Heading for Another Great Disappointment?
By Dennis Hokama, July 3, 2015: On Thursday evening, July 2, 2015, following the acceptance of the nominating committee, General Conference (GC) president Ted Wilson, delivered a tour de force campaign speech disguised as a “President’s Report” for the ages. In my humble opinion, it secured his renomination beyond all doubt, and virtually guaranteed the passage of the amendment to Fundamental Belief #6 (creation), as well as the failure of the attempt to allow the ordination of women.
Watching his presentation was almost like having an out-of-body experience. I was not concerned with trying to write down or record his every word because there would presumably be a transcript put out by The Review only hours later.[1] It was as if I had been transported 50 years back in time, listening to evangelists like Stanley Harris in a sawdust-on-the-ground evangelistic tent meeting at Auburn Academy (AA). When I graduated from AA in 1965, I was absolutely sure Jesus would return before I could ever hope to get married, have children, and probably even before I could graduate from college.
Wilson weaved in clips of beautiful footage from a trip to Israel and the surrounding territory throughout his speech. Footage included climbing what he claimed was Mt. Sinai, effectively associating himself with Moses and the Ten Commandments. Most dramatic, in my opinion, was a clip of him standing on the banks of the Jordan River that separates Jordan and Israel. He recounted Joshua’s dramatic crossing over Jordan into the promised land, drawing the obvious parallel to the present day where we are about to cross over into the metaphorical promised land, presumably under his (Joshua’s) leadership. The latter rain is about to fall.
Wilson went on to claim that the Geoscience Research Institute’s (GRI) scientists have vindicated the church’s historic teaching regarding creation week, and that “the Bible can be believed as it reads.” However, I was at the GC session at Atlanta in 2010, where in the midst of the landslide to push for a revision of Fundamental Belief #6, Dr. Ben Clausen, a GRI scientist, got up to say before the world church that there was no known scientific model that could defend the traditional Adventist stance on a short chronology. (I have his speech saved on my computer at home.) I have read many books on the subject since then, and to the best of my knowledge, Clausen’s verdict still stands today.
Wilson closed his report by reminding us that Jesus was coming again soon. Then the congregation was led in a rousing song service consisting of a medley of gospel songs whose theme was the second coming, such as “Lift Up the Trumpet,” etc.
All in all, it was a masterful, updated presentation of the Adventist denomination’s faith narrative, the likes of which I have never before seen. I have no doubt that he has the world church enthralled. If only I were 18 again, and could take him at his word, I would have bought it hook, line, and sinker. In a church founded upon the Great Disappointment, it seems that we are headed back there again. But this General Conference, in my opinion, now belongs to Ted Wilson.
Dr Ted Wilson Has been re-elected President Praise the Lord!
” In a church founded upon the Great Disappointment, it seems that we are headed back there again.”
The church is not founded on any “great disappointment” anymore than the Christian faith is founded on a “great disappointment”.
The disciples misunderstood the ministry of Jesus and only after His death and resurrection did they comprehend it meaning. Were the disappointed by the death of Jesus? Of course. Because the did not understand what it meant.
Just so, because Miller and those who misunderstood failed to see all that was comprehended in the 1844 revival, does not mean the SDA faith is founded on some “great disappointment.”
Errors were corrected just as errors were corrected about Jesus and His ministry. You purposely try to mislead people to assume Adventism was founded on a lie. Or false concepts at best.
Our message is founded on the word of God and we don’t even need EGW to affirm the truth of our message. She was very helpful in pointing out certain bible truths that God showed her and easily affirmed by a study of the bible.
I think her advice to many who attack is the same she gave Canright. Namely, if you don’t believe our message, get away from us as far as possible and leave our people alone. He was not “enlightened” and neither is anyone else who attacks bible Adventism.
The so-called “Great Disappointment” in SDA eschatological parlance would be more accurately described as the “Great Hoax” by William Miller. How could well-meaning people like the Millerites believe the hoax of all hoaxes? Obviously, they lacked biblical knowledge to be so severely deceived that they ended up crying until they could no longer cry. Sadly, many people still prefer to believe that they prefer to be true.
You are so very wrong my friend. God has always use people down the ages to continue to guide and help His people. EGW happens to be one of them. Have you even read any of her books? A woman who never went beyond 3rd grade in education has done a phenomenal work in writing where people are reading and researching her work an receiving their Phd. We all come to this conclusion because we do not spend time reading her work. Bible is the ultimate but The Lord did use her to present us the message for the time. Just imagine: No EGW, no Loma Linda University, no PUC, no Andrews, no Avondale and many more. Just my thought on it.
I object to being chastised for failing to get Jesus to return! God does not need us to finish HIS work. He is quite capable of doing it Himself if need be!
It is disappointing to see Elder Wilson not to have learned anything from recent information and guidance on the topics of a literal seven day creation to the ordination of women. My mother an Adventist pastor’s wife, to whom she was married for seventy-one years calmly and thoughtfully discussed these issues. In my conversations with her, she believed God’s creation was not in a literal seven day period,a long held belief by our Church. She also supported the ordination of women as pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Like her, my faith will not waiver. Still, I believe the decision by our worldwide President is a flawed one. I am keenly disappointed.
“In my conversations with her, she believed God’s creation was not in a literal seven day period …. Like her, my faith will not waiver.”
It seems like you contradicted yourself, since you just said that her faith did waver regarding a literal 7-day creation.
It has been said that there is not one Hebrew scholar in any world class university that doesn’t think that the author of Gen. 1 intended us to understand that the 7 days were 7 days. And Ellen White could not be clearer on the matter that the idea that the 7 days were long indefinite periods of time is a most dangerous form of infidelity. This being so, I don’t see how we can say that any Adventist’s faith has not wavered if they don’t believe what the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus say on this point.
Stars are now known to have existed for millions and billions of years. They were not created/made in one literal day some 6,000 years ago. The age of the stars have thoroughly FALSIFIED Fundamental Belief #6 already. The SDA Church is just in denial about reality.
Back to the past
Is a blast
For the church in the soundproof chamber
For it can live without threat or danger
Of a future to last.
Yogi, where in FB #6 does it say that all the stars in the universe were created 6,000 years ago?
“As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun …” (Ed 14; DA 465; GW15 50).
On what basis are you maintaining that the stars of the 4th day of creation were more than planets or our solar system?
You want a literal reading of Genesis, right? So if you want to be very literal about “day”, you have to be literal about “stars” too. If you want to be literal about Genesis, then you have to be literal through and through.
But where’s your consistency? When it comes to the stars you suddenly resort to a “creative” interpretation.
By the way, Genesis never stated “As the moon and the stars of our solar system…” — so your quote is just a “creative” less-than-literal weasel interpretation to escape the obvious.
So when do you think the stars were created? Are you saying the stars were created OUTSIDE the “recent” (circa 6000 years ago) creation week that FB#6 wants us to believe?
Let us support and pray for the president elect of the Church. I pray that God will strengthen Him and His Family.
May God bless him and keep him and his family strong.
I think my strong conservative stand on many issues could be understood that I fully support the re-election of Ted Wilson. I have considerable reservation about his leadership, just as I did about his dad’s. Namely this, they both seem to be more politically motivated in the end, than taking a strong personal stand on any given issue and state their personal convictions. It would seem to me they both hold the sovereignty of the church over the word of God, with the hopes that the bible is in harmony with any church decision. When in fact, they should have real reservations about any “church” decision and have a deep concern that the church may not be making clear biblical decisions.
Prayer is a wonderful reality. But when it is used to affirm any decision that is made and stated, “We prayed about it, so it must be right, as the Holy Spirit will guide us in any dynamic decision.”
Without a doubt, the early church prayed considerable before changing the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday. And finally concluded their decision was Spirit inspired and infallible because the Holy Spirit would never allow the church to error.
Prayer does not take the place of the bible for affirmation of truth. Nor does prayer make any decision beyond the possibility of being wrong. But this seems to be the spiritual mentality of those in church leadership including Ted Wilson.
Apparently one of the leaders did not allow prayer before the deciding vote.
Doesn’t Adventism still need a global leader who authentically and passionately believes that Christ’s return is soon? If he doesn’t believe the story, why then should anyone else? To have as its global leader a person who demonstrates in word and action that Jesus is coming soon, seems to me to be a key requirement for church leadership in our community of faith.
I can understand where the author of the above article is coming from, but there is something about the leadership of Elder Wilson that inspires confidence with the membership (and not only in the global south). When someone inspires, the trust level increases. And whatever the author may percieve, the reality is that Elder Wilson is a leader who knows where this church is going, and more specifically how we should get there.
We can spend hours discussing merits of his personal wordlview on matters of faith and practise, but what does that gain? All church leaders have strengths and weaknesses… there but for the grace of God go us all.
Perhaps the Friday evening Session meeting (last night) puts all of out troubled concerns into context. What are we all about? Reaching lost people for the Lord. I’ve never witnessed before a baptism service at a GC Session. What a wonderful focus for the Adventist family in Session. When all is said and voted, and done next week, is not reaching the lost what we are all about?
“. And whatever the author may percieve, the reality is that Elder Wilson is a leader who knows where this church is going, and more specifically how we should get there.”
Well, this is part of the issue, isn’t it David?
More than a few doubt your statement of Elder Wilson’s qualification to bring about the desired goal. Just because you believe it doesn’t mean everyone else does.
RE: 6 day creation belief: Psalm 33:9,He spoke and it was,He commanded and it stood fast.If you can’t wrap your world centered brain around this truth you should find another faith!
Look up! For Your redemption draws nigh!
The fact of the matter is that none of us were there. What we have, concerning this, is a very brief record of creation events, written thousands of years after the fact. I can almost see the wheels turning in the authors head trying to come up with a place to start this record. I picture him remembering stories that were told around the campfires as he tended sheep, and stories his father-in-law told to the children of his workers.
Was special further information given to later answer any further questions, or set the conclusions many have arrived at? Or set the record straight as to how it really was. Maybe. If creation was different, I do not believe God would stir the pot to cause more strife then what we are seeing now.
“In the beginning God” is enough for me. It is enough for me to trust and believe Them. Which is something neither Lucifer, a 1/3 of angels, nor Adam and Eve did.
There are more important things to discuss at GC then this.
Jesus coming soon, not likely if we continue as we are
God Bless
Bill, the SDA Church’s insistence on a “recent” 6KYA creation week actually makes it easier to leave the church. If the church can be so wrong on this point, then it’s not the true remnant church it claims to be.
Bye…….there are many churches in the phonebook that flip off the Word of God…
AMEN!! Bill
When will we elect leaders whose supreme focus is on ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed? Instead we keep electing leaders whose focus is on dissecting century-old writings and promoting the use of outdated methods that fail to effectively communicate the power of redemption to a dying world. Yes, the church is growing, but for every person who joins the SDA Church there are a multiple who abandon their christian faith or who are born into cultures where the name of Jesus is never heard except to identify infidels who are to be murdered.
if we are really Seventh Day Adventist, we cannot spend time discussing this matter. over 17 million Seventh Day Adventist we have been robbed. We have almost forgetten our mission and Philosphers think that they can interplet scripture with their spoiled philosophy. Where is Elijah to counteract this madness and to bring Revival and Reformation?
Preachers should have no scruples to preach the truth as it is found in God’s word. Let the truth cut. I have been shown that why ministers have not more success is, they are afraid of hurting feelings, fearful of not being courteous, and they lower the standard of truth, and conceal if possible the peculiarity of our faith. I saw that God could not make such successful. The truth must be made pointed, and the necessity of a decision urged. And as false shepherds are crying, Peace, and are preaching smooth things, the servants of God must cry aloud, and spare not, and leave the result with God. 2SG 284
In all the wide universe, whosoever is unified with God in
Christ by the Holy Spirit, and whether he be seraph,
cherub, angel, or man, he is a member of The Church; and no
other is.
All in heaven and in earth who are partakers of God’s
promise and purpose in Christ compose just one family–“the
whole Family in heaven and earth.” Some are in the depths of the sea. Others are “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Yet, though thus scattered, all are of the one divine and heavenly Family.
It is therefore always perfectly proper, and always
timely, to discuss that great abuse in matters of faith–
the arbitrary authority of the church; For no greater nor
more persistent abuse has ever been inflicted on the world.
In short, Is Christianity of God by His Word through His
Spirit or is it of the church by tradition and “commands” of men?
The Lord Jesus Himself has expressly forbidden ANY exercise
of authority by Christians. Here is the word: “Ye know that
the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,
and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you.” Matt. 20:25. Now when authority is “the right to command and to enforce obedience,” and Christ has positively forbidden to Christians any exercise of authority; then it stands fixed by the Word of God that the church is forever forbidden all “right to command and to enforce obedience”: