What Is Jonathan Leonardo's Love Reality tour teaching

 Jonathan Leonardo’s Love Reality tour is a series of sermons that he gives in various places. His detractors such as GC President Ted Wilson say it is based on some type of “once saved always saved idea”or as the writer on the website Fulcrum7 said it is “hyper grace”. Neither is helpful as they assume that the reader has a thorough understanding of what each term means.  Ted Wilson’s once saved always saved is actually eternal security which is played against the Arminianism theology that one can lose their salvation.

 Gerry Wagoner writes at Fulcrum7

as follows: “Hyper-grace is an exaggerated new wave of teaching that emphasizes the grace of God to the exclusion of other vital teachings such as repentance and confession of sin. Hyper-grace teachers maintain that all sin, past, present, and future, has already been forgiven, so there is no need for a believer to ever confess it.

Hyper-grace teaching says that, when God looks at us, He sees only a holy and righteous people —or children, to use the language of Love Reality. (This is true for a surrendered, repentant believer walking in an intimate relationship with the Lord. It is not true of an individual walking in presumption, using grace as a license for sin). The conclusion of hyper-grace teaching is that we are not bound by Jesus’ teaching, even as we are not under the Law; that believers are not responsible for their sin; and that anyone who disagrees is a pharisaical legalist. “

This is how Wikipedia defines hyper grace

: “Hyper-Grace is characterized by holding to eternal security with a high emphasis on divine grace. Hyper-Grace advocates hold that the believer is not under the Mosaic law in any sense, that one's sinful actions cannot hurt fellowship with God, denies the necessity of regular confession of sin in the life of a believer and holds to the belief that every Christian will have an equal possession in heaven.^{[3][10][11][12][13]} However, Hyper-Grace advocates reject viewing grace as a "license" to live in disobedience, viewing it as the only way to stay away from sin and emphasizing the natural consequences sin may have.^[9][14] Thus, advocates of the view have argued that grace is the most powerful motivator of obedience.^[15][16] Hyper-Grace rejects the idea of "Lordship Salvation", arguing that it leads to self examination and doubt. Advocates of Hyper-Grace deny that salvific repentance should be viewed as contrition and hatred for sin, instead being a change of mind, thus a synonym for belief in Christ.”

Gerry Wagoner is more correct in using the term hyper grace but completely wrong when he says what it means.

A good example of how hyper grace works is discussed by Paul Ellis

: “ Since  hyper-grace opponents don’t like to be called legalists, I’ll swap the word law for the word works to acknowledge their view that there are things you must do to be saved or sanctified. From this we can identify three gospels:

1.     Graceless gospel: You are saved by works and sanctified by works

2.     Mixed-grace gospel: You are saved by grace but sanctified by works

3.     Hyper-grace gospel: You are saved by grace and sanctified by grace

So now let’s determine if Leonardo is as Ted Wilson claims basing his teachings on once saved always saved. First I need to point out that Jonathan Leonardo has a large video presence on YouTube but practically no written material for me to quote. At one point he did have a book which he put out through Renown publishing  in 2022 which appears to simply be a self publishing book firm and while it is listed on Amazon and several other places it is not available anywhere and not available even as an e-book. So I have taken the transcripts from the Love Reality PVC series in 2019 I will publish these transcripts on this blog as well so that people can find them all together. This is suboptimal as really anyone serious about their theology should take the time to have written down their ideas, research and reasoning.

In Leonardo’s first sermon at the PVC church he says the following:

49:09 “…we hear those words all right cuz let me ask you a quick question how many times y'all in this room expect to get saved once, once right pastor Greg how many times you expect to get saved once, once you get saved how long you expect to be saved oh oh man see you like once saved always saved you see how that works yeah so we say things but we don't really mean that thing when we say once saved always saved we're really meanings like Oh Jonathan can you just abuse grace and live however you want and call it like oh well God forgives me why would I get why would I get free from death and then willingly go back to it now that I've tasted freedom I got holiness and holiness is an awesome gift why would I now be out there acting a fool with lust and addiction and talking 50:00 all crazy because I think that's Liberty that's not Liberty I got delivered from that why would I turn back to that but that deliverance is not what qualifies me you know what qualifies me the fact that he created me and calls me son and he calls every last one of y'all sons and daughters…”

In tour number 11 Leonardo says: In

51:43"...don't you let  it be said that this Grace We're preaching that empowers you to live according to the darkness you've been delivered from Grace without transformation is a perversion we live in beauty of Holiness we stored these bodies well we don't objectify others we never live at the expense of one another we don't lie we don't steal we don't cheat we're not sexually immoral we're not given the orgies or drunkenness because we are children of the light we Reign and if ever you find yourself in any of those activities you bring the truth of God to bear in that darkness and you call Sin for what it is but then you name yourself according to what he's spoken about you and don't you ever let thatactivity identify you as anything less than what the blood speaks…"

 

