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.

 

 

 

Against the AToday Article Cultural Adventist are jerks

It has been a while since I posted material on my blog. I think I will have to start again as I am finding some very bad articles being published on the Spectrum and Adventist Today Websites.

Recently on Adventist Today Christopher Thompson posted an article entitled On Being Adventist and Not Being a Jerk.

Here are a couple of quotes:

___________

" Cultural Adventists are jerks.

I’m not sure where I first heard the term Cultural Adventist, but I think it encapsulates the persona of the kinds of people who fit the bill here. Adventists are those who are awaiting the coming of the Christ. A Cultural Adventist on the other hand, has been encultured in the behaviors and lifestyle of Adventism, yet they lack the Spirit of Christ.

So here’s a qualifier. Christians aren’t jerks. But you do know that you can be a Cultural Adventist and not be a Christian..."

If they are fasting, you will know. If there’s an unacceptable TV program or movie, they’ll be sure to let you know that they haven’t seen it. They never fail to tell people what they never eat. They are professionals at letting you know all of the noble things they do and how careful they are to abstain from all things that are harmful. They are closely akin to the ancient Ascetics who believed pleasure to be evil. Cultural Adventists are pale-faced drones and they’re proud to tell you why God prefers pallor.

…We all know that our body is the temple of the living God and that living a healthy lifestyle is a sign of good stewardship. However, we can do without the incessant Sabbath dinner plate patrolling, with continual reminders of the evils of cheese and sugar…

__________

First, is he using the term Cultural Adventists in a way that others have used it in the last 20 or so years? What kind of definition would include the statement that the defined lack the Spirit of Christ? Would that be an OK point to include in the definition of Progressive Adventist or Traditional Adventist? Why would anyone tolerate such a judgmental statement against a group of people as they lack the Spirit of Christ?

Next Christians aren't jerks, Paul confronted Peter to his face about his hypocrisy in the Bible, Hypocrisy seems a bit more dramatic then plate patrols are a potluck, so I would say by Thompson’s description Peter is a Jerk! Martin Luther started the whole Reformation and was a raging anti-Semite in our terminology. And he was also pretty rude and crude to some other sides and peoples during the reformation. But he was a mighty Christian. So it is pretty clear that Christians can be jerks!

Then he says you can be a Cultural Adventist and not be a Christian. But he has already said that Cultural Adventists lack the Spirit of Christ! So by his own definition they would not be Christian. As Christians define being a Christian by having the Spirit of Christ which allows one to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

in 2005 Clifford Goldstein in an article in the Review gave a pretty good definition of Cultural Adventist. "Recently I've become friendly with (and fond of) a "cultural Adventist," someone who, by his own admission, is an Adventist solely because he was raised and educated in the church but who, by his own admission, takes "exception to many of the church's theological beliefs and religious practices." In other words, he's a Seventh-day Adventist, not because of the church's teachings but despite them."

I have had conversations with Cliff on the internet and I would sometimes classify him as a jerk...So should I say that Traditional Adventists are jerks? Would not that be a logical fallacy of a generalization? So I would not do that, yet here this writer begins with a logical fallacy and compounds the errors line by line and judging by the comments and Shares on Facebook

people like it

For the sake of argument let us assume Cultural Adventist did not have a defined meaning. It is pretty clear he is referring to traditional Adventists. Those remarks about Cheese and sugar, unacceptable TV shows, telling people what they never eat, If you have fun on Sabbath you’re worldly, they love to reason together by using trite E.G. White quotes, and they “roll out whenever someone mentions drums”

In fact the article is trying to say that Traditional Adventists are Jerks, but he does not want to actually use the term so he has purloined the term Cultural Adventists as a subterfuge for what he really means.

His formula of writing is apparently to state something as a fact and then later on make a hazy statement about how you can't do what he  just did and that makes it okay. More properly he should have said: "To be fair, Adventism is a complex and multifaceted system of belief and it’s unsafe to paint any one person or any group of people with such broad strokes, [Insert as I have done.] Though I still would have ripped his article apart because once you know you are painting with too broad strokes you should redo your article, and the editors should have noted those problems as well.

It is important to recognize when someone contradicts themselves? "So here’s a qualifier. Christians aren’t jerks" Then he says: "Now time for a transparent moment. I’m a bit of a jerk myself." What, Christians aren't jerks, he just told me that! Well I guess there is a difference there, he is just a bit of a jerk just a smidgen of a jerk...not like those Cultural Adventists which are full-fledged jerks who don’t get the modifier that he uses for himself.

