Adventist Today attacks Mark Finley going against culture

 

A recent article on Adventist Today website entitled Why Do Our Leaders Insist On Holding the Judgment Now? By Loren Seibold takes direct aim at a video presentation by Mark Finley. The article manages to accuse Mark Finley and Ted Wilson or attempting to judge and exclude LGBT people from the SDA church. Strangely doing so without giving even one quote from either man. The article begins in the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs by writing:

“Why, when these men in Silver Spring choose topics to address, do they so often choose to talk about who they want to keep out of the church? 

They teach that we’re supposed to gather everyone in for Jesus’ return. But if God is calling everyone, saint and sinner alike, why do our church leaders disapprove of so many of them here and now, for so many reasons?

 

After reading Loren Seibold’s article I watched Mark Finley’s video. Mark Finley's Sermon: What The Bible Really Says About LGBTQ+

 

 

After watching the presentation I failed to see much of any of the things that Loren Seibold saw in the video. Then looking at the article comments on Facebook it appeared that none of the commenters had watched the video either. I am always suspicious of anyone that writes about someone and does not use any quotes at all from the actual person they are criticizing. In general, I find that they will be arguing against a fictionalized version of the person rather than what the person actually had to say. Since it is now possible to easily transcribe audio from video’s on a computer, now more than ever I question those who manage to write an article without quoting some portion of the actual words of the person they are criticizing.

 

I will use speech to text to aid in this article. Mark Finley begins his presentation this way:

 “Does the message of the Bible align with the current rise and acceptance of the lgbtq+ community or does it contradict it. Join me as we open the word of God and study the scriptures.”

 

Finley then introduces the reason for the presentation.

 “Why have I chosen to speak about this subject now, there's some specific reasons for that first I'm concerned about the direction that our society is going concerned about how that direction impacts the church I love I'm concerned about the Next Generation I'm concerned about young adults who are inbibing a message that may not align and does not align with scripture I'm concerned about children whose minds are being saturated with information regarding lgbtq+ Community you see I'm concerned so it's out of that concern out of that care out of that love that I speak today.  Now there's certain things that have led me to this conclusion that it's time to speak now let me give you some examples of that here just a few recent incidents that have motivated me to address this issue of human sexuality first on July 3 2023 the New York Post reported that at the recent New York drag queens March activist chanted, and hear their words, we're here we're queer and we're coming for your children this seemed outrageous to me it's shocking but it's not surprising in recent years such blunt outrageous rhetoric has become commonplace two years ago the San Francisco gave Men's Chorus released a YouTube video in which 81 of its members sing a song with the refrain "we will convert your children happens bit by bit quietly and subtly you'll barely notice it.”

 

Under the YouTube description  for Mark Finley's sermone we find this: 

Here are the chapters: 00:00 Introduction - Why is it Time to Speak Up? 14:48 Christian Response to LGBTQ+ 18:08 Biblical Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality 48:28 Official Position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”

 

I did not see any hate or judgment aside from the common judgments about sin which is pretty widely known throughout the Christian world. What it appears to me is that Seibold is not happy that Finley is not affirming the LGBT views. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that a church should affirm this conglomeration of group's views as they are often at odds with themselves. There are such groups as Gays Against Gromers and there are groups who encourage indoctrination in schools with gay activists and encourage children to social transition, some even physically transition. Clumping together small minorities and thinking they are unified is a completely fictitious view of reality.

 

Seibold then presents us with this:

 

Is judging sinners the church’s job? Not according to Jesus.

Three verses

Here’s a parable from Matthew 13 that I’ve seldom heard preached by Adventist churchmen. It starts with a farmer seeing that his fields have a bumper crop of weeds among the wheat. His farmhands think that the best way to handle it is to stomp out into the field and tear up the weeds right away. 

But the farmer says that uprooting weeds will damage the wheat. 

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”​​

Lord help me, but I cannot interpret this in any way except that we’re not to perform the judgment in our churches now, but leave it to the Lord to do in the end. To the point of Elder Finley’s recent anti-LGBTQ sermon, I see nothing here about ripping out the weeds unless they change into wheat.

We have already seen that judging sinners is not the purpose of Finley’s presentation but note the description of Finley’s presentation is now called “anti-LGBTQ”. We clearly see here that the main problem with Finley for Seibold is that LGBTQ is not affirmed. This point is so far the only idea I will agree with Seibold on; Finley is not affirming LGBTQ+ ideas, Whatever they are. I think that is wise not to affirm a wide swath of ideas even if the current culture pretends to do so.

