ATSS Charles Scriven not posted

 I had wanted to see the youtube version of this: 

ATSS: Charles Scriven – Are Progressive Adventists Deluded?

8 June 2022  |

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

Loren Seibold

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

YOUTUBE.COM

Adventist Today - YouTube

Adventist Today - YouTube

• 1w
• 
  

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

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

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

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

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.

 

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

 

Facebooks laughable fact-checking

 So this is an excerpt from the Facebook Fact check on the Literature Review of the lockdowns on covid-19 mortality. Their claim is that it “Independent fact-checkers reviewed the information and said it was missing context and could mislead people.”

Those so-called independent fact-checkers are mostly supported by Facebook and Tik-Tok and some other Leftwing organizations and private donors who donated in 2016. Yes not too updated there are they and they are not at all objective. For example, here they complain about the use of the word lockdown.

“Another point of contention was the paper’s definition of a lockdown. A lockdown is typically defined as a measure that requires people to stay at home and avoid activity outside the home involving public contact. However, the authors defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)”. Non-pharmaceutical interventions are measures apart from taking medicine and vaccination. This means that simply making isolation for infected people mandatory or imposing a mask mandate would count as a lockdown.”

From the original:

[We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above.4]

 Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist and professor at Imperial College London, pointed out that “by that definition, the UK has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown – given it [remains] compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.”

 Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, likewise expressed similar concerns about the definition used in the paper, saying, “The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is […] For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange.”

[Actually the dictionary definition is: “b: a temporary condition imposed by governmental authorities (as during the outbreak of an epidemic disease) in which people are required to stay in their homes and refrain from or limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)”] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown

That being said, when it came to their analysis, the authors applied the usual definition of a lockdown, as Bhatt pointed out: “The authors then further confuse matters when in Table 7 they revert to the more common definition of lockdown.”

So a table that breaks down the studies by NPI suddenly becomes reverting to the more common definition by having a heading that says: Lockdown(complete/partial).  As usual Facebook fact-checks are garbage!

walter Veith flat earth and matthew korpman

 I try so hard not to get involved with the stupidity that has become Adventist Today but it is so hard to leave it alone. But they have sunk to a new low. They have become the sponsor of a new YouTube video series. Here is what they say on Atoday website:

“Walter Veith is many things… but a “Flat Earther” isn’t one of the descriptions we usually associate with the controversial professor. Watch Bible scholar Matthew Korpman react to Veith’s refusal to call the earth round!

PS: Adventist Today is excited to be sponsoring Matthew’s latest YouTube videos. His stuff is thoughtful, informative and funny. We love it!”

This video is called “Walter Veith & the Flat Earth? Bible Scholar Reacts

I was unable to see in the description any evidence that Matthew Korpman is a Yale-trained Bible scholar, but I can say that he is talented at obfuscation. Instead of allowing Walter Veith to explain himself, he interrupts the video to make Matthew Korpman declarations as if they somehow are what Walter Veith is saying. A really poor method of communications, a simple technique to distort people’s opinions though, or to make fairly out-of-context statements by breaking up the statements to appear different than they were actually stated.

In This case, Matthew is attempting to take Walter Veith to task for not answering a question the way Matthew wants the question answered. Something many of us would like to do to other people but we know that is not how the world works. The one asked the question is the one that answers it and to be objective the listener then deals with what the answer actually was rather than complain about it not being answered the way you wanted to answer it.

Walter Veith opens himself open to this a lot of times because he is a long-winded person and thinks that he can take an opportunity to guide the listener into something else Veith wants to talk about. Which is actually the case in this video.

At about the 54 minute mark of the video Veith is asked the question about the flat vs. round earth and he precedes to give a couple of Ellen White quotes. That sets off Matthew, but amazingly enough, Matthew then says nothing about what the quotes actually say. Veith uses 3 or 4 maybe but the first one is all you need.

“Any kind of a theory or hobby that Satan can lead the minds of men to dwell upon he will draw their attention to so that they shall not be engaged in giving the solemn message for this time. Do not, my brother, become entangled with ideas that have no connection with the work for this time. It is better to be teaching the truth as it is in Jesus. Better to be seeking for true godliness, heart holiness, freedom from all selfishness, freedom from all envies and jealousies. It is better to pray and humble the soul before God and let the world, round or flat, be just as God has made it. Try most earnestly, by faithful continuance in well-doing, to seek for a clear title in the inheritance in the earth made new. Better lead the flock of God to drink at the higher streams, better by precept and example seek God while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. There is a revival needed in the church. When the teachers are drinking fresh draughts from the well of Bethlehem, then they can lead the people to the living stream. My soul is weighed down with the burden of the condition of things in New York. May the Lord raise up helpers, men whom He can teach, humble men whom He can lead to bear a clear, sharp testimony in faith.” Letter 43, 1887

I don’t really care that Matthew does not like Veith’s answer but you get no reason for not liking his answer if you ignore the Ellen White quotes he references.

Think about it, if you are being asked in 2020 by someone “is the earth round or is it flat”? You know immediately if someone asks that question they have a hobby horse of a theory that the world is flat. If those folks could be talked out of it, you would think that it would have easily have been done by now. Though with that particular question round does not even help as it could be flat and round as in a disk.