So why do so many people on Facebook like and share this article? Two reasons, the first is a reaction to Traditional Adventists who are pretty firm in their beliefs. The second reason is my personal opinion that we train people with sermons to not really listen to what the person says. You are only supposed to listen to what you already agree with (news and social media and magazines now days seem to also do this). So when asked how was the sermon people say oh it was so good because they only heard what they wanted to hear. Anyone who is critical of false statements or poor logic is viewed as divisive  or sour or dwelling on the wrong things...as if the listener is responsible for the errors of the speaker or writer

As it turns out this non critical view appears to be accepted today not just in sermons but in articles and the news media. I would rather think critically, it seems a better way to search for truth and relevancy. So I am returning to my critiques of some of the writings in Adventist Media. Though I will likely stay away from doctrinal things and concentrate on logic and fairness and consistency. I think that if Christianity cannot accommodate doctrinal differences it is doomed and that is true for Adventism as well. But we never grow and develop without the use of reason, logic and good arguments, and we really need to get back to that even if it has been beaten out of so many people of late.

Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined

This is the full version that was shortened and appeared in the Adventist Today Magazine


 Traditional and Progressive SDA's

By Ron Corson

However one may want to believe that someone or some group has all the answers about Religion and God, we can be sure of one thing, they don't. Whether they are Traditional/Historic Seventh-day Adventists (SDA's), Progressive SDA's or Moderate SDA's, all see only part of the picture, "a poor reflection in a mirror". The question before the people of the Seventh-day Adventist church is how to pursue the knowledge and truth of God while not stepping on others personal search and convictions. Unfortunately, we cannot all be right. The history of the Christian era is filled with differences of opinions. The beginning of the SDA church is based upon differences with other Christians. Even once the SDA church became an organization there were considerable differences of opinions, even among the pioneers who formed the SDA church.

What is meant by the labels Traditional/Historic SDA's, Progressive SDA's, and Moderate SDA's? These labels are only useful for those who want to be described by the terms. If a label is used in a pejorative way it loses its value; it becomes another form of name-calling. This is often seen in the political arena but for our discussion name-calling is not what we want. We are using labels to assign certain peoples doctrinal views into simple categories for the sake of comparing or contrasting views. For this discussion the moderate views will not be highlighted since the Moderate encompasses people who in one area may agree with the Traditional/Historic view and in another area agree with the Progressive view. Generally the Moderate then is in the middle of the two categories, equally divided. While many people probably consider themselves Moderate, if they spend the time to analyze their doctrines it is likely they will fall more to one side or the other. In many peoples minds being a Moderate is the place to be. Hopefully this article and others like it will enable these people clarify for themselves their own positions.

Traditional/Historic SDA's desire to hold to and continue with the beliefs which were instituted at the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church, during the mid to latter 1800's. A move away from those traditions or teachings is viewed with suspicion or as error. This can be demonstrated by the resistance which occurred in the Traditional/Historic SDA's rejection of the 1957 book Questions on Doctrines. It was felt that the book was too great a departure from the historic position of the Seventh-day Adventist church. The move to use drama or contemporary Christian music in the worship service is often thought as worldly entertainment entering the church. The Historic/Traditionalist desires to hold on to several "pillars" of the SDA church. Some key doctrines would be:

1. The Investigative Judgment, the Sanctuary doctrine. (Begun in 1844 with a judgment of the "books")
2. The view that the SDA church is the "Remnant"
3. Ellen G. White as the prophet to the church also known as the Spirit of Prophecy. (Straight Testimony, Present Truth).
4. The Seventh day Sabbath with the implication that Sunday is a false day of worship. (Including concepts of Babylon, Mark of the Beast, and Seal of God.)

At the other end of the spectrum is the Progressive Seventh-day Adventists. This could be termed liberal except that the term liberal Christian is generally used of those who believe that Christ was not resurrected, miracles did not happen and other tenants which most Progressive SDA's would not agree. The liberal Christians are by this most accepted understanding, those involved in the Jesus Seminars, or people like Bishop Spong. While such liberals Christians do exist in the Seventh-day Adventist church. They would not make up a sizable portion of those who would feel comfortable with the label Progressive SDA. Of the key doctrines listed above as the "Pillars" of Traditional/Historic SDA's the Progressive SDA's would hold to significant modifications.

1. A differing view of what the Investigative Judgment is or acknowledgment that the Investigative Judgment is not Biblical. (And as such a differing view of Christ Activities from His ascension to His Second Coming.)
2. An inclusion of other Christians into the category termed the "Remnant".
3. A less rigid understanding of the role of Ellen G. White, ranging from acknowledging that she was not always correct in her teaching and understanding to the denial of Prophet status.
4. The Seventh day Sabbath is for our benefit, true Christians can and do worship on Sunday and it is not now, or latter, to become the Mark of the Beast, or the Seventh day Sabbath to be the Seal of God.

The Progressive SDA's do not feel that the church should be limited by the teachings of its founders. If errors are discovered in teachings previously held, the errors should be acknowledged and corrected. That all knowledge is built upon those who have gone before us, not only those in the SDA church, but also the many Christians outside and far before the existence of the SDA church. Knowledge is progressive. What seemed right a hundred years ago may not be right for today or tomorrow.

Certainly the above lists do not cover all the areas of contention; the lists do not cover the differing views of the Atonement, or the nature of Christ, etc. The list however provides a good method of demarcation to establish the two sides in the discussion.

In an issue of the science magazine Discover from a year ago an incident is recounted about a parasitic wasp and a cockroach. While pruning a tree a man noticed this rather docile cockroach that was right under his nose as he sawed on the tree. Wondering about the strange behavior of the cockroach he saw that instead of its normal long whip-like antennae there were only blunt stubs of antennae. At some point the wasp had cut the antennae of the cockroach making it docile and willing to be lead around by the wasp. The wasp then would lay her eggs in the cockroach and the larvae would grow eating upon their living host.

We also are dependent upon outside stimuli to understand the world around us and the God who calls us. We do not want to be docile and herded about at someone else's whim. Neither Traditional/Historic SDA's or Progressive SDA's would want that type of Religion. But to protect ourselves from such an experience we must ask questions, we must seek answers, and we must analyze data. We must use our God given powers of reason. This is not merely man's reason, for God asks use to reason with Him. Christ while here on earth did not just ask people to do what he said; He revealed to them in His teachings and stories the why of things. Some He knew would not understand, most likely because they refused to try and understand, others might not understand because they had created a box for God and assumed they knew all they needed to know. But there were always those people who would search the teachings, taking time to reason the message out and draw conclusions that in the end lead them closer to God. In the time of the apostle Paul the Bereans were considered noble for their decision to search things out and reason together in search of the truth. In fact for us as human beings finding out the truth about God should be one of our highest goals. What is God like, what does He want from each of us, how should we relate to Him and our fellow human beings. This is our calling, our mission, to search for God and relate God to others around us, as ambassadors for God; we call others to pursue a relationship with God.

It is perhaps here, how each of the two groups search for truth where the root of the division really lies. Both the Traditional/Historic SDA's and the Progressive SDA's would certainly agree that each is searching for the truth about God. But both views are vastly different in what they see as truth, and both are different in what methods they use to arrive at their view of truth.

Churches are built upon commonality of beliefs, the proliferation of denominations is ample evidence of people forming together under certain belief systems. Similarly, groups may be bound together by common history or common values. A Baptist and a Seventh-day Adventist have many beliefs in common, many values in common, and often a common history. It is however, the differences that cause division, they may be worshipping the same God, yet one may look at the other as an apostate. Inside the Seventh-day Adventist denomination the same dynamics occur. The division is here already, it has been here for many years. Some may read this and claim that it is the "Omega" of prophecy, it is not, it is actually an attempt to re-establish a Bible based Seventh-day Adventist church.

Continued in part 2 "Truth, Progressive or Traditional?"

  

Truth, Progressive or Traditional?

If you were going to explain to someone how you arrive at "truth", which would you say is the best method? Is it to base you understanding of truth upon the tradition of your fathers or would it be arrived at by examining your previous beliefs and adjusting them as necessary to arrive at the most reasonable conclusions. Because we as a church once believed in something does not make that belief true. It does not make that belief false either, however it is important to analyze our positions to see whether they can stand up to objections or differing perspectives. If they stand, and if they have a good foundation to them we can feel confident in claiming them as our beliefs, as the best explanation of truth we currently have.

The Christian church has for many centuries used the Bible as our standard for revealed truth about God. The Scriptures which have been inspired by God, for our edification, instruction, correction and encouragement. True the Bible was not handed down to us by God, it was brought together by men who searched the writings of Religious people both of the Jewish and Christian perspective. Through the application of reason and logic and consistency the church fathers arrived at conclusions which have become our Bible. Not everyone agreed on all the books placed in the Bible yet there was substantial agreement on all but a few books. Even among believers in Christ today there are still those who accept some books and reject others. The Roman Catholic accepts the Apocrypha while most Protestants do not. In most cases these variations in accepted books does not change much in the area of doctrine. Usually the variations come from differing interpretations of texts, which are accepted by Christians. One notable exception is eschatology, an area where more differences occur then perhaps any other.