So what about this parable. Is the parable about the church or about the world? Well, we don't have to guess about that because the parable is explained in Matthew 13:

³⁶ Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”³⁷ He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸ The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, ³⁹ and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.⁴⁰ “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. ⁴² They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

So contrary to Seibold the subject here has nothing to do with judgment in our churches, now or even in the future. In fact, in an agricultural-aware world no one waits for the harvest to weed a field and they certainly don’t go out at harvest time and collect the weeds first and then go back and collect the grain. Let’s pretend for argument that it is a grain like wheat. No farmer would go out when the grain heads are full and stomp around their field to collect weeds and then go out and collect the grain. Thus they ask for an explanation. It only works if there is a supernatural force like angels involved.

Seibold misuses his first Biblical text and tries to make it say something it does not say. The very idea that Christians do not make any judgments is something no one ever heard of before the last few decades. It certainly has no biblical basis. For those wanting further information about judging see. Is It Ever Right to Judge Others?

His next verse is the parable of the rich man and the banquet. After quoting it he writes:

“Please, Mark and Ted, tell me how you can read this parable in any way except to say that the most vulnerable, most needy people are invited to come into the kingdom?”

He does this without showing where either Mark Finley or Ted Wilson have ever said that all people are not invited into the kingdom. Certainly, in the video nothing like that is said and really even if one is not affirming of the LGBTQ+ constellation of views that would not mean that they are not invited into God’s kingdom.

Seibold I think knows how weak a position he has and that is why he does not actually deal with anything Finley said. Instead, he says things like this:

“Mark, you want new members in our churches—but do you know the kind of gauntlet you create in congregations for all members, old and new, by the kinds of judgment you made in your video?”

If Seibold believes Finley has made such judgments why not list them, give us some examples. Instead, Seibold goes to absurd conclusions, they must be what Seibold thinks but other than his half-baked impressions give us something real, something firm, and not just things like this:

“Do you realize that people are listening to you, then the next Sabbath examining their fellow church members for the sins you’ve suggested to them? You’re making some congregations into little courtrooms, with people spending most of their energy debating women pastors and LGBTQ people and theological heresy.”

What congregations are becoming little courtrooms? Why should the view of affirmation be accepted and no other perspectives viewed or it becomes a waste of energy? Are there such things as theological heresy and are they worth the time to clear up? It would be nice if Seibold took some time to deal with any of those in-depth, rather then making emotional declarations that have no basis in fact.

 

It would have been far better for Seibold to have dealt with Mark Finley’s conclusion. Here is his concluding thoughts:

 

“Each one of us because of the Brokenness of sin have certain passions, desires, orientations but by the grace of God we can choose not to act upon them so having the orientation does not justify the action I may have a predisposition because of the Brokenness of sin to more easily get angry than somebody else but by the grace of God I can be changed so because somebody has a predisposition for that, somebody may have a passion because of genetics because of social environment because of things that happen and you think they may have a passion for sexuality outside of marriage a male for a female but because they have those passions and drives does not mean that they act upon them they make a positive choice for the grace of God to change their life the same thing is true with lgbtq relationships and lgbtq orientation or tendencies or desires the orientation may be part of our beings but God's grace is great,

How then do we relate, how then do we really, what are some things that we can take away from the biblical principles regarding human sexuality I think they're at least five things and here they are

1st God has created all human beings through the fall and Brokenness of sin we all have Tendencies and propensities sorting that's one take away

 

2^nd  god calls us to love not hate the Christian ethic calls us to be compassionate and respectful and accepting of one another

 

3 to love doesn't mean we approve a lifestyle out of harmony with God's will the most loving thing we can do is to share the Amazing Grace of Christ that Forgives our past transforms our present and gives us hope for the future

 

4  the lgbtq+ lifestyle is not in harmony with the Bible and according to scripture deviates from God's will and his sin

 

5 through the grace of God all of us can experience New Life in Christ jesus invites it to reach out to everyone around broken Fallen in Seattle to reach out as Brothers and Sisters in Christ in loving tones to share the truth of God's word and kindness and compassion recognizing that if any man or woman are in Christ they are new creatures recognize that the grace of God the power of God is greater than any sin [52 mins mark]

 Mark Finley in the sermon quotes from a commentary put out by Andrews University on homosexuality. Why did not Seibold even mention that? A commentary put out by the SDA's premier theological school and that does not even get mentioned. Why?