If Matthew had listened to the previous answer which was all about Ellen White as a prophet and would there or could there be another, a perceptive person could see that Veith answered the flat earth question after that to help enforce the wisdom of Ellen White as a telescope to the Bible. I am not here to support Ellen White or Walter Veith but to vilify the very dishonorable method of media manipulation that is used to entertain by presenting half-truths in a format that makes people think they have been given real information. Most people who read AToday sadly don’t pay enough attention to know they are being manipulated with false information Because after all these are good Christians they would not lie to us! Yes, even Christians lie and distort and the only protection is to question everything.

 Update: 2-4-2022

I posted a comment to the youtube page listed above stating that without using any of the information from the Ellen White quote you did not show the reason for Veith's answer and a link to my review above of his video. I checked this morning and my comment was deleted. Truth or conversation even is clearly not something that Matthew Korpman wants.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Jane, you ignorant slut

 Back in the early days of Saturday Night Live they did a take on the 60 minutes segment called point/ counter point.  One of the catch phrases for these skits between Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin. Was Dan Akroyd beginning his counterpoint by saying “Jane, you ignorant slut! That is kind of the way I think of the Adventist Today Dear Aunt Sevvy column. Words of questionable wisdom from an anonymous possibly female or not.

In his/her column for October 25 2021 we learn from this ignorant writer that:

“Yes, healthy people are better able to fight off infections. But it’s been proven repeatedly that viruses are equal opportunity infectors. They do not care if you’re vegan, or if you eat nothing but pork hot-dogs for every meal. If you are unvaccinated you have a 1 in 8 chance of getting sick from Covid, and a 1 in 61 chance of dying. If you are fully vaccinated, you have a 1 in 13,402 chance of getting sick, and a 1 in 86,000 chance of dying from Covid. “ 

Do you believe that? Where is the source for this startling data? None given, a 1 in 61 chance of dying, really. We went through a year of Covid and we had no vaccine.  Did 1 in 61 people die from Covid19? Of course the answer is no. To even come up with the 1 in 61 chance we would have to start at a bit above 70 years of age. I am not going to deal with the other odds given, it is highly doubtful that they are any more accurate, however.

Let's look at what the actual science says. Before we look at the chart let us see what they say about that second Aunty sentence, that viruses are equal opportunity infectors. It is important because as the chart shows there is no equal death rates by age and sex. As you will note below the virus discriminates. Starting in the 20-24 age group men are about twice as likely to die as women.

One more thing to point out. 1 in 61 odds comes to (0.0161) or 1.6129% On the chart we do not see that level of deaths until the 70-74 age range (mean between sexes).  From the American Council on Science and Health explanation connected to the chart

“There are several observations worth noting. First, as we have long known, people of college age and younger are very unlikely to die. The 5-9 and 10-14 age groups are the least likely to die. (Note that an IFR of 0.001% means that one person in that age group will die for every 100,000 infected.) The 0-4 and 15-19 age groups are three times likelier to die than the 5-9 and 10-14 age groups, but the risk is still exceedingly small at 0.003% (or 3 deaths for every 100,000 infected).

Second, the IFR slowly increases with age through the 60-64 age group. But after that, beginning with the 65-69 age group, the IFR rises sharply. This group has an overall IFR just over 1% (or 1 death for every 100 infected). That's a fairly major risk of death. (The red line in the chart marks where the "1% threshold" is crossed.) The IFR then grows substantially and becomes quite scary for people in their 70s and older. People in the 75-79 age group have more than a 3% chance of dying if infected with coronavirus, while people aged 80 and over have more than an 8% chance of dying. That's roughly the same chance as rolling a four with two dice.

Third, the virus discriminates. Beginning with the 20-24 age group, men are about twice as likely to die as women from COVID. This pattern remains in each age group through 80+.

With this data, let's hope that public health officials and policymakers can craft smart guidelines in regard to what parts of society should be locked down and how vaccines should be allocated.

Source: O’Driscoll, M. et al. "Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2." Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2918-0 (2020).”

 

Don’t think that it is only science that Aunty knows nothing about he/she knows nothing about law either. The Adventist Today column includes this: 

There always seems to be a cry of persecution when a government makes a decision that everyone needs to participate in something for public safety. In 1969 when the government decided that everyone needed to wear a seatbelt there were people who said, “If I want to die in a car accident, I should be allowed to make that choice!”

 No the Federal Seatbelt assembly law was not that everyone needed to wear seatbelts as it was about adding the assembly to cars and it was 1968.

49 CFR § 571.209 - Standard No. 209; Seat belt assemblies.

§ 571.209 Standard No. 209; Seat belt assemblies.

S1. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies.

S2. Application. This standard applies to seat belt assemblies for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. 

Since the law was about seatbelt assemblies it is highly doubtful that there was even one person whose response was “If I want to die in a car accident, I should be allowed to make that choice!”

 After about 25 years of ads to wear seatbelts the first actual wearing of seatbelts law was in 1984 in New York state