When reviewing the list of beliefs which Traditional/Historic SDA's hold as pillars there is a striking similarity. The similarity is that they are not Biblically supportable positions. For instance there is no Biblical verses teaching an Investigative Judgment or its origin in 1844. There is no mention of the SDA church in the Bible to cause one to render it as the Remnant; even the concept of the Remnant is not indicative of its popular use in many churches. The Bible speaks nothing about Ellen White as the "Spirit of Prophecy" or a prophet. The Spirit of Prophecy in the Bible is used of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says nothing of a Sunday law. The Bible does not teach the Sabbath as the seal of God, again it is the Holy Spirit that is the seal of God.

So the question should arise in most people's minds, just how do those doctrines become "pillars" of the Traditional/Historic SDA's? The answer is found in the label Traditional/Historic, These were the doctrines incorporated into the SDA church therefore they must be true and accepted. The Progressive SDA's see those doctrines as history, but not as truth. They must be tested to ascertain if they are indeed true, if they should be used as doctrines in the SDA church at all.

Here is the conflict between the Progressive and Traditional/Historic SDA's. The Progressives desire to hold to a Biblical standard, whereby all doctrines we preach should be clearly demonstrated from the Bible. This method retains a commonality with other Christians outside the SDA church, as well as showing our esteem of the Biblical source of truth. We certainly understand that the Bible cannot be taken literally in all places, that poetry, symbolism, and apocalyptic literary forms are present in the Bible. Nor does it mean that we must view the Bible as inerrant. God is inerrant, He alone is infallible the Bible while inspired does not contain all the attributes of God, errors are present, much of the Bible is man's attempts at representing God and as such man's suppositions can color his view of God. This is why Progressive's SDA's encourage looking at the Bible as a whole complete volume. Allowing the more comprehensive New Testament authors to help explain the Old Testament.

Not that the Traditional/Historic SDA's have less authoritative view of the Bible. They do view it as authoritative often inerrant and maybe infallible. Here as in the rest of Christianity there is a difference of opinion about the Bible. Still some will acknowledge that the Bible has errors but they assert that the original manuscripts did not have the errors. Of course we do not have the originals so what does such and assumption prove? In any case the errors in the Bible are mostly inconsequential to any important doctrinal material. The Traditional/Historic SDA's also have a second source of truth which has from the beginning of the SDA church been used to support it's teachings.

The works of Ellen G. White are often taken by the Traditional/Historic SDA's as equal authority with the Bible. Too often her works are used in place of the Bible, even though many Traditional/Historic SDA's would say that such should never be the case. Perhaps as troublesome as giving her works equality with the Bible is her use as an "inspired commentator" on the Bible. As Morris Vendon wrote in his book "The Pillars": "The gift of prophecy is not an authority over the Bible, but it is an authority on the Bible. Some people have trouble with the phrase, evidently coined by F.D. Nichol, 'inspired commentary.' But if you accept the inspiration of the gift of prophecy and realize the fact that it is also a commentary on the Bible, and then put the two together, you have an inspired commentary." (page 104). While this may sound innocuous enough it is not, such a system of thought gives Ellen White's interpretation over and above everything else. In a very real sense it is placing her interpretation above that expressed in the context of the Bible itself. If a person were to hold such a view then her incorrect use of a verse such as Acts 3:19: to assign the blotting out of sins to some distant time, has to be accepted, even though such an interpretation was based upon the King James translation. Hardly any other translation would lead to such an interpretation nor would the original Greek. To call her an "inspired commentator" is to place her above the book she is commenting on. Fortunately as Vendon noted there are those in the SDA church who have trouble with such a phrase, Progressive SDA's.

Often the Traditional/Historic SDA's object to the difference in views of the works of Ellen White by stating that to reject the counsel of Ellen White is to reject God's counsel. This is based upon the traditional view of Ellen White as a prophet. If she were not a prophet then it would be accepted to reject her views, if they seemed to vary from the Bible. So here we are once again at the crux of the problem. The Progressive SDA's look at many of these doctrines and see them differently based upon their reasoning from the Scriptures. Since the Scriptures seem to point to a different interpretation it becomes necessary to re-evaluate the interpretation delivered or endorsed by Ellen White.

Is there an answer to such division? Either the Progressives can accept Ellen White as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth", as the Traditional/Historic SDA's do. Or the Traditional/Historic SDA's can accept the Scriptures as "the authoritative revealer of doctrines". Since both sides are in agreement about the Bible as the ultimate source of truth about God, this would seem an obvious solution. The hard part of course is that it requires the Traditional/Historic SDA's to allow for differences of interpretation. No longer can they use Ellen White as an unquestioned authority or inspired commentator. Can they be satisfied to view her work as commentary, like other commentators? It is possible that they could be satisfied with such a view, it is well known by now that much of her work was borrowed from other commentators. If the Traditional/Historic SDA's cannot accept such a view the other option is for the Progressives to accept Ellen White. We have seen over the years many leave the SDA church over the authority of Ellen White, the Investigative Judgment etc. Will history repeat itself? Ellen White should not be used as a test for fellowship in the SDA church. Neither should the rejection of Ellen White be seen as a rejection of God. Many times we have heard SDA's say that Ellen White did not claim to be a prophet. Maybe we should not be making her out as a prophet and go back to the Bible that, we all can agree upon is our source of divine instruction. Progress often requires a re-examination of beliefs, some stay, some go.

Ted Wilson on the 3 Angels Messages

Normally I like to reference as close to possible the actual words of someone but since I can't find a copy of Ted Wilson's NAD Year-End Meeting sermon I will reference the report from Spectrum. For quite a while I have told people that when Adventists use the term Three angels messages or thrid angel's message they are using the phrases as code words for the primary beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church (SDA). It is hard to find any Adventist leaders who will come right out and say that, but it does appear that Ted Wilson came pretty close in his sermon recently.

"Wilson argued that a correct theological understanding would drive a correct approach to mission. "Seventh-day Adventist theology and mission are inseparable," he said. He added his contention that the three angels' messages are the most important messages Adventists have to share. "They are our theology and our mission," he said, "and the reason for God's wonderful Remnant Church."

Most of us know that the three angels messages are found in the book of Revelation and have been messages given since the second century. So we now have a pretty good reference that Adventists see themselves as the embodiment of the three angels messages. 

"Wilson sprinkled the message with what have become familiar talking points during his tenure as president. The first came around seven minutes into his sermon when Wilson asserted that the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come includes a call to recognize God as creator: "The one who created this earth recently, in six literal days," capped off by the seventh day Sabbath, Wilson intoned. "That literal seven-day cycle has never been broken since the creation of this world," he said."

Revelation does not say anything about 6 literal days, or the Sabbath, those are read into the text so that Adventist theology can be shown to be the three angels messages.

Revelation 14:6

And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. ⁷ “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.” NIV

There was once a time in the Adventist church where the judgment was the big issue with this text. Now it appears to be a pretext for a recent literal 6 day creation. I still prefer the good news about God as our judge, that we are not simply left here on our own, but that is just me.

"Next, Wilson focused on the Sabbath-Sunday divide that Wilson argued would separate God's people from the others. "During the time of trouble that is coming, and immediately preceding the Second Coming, the seventh-day Sabbath will be the central issue of the Great Controversy," Wilson said. He went on to add that in addition to keeping the Sabbath, worshiping God as creator also requires "willingness to reject false theories about the origin of life, such as evolution or theistic evolution." Here, Wilson pivoted to focus on another recurring theme that has marked his presidential agenda. "It is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and say that God is creator of heaven and earth and all the life they contain," he announced. "The two concepts simply do not mix." Wilson then stated his view that evolution is not a science, but "a false form of religion - not only a religion, but also a part of spiritualism, which will play a major, negative role in the final events."

When someone such as Wilson tells people it is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and yet believe in God as creator, it does not so much prove his contention as prove he knows little about other peoples beliefs. Which is not really something that you want in a religious leader in my opinion. If the two concepts do not mix then we have to pretend that there is no such thing as evolution. But scientifically we know that all kinds of organisms change and that evolution is an integral part of science. Things that have had huge successes in increased knowledge such as genetics use evolution as one of their key components.

As the TTC Guidebook on Understanding Genetics says:
 Three major ideas tie biological science together.

a. Mechanism. Many societies have believed, and many people continue to believe, that the rules thatgovern life are different from the inanimate universe. They propose a“vital force”to explain this.Examples of this are the chi of Chinese philosophy and traditional medicine. Biological science rejects this idea, proposing instead that the same rules of physics and chemistry that govern the lifeless world (e.g., rocks, the air) govern life. 

 

b.Cell theory. Since the microscope was first used to visualize living things, biologists have agreedthat cells are the building blocks of life (just as atoms are the building blocks of chemistry). All living things are made up of cells, and all cells come from other cells. 

 

c. Evolution. Organisms are related by common ancestry, and there has been and continues to be change through time, or descent with modification. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed natural selection as a way to explain how organisms with different characteristics change through many generations

When a religious leader simply denies evolution he is denying the science of most of the biological sciences. History has shown us pretty well that when religion butts head with science the science will win. Usually by religion realizing that it's presuppositions were not based upon reality but upon tradition. Tradition though it may last for quite a while seems to also lose in areas of the world with significant educational systems.

"Discussing the second of the three angels' messages, Wilson stated that Babylon as described in Revelation refers to all those churches that did not heed the warning message first given in 1844, and that teach the theological errors passed down through the church of the Middle Ages. Intense anger and fierce opposition will result from exposing Babylon, Wilson predicted."

 Babylon in the book of Revelation had nothing to say about the churches after 1844. The idea that Babylon had no meaning until church rejected the incorrect end of the world prediction of William Miller is quite a leap in logic and interpretation. You can see why in his sermon he had to rely heavily on Ellen White to make it even seem like he had a case to make.

As Wilson continues to the third angel we see that again it is just to produce Adventist theology into the messages:

"The message of the third angel, Wilson said, is based on the prophecy of the preceding chapter, Revelation 13. The beast, Wilson said, represents the Apostate Church, which will negatively affect Adventists' religious liberty. He was referring to Adventists' ability to worship freely on Saturday, and predicted that, in accordance with Bible prophecy, that ability will be diminished. This will happen because religious entities will take control of governmental powers, and the Apostate Church will have free reign, he said. Wilson referenced several statements in The Great Controversy to bolster his assertions.

"The Mark of the Beast, which is the observance of any day other than the seventh-day Sabbath is an institution that clearly sets forth the authority of the Beast because the Sabbath is God's mark of his authority," Wilson said.

"One church boldly boasts that she has changed the seventh-day Sabbath, instituted at creation, from Saturday to Sunday," Wilson said, making a reference to the Catholic Church."

Does the Roman Catholic Church boldly declare they changed the Sabbath. There are some rare printed statements to that effect but that is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So it can't really be boldly if they don't even do it. See the National Catholic Register:

You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly "changed the sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn't accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here's the story . . .

 What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let's clear away a potential source of confusion. While it's true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as "the Christian sabbath," this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was--Saturday--though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.

In any case when one looks at the Early Church Fathers it becomes clear that their desire to celebrate the day of Jesus resurrection well predated the actual Roman Catholic church. The whole concept of the Sabbath representing God's authority could also be used for Sunday observance. Since that was the day that Jesus showed His power over death. It is a pity that people like Ted Wilson cannot let everyman be convinced in his own mind, but again the purpose in Ted Wilson's sermon is not to spend time on interpreting and reasoning from scriptures but to assert that Adventist theology is the fulfillment of the three angels messages.

 

If you want a sermon that puts Adventism into the Bible rather then reading what the Bible is trying to say to you, then this is the kind of sermon you will like. 

Upsetting the Apple Cart

A couple of things I have been reading have led me to wonder just how much the Adventist church cares about meeting people's spiritual needs vs. how much they want to dictate people's beliefs. Most of us by now have heard that about half of the Adventists in North America will leave the Adventist church, some come back most do not. Some estimates I have heard have former Adventists as numbering 3 million and current Adventists in North America at 1 million. Let's be more optimistic and only say the number of former to current Adventists is 2:1. Would not such numbers indicate that we are doing something wrong?

I have never been a big fan of sermons so the church service portion of the Adventist church never really appealed to me. I was usually able to find an interesting and challenging Sabbath School class however. At least until recently when my friend ceased his once a month facilitation of a class at the church I was attending. Though to be fair we were weaned off his class as the more traditional folks began leading more of the sessions until it was just down to once a month. Which is a good cautionary tale that the divided philosophy of a Sabbath School class is not likely to work. Theoretically it might still work if there were two leaders in attendance who agreed to disagree on things and lead together. But that is likely a hard thing to happen.

I think the reason for the demise of the more progressive or open Adventist Sabbath School classes has to do with the Adventist church desire to dictate beliefs vs. providing a place to meet spiritual needs. If you toe the more traditional Adventist line you rise in responsibilities and respect in the local church. If you don't you will become marginalized, and if you want to survive in the church as a progressive Adventist you often learn to sit down and shut up. You can only do that for a while usually and according to the statistics you then leave.