 

 

ATSS Charles Scriven not posted

 I had wanted to see the youtube version of this: 

ATSS: Charles Scriven – Are Progressive Adventists Deluded?

8 June 2022  |

But it does not appear that the Progressive Adventists even have the courage to post the presentation! I did notice that at the end of the comments on the Facebook page there was this comment from Loren Seibold: 

Loren Seibold

All presentations are recorded on AT's YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/AdventistTodayMedia

YOUTUBE.COM

Adventist Today - YouTube

Adventist Today - YouTube

• 1w
• 
  

Not there still. They even have last weeks presentation up but not this one from June 8. 

Since I was unable to listen to the above presentation I listened to Ted Wilson's Sabbath Sermon at the end of the 2022 GC Sesson. Which is basically the Bible reveals that the Adventist Church is God's remnant and we must "Hold fast what you have" 

 Of course the Bible does not indicate anything about the SDA church but when you read such things into the Bible it really makes a case...add that an a 19th-century prophet and you know the SDA church will not change and cannot change and maintain that prophet. 

Clearly, I am of the opinion that the so-called progressive Adventists are deluded about changing the SDA church and maybe that is what the presentation said. As it looks now I may never know as none of the comments on Facebook appear to even reference what was said at the presentation.

Loren Seibold is jarred but not enough to do any research

  

I am going to do a couple blog posts on the subject of the recent ATSS presentation by Loren Seibold on What makes a Christian. You can view it on Youtube here.

Here is a transcription of the opening remarks.

I'm going to start out with some political quotations. Yet, I don't intend this to be political discussion. As I thought about it, I could have started out with . Quotations from some rap musician. Who had some pretty terrible lyrics in their song and it gets up at the Grammys and says, I think Jesus, for letting me win this award I just happened to stumble across this first quotation. And I thought this quotation really raises the question, you are welcome to have different views of what kind of Leader, you think Donald Trump is, but this one jarred me, Michelle Bachman said of Donald Trump in 2019 she said:

 

“Trump is highly biblical. And I would say to your listeners that we will in all likelihood never see a more Godly Biblical President Again in our lifetime.”

 

Now just in (unintelligible) that just even if it was with Donald Trump, even if any other politician or entertainer or athlete or somebody wouldn’t it cause you pause?  Wouldn’t you stop for a moment and think how you come to that conclusion. And then Donald Trump added himself,

 

“Nobody has done more for Christianity or for evangelicals or for religion itself that I have.”  

 

That's a huge claim more than Billy Graham, more than Pope Francis, More than Martin Luther, if we're going to go back in history. That's an audacious claim. So again, it raises that question, what does it mean to be a Godly biblical person? This is not an easy question to answer.

He then moves on to the idea that John 3:16 is subjective so you can’t really use that for defining a Christian, that will be the next blog post. But for now, I want to point out the kind of research that you get on Adventist today.  Seibold quotes a small section of Michele Bachman’s statement and asks how would not such a statement cause you to pause, and how you would come to such a conclusion. Interestingly enough for about three paragraphs before that quote Bachman explains why she makes the claim. Now you would think that if it raised that question in Loren Seibold’s mind that he might have taken just a few moments to research the quote and come to an understanding of the quote. But no, we find that he was not curious enough to even do that, instead, he just adds a quote from Trump made two years later, even stating it as if it was connected with Bachman’s quote. I won’t deal with Trump’s quote because people should know by now his New York tendency to superlatives. He does the best, his friends are the best, his buildings are the best, his kids are the best, his enemies are the worst etc. It does appear he means as a President he has done more, as you can see here at about 6:16

If you want critical thinking or even facts it seems that Adventist Today and Loren Seibold are definitely not where you want to go. Here Seibold is jarred by a statement and he does not even look into it. He assumes that his political knowledge is great enough that he can just quote a line from CNN and that is all he needs to do. Don’t think that Seibold does not know that he is being political even when he claims he is not being political, that is just one of the lies that leftist use to try and pretend that they are just objective people pointing out facts.  Quotes taken out of their context are not facts they are pretexts that he uses to shore up his very faulty views.

Here is the transcription of what Michele Bachman said, you can hear it here at about minute 33:

“This President has done more to advance with prolife movement and the prolife cause than any other President has ever done. Just this week, Secretary of State Pompeo had announced the Mexico City policy would be enforced even wider than it had before. The Mexico City policy says not one dime out of US tax.Taxpayer money will go to pay for foreign abortions. Well, that should be a given, but that isn't the way it was under Barack Obama. We were paying for foreign abortion to abortions of people in other countries. Not only have we said no to that, but now Mike Pompeo or Secretary of State, has said even those nonprofits that are contracting with other nonprofits.They can't perform abortion so that policy's gone even further. Plus defunding of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America. Planned Parenthood is being exposed for their deeds of darkness. And we're pulling back money from Planned Parenthood as well through the Trump administration. So that's just on the prolife issue on the area.

On the area of religious freedom. We are doing more to advance religious freedom and to protect Christians who are being murdered and persecuted in the Middle East. Like we have not seen before, [ Host comments: Christians can now flee to America. That's right couldn't under a previous administration], it was very, very hard. Barack Obama, practically. 99% of the people that he allowed in under the refugee resettlement programs were Muslims, certainly nonchristians. Now that has been completely flipped on his head. And President Trump is now allowing in persecuted Christians, people who are literally are being persecuted. And he's offering them protection in the United States and perpetrators, almost all of whom are Muslim are not getting access through the refugee resettlement Program. So this is a complete turnaround. But on so many different areas. We talked about Pastor Andrew Brunson that the President would not relent until this pastor was released out of Turkey. Now I spoke to pastor Brunson myself at the national for Breakfast and he is back. and his ministry has continued so that goes to areas we could go on with the president has done with standing for righteousness in so many areas one being Barack Obama had demanded and commanded that our military services had to literally go out and recruit people who are transgender to come into the military well it costs About a quarter of a million dollars to do sex reassignment surgery. Why would you recruit people who would come in and have sex reassignment surgery and be on the sidelines? It made no sense. So Donald Trump got rid of that mandate and that requirement. He has stood up where most Republicans.

Would dare to stand up. Donald Trump has had the courage in the fortitude. And I will say to your listeners in my lifetime, I have never seen a more biblical President than I have seen in Donald Trump. He is so impressed me what he's done. We haven't even talked about Israel, he is highly Biblical And I would say to your listeners, we will in all likelihood never see a more Godly Biblical President again in our lifetimes. So we need to be not only praying for Him, we need to support Him, in my opinion, in every possible way that we can.”

 

 

 

Adventist Today editor libels Abigail Shrier but likely has never read her

 By Ron Corson

Once again Adventist Today has published an article with an abundance of opinions and little facts. Loren Seibold the editor at Adventist Today wrote an article entitled: On Complete LGBTQ+ Acceptance in the Church. I am not going to respond to the full article I think it would be good for the Adventist denomination to examine these new issues in culture and religion. What I have a problem with is when ignorance pretends to be knowledge. Here is what Loren Seibold wrote:

“Recently the youth director of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recommended on social media the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. The author, Abigail Shrier, revives the old arguments that were once leveled at lesbian and gay people: that there is an “agenda,” a “movement,” in this case to induce young women into becoming male. This excreta is being pushed from the very top of our denomination. (Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.)”

 When a person reads that paragraph it somewhat sounds like the author of the article has some knowledge of the work of Abigail Shrier, unless, of course, anyone has read the book or listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier. Perhaps just as bad as someone who clearly has not read the book or even listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier, Loren Seibold seems to imply that the youth director of the General Conference has done something horrible by directing people to an important book on social media.

But how can it be an important book if the book is about reviving an old argument that transgenderism of young girls is an agenda or a movement.  Well, it is at this point that we know Loren Seibold knows nothing about the book. It is here that I have to come up to the plate and say Loren Seibold either does not know what he is writing about or is purposely lying to his readers. Whichever answer, it is not good for Adventist Today.  Unless of course the purpose of Loren Siebold is not honest journalism but leftist propaganda, in which case lying for the political cause is part of progressivism.

One thing all readers must learn is to identify fictional material that is attributed to someone else. This is most easily done by checking the sources. Is there a quote given, what is the source and can we read the quote. Is there any context to the quote? Here Loren Siebold gives single word quotes “agenda,” a “movement”. By just using the single out of context quotes the reader is forced to accept Loren Seibold’s explanation.  I am pretty sure he is just passing on what some other unscrupulous writer had written. That is a huge problem if someone cannot even take the time to get some first-hand information what good is their information. It is no better than gossip and in this case it is malicious gossip.

So what is the book about? The reason for the book is set forth in the beginning of Chapter 2 under the title the Puzzle:

“In 2016, Lisa Littman, ob-gyn turned public health researcher and mother of two, was scrolling through social media when she noticed a statistical peculiarity: several adolescents, most of them girls, from her small town in Rhode Island had come out as transgender—all from within the same friend group. “With the first two announcements, I thought, ‘Wow, that’s great,’ ” Dr. Littman said, a light New Jersey accent tweaking her vowels. Then came announcements three, four, five, and six.

 Dr. Littman knew almost nothing about gender dysphoria—her research interests had been confined to reproductive health: abortion stigma and contraception. But she knew enough to recognize that the numbers were much higher than extant prevalence data would have predicted. “I studied epidemiology… and when you see numbers that greatly exceed your expectations, it’s worth it to look at what might be causing it. Maybe it’s a difference of how you’re counting. It could be a lot of things. But you know, those were high numbers.”

 In fact, they turned out to be unprecedented. In America and across the Western world, adolescents were reporting a sudden spike in gender dysphoria—the medical condition associated with the social designation “transgender.” Between 2016 and 2017 the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled, with biological women suddenly accounting for—as we have seen—70 percent of all gender surgeries.¹

 In 2018, the UK reported a 4,400 percent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments.²

 In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria—from predominately preschool-aged boys to predominately adolescent girls.³”

Jumping a head a couple of paragraphs:

“If this sudden spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls is a peer contagion, as Dr. Littman hypothesized, then the girls rushing toward “transition” are not getting the treatment they most need. Instead of immediately accommodating every adolescent’s demands for hormones and surgeries, doctors ought to be working to understand what else might be wrong. At best, doctors’ treatments are ineffective; at worst, doctors are administering needless hormonal treatments and irreversible surgeries on patients likely to regret them. Dr. Littman’s theory was more than enough to touch a nerve.

 Activists stormed the Twitter page of PLoS One, the peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Public Library of Science that had published Dr. Littman’s paper, accusing her of anti-trans bigotry. They claimed that Dr. Littman had deliberately solicited parent reports from conservative, anti-trans parent groups. (In fact, over 85 percent of the parents self-identified as supporting LGBT rights.)” (page 21-22)

 

From there the book is a deep dive into researcher and psychologist data and observations.

Now I don’t expect people to take the time to read her book but this is an important topic. Take the time to listen or watch her Interview with Jorden Peterson. Peterson as a clinical Psychologist is very clearly a deep thinker even if he is not the best at interviews. Please take the time to listen or watch and then see just how much truth there is to Loren Siebold’s statement: “Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.”

Update. Here is the Joe Rogan podcast with Abigail Shrier. It is a more conversational program with a bit more on cultural and activists content. Pretty sure that after listening/watching this most people would say that Loren Seibold's paragraph in question above is really activist in nature. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4SIh4Pt39AtGQYzMJMNkv1

You can read articles by Abigail Shrier at: https://muckrack.com/abigailshrier/articles

Update 12-9-21

Read her speech at Princeton: What I told the Students at Princeton

Emotional ruled despite the facts

I think I have finally realized why I can never seem to agree with the majority of the positions taken over at Adventist Today. It is because they work from a factually vacant but emotionally dependent perspective.

 I have been zoom attending their Adventist Today Sabbath School. The moderator and head of the AToday organization sent me a message during the class over some discussion I was having with someone in their chat area. Of course, Loren Siebold was moderating the class so there is no doubt that he was not following the chat section very well. Here was his statement to me privately: “Ron, please be careful. Being a broad church means not making attacking sorts of statements to weak believers like Stephen.” This is the way they shut people down, they like to accuse anything that for whatever reason they don’t like as “attacking”. Factually it is vacant because there was no attack. I will place the major portions of the conversation at the end but for now here is the statement (corrected for a spelling error because zoom chat is horrible): “Re: Stephen: Not sure why you can't believe a particular thing. So many beliefs in the world, now it is very likely that those beliefs are chosen by most all that believe them though there may have been a multitude of influences involved in a belief.”

  It is this kind of emotional reading into what people say that is so common over at Adventist Today. It is why after several years I am still not allowed to comment on their Facebook articles. Facebook is the only way to comment on Adventist Today Articles by the way. It is kind of humorous now to remember what caused me to be banned from their Facebook page. It was dealing with the author Lindsey Painter, (My blog about her article, Confusionof symbol over substance).it was actually going fairly well when their moderator deleted my comments and Lindsey Painter’s comments as well. I was no longer able to post comments. In all, the Adventist Today writer was provably incorrect and even places like PragerU and major Newspapers have acknowledged that Trump never said what the Leftists said he said (if you recall it was the leftist shouting about Trump making a false moral equivalency). That there were some fine people on both sides, was stated after Trump excluded the White supremacists groups. https://www.prageru.com/video/the-medias-very-fine-people-myth/

  

Here is the conversation:

Jack: Stephen, God doesn't mind if we don't believe in him.  But as I  understand it is good if He can believe in us!  So keep being believable!

Stephen: i dont believe in god whatsoever, but i like the idea of that concept being flipped...that god believes in me regardless.  i can get with that on a certain level

Me: Re Stephen: The problem with that statement is that you can only say you believe God believes in you. It has no power because you could say I believe pink elephants believe in me. It only matters if it is spoken by God of you. So it sounds nice but is meaningless.

Stephen: you're correct. ultimately it is still meaningless to me, but i like the idea

Me: Re: Stephen You like the idea, let's press that, what would you want to believe that God believes about you.? When I say I believe in God it has a completely different meaning than I believe in my daughter. It is far more than the existence of something.

Jack: I'm not sure what you are pushing for, but I'd like to jump in.  As I suggested if a fish believes in water or not is not as important as that it keeps swimming, as if water exists.  IF a bird believes in air or not (it is invisible) is not as important as that it keeps flapping and gliding.  If we believe that life was given by a Life Giver, or not is not as important as that we keep living "as if" life were given.  Does this help anyone?

Stephen: i think jack hit it on the head with why i like the idea

Stephen: if there is a creator I'd like to believe that creator was for me and not against me...regardless im going to keep living my life the best way i know how and keep updating based on new information

Loren: that’s the faith I hold.

Me: Re: Stephen. So you want to believe in God as the life giver. That is not a believe you can say that God believes about you. It would be a belief you have in what God is. It is really the start of faith, why not believe in the lifegiver even if you don't know for sure.

Stephen: i dont think belief works like that

Stephen: i cant just choose to believe anything even if it seems that way

Stephen: i cant even say I want to believe in god as the life giver, any more than i want to believe in gravity

Art: I agree. You can’t just choose to believe.

Me: Re: Stephen: Not sure why you can't believe a particular thing. So many beliefs in the world now it is very likely that those beliefs are chosen by most all that believe them though there may have been a multitude of influences involved in a belief.

Loren privately: Ron, please be careful. Being a broad church means not making attacking sorts of statements to weak believers like Stephen.
*Note: Stephen stated earlier before my part in the conversation that he was an agnostic and “technically I'd probably fall more in the atheist camp currently,  cause I'm not "looking for answers" anymore…” Plus in my portion of the conversation “i dont believe in god whatsoever”.

Stephen: in order to believe something, i need a reason. the weight of evidence/ motivation for me to accept a belief is not something i can arbitrarily choose. i can pretend i believe something for many reasons, but the end of the day i either believe or or I don't

Me: of course you should have some reason or motivation. Though I think you already stated a motivation. The one thing about beliefs is they are personal, so you can adjust them accordingly

Stephen: i need to hop off now. thank you to everyone for the conversation and affirmation. sdas arent as bad as i thought lol

 

 

Did Walter Veith set 2027 date for Jesus coming?

I am just so annoyed at the writing at Adventist Today. It seems to have just degenerated into a bunch of nonsequiturs. Take for instance this from just today. Our Conspiracists, and Why We Love Them

Loren Seibold writes:

But Veith and his friend found a much larger discrepancy, one that allowed them to move the date up to 2027—still in the future, which means they can fundraise on it for a good seven more years.Again, I confess my limited ability to understand either their mathematics or their paranoid meanderings. Yet you would be astonished by the number of people who defended this presentation to me, who told me that Veith hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return because he said he hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return, even as they were telling me the date he’d given for Jesus’ return. That’s an impressive feat of mental engineering, and I thank Walt for showing how it’s done. 

Now I am no fan of Walter Veith but this is just pathetic. Notice first there is no indication of where we find Veith's supposed time setting. I will give you the source below. Seibold in this article does not argue with anything that Veith has said. His entire argument is with some anonymous person who tells Seibold that Veith did not in fact set any date. This is not how intelligent people discuss things. You deal with what someone actually said not what some unidentified person told you about someone else. 

