ABN. Though I am sure many of the readers of this blog don't spend too much time watching 3ABN, since they are a popular representative of the Seventh-day Adventist church, though not officially a part of the SDA church, it is of interest even to those who do not hold to the traditionalism of the 3ABN theology.

Recently Adventist Today put out an article over the resignation of Tommy Shelton and the accusations of sexual abuse:

By Edwin D. Schwisow, for ATNewsbreak (09 February 2007).

Facing multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, Tommy Shelton, production manager at Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN) and brother of 3ABN President Danny Shelton, announced his retirement in a December 31, 2006 broadcast of 3ABN Live. Although not owned or operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, many of 3ABN’s employees and volunteers are Adventist Church members. In a telephone interview with a representative of Adventist Today, Danny Shelton confirmed that his brother had left the employ of 3ABN for “health reasons.”

On a related 3ABN subject there is a letter circulating from Linda Shelton which calls for the 3ABN board to release the information showing that she was adulterous in her marriage to Danny Shelton. The Letter is posted on Atomorrow.com:

It was the false accusation of adultery which caused the loss of my marriage, my reputation, my employment, and everything else. I challenge the 3ABN Board to produce the "irrefutable evidence" which caused a co-founder, a life-time Board member, Vice-President and Secretary of the Board to be removed in that May, 2004 meeting! I am asking, no demanding, that the information is made public, at my request! Cast aside these pretended desires to "spare me"! The world is waiting with baited breath!

It is about time that Linda Shelton called the board to account for their actions. Why Christians think they will be better off hiding information and evidence I don't understand unless they think that they will be found to be deceptive themselves. To declare someone guilty but refusing to show the evidence of such guilt is hardly the American view of justice. It does have more in common with totalitarian organizations however and that is a problem for contributors to 3ABN, or it will be a problem when they discover the truth.

As time goes by and Danny quickly remarried it does appear that the evidence was not as claimed by the leaders of 3ABN. Now that Linda has asked to see the evidence I think it is time for 3ABN to come forward with what they know or do not know.

Update: BlackSDA.com has a whole section about 3ABN for those interested: