Adventist Today Does Uganda really kill the LGBT folks?

 One of the biggest problems with the people over at Adventist Today is they read and listen to only leftist media. Adventist Today is leftist so apparently they only listen to the leftists. The problem is that if a person does that they often only hear the leftist propaganda.  Take for instance this article once again from that font of misinformation Loren Seibold.  Deafening Silence My church supports the killing of LGBTQ people in Uganda.

Quoting what Andrew Klavan often humorously terms the New York Times a former newspaper Seibold says:

They began leaving after Uganda’s Parliament passed a sweeping anti-gay bill in late March that threatens punishment as severe as death for some perceived offenses, and calls for life in prison for anyone engaging in same-sex relations.

While Uganda along with many African countries has long outlawed Homosexuality this so-called new offense is actually something that deals with what the law terms as "aggravated Homosexuality":

Under the new proposed bill, homosexual conduct will still be illegal, but identifying as homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts will not be outlawed. 

The bill, however, retains its more extreme elements, including the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” which includes sex with a minor, having sex while HIV positive and incest. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/africa/uganda-passes-anti-homosexuality-bill-intl/index.html

Nigeria and Uganda — among 32 of the 54 African nations that criminalize same-sex relations — have some of the strictest anti-LGBTQ laws in the world. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uganda-nigeria-africa-lgbtq-rights-1.6952765

I was going to put the places in Africa where it was OK to be Gay as that was a title of a Newsweek article but I misread the title so it did not list the 22 countries out of the 54 where it was legal, still an interesting read. Where Is It Illegal to Be Gay in Africa?

 From the Ugandan law:

 3. Aggravated homosexuality

(1) A person who commits the offence of homosexuality in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2), commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality and is liable, on conviction, to suffer death.

(2) The circumstances referred to m subsection (1) are where-(a) the person against whom the offence is committed is a child;

 (b) the offender is a parent, guardian or relative of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(c) the person against whom the offence is committed contracts a terminal illness as a result of the sexual act;

(d) the offender is a serial offender;

(e) the offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(f) the person against whom the offence is committed is a person with disability or suffers a disability as a result of the sexual act;

(g) the person against whom the offence is committed is a person with mental illness or suffers a mental illness as a result of the sexual act;

(h) the person against whom the offence is committed is of advanced age;

(i) the sexual act is committed against a person by means of threats, force, fear of bodily harm, duress or undue influence, intimidation of any kind, or through misrepresentation as to the nature of the act; or

G) the person against whom the offence is committed was, at the time the offence was committed, unconscious or in an altered state of consciousness due to the influence of medicine, drugs, alcohol or any other substance that impaired his or her judgment https://www.parliament.go.ug/sites/default/files/The%20Anti-Homosexuality%20Act%2C%202023.pdf

What most news outlets ignore is that aggravated homosexual activities are not that different from such charges as aggravated child trafficking which also carries the death penalty.

This week, they were hit with an additional charge of aggravated child trafficking, which carries the death penalty if they are convicted, the state prosecutor said Wednesday.The couple recruited, transported and kept the child through “abuse of position of vulnerability for purposes of exploitation,” according to the charge sheet. US couple facing death penalty in Uganda for alleged torture, trafficking foster child

 

Aggravated rape is also a death penalty law in Uganda:

Section 129 (1) of The Penal Code Act provides that:

(1)               Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to suffer death. Mention the ingredients of the Aggravated Rape https://cepiluganda.org/news-blog/high-court-highlights-the-ingredients-of-aggravated-rape-in-uganda-v-kayondo-david-case

Those things the New York Times called perceived offenses seem to hold the same penalty as they do for non-homosexuals in Uganda. While the laws in Africa and many Middle Eastern countries are much more strict on homosexuality than in Western countries. Most certainly Loren Seibold's fearmongering account of the Ugandan law is not true. That Seibold stands against the majority of Ugandans Christians and Muslims in Uganda only shows the imperialism of his progressive politics.

The Ugandan IRUC is made up of:

IRCU is constituted by; the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the Church of the Province of Uganda (Church Of Uganda-COU), the Uganda Orthodox Church (UOC), the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), the Seventh-day Adventist Uganda Union (SDAUU), the Born Again Faith in Uganda (BAF) and the National Alliance of Pentecostal and Evangelical Churches in Uganda (NAPECU). Similarly, IRCU works with other religious organizations, namely the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’i, the Methodist and Lutheran Churches. https://www.ircu.or.ug/who-we-are/

The imperialism that so many progressives seem to despise appears to not exist when it comes to the laws of other countries that the Western countries dislike. But it does make you wonder when homosexuality is outlawed in 32 out of 54 African nations, why is Seibold so upset about the Adventist church in the IRUC of Uganda should he not be upset that the Administration of the SDA church is not vocal about all those nations laws. He only seems to get upset when the leftist media tells him to get upset. Funny how that works, at least until you realize that progressive politics is actually the new religion and the once great newspapers are now the propaganda tools for progressives.

 

 

 

Adventist Today attacks Mark Finley going against culture

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

Finley then introduces the reason for the presentation.

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Seibold then presents us with this:

 

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

Three verses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

Loren Seibold is jarred but not enough to do any research

  

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

Here is a transcription of the opening remarks.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Protecting Progressive Adventists from truth

 

 

Adventist Today Sabbath School Class has taken its attack on truth to a new level this week. ATSS: “A New Reformation”: Adventist Fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan presented by Michael W. Campbell. I zoom attended this program which was going along normally, Campbell had begun with a review of Fundamentalism and had moved on to the KKK. He had actually just commented on the movie “Birth of a Nation” and he had still not acknowledged the fact that the KKK was acting in conjunction with the Democrat party. So I thought that would be a very good time to mention that I thought it should be acknowledged that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat Party. I thought this was a point that it should really be noted since the movie Birth of a Nation was: “It was the first motion picture to be screened in the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.”

That movie was a technical breakthrough for movies but it was also a major turning point for the reinvigoration of the KKK.

After I made my comment in the zoom comment section I received a private message from Loren Seibold with the comment. “Quit making it political, or leave”. Of course, mine was not the first political comment in the chat section. At one point I read one comment that said something to the effect that Trump and the Republicans were doing the same things as the KKK. Someone then directed a question at me, but since I had been messaged by Seibold I told the person No I can’t answer and quoted what Seibold had said to me. I also said I honestly did not know how anyone can talk about the KKK without dealing with the politics of it. Then someone commented that it was a fair point but there had been a flip at some time between the Democrat and Republican positions. I put in my last comment which was that the flip was a myth.

Then I was dumped from the zoom meeting! Not because I continued to talk about the political realities of the KKK era because I did not say anything else about it. I am guessing I was kicked out because I quoted what Seibold had said to me. It is interesting that he did not just say something in the comments to everyone if he was afraid of political comments. If anyone has attended this zoom programs the comments can be pretty wide-ranging and they occur simultaneously with the speaker's presentation, They in no way interfere with the presentation.

I suspect that he did not address his comment to the total group in the chat room because the major emphasis at Adventist Today is Progressive politics. To carry that idea forward he has to attempt to cover up the history of Progressivism. That period of time that Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of a nation was also the time of the beginning of Progressivism (The Progressive Era). As Hillary Clinton once said in 2007: “... I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century…”

I have no idea where the connection of Adventism to the KKK was, one could go look up the presentation on the Atoday YouTube account though. I likely will not as if the presenter is not able to acknowledge the actual history of the KKK and the Democrat party how well is anything going to be.

But if you ever wonder why there is so much wrong information on the Adventist Today articles. I think it is all related to the idea that their new Woke Theology is actual Woke Democrat politics. When politics define your religion then your religion is politics. That is why the website no longer has conservative political or religiously conservative authors anymore and since the tendency is to restrict people’s comments even conservative comments in the Facebook section are few and far between. There is actually a fairly humorous article on Fulcrum7.com How Your Church Can Be More Woke

 

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.

 

 

 

Adventist Today Proves my point

So last Nov 30 2019 I posted a brief article on Adventist Today and Global Warming. I questioned would they print an article going against the current political views of Adventist Today, Progressive Democrat. Today we have a good answer as their own Loren Seibold writes an article supporting manmade global warming. So the answer is; No they will not print anything against their political beliefs. He writes:

“It isn’t happening.” This response hardly needs an explanation if you live in the United States, where denial of human-caused climate change is a journalistic industry. There’s no point in my offering another rebuttal: I will just say that though there have been times in history when the conventional wisdom has been wrong, the preponderance of evidence from reputable sources argues it isn’t wrong this time. To be a climate change denier, you have to be as conspiratorial about a minority scientific opinion as Adventists are about believing that the pope is about to persecute us—and indeed, some say the two are related. 

Clearly, he has no need to deal with the numerous facts that man-made Global Warming skeptics use. They are of course as any good political progressive would say "climate change denier[[s]". Of course, no one denies climate change, clearly, we are not in the ice age or in the medieval warm period. We actually use those things in our analysis of climate. But as with all propagandists changing the language is crucial to their so-called debate. So global warming became climate change. It was once global warming denier and now it is climate change denier (I will note here that they are not the same in meaning, global warming is the more restrictive term just dealing with global temperature, climate change deals with all the other integrated parts of climate like weather patterns precipitation, etc. But in the past Global Warming was the term the alarmists used). But if you disagree with the political left's view of climate change then you disagree with science, even though there is precious little science that they use and a whole lot of computer climate models. But as he says it is the reputable stuff and it is not wrong. Good job in proving your point there Loren! 

He also tells us that there is a journalistic industry that denies human-caused climate change. Now that is interesting a whole industry that has no facts or science or reputable information. Well maybe, in fact, there are facts and science and the industry puts it forward but Adventist Today must conform to their political views and so, all of that is of no consequence. You are just a conspiracy person. Even though there may well be a conspiracy going on as Greta Thunberg the teenage poster child for climate change says: 

"That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities."

Now you can see why Adventist Today must follow the political ideology they have accepted. Why this is not really even about climate change it is about establishing a socialist utopia here on earth. Adventist Today has forgotten about the Kingdom of God and is trying for a kingdom on earth, eventually I predict it will be a kingdom without God, but the Adventist Today folks don't go that far yet. However, socialism ultimately will deny God. This is why a nation founded upon God-given rights will always be attacked by the socialist agenda. The two simply cannot coexist.

This is all about the same thing as the so-called Green New Deal that progressives have embraced.
You will see more about this as well as the support of political Progressive democrats in the future at Adventist Today no doubt.

It is honestly a silly proposition that C02; the molecule we breath out and plants take in and a very small part of the so-called Greenhouse gases (water being the largest), the thing we generate in greenhouses to make the plants grow larger and faster is really going to end life on the planet is amazingly stupid. The idea that the present climate is the ideal climate for the earth is equally foolish. And the biggest problem with global warming is the very imprecise science of computer modeling.

You will notice if you click on the link above for C02 that I don't use the Scientific American article on C02 which is somewhat the same but instead of remaining with the science they also resort to using unknown fears to mitigate what are facts. For example, they say after acknowledging the benefits of C02:

" climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO₂ might offer plant life." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

The problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at exceptions. In vast quantities of land, a rise in temperature may be helpful for plant growth. But since they don't have the science they go back to their computer models and man-made predictions, because the model is only as good as the data given for the calculations. After all, man-made Global warming or Climate Change is all about scaring people into giving over their rights to the government.

And don't get me started on why Political Progressives think the government will solve anything! Talk about foolishness!