Now I don’t say that I agree with Jonathan Leonardo, I doubt he would want to associate my beliefs with his. But we have to understand what he is saying and people should not denigrate it without even really knowing what he believes and says. Granted to a large extent he brings it on himself by not stating clearly in writing what he believes and his reasons. The problem with sermons is that the speaker leads you through a process to try and reach his or her desired conclusion. If any part of the foundation that is laid is wrong then more than likely the conclusion will be wrong. In a sermon, you are, if the speaker is good, emotionally charged to accept their leading. In written material, it is far harder to do that. Leonardo is a good speaker, entertaining, and with some very good thoughts. It may be that this is the new way to reach the younger generation. He has some good short videos that are certainly of high quality and then he has some more problematic videos such as this one Why did Christ need to die for us to be saved? - Jonathan Leonardo

 I will note it is an edited video and it was not posted by Leonardo but what is there shows how mixing his metaphors leads to a confusing mishmash of statements.

 He begins:

God does not forgive your sin God doesn't forgive your sin God condemns sin but since he gave us Jesus… “

Of course, God forgives our sins, God can condemn sin and forgive our sins. The Bible a number of places says that. The idea that I often sense in Leonardo is a misunderstanding of sin. There is no sin apart from the thoughts and or actions of some intelligent being.  1 John 1:8-10: If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

 

Leonard then continues the confusion: 

0:14 “but since he gave us Jesus to go through the waters of death first we can come behind Jesus and die in his death so that we can live in his life so that whenever judgment is when it goes we can't be the ones who are judged because how do you judge those who have already died to sin does that make sense”

That is true, but it does not make sense because dying with Christ is a metaphor it does not mean we literally died and rose again with Christ. First, because that was nearly 2000 years before any of us were even born. So it is either a metaphor for something which should be explained or it is a mystical experience similar to the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement which holds that we were mystically seminally somehow present with Christ during His life, death and resurrection.

There is an article entitled Concerns about Love Reality It tries to compare Jonathan Leonardo’s statements to what someone thinks Ellen White believes on the same subjects. Sadly it is not a well done article for example here are the statements from one line of the chart the article supplies.

Problem: I’m not free from sin yet, but I still follow Christ.

Solution by Love Reality: We must believe we are free from sin in order to escape the punishment for sin.xx 

Is LR Solution T or F Based on Bible/SOP?: We must believe God’s promises: when we ask for forgiveness, we are indeed forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.  But God’s people never claim to be free from sin.  See #8.

In simple terms, the answers against Love Reality presentation ignore the nuances of what is actually said and really the nuances of what the Bible and SOP say. It is an article to reinforce those who already oppose what Leonardo is saying. I will note that in the footnote for the Love Reality reference, it is just to the video, in the footnote it says the video is number 9 and gives the link. However, looking at the transcripts I don’t find that statement made in video 9. I do find a similar idea in this video, however.

 

A Conversation with Jonathan Leonardo

10:37 “ [reading from Romans] we know that our old self was crucified with him and order that our body of sin might be brought to nothing and was this so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin that that the body of sin comes to nothing at baptism when I participate in baptism with Christ Jesus he tells me that by faith the body of sin comes to nothing I look at this mind shifting altering complete like reality turning verse of chapter of verse 7 for one who has died has been set free from has been set free from sin yes that even me does that tell them is that it we participated in the death of Christ Jesus through baptism not that we're gonna be free from sin one day but that we are free from sin right and without going too far because we only have a little bit of time with that then ends up meaning is that we're free from sin and three very distinct ways

One  that we’re free from the power of sin why because the power of thing is via the law and the accusation that we've come under because we're condemned under the law right this is verse 15 the power thing is the law Romans six seven and eight clearly teaches us that since were 12:07 not under the law were not under condemnation so since I'm not under the law anymore I'm not under condemnation this is where people start getting worried that what are you saying is the lot done away with no no no no I'm not under the law because through the spirit the righteousness of the law is now inside of me right that's not one under the Spirit the righteousness of the law is now inside of me this is the New Covenant Hebrews 8 right so I'm no longer under the power of the law why be animated by the power of the Spirit right

 second I'm not under the penalty of sin because what is the penalty of sin the penalty of sin is death don't you sin because my Savior has liberated me from the penalty of sin by becoming a curse for me so that I might be his righteousness so I don't fear 13:06 death because I have victory that overcomes death and that's the faith that I have in Christ Jesus because of his faithfulness towards me so free from the power of sin free from the penalty of sin and the  third one really important I'm free from the prison of sin and the mentally is the mental prisoner the mental prison of thing is always conscious of its own sin because I'm conscious of my own sin I'm always coming under condemnation this is Romans… 

14:05

no longer in the flesh but we're in the spirit Romans 8:9 you don't have to live with a consciousness that's first and foremost concerned with sin I get to live with the consciousness that's first and foremost concerned with the gift of righteousness that is mine through Christ Jesus then I'll live with the double mindedness that's constantly looking at myself to see if I'm failing I get to look at him first to see him my victory so that then I see myself in light of how he sees me and I see myself in light 14:44 of how he sees me that puts integrity into me to walk according to the freedom that he says is mine it’s not about getting victory over sin moment-by-moment it's about me living from a freedom that's already mine and being the heart of his love for me15:02 so that in the longer way I slip and stumble into patterns of my former ignorance I have an advocate before the father Jesus Christ the righteous who is my very propitiation right knee isn't that where first John 2 tells us he says my little children I write this to you so that you may not sin but if you do you have an advocate before the father Jesus Christ the righteous why because I am not established first and foremost in my sinfulness anymore I'm established as a son because that's what was intended for me that's where the good news of my life began that was hidden in him that he could create in Christ Jesus to manifest His image…”

 

I appreciate many of the things Jonathan Leonardo has said. He is entertaining and far too verbose and not correct to my understanding on many areas of theology. That certainly does not mean we have nothing to learn from him. The most important part of his message being that we should stop this navel gazing about our own sinful condition. It disrupts our Christian lives it focuses on ourselves rather than the gift God has given us. We are either a new creation that has moved from death to life or not, it is not a merry-go-round from saved to unsaved dependent on how we feel about our relationship with God. As the verse says “Restore to me the joy of your salvation Psalms 51:12" Is he overstating some things? Yes I think so. But that is easily corrected with one Bible verse, my favorite verse: 1 John 3:1-3 NIV “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.”

 

 

The battle between Ted Wilson and Jonathan Leonardo part 1

 At the 2023 Fall Council Ted Wilson said the following at 2:48.30

“There are misconceptions and false doctrines circulating about the salvation process these false doctrines diminish sanctification one false movement you may not have heard about it and that's fine but it is circulating among some of our university and college campuses it's called love reality and it's been teaching this false understanding about Christ's full justifying and sanctifying righteousness now these are derivatives of the false doctrine of once saved always say which Seventh-Day Advent unfortunate it is promoted that behavior is not important since God loves you and just don't worry about what you're doing as long as you feel embraced by God's love god's love is powerful important but these folks doctrines are very dangerous and should not be accepted since they destroy the entire understanding of Christ justifying and sanctifying righteousness we are facing ion we are facing the shaking and sifting. Now, there are those who are drifting out of a clear understanding of who we are and what we believe do not be tempted with false doctrines that take you away from God's Remnant church we have been chosen for mission…”

Yesterday 1/12/2024 Ted Wilson put out a video entitled A Message from Pastor Ted Wilson: The Foundation of Salvation The beginning of this video shows that it is intended to be his response though somewhat cloaked to Jonathan Leonardo and his Love Reality tour. My original intention was to deal with Ted Wilson's inaccurate assertion that Jonathan Leonardo was teaching a once saved always saved doctrine which very clearly he is not doing and in general the Adventist conception of once saved always saved is a fiction and not what those who believe in eternal security believe at all. The Adventist mythology is that once saved always saved is just say you are saved and do whatever you want. They forget the whole thing about repentance, regeneration a new life, etc.  But as of a day or two ago, it appears that Ted Wilson has refined his thinking a bit. What he has literally done however is to assert against Jonathan Leonardo’s free from sin presentation with Wilson's preferred Last Generation Theology which asserts that at some time there will be a final generation who perfectly reproduce the character of Christ and through Christ’s power, they live a sinless life. Notice in the closing section Wilson says:

  “May each of us be so filled with the power of the Holy Spirit that people will say those seventh day Adventists they know Jesus he lives in their hearts and they are the greatest Proclaimers of Christ's righteousness. I hope that will be your experience and mine.” 

In the Last Generation Theology link above Wilson says in the interview:

“As we consecrate ourselves to Christ and allow Him to work in us to stay close to Him and His Word, we can then realize that beautiful quotation from “Christ’s Object Lessons”: “Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own” (p. 69).”

 

If there were Adventists that were already living the perfect righteousness of Christ this would not be something he would have to point to it as a hope for our and his experience. So it only works as a last-generation thing. For everyone else they simply must endure until the end always at risk of losing one’s salvation. But that is another subject.

 

 

Ted Wilson begins:

“Greetings friends today we are considering a very important question what is reality especially the reality when it comes to our Salvation some say there is something called love reality and while there is a love that is real it is important that we understand that true love the true reality of love only comes from God and it is defined in his word now in 1 John chapter 4 veres 7 to8 we read beloved let us love one another for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God he who does not love does not know God for God is love you see God is indeed love and nowhere is his love revealed more clearly than in the Plan of Salvation The Book of Matthew records a fascinating parable of Jesus it's about a wedding and a proper wedding attire in…”

Like most parables, the intent is not to symbolize a bunch of different aspects of the story. You can do that and make it fit with things that have happened easily enough but those hearing the story could not do that because those things that people use to symbolize in the story had not happened yet. For instance, someone could say that the destruction of those who rejected the first invitation is symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It fits well but could not be what Jesus intended to mean to those who heard the story. In short, the message of the parable is summed up in the final line, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” All have been invited, but not all have accepted the invitation. Likely the person without the wedding garment is a reference to the Pharisees who Matthew 22 refers to after the parable in verse 15 : “Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.”