If you really want to know how people get into conspiracy theories it is because they believe something despite the evidence. They want to believe it so they believe it and they arrange information to try to support their conclusion. All the mental engineering done in the above quote was performed by Seibold. The reader has no way of knowing what the anonymous person said, there is no quote to what the anonymous person said concerning date setting. The only attribution was that the anonymous person said there was no date setting! This is Adventist Today in summary, logic has been thrown out the window! 

The Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa put out a  Memorandum of understanding on Walter Veith's statement.

They state:

PERCEIVED SETTING OF DATES: While we acknowledge that prof. Walter Veith holds that he did not set a date, by mentioning the year 2027 or earlier/later, as a possible date on different occasions, he complicates his position. (For more detail see footnote); i 

After careful study of the writings of Ellen G. White, the Bible, and the material presented by prof. Veith, the Theological Review Committee (TRC) of the Northern Conference has come to the conclusion that the main problem in the presentation is the issue of perceived date setting for the second coming of Christ. 

Their footnote states:

i Statements like the following do not help the argument that he has not set a date “If 2027 is the end of the six-thousand-year period of warring against God, then this would exclude the time of preparation required after the wicked are raised. Is it possible that time could be cut off from the six thousand years before 2027? If so, then Christ must come sometime before 2027 to allow this?” (1 Hour, 41 minutes and 18 seconds into the Lecture). Acknowledgment is however also given to prof Veith’s statement: “The Lord can add to that time, the Lord delays His coming, the Lord can take away from that time. I don’t know. I’m not making the time. I’m saying that the time is short” (1:53:21-1:53:51). 

 Prof Veith bases his statements on the following quotes “But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord’s appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God’s mystery.” (DA 632.4) and “On Jordan’s banks the voice from heaven, attended by the manifestation from the excellent glory, proclaimed Christ to be the Son of the Eternal. Satan was to personally encounter the Head of the kingdom which he came to overthrow. If he failed he knew that he was lost. Therefore the power of his temptations was in accordance with the greatness of the object which he would lose or gain. For four thousand years, ever since the declaration was made to Adam that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, he had been planning his manner of attack” (CON 78.2)

Here is the video link, start a little before the 1-hour 41-minute mark, if you watch from there until the end you see he clearly multiple times says he is not setting a date and repeats multiple times that he does not know. His whole premise is flawed on numerous levels but that is not my concern here. Attempting to interpret Ellen White in a timeline like people try to interpret the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation as a timeline will not work any better than all the other failed timelines.

My question is how it can even be "perceived" he either said it or he did not, if someone says they don't know and they say they are not setting a date what is the perception based upon. Apparently, it is based upon third party opinions of the matter...hearsay. no one in this attempt at defamation is looking particularly good. But I would say that the Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa is appearing way better than Adventist Today.

We are at a time when logic certainly has failed for many people. 

AToday Probation Closes

I give Adventist Today a lot of grief because they can't seem to separate religion from their preferred leftist political views. It has hurt their mission a lot but I have to compliment them when they actually do a good job on an article. In the article Is Probation About to Close? by Loren Seibold we have an important issue discussed that is very much part of Adventism even though it is only occasionally spoken of in Adventist churches. The article begins with the peculiar Adventist belief that at some point Probation closes even though no one on earth would know that point has been reached. After that, you are either saved or lost and this probation is tied into what God does with the Investigative Judgment and whether the Christian has forsaken their sins and in some way perfected their character. He notes well that this is not a Biblical idea but a product of Ellen G. White. Seibold writes:

...They will say it is what the Bible says (it doesn’t) and that the whole of Adventist doctrine stands or falls by it. They will say that it is actually at the heart of the gospel, that in some twisted way it shows God’s love for us.

But just remember this: they are not defending the close of probation. Nor are they defending God. They are defending the notion that every word, every idea, that Ellen White expressed is straight from the mind of God. They are willing to toss God’s good character over the balcony if they can continue to say that a 19th century mystic was sketching out a precise plan for the Seventh-day Adventist “tribe.” 

I have defended Ellen White as a strong woman and church leader. I have great appreciation for what she accomplished. But I cannot defend some of the things she taught. It’s not just that many were copied from other writers. It’s not just that some of them were ridiculous, like seeing Enoch on Saturn. Or unscientific, like the earth being a mere 6000 years old, or masturbation making children into twisted, malformed monsters. Or racist, such as that black people are amalgamations. Or contemptuous of grace, as demonstrated by her repeated forays into perfectionism.

