Tim Gillespie and the confusion of Present Truth

 I just discovered this podcast called "Seeking What They Sought" on Youtube. I watched a few of them and it is interesting. I am going to comment on the one I watched today which was: What is an Adventist, talking with Tim Gillespie. I always find it interesting when a Progressive SDA uses the term "Present Truth" I think they don't really know what it means historically. First, let's look at the transcript: 

Jesse: 19:37 this a little bit I I'm curious about if you were to to look at adventism and 19:43 Define it or like make maybe say more so what makes an Adventist what would you 19:49 say what is it what does it mean to be an Adventist

Tim Gillespie: um so I think an Adventist is someone who doesn't 19:55 believe in settled truth um we believe in present truth we're 20:02 non-creedal so we're a group of people we should be as I understand it a group of people who are constantly seeking a better expression and a better understanding of truth. 

[A little later he says]: said as Adventist I don't know that we believe in settled truth I've never heard that before my understanding is that we believe in present truth the way 20:57 that God is continuing to unfold truth um and so I think I think Seventh-day… 

He continues on a couple of other points, second coming, Sabbath, and prophetically speaking to people. So what he apparently believes is that Present Truth is a potentially constantly changing truth. But of course, if the truth changes the previous version was not the truth, so logically one should not call something truth if it may change. Truth is reality it is not a belief about something. One could say "Present belief", that would make sense but not present truth (see article Present truth propaganda for more on how to correctly use Present truth as a specific application of a truth to a specific circumstance.

 Unfortunately, historically Present Truth was more a term of advertising to other Christians that our beliefs were the true beliefs. So it was what the church believed was present truth. The term did not originate with Adventists. People who use the term Present Truth should take a look at my article on the subject.

 https://cafesda.blogspot.com/2012/12/present-truth-propaganda.html

At one point he points out the fallacy of present truth:

should be careful about quoting him but I believe what he said to me was present truth that's why that's why I'm an 23:49 Adventist to which I replied and I don't know that he appreciated this um but I 23:54 replied oh awesome what are you gonna let go of  I mean there are things that are 24:01 mutually exclusive correct we can't just if truth is if 24:07 we believe in present truth and we are led to another truth it may preclude a previous truth that we had it 24:14 may be something that our you know there may be truths that are mutually exclusive for instance for instance it... [he moves off on a poor example]

Ultimately what he is saying is that there really is no such thing as Present Truth but there are present beliefs but one of the first things that makes up an Adventist is holding to Present Truth which can always change and thus never was truth. So one of the key characteristics for of an Adventist is they believe in the lie known as Present Truth. Confusing right? The reason I think he does this is to form a connection to Adventist tradition and Ellen G. White. This is why I constantly point out this misuse of the term Present Truth. But there is one more thing that the next AI summaries present and that is that Adventism is not the only church to hold to the term present truth it was used a good deal in the 1800's by various groups though not something one hears much from them anymore, again a reflection of how the connection to Ellen White dominates Adventist understandings.

Update: 5-19-24: Using Edge AI Copilot:

Question: Tell me a summary of what Ellen G. Whites means by the term "present truth"

Certainly! Ellen G. White used the term “present truth” to refer to the timely and relevant messages that God revealed to her during her ministry. Let me provide a summary based on her writings:

In August 1849, Ellen G. White wrote about the concept of “present truth.” She emphasized that it was her duty to share with others what God had revealed to her regarding the current state of affairs, trials, and temptations faced by believers. Here are the key points:

The Context: Ellen G. White believed that they were living in a significant time, with the coming judgments of God imminent. She felt compelled to convey the messages she received to help guide God’s people.

The Connection Between Commandments and the Shut Door: She asserted that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ (which included the concept of the “shut door”) were inseparable. The time for the commandments to shine out with importance was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary (where the Ark containing the ten commandments was located). This door was opened in 1844 after the mediation of Jesus in the Holy Place was completed.