People who were there with Jesus, hearing his words of the Kingdom but actively trying to work against Jesus, which I would speculate that those hearing Jesus did have some understanding of the Pharisees' animus toward Jesus.

Wilson then follows with some of the language he used in his Oct. 2023 sermon in reference to the Love Reality Tour and others confusing the brethren.

3:54 "Today as God's message is proclaimed there will be people who aren't aligned with God's holy word but will be part of those who come to the very end of time there will be the good and the bad the wheat and the tears but there will be a shaking and in fact I believe the shaking has begun there's only one way you and I can prevent ourselves from being swept up with erroneous ideas and cultural implications that push against God's word there's only one way from being shaken out and that is complete Reliance upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ we must receive Christ's justifying power his sanctifying power his justifying righteousness and sanctifying righteousness is Reviving and reforming power and righteousness you see the Bible is filled with beautiful  promises showing what Jesus can and will do for us when we accept his robe of righteousness as many as received him to them he gave the right to become children of God to those who believe on his name Philippians 2:5…”

 

I will note here that as many Adventists do Wilson misuses the wheat and tares parable but he also introduces another non-Biblical idea referred to in Adventism as “the shaking”. As  Ministry Magazine writes about the shaking way back in 1931 the only verse they can find is this:

“In that day the glory of Jacob will fade;  the fat of his body will waste away. ⁵ It will be as when reapers harvest the standing rain, gathering the grain in their arms— as when someone gleans heads of grain in the Valley of Rephaim. ⁶ Yet some gleanings will remain, when an olive tree is beaten, leaving two or three olives on the topmost branches,  four or five on the fruitful boughs,” declares the Lord, the God of Israel.”

The King James Bible uses the word shaking of course, but the harvest is those that are shaken from the trees not the few that remain on the tree. They had to work to keep this idea of the shaking in Adventism!

 

But to get on with his method of interpretation he inserts some more Ellen White’s perspective into the story as follows:

 6:13 Asked how did you come in here without a wedding garment the man was speechless this poor fellow even though he'd been given a perfect suit didn't accept and wear it the king not only invites us to the wedding of his son he also provides the right clothing as a gift when Christ provides his robe of righteousness it's a perfect fit and it fits everyone we just need to accept it and put it on that magnificent book Christ's Object lessons I hope you've read it I hope you will read it it delves deeply Into The Parables of Jesus Christ there we read in that book that the wedding garment represents the pure spotless character which Christ's true followers will possess please notice it's not our character it's Christ's character it is the righteousness of Christ his own unblemished character that through faith is imparted to all who receive him as their personal savior.

  Do we really believe this now on the following page we read this wonderful promise only the covering which Christ himself has provided can make us meet or prepared to appear in God's presence this covering the robe of his own righteousness Christ will put upon every repenting believing Soul this robe woven in the loom of Heaven has in it not one thread of human devising Christ in his Humanity wrought out a perfect character and this character he offers to impart to us all our righteousness are as filthy rags by his perfect obedience he has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments

 So dear friends don't fall for the Trap that people set up when they say it's not possible to keep the Commandments it's not possible to live a perfect life it's true that you can't live a perfect life on your own there's no possible way but with the robe of Christ's righteousness covering us and his power his sanctifying power living within us we are able to follow wherever he leads and then something else happens sanctification starts to move in and that is Christ's righteousness when we submit ourselves to Christ the heart is united with his heart the will is merged in his will the Mind becomes one with his mind the thoughts are brought into captivity to him we live his life this is what it means to be clothed with the Garment of his righteousness.

 Righteousness is right-doing and it is by their deeds that all will be judged our characters are revealed by what we do the works show whether the faith is genuine.

 Now we read further that it is in this life that we are to put on the robe of Christ's righteousness this is our only opportunity to form characters for the home which Christ has made for those who obey his Commandments take  heed lest you be found at the king's Feast without a wedding in garment are you willing my friend to receive from the hand of Christ his covering garment that will enable you to be a co-laborer with Heaven accepting the beautiful gift of Christ's robe that covers and transforms us into His Image is foundational to becoming a follower of Christ.

  May each of us be so filled with the power of the Holy Spirit that people will say those seventh day Adventists they know Jesus he lives in their hearts and they are the greatest Proclaimers of Christ's righteousness I hope that will be your experience and mine.

  I invite you to pray with me just now Father in Heaven thank you for the righteousness of Christ for his grace and his provision for eternal life as we lean completely on the righteousness of Christ his justifying righteousness his sanctifying

Part 2 on Jonathan Leonardo coming soon.

The End of the Progressive Adventist

There have been several reports and responses to General Conference President Ted N.C. Wilson’s, Sabbath sermon during the 2021 Annual Council in Spring Maryland. I spent some time reading and listening to the last 2 Annual Council Sermons. The 2021 Sermon “Trust God’s Prophetic Word in the Coming Conflict” and the 2020 Sermon “God Will Have A People” This is my analysis of the implications of both together, as usual my take is far different from what one reads on most of the Adventist Media outlets.

Both of Ted Wilson’s sermons are pretty much the same though I will point out that the 2020 sermon does an admirable job of pointing out just what Adventists think the messages of the 3 Angels of Revelation 14 are.  This is important because I have long said that the Adventist use of the 3 Angels messages is simply a shorthand way of saying Seventh-Day-Adventist distinctive doctrinal beliefs. In this sermon we hear that very clearly pointed out with no obfuscation which normally occurs when you ask an Adventist what are the 3 Angel’s messages.

Ted Wilson set forth a list of bullet points which I quote below with excerpts. If you are familiar with them you can skip to the Implications section.

1.     The Word of God Not Accepted as Authoritative

“The Spirit of Prophecy indicates we should read the Bible as it reads…” “…Seventh-day Adventists believe in the historical-biblical or historical-grammatical approach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself line upon line, precept upon precept, verse upon verse. We believe in the historicist approach to prophecy, not the preterist or futurist approaches. The historical-biblical hermeneutical method is the only method accepted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

 2.     Attempts to Diminish the Spirit of Prophecy

“The Spirit of Prophecy was given by God through Ellen G White as special instructions to God’s last-day church and is verified by Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 19:10. The Spirit of Prophecy is absolutely reliable and is to be believed and accepted in its entirety. Ellen White was absolutely a prophet of God and her ministry including strong messages from the throne room of God about apocalyptic prophecy and instruction are for all time. As we read the Spirit of Prophecy we are convinced of its accuracy, truthfulness, and relevancy.”

 3.     Misconceptions of Justification and Sanctification

“Christ’s righteousness encompasses His justifying and sanctifying power and is at the very core of the three angels’ messages. It is through Christ’s justification that we can be righteous in the Father’s eyes. It is through Christ’s sanctification that we can keep the commandments of God.”

 4.     Denial of the Urgency of the Times 

“However, in the Bible, God has provided many signs indicating Jesus' return. We are very close!”

 5.     Humanism versus Heavenly Inspiration

“My fellow leaders, fight against humanism and lift up heavenly inspiration according to His word!” [He does not define humanism.[ Humanism is defined as:

1.  A system of thought that focuses on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. 2. A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized human potential to attain excellence and promoted direct study of the literature, art, and civilization of classical Greece and Rome. 3. The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.]

 

6.     Disregard for the Sanctuary Service and the Gospel Message

“…Promote and teach the sanctuary doctrine with Christ, His righteousness, and the everlasting gospel at the center. Biblical prophecies are real and Daniel 8:14 is absolutely rock solid. Don't believe anybody who says, “Oh no, that was only 2,300 literal days and it ended with someone called Antiochus Epiphanes.” No, my friends, don't believe that. We use the biblical day/year principle given to interpret prophecy. Allow the Bible to interpret itself. The historicist approach shows us that history has accurately unfolded according to His Word!”

 7.     Ecumenism versus The Shaking and Sifting of God’s Church

“I strongly urge you to stay away from ecumenism. Instead, focus on the proclamation of the three angels’ messages. Believe what The Great Controversy says about the end time setting when the shaking and sifting of the church will take place…”

 8.     Congregationalism versus God’s Worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Remnant Church

“There are those who wish to focus only on local church and community settings ignoring the worldwide family of Seventh-day Adventists in about 215 countries…”

9.     Attacks against the Godhead

“There are those who advocate that the Godhead is not three distinct Persons thus diminishing God. We know from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that there is absolutely a Godhead made up of three Persons united in One…”

 10. Opposition to God’s Law and His Ten Commandments

There are those who will say the law has been done away; however, God’s law is eternal. We do not keep God’s law, the ten commandments, through our own power but only as we lean on Christ and His righteousness… This will be our test.”

 11. Evolution versus Biblical Creation

The devil has attempted to obliterate all references to God’s authority as the Creator, including the erroneous idea that the earth evolved over billions of years. Both evolution and theistic evolution are opposed to the account of creation found in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. The global flood, also denigrated by non-believers, is another indication of God’s power and authority to remake the world…”

12. Aberrant Lifestyle Behavior versus Biblical View of Sexuality

This subject is a delicate one, but we cannot be silent on what the Bible teaches as correct living and practice. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has carefully studied these topics and has issued voted statements by representatives of the world church that reflect the biblical view on human sexuality including statements on homosexuality and transgenderism. ..”

13. Rejection of Temperance versus God’s Comprehensive Health Ministry and Health Reform

“…The devil will use anything to distract people from God’s laws of health and health reform, but God has given us enormous counsel in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy for living a healthy lifestyle. Read and follow it as part of the third angel’s message to stay away from anything that will defile you. My fellow church leaders and members, stay faithful to God’s pure health principles. According to His Word!”

14. Disastrous Influences of Eastern Mysticism

The devil is using eastern mysticism to bring in all sorts of syncretistic beliefs into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, including pantheism and other forms of aberrant theological twisting of the Word of God...” 

Implications

This article is not an attempt to counter any of Ted Wilson’s points. I have read several articles in the past few weeks from the Progressive Adventist viewpoints that dealt with some of these 14 points.  I want to point out that these 14 points are pretty much in line with the views of Traditional Adventists. There might be a couple that some Traditional Adventist would quibble with, however I can say that there is relatively few on this list that Progressive Adventists would say are important and we must accept and teach these denominational concepts. Most notably I would point to the authority of Ellen White as a prophet and assertion that we must believe in a recent 6 day creation and literal worldwide flood.

As equally to be rejected by the Progressive Adventist is the Historicist view of history and the dismissal of anything but a “historical-biblical or historical-grammatical approach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself line upon line, precept upon precept, verse upon verse”. The statement, “line upon line…” is interesting since it reflects an Ellen White viewpoint that is based on a misused Bible verse.  The context of the verse in Isa 28:10 indicates that those erring teachers (vs. 7 “they err in vision, they stumble in judgment”) who use repetition without imagery or illustration and without an appeal to understanding or respect for reason.

Several of the statements on this list would seem to many Progressive Adventists to encourage what is often termed Last Generation Theology. Some of the articles from Progressives also took the political progressive view of LGBT+ non-affirmation as their most important take away from the 2021 sermon.

This leads to the question the members of the SDA denomination should be asking themselves. Which of these points is important and which ones can be discarded. If I as a Traditional Adventist am in agreement with Ted Wilson, I would say none of them must be discarded and all must be proclaimed as essential to our denomination? If I as a Progressive Adventist say I disagree with most all of Ted Wilson’s points, I would think that most of those points should be discarded. What would be my essentials that the denomination must proclaim?

It would be interesting to ask the Progressive Adventists that question and if their websites were not so restricted maybe someone could. I do guess that the Progressive Adventist would say their essentials would be fairly nonspecific. Preach the Gospel and likely essential to reject eternal torment in hell and possibly a respect for the park in time of a Sabbath. That seems to be about it, certainly there are other essentials but those would be common among most Christian denominations.

This is the point where the implications of all this really hits me. Why should the Progressive Adventist even try to change the SDA denomination? The Traditionalist would say save the denomination by proclaiming the things on Wilson’s list and the Progressive SDA would say leave those things behind. If this ever becomes a real struggle for the denomination as in if an actual schism occurs there is nothing that the Progressives would give up to the Traditional Adventists. But the Traditional Adventists would have to give up most of their beliefs.

Does it make sense to take away all these things from the Traditional Adventists? Progressive Adventists believe that many of these things the Traditional Adventist believes are harmful to the cause of Christ. Let us for sake of argument say that the Progressive Adventists are correct and many of these teachings hurt the cause of Christ. Would not the best thing be to leave the Adventist system altogether; spend their time on spreading what they believe is the gospel to the world rather than spending their efforts trying to dissuade the Traditional Adventists to change their beliefs. Having the SDA denomination infrastructure would certainly be helpful to the Progressive Adventists but it is not likely to happen is it?

I would assume that Progressive Adventists likely have most of the faculty of SDA colleges and have had them for the last 20 years at least. But because they still cling to Ellen White as something of an authority even if not accepting all her statements they don’t really have a consistent message that could dissuade Traditional Adventists. When you read the two sermons by Ted Wilson you will see that on much of his sermons he backs himself up by using Ellen White. The Traditional Adventist can always point to anyone not accepting Ellen White as a fulfillment of prophecy (making her of none effect). So in simple terms I see no way that Progressive Adventists can get what they want. They can’t even chip away at the Adventist church as they have been doing, as I have been doing for most of my life, because the church is built on Ellen White. To think that the SDA denomination will give up their distinctive message, that 3 angels messages that they think firmly places Ellen White and the Adventist denomination inside the Bible is something that simply will never happen.

At the Adventist Today zoom Sabbath School Class I asked this question:

“Should there be pluralism in the Adventist church? Should there be pluralism in the Adventist Today publication (and website)?  I am using the last half of the Cambridge dictionary definition of Pluralism: "...different beliefs and opinions, within the same society" (I am not using the different people groups/culture/races meaning…”

No one there really offered an answer to the question but Loren Seibold did reply at one point: “Ron, we don’t expect the denomination to be pluralistic. Not sure where you got that idea. We have seen little evidence that they want to be.”

My question was not is either the Adventist Church or Adventist Today pluralistic but should they be. It has long been my opinion that Adventist Today has become politically progressive and that is their main emphasis. If a person thought that the Denomination should be pluralistic it would seem appropriate for a website serving other members of the church to also be pluralistic.

But if a Progressive Adventist has no expectation of the denomination being pluralistic what is the point of being a Progressive Adventist?

One thing that is quite a big difference between the Traditional and the Progressive Adventist is that the Traditional Adventists are pretty sure that what people believe in the way of doctrines is important for their salvation. I can say that for myself and many of the people who attend the AToday Sabbath school class this is not their belief.  I place myself in the Universalism camp. See my article What About Universalism which interestingly enough was first published in Adventist Today back before I was persona non grata there. While that may still be a minority view of Progressive Adventists, most certainly believe that Adventism is not now or in the future a requirement for salvation. You will notice that ecumenism was one of the things on Wilson’s list.