The Adventist Today blog has an article entitled: One Step ahead of Personal and Spiritual Annihilation
By Harry Banks. In the article he writes of someone who started a Saturday, 11 O’clock bible study at the local telephone company education center. He writes:

What? Saturday church? At the phone company? With an IT geek for a leader? Oh, and who also happened to have previously been an atheist, and we are not done yet... The group is purposefully nondenominational to attract persons who feel alienated from religion or formalized religion for whatever reason.
Hmm...
The fist week, Larry, the programmer leader, opened by saying that he felt a need to reach out to the people around him and make a place to engage with them where they are. No pressure to come to a certain position or place of belief, but an exchange of personal spiritual journeys whether in a context of doubt or faith. With Larry's atheist background, the agnostic, Julian Barnes' line, "I don't believe in God, but I miss him," seems to point to a possible point of contact for us all. There is that empty spot in all of us that only God can fill. Regardless of our state of belief or unbelief there is still a place in us only God can fill.

What a concept. Could such a thing happen in an Adventist church? Or would those who were so sure they had the answers...that they were the remnant, end up looking down their noses at such spiritually questioning people. Would they be viewed as wolves in sheep's clothing out to infiltrate and bring uncertainty to the certain? Perhaps they would even think that evolution of life was possible and maybe even a method that God used to create...could that be allowed in the sacred walls of an Adventist church.

I don't know, I suspect the way to find out would be to actually try such an experiment with your local church. I am pretty sure it is not the kind of Revival and Reformation that Ted Wilson (Seventh-day Adventist General Conference President) has envisioned for the Adventist church but maybe it is the kind of Reformation that could lead to a Revival. A Reformation is really about change and perhaps we need a far more radical change then a return to what did not work a hundred years ago. Maybe Ted Wilson's plan to Go Forward by going backwards is not really the answer. The question is it worth upsetting the "frozen chosen". They feel they are spiritually well off...on the right track with the right answers. They don't really want to engage with the questions so that they can maintain their answers but even so that is going to be a comfort to them and they, like the spiritual questing, need comfort in their journey. So the question is can we add more fruit to the apple cart without tipping it over and spilling all the apples. Perhaps the status quo of losing 2 apples for every 1 apple in the cart is the best we can do. It probably is unless one decides to rebuild the cart, and if you do that then you have to transfer the apples from one cart to another.

It does sound like a lot of work!

More foolish predictions from AToday colunmist

As some of you know who follow this blog the Atoday Columnist Stephen Foster is one of my favorite targets. He is to me one of the greatest examples of myopic traditional Adventism. He presents false information as if it were true and true information as if it were false. Well yes that later could be said of numerous political leftists but since Foster embodies both myopic traditional Adventism and ill informed political progressivism he strikes just the perfect cord of absolute silliness. Unfortunately absolute silliness is becoming all to common in Adventism.

In the past Foster has declared in his comment section of one of his articles that “arbitrary” means making a decision. Therefore since God makes decisions He is arbitrary. It did not matter if I showed him the dictionary meaning as well as the synonyms for arbitrary he would not be moved. So I said he was being disingenuous and he was a mixed up guy. That got me banned from posting comments on Atoday. Well there is no way to educate the editor/moderator at Atoday, so I don't post there anymore as a columnist or commentor. Actually quite happy to no longer have to try and write articles that the editor has to approve, because frankly it is hard to do when the editor knows so little.

For instance in Stephen Foster's latest article he mentions Rick Santorum's statement about nearly throwing up after reading JFK's speech. Foster then quotes a statement from Santorum the day after he made the throw up comment. Yet Foster ignored the Santorum statement that his throw up comment was an over reaction. So it stands in Foster's article as if Santorum had never corrected himself, even if you don't believe him why would you not offer the reader the facts in the matter. Well the reason is because information is not the purpose of the article it is propaganda. And propaganda cares little for the facts. Propaganda is one of the specialties of the political left. I suppose the right will use it to some extent but it appears not to be used nearly as much as the political left. The Editor at Atoday probably did not even know that Santorum had corrected his statement the next day. Because another unfortunate problem of the Traditional Adventists and the political left is that they are poorly informed about current events. Their sources of information are often restricted to those that agree with their ideology, and they rarely hear anything to the contrary.

So Foster puts forth his opinion and his selected retelling of the facts carefully omitting things that don't work toward his preordained conclusions. Though he did kindly note in the first part of his article that if you don't hold to his view of Traditional Adventist Eschatology you will not likely agree with him. Apparently if you agree with him then you will agree with his article. You see how the myopic views work. Their information is not intended to be persuasive to those who may differ but to be persuasive to those who already agree with them. Again something very common in Traditional Adventism and political progressives.