Testing on the Sabbath: Ellen G. White believed that the present test on the Sabbath could not occur until Jesus had passed within the second veil (the Most Holy Place). Christians who had fallen asleep before this event (before the door was opened in the Most Holy) were not held accountable for Sabbath observance. However, now that the door was open, the Sabbath truth was being tested.

Satan’s Tactics: She warned that Satan was actively trying to confuse God’s people. He attempted to open the door of the Holy Place (which Jesus had shut) and close the door of the Most Holy Place (which Jesus had opened in 1844). Satan aimed to keep minds wavering and prevent acceptance of the present sealing truth.

In summary, “present truth” refers to the timely messages and revelations that Ellen G. White believed were crucial for the believers of her time. These messages were closely tied to the commandments, the sanctuary, and the Sabbath truth1. It was a call to faithfulness and discernment during a critical period of history.

For more detailed reading, you can explore Ellen G. White’s writings on this topic here.2 📖

Learn more 1 egwwritings.org

2 text.egwwritings.org

3 whiteestate.org

4  egwwritings.org +2 more

Tell me a summary of what Charles Spurgen means by the term "present truth "? [interestingly I spelled Spurgeon without the "o" and it shouted at me the correct spelling:) ]

 Certainly! Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a prominent English preacher and theologian, also used the term “present truth” in his sermons. Let me provide a summary based on his writings:

1. Context and Definition:

   • Spurgeon believed that “present truth” referred to the essential and timely messages that were relevant to the current spiritual needs of believers.
   • These truths were not abstract or theoretical but had practical implications for Christian living.

2. Application:

   • Spurgeon emphasized the importance of preaching and teaching truths that directly addressed the challenges, temptations, and trials faced by believers in their daily lives.
   • He believed that the Holy Spirit guided preachers to proclaim the Word of God in a way that met the specific needs of their congregations.

3. Dynamic Nature:

   • “Present truth” was not static; it evolved as circumstances changed. Spurgeon encouraged pastors to be sensitive to the Spirit’s leading and adapt their messages accordingly.
   • The truths that were relevant in one era might not be the same in another. Therefore, preachers needed discernment to identify what God was emphasizing at any given time.

4. Faithfulness and Relevance:

   • Spurgeon urged ministers to be faithful stewards of the Gospel, ensuring that their preaching remained relevant to the present context.
   • He believed that God’s Word was timeless but needed to be applied afresh to each generation.

In summary, Charles Spurgeon’s concept of “present truth” emphasized the dynamic, relevant, and practical aspects of biblical teaching. It encouraged preachers to faithfully address the spiritual needs of their congregations in light of the ever-changing

 summarize what Mary Baker Eddy meant by the term "present truth"

Certainly! Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, used the term “present truth” in the context of her spiritual teachings. Let’s explore this concept:

1.      Definition of “Present Truth”:

o    Mary Baker Eddy believed that “present truth” referred to the spiritual insights and revelations that were relevant to the current moment.

o    These truths were not static but dynamically adapted to the needs of individuals and society.

2.      Application:

o    Eddy taught that divine truths were timeless but needed to be expressed in ways that resonated with the present circumstances.

o    She emphasized the importance of understanding God’s healing power, the unreality of material limitations, and the supremacy of spiritual reality.

3.      Christian Science Perspective:

o    In Christian Science, “present truth” involved recognizing the spiritual nature of existence and healing through prayer.

o    Eddy’s major work, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” conveyed these truths and their practical application.

4.      Continual Revelation:

o    Eddy believed that God’s revelation was ongoing and that individuals could receive fresh insights directly from divine Mind.

o    As humanity evolved, “present truth” would continue to unfold.