While I would love to persuade the Traditional Adventist of my Progressive Adventist views because I think it is closer to the truth and better for society and better for the cause of Christ. It is not to me a salvation issue for them to change. The Traditional Adventist expects that people who are not totally in on the Adventist belief system to be shaken out of the church, to be shaken out as non-believers that is a salvation issue!

So I can’t see any reason to be a Progressive Adventist. Certainly not if I was like Loren Seibold and thought that the Adventist church is never going to be open to different beliefs and opinions in the denomination. I in fact do agree with Seibold on that. How much effort should Progressive Adventist put in on changing what does not want to be changed?  Traditional Adventists certainly have the right to their chosen beliefs and it should not be too much trouble for me to accept their beliefs as I accept so many other people’s beliefs. My having been raised in the same denomination as them should at the very least make me more accepting of their beliefs. So again what is the point in being a Progressive Adventist?

There is as far as I can see only one reason for Progressive Adventists to continue. It is not however a good reason, it is a quest for power and control. That is, to attempt to take over churches and schools from the control of the Adventist denomination.

I have been what I have called a Progressive Adventist for over 20 years, (See The Problem of Progressive Adventists ) though back then I always noted it was not at all related to political progressive. 8 or 9 years ago places like Adventist Today and Spectrum merged with political progressivism and I used the term much less. Today I feel it is time to complete the dissolution of the term Progressive Adventist. I no longer see any use for the term and no benefit to continue it at all. Thus it is not only the end of a term but the end of my involvement with Seventh-Day Adventists. I appreciate the history I have with the church and people. I wish the church well and do not want to see a schism disrupt the people. So I offer this to all of Adventism, but as I am always learning if anyone can explain to me a reason for Progressive Adventism I look forward to hearing it.

 

 

 

Spectrum refuses to be accurate

In a recent article by the editor of Spectrum I noticed conflicting quotes attributed to President Ted Wilson. The article: Secrecy: The Adventist Experience used as it's example a supposed quote from the October 9 2017 GC meeting which was given as (emphasis added):

"Gener­al Conference President Ted Wilson about how the recom­mendation had come to the committee, noting that the vote of the General Conference and Division Officers (GCDO) had included (forbidden) proxy votes. “You weren’t supposed to know that,” Wilson said, as he began his explanation about a vote of the committee taken while GCDO was traveling and when some members had left to handle crises in their home territories..."

The specific quote being  “You weren’t supposed to know that,”. I commented on the Spectrum Website comments section that the link the article gave to the report did not say “You weren’t supposed to know that,”. Using the article linked to the quote was: 

The discussions were very positive on getting to an appropriate goal. We canvassed those there and those who were not there. A very few who said they did not want to vote because they had not seen the document. The results are what you indicated. The vote that you mentioned. The fact you mentioned was only known to a very few people. There have been leaks. People have misused information that has caused this to be very flammable. Private information has been taken and misused again. One final thing, the chair did not vote.”

So in the  comments, I commented a second time:

I guess I need to make this clearer. Which quote is real and which quote is not? Or are they both wrong. “You weren’t supposed to know that,” or “The fact you mentioned was only known to a very few people” Those are not the same! I think inaccurate quotes are very poor journalism.

The powers that be did nothing, no attempt to answer, no attempt to correct the original article and then it occurred to me that these articles are not meant to be accurate they are meant to please a certain group of people, When the cause is more important than truth, accuracy is of little importance. No other commenters addressed the quotation. This even though that quote was the very foundation of the supposed secrecy in the article. The secrecy of the SDA church is not my concern it is truth and accuracy. If you don't have either of those two things, articles are really useless for information purposes. They may serve well for propaganda or emotional arguments to people who already feel the way the author does but little else.  I have noticed this more and more in the Progressive Adventist media mainly Adventist Today and Spectrum. Facts are a minor concern to their ideological agenda. Frankly, the errors are so numerous I could not possibly find the time to point them all out. But I wanted to point this journalistic malfeasance out before I actually completely wean myself off of reading these websites. If I can't trust the information and especially if I can't trust things that are stated as actual quotes of people. There is little point in spending the time to read them.

Since the editor would not correct the problem I decided to research and see which quote was accurate. The linked quote is more accurate but it is not in itself accurate. Possibly it was from notes taken at the meeting as the article was published the day after the meeting Bonnie Dwyer did not have the full recording to get the quote right. That, however, is not the case for an article written 2 years later, the video of the meeting is available on Youtube you can find it here starting at 2:32:40 and going until about 2:40. When you hear the recording you see that those few people mentioned were the handful that were tallying the votes. When you have leaks from people who are supposed to tally votes that is not a good in any situation.

The following is my transcription without the pauses and false starts of live impromptu speech from the video 2:38:29:

"Now the interesting thing to me is and I think this is a very highly sensitive situation. that first of all the vote which you mentioned as being a vote which did not approve of those who were in the presence of our meeting. That was only known by a very small handful of people who are counting the votes. We then immediately indicated that there were votes that had come in from those that had been surveyed, and that was the vote announced to the group. I announced it in two different buses, It's very curious to me that information has been leaked..."