There was a time when the rejection of Ellen White as a prophet of God was, I thought the central need of Progressive Adventism. I still think that and mourn for the loss of Progressive Adventism into left-wing politics. But as I have said many times most all of the problems in the Adventist church can be laid upon the belief that Ellen White was a prophet of God. It has for a long time been my belief that a prophet cannot possibly be wrong and destructive as Ellen White has been to truly be from God. From the time when she was alive, her teachings could not be accepted by those who really thought about their religion and what she was saying. With repeated similar events marking the Adventist church about every 20 years or so. Along with the continual loss of members throughout the years who realized the problem.

Seibold gives a few quotes from Ellen White on the subject but considering what the defenders of Probation close have to contribute in the way of theology with their belief; from an article on SDANET entitled; The Judgment of the Living & the Close of Probation

"All Christians believe there is a close of probation, even though they don’t use the phrase. This might be at the Second Coming or after the millennium, but all Christians believe that there is a point when people can no longer switch sides. 

Unlike other Christians however, Seventh-day Adventists believe this event happens a short time before the Second Coming. And, many Adventists think this means that there will come a day when God will close the door of mercy and, even if they want to repent, God will no longer forgive them."

..."Probation closes before the Second Coming and not at the Second Coming because God wants to allow time to pass so that it is evident to angels and unfallen beings that people have made up their minds and are no longer going to change. Some period of time passes where, as much reason as God gives people to repent, no one does any more. And then, heavenly beings all agree that there is no point in waiting any further, and it’s time for Jesus to return to take His people home."

So what does that add to your religion? Really nothing. That God comes and His reward is with Him I can accept. The whole purpose of the Probation close to Adventist theology is built on supporting Ellen White. If what Ellen White really said was good it would not need any support but because it is built upon her and her view of the Investigative Judgment, the coming Sunday law, and having developed Christ's character perfectly reproduced in His followers, Probation closing becomes important. Adventist doctrine most definitely stands on that! It should not! That it does is the problem. 

Until progressive Adventism returns to its central focus of removing the damaging theology of the past, Adventism has no future. It will simply work to protect its traditions. It is nice that many of our retired Pastors and scholars repudiate the errors of our past with Ellen White. What it, however, calls for is for leaders who are still in the church to change things, not waiting until they retire but pursuing the truth even if it costs their jobs. The time for hinting to their churches that we have to make some changes in our theology without coming out directly like Seibold has done sends the wrong message. So many defend Ellen White and ignore that she needs to be criticized and that the evaluation of her as a prophet cannot stand. (I am not making any judgments about her as a person or a Christian, none of us get it all right)

Honestly, does it really matter if women can be ordained as Pastors if our church continues with damaging theology about God? I don't think so!

AToday's false premise

I know there seems to be no end to the absurdities on the Adventist Today website, but it is hard to believe what kind of fictions they try to pass. They must be taking their cue from the leftist media who so often distort the news. This time it is so obvious that it destroys the whole point of the AToday article. Here is the first paragraph from  Loren Seibold  |  20 September 2019  |  

Elder Wilson’s first sermon to the world church in 2010 was predictive of the kind of leadership he would practice. Beyond a few manufactured trivialities (reading non-Adventist authors, meditation) he showed that his leadership style would involve enforcing upon the church his personal understanding of Adventist orthodoxy. This sense of himself as “the first minister” (his father’s description of himself when GC president) came through when he began to call himself “President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists” instead of “President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,” which may seem a small difference, but is actually quite revelatory of who he is. 

He links to an AToday article by Ervin Taylor which does not tell us that Wilson ever calls himself the "President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists" but it could be from some copy editor, the article says: 

To be honest, I’m not sure, as yet, what to make of this. In the case of the article, perhaps this is just some copy editor forgetting to put “world” in front of “Church” so that what should have appeared was “Ted N. C. Wilson is president of the Seventh-day Adventist world church.” But is that true? To be specific, should not the byline have read: “Ted N. C. Wilson is the current president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists”? But what difference does it make?    

He does not give an answer to what difference does it make and Loren Seibold offers no real reason for why it is revelatory of who Wilson is, assuming Wilson actually ever said it. I did an internet search and found no evidence that Wilson ever called himself “President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists”. So the article Siebold linked to does not say Wilson called himself that and it does not appear on the internet somewhere at least readily apparent that he said it but on AToday it is just stated that Wilson began to call himself President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists. Funny how that works.

But will anyone else notice this? Nope. Watch the facebook comments and see if I am right!