In summary, Mary Baker Eddy’s concept of “present truth” emphasized the dynamic, spiritually relevant insights that could transform lives and bring healing. It encouraged seekers to stay open to divine revelation and apply these truths in their daily experience¹². 🌟

Learn more

1marybakereddylibrary.org2marybakereddylibrary.org3mary-baker-eddy.com4footstepsoftruth.com5theguardian.com+3 more

 

Shortened relevant portions from the AI search

William Booth:

1.      The Concept of “Present Truth”:

o    Booth believed that certain biblical truths were relevant to God’s people at specific times in history.

o    These truths were not static but dynamically revealed by the Holy Spirit to guide believers in interpreting and applying God’s Word in the present moment.

 

anonymous legal expert at AToday

 

By Ron Corson

Adventist Today has gone to a new low. It presents an anonymous article called:

Playing Hopscotch with Our Liberties by Sarah Kay Jones  |  29 July 2022  |

Here is an example of this so thoughtful piece of exposition:

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion. I’ve already heard that the separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, so it’s not legitimate. Included in the new civics training for Florida public school teachers is the statement that it is a “misconception” that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state.”  

That’s the same argument given over the 2022 abortion ruling, which means that under the current Supremes majority, the establishment of religion is also at risk. That isn’t, however, what the founders of the nation taught, according to Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center:

The unknown and unintelligent author thinks that the Dobbs decision was the same argument as the rapid teachers training courses in Florida, that the wall of separation between church and state is not in the Constitution. Which of course it is not. At best it is a reference to Jefferson’s Letter: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The separation of church and state suddenly became the argument in the 2022 abortion ruling that found the court had erred in the Roe and Casey decisions. Thus finding no Constitutional authority for the so-called right to an abortion,  that right suddenly appearing a 170 years after the Constitution was ratified and a good while after the 14^th amendment and its mention of liberty and subsequent claim to the right to privacy. The syllabus for the decision shows there was no establishment of Religion application at all in the decision.

Naturally, the comments on the Facebook page praised the article. Just another example of the complete lack of understanding by the Political Progressives. Their reasoning is flawed but always fearful.

Just for clarity, the founders desired strict avoidance of Federal involvement in religion, establishing or the exercise of that religion. What the progressives mean by "strict separation of church and state”  Is always the problem and why they like the term rather than using the Establishment clause as the Constitution does.

 

 

 

Pride month Adventist Today

 As we move into Pride month I want to point something from a recent ATSS program that is quite disturbing. The video is found at ATSS PRESENTS: Esther Loewen, The Beatitudes in Light of Transgenderism At about the 22 minute mark this former Adventist Pastor goes through some notable Christians and some of their statements on certain Beatitudes. I have transcribed and abridged some of the context and the main point I want to deal with is when the former pastor talks about Franklin Graham:

“At an earlier time in my life I would have enthusiastically absorbed the Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon's teaching about being pure in heart where he essentially equates it to being sanctified or fully before God impurity of the heart says the great, orator is the cause of spiritual blindness our inner nature, must be divinely, renewed, it must be purified.

John Piper's discussion about being a peacemaker. We're right up my alley. The most important peace according to Piper is the peace that made between you and God and secondarily. Once that happens, that we Christians, go out and make peace between other people.

And of course, I can't leave out evangelicalism in Franklin Graham on persecution who speaks a lot about persecution and now I'm tipping my hand to you. Just a bit you know  Franklin Graham who teaches us about persecution, and tweets and Sound bytes who teaches us that persecution is being forced to live in a world where LGBTQ people exist, where black live matter where the patriarchy is dismantled.  Now  As I think about all of these individuals today All of these different teachers, all of these different perspectives, you know, an aspirational lens on the Beatitudes isn't the only thing that they have in common.”**

The important point here is that as the LGBT activist has been speaking about what others have said on the beatitudes, when it comes to Franklin Graham all that goes out the window, admitting “I'm tipping my hand to you”. Pretty much admitting that due to political progressive influences, no truth is needed, no quotes are needed, no context is needed!