Anyway, that is pretty far away from you weren't supposed to know that. Just to be clear here he is addressing the last part of Randy Roberts statement as recorded in Spectrum that was:

“But there is actually something that concerns me even more, and that is my  understanding that a previous vote on the matter actually lost by a count of 29-26, following which several who were not in attendance, some of whom had not been able to read the document, were asked to vote. It was that vote, then, that passed by a count of 36-35.

There may be skullduggery afoot here but you will never prove or even make a good case if you can't provide accurate information.

Precept Upon Precept

Originally from my Adventist Today Column

There is a common myth in Adventism which amazingly enough is used as a text for how to study the Bible; it is so contextually inaccurately that it would be funny if not so sad. The following is a section from the Immanuel Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church website page entitled How to Study the Bible:

“3. We must compare scripture with scripture, letting the Bible explain itself. It is common to find individuals and groups of people who build a whole theology upon one single statement of  the Bible. This can be very dangerous and misleading, depending upon the method of  interpretation employed in their Biblical research. The only correct and safe way of securing an understanding of a particular truth is to study everything that the Bible has to say about that  specific topic.”

"Whom shall He teach knowledge? And whom shall He make to understand doctrine? For  precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line, here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:9, 10.

“We must study broadly, permitting the Bible to define its own terms. This will preserve us  from the practice of some, in taking an isolated passage and twisting it to fit or "prove" their  own ideas. We should always approach the Bible with an open and honest attitude, willing to  lay aside any established beliefs and practices, whenever we find them to be without scriptural  foundation.”

Most Adventists realize the Isaiah text above is also frequently used by Ellen G. White which probably explains why, even though the context in Isaiah has nothing to do with studying scriptures, it is still used by Adventists as if that is what the text is about. In the case of the Immanuel SDA church the text is used contrary to the statements before and after the text. This is actually just the process they seek to avoid: taking an isolated passage and twisting it to prove “their own ideas.”

Isaiah 28:8-13 (NIV) reads: "All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth." Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do  and do, rule on rule, rule on rule and; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips  and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary  rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule;  a little here, a little there -- so they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared  and captured.

This verse in context is not a description of how to study the Bible or any of the component parts of the Bible. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary states:

Verses 9-10: “As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response.” The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.”

“Many commentators have been puzzled by verse 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol-impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.”
 

We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the “precept by precept” quote being common, however, this does not make it any more true or useful (see the article about the mis-translated text used as a catch phrase). Even if it were taken to be a description of proper Scriptural study, it is a very poor method. Simply take from here or there a precept or a line and add it to another precept or line. Context or meaning should not be mere obstacles we overcome with a bit of editing here and there.

The reality is that we have to do far more than comparing scripture verse with scripture verse. The Bible does not explain itself as in this article I have not explained to you what an article is. Language is like that. We use the terms of knowledge of our day and assume the listeners or readers will also understand those ideas from our common background. The Bible authors did this just like any other writers. The text does not spend much time defining itself. We determine the meaning from the context of the statements or stories. If we make wrong assumptions about certain forms of Biblical literature we can come to far different meanings then may have been the original intent -- the original intent may no longer even have application in the world we live in.

It is the nature of inspiration the original intent may have different applications, its use for ancient Israel may be different from it use for modern Americans. For example, the concept of tithe rendered to a storehouse does not work apart from the nation and the support of Levities. Yet in modern times it is used by many denominations with the application of a tithe to support the church. An apocalyptic text may be interpreted differently depending upon where in history one is. One answer may not be correct at any one time, but there may be an application that can be used in multiple circumstances by different people in history to comfort or edify their situation as Christians. That inspiration aspect makes the Bible of use throughout history and stand as something that is deserving of continual study and reassessment. There is a kind of timelessness to some Bible texts, the idea of divine inspiration would seem to cover the idea that God expects that history and time advances, progressing with increases in knowledge and understanding. God continues to inspire His followers to understand useful applications for their lives.

The Immanuel Seventh-day Adventist church is quite correct when they say the study of the Bible must include everything the Bible says on a subject. But the Bible requires even more than that to truly be interpreted.  As the website states, “we must study broadly”. Adventism has had a hard time with this idea, as we don't want to study broadly, we want to study in a restricted “Adventist only” perspective. This idea was emphasized by General Conference President Ted Wilson, in his opening sermon, Go Forward. He stated, “Look WITHIN the Seventh-day Adventist Church to humble pastors, evangelists, Biblical scholars, leaders, and departmental directors who can provide evangelistic methods and programs based on solid Biblical principles and The Great Controversy Theme."  The Seventh-day Adventist church, even though barely 150 years old, is not the authority on all things Biblical and certainly not an authority on the context and language of the Bible. We have scholars, and those scholars learned from outside the Adventist church. There is no reason to stop this practice and we must resist those like Ted Wilson who want to direct Adventism back into themselves. It is those who have turned in upon themselves that have instilled the idea of “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” as if this is a valid technique of Bible study.