The main import of his article however was put forth in his opening line: “Does anybody continue to believe that things are not lining up according to prophecy?” Prophecy to Foster being his traditional Adventist Eschatology where in the Roman Catholic church rises up and takes over in both church and state relations. Santorum is a Roman Catholic running for President, and Santorum does not think that Religious people should be silent as to the affairs of state. Thus to fulfill the prediction of the 19^th century Foster produces another prediction for what is happening now, even though Santorum has little chance of becoming the Republican candidate and even though Santorum says he will not enforce his religious ideas in the political realm just as he did not do so when he was a Senator. But the prophecy lines up, because the prediction in each case is the same and to most Traditional Adventists prediction is prophecy. But predictions are not prophecy they are interpretations someone has placed upon a prophecy. They are consistently proven wrong. Yet consistently trotted out again and again, because they are at least to the believer never proven wrong because they can always still happen just around the corner.

And Jesus said Don't Eat Cheese

As you read the Adventist media and conversation sources (magazines blogs etc) it is often possible to see some of the truly cultic thinking that inhabits Adventism. One good example is the new blog article at Atoday.com. In an article entitled Annoying Vegans...an article which predominately decries the use of cheese, we read the following:

Many of us have heard the testimonies: “Cheese stops-up my system.” “Cheese makes my arthritis flare-up.” “Cheese disturbs my sleep.” Anticipating these problems, Jesus gave the gracious counsel: “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”^1
1 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 368.

Whether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matter. It is an insult to His grace, to presume that His message is not clear enough. While church members debate the meaning of this subject, outsiders suffer.

You notice of course that Jesus never said one word about cheese, the quotes used are from the Adventist prophet of the 19^th century, Ellen White. When challenged on this use of Ellen White as Jesus the author Adam Hendron said in the comments section (proving the article was not actually a joke or satire):

The Testimony of Jesus—not Ellen White—is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10).  When God's prophets served their role, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified" 1 Peter 1:11.  Two chapters later, we read that Jesus preached to the antedeluvians through Noah (vv 18-20).  Noah was the spokesperson, but Jesus was the preacher.  Whose message is it?  Christs!  His Spirit testified through the human agency.  

Then his next comment

First, no one is equating EGW with Jesus.  That's a straw-man argument.  Next, her writings are no more "erroneous" or "contradictory" than the Bible itself.  (Critics make the same sort of arguments about both.)  Now, are you questioning the inspiration of Peter's epistle?  If the Bible is not trustworthy, you put yourself in the position of God as the final aribiter of truth.  You ask why the writer of Genesis did not mention that Noah preached?  Well, why did Moses not mention a plethora of other details that later biblical writers added to the periods he wrote of, for that matter?  Paul, for example, says the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness was Jesus.  And how could Moses himself write authoritatively about events that took place long before he was born? 

Intriguing isn't it, how completely confused the traditional Adventist is to the Bible and it's statements. The testimony of Jesus is those who testify of Jesus, it is not the words of Jesus, it is the inspiration that allows us to profess that Jesus is Lord. We don't do it on our own it is the Spirit of God that inspires us to accept and proclaim that Jesus is God. (see this article on the misuse of the term Spirit of Prophecy)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Of course this does not make every statement of a Christian the word of God, or Jesus nor would it even make every word of our fellow servants even if we assumed them to be prophets to be the words of Jesus. As Jesus said to Peter:

Matt 16:15-17

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (KJV)

The strong play of the fundamentalist is their assertion that their reason and no other reason is acceptable. We see it here in the attempt to make it seem that Jesus spoke to those before Noah, the supposed spirits in prison. But anyone with any knowledge of Christianity knows that there are many different interpretation of that verse. But the art of confusion is the art of the dogmatic fundamentalist. And the above blog author is very much and Adventist fundamentalist, and in my view one who holds to a very cultic understanding. Of course he also asserts that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible despite the numerous facts that lead one to doubt that assertion, you know writing about his own death, differing creation accounts etc. Jewish Tradition is not the same as facts. What about the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness being Jesus? That again is they typical lie of the fundamentalist, to distort and confuse as you can see from the actual verse:

1 Cor 10:1-5

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

3 They all ate the same spiritual food

4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. (NIV)

So Hendron ignores the spiritual parts of the statement to make a totally fictitious case. It bothers me that these kind of people are in the Adventist church, I do suppose it is helpful that Adventist Today posts their foolishness for all to see. I do wish they had a more balanced group of bloggers however, maybe not so many traditionalists and maybe even a few political conservatives.

Ah well I guess that is what you find on this blog.