Of course there is no need for truth when lying has become a way of life. If one lies to themselves about themselves it is not that hard to lie about other people as well. Assuming that this former pastor is dealing with fellow Progressive Christians they will have no reason to question the fictional statement that Franklin Graham believes that he is having to live in the persecution of living in a world where LGBTQ exists, where Black Lives Matter, and Equity & Justice are words, Or as the statement that goes with the slide says that patriarchy is dismantled. As if Franklin Graham would make any of those statements, when talking about the Bible verse that says:  Matthew 5:8. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." That would be a seriously limited view of persecution.

But why do the LGBT activists hate Franklin Graham so much?  One does not have to do much searching on the internet to see just how disgusted the left is with Franklin Graham and by extension Evangelicals as well.

The answer could be found in the attempt to redefine American life. At one time the website for BLM listed their desire to destroy the nuclear family. More recently the Progressive community has gone so far as to insist that they can’t even define a woman. A woman is someone that identifies as a woman. That is actually what some say when asked what is a woman. Can they define a woman without using the circular logic of using the word woman? A world where even a Supreme Court nominee herself a woman can’t define the word woman because she is not a biologist. In fact under the Adventist Today link to this Youtube video there are only five comments, Even the politically left population of commenters on Adventist Today are too afraid to make comments about a man claiming to be a trans woman reinterpreting the Beatitudes in the light of something that not one person hearing the Beatitudes would have thought of.

It is far more than just the LGBT segment of the political left that placed them against evangelical Christianity.

There has been an interesting study and book on this subject:

“Here are three surprises from Yancey and Quosigk’s research.

1. Progressive Christians are more likely to establish their identity through politics, while conservative Christians find their identity in theology.

Put simply, progressive Christians see the world through a political lens; conservative Christians, through a religious lens (155). This doesn’t mean that progressives are atheological and conservatives apolitical, but only that the emphasis is wildly disparate between the groups.

For example, progressive Christians

emphasize political values relating to social justice issues as they determine who is part of their in-group; they tend to be less concerned about theological agreement. Conservative Christians, however, do not put strong emphasis on political agreement in order to determine if you are one of them—their major concern is whether you agree with them on core theological points . . . . (4)

For this reason, progressive Christians

tend to be more accepting of groups that are traditionally politically progressive (such as Muslims and atheists) than they are of conservative Christians. . . . By contrast, conservative Christians tend to reject Muslims and atheists as part of an out-group, but they do not necessarily reject political liberals. . . . (14).

The authors aren’t saying progressives are naturally more political in a general sense. Their point is that progressives’ commitment to humanistic values of social justice leads them to political action as the area of causing social change. And prioritizing political alignment over theological agreement leads to the next surprise.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/research-progressive-conservative-christians/

 

Interestingly enough it is because Franklin Graham is outspoken in his Christianity that has made him the butt of derision of the leftwing. As he took Progressive Christianity head-on he explains:

I would say the exact same warning applies today to the advocates of progressive Christianity. They deceitfully promote and proclaim what I believe is clearly a “different gospel, which is really no Gospel at all.”

Let me say that again—progressive Christianity is not a Gospel at all. It has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. It results in nothing but spiritual confusion and chaos.

Here’s the problem.

Progressive Christianity denies the divinely inspired, authoritative truth of the Bible as it intersects every facet of living. For example, although Scripture clearly says that marriage is between one man and one woman, proponents of progressive Christianity twist and distort the truth of God’s Word on sexuality, focusing on such nonsensical trends as gender identity. They deny God’s distinction of the sexes, and instead invent their own misguided standards, unguided by the Word of God. The degrading cultural influences that embrace such movements as gay marriage have more sway on their beliefs than the Bible does.

When the topic of justice is discussed, progressive Christianity is primarily concerned with the issues of social and racial justice (which the Bible does address), but most often neglects the far more fundamental issue of God’s justice—how a holy and just God deals with sinful and wicked men. https://decisionmagazine.com/franklin-graham-the-eternal-peril-of-progressive-christianity/

 ** Transcription software was limited due to the affected speech pattern of the presenter. At 36:30 a prayer of redefined Beatitudes is given. A good example of why it is unwise to redefine what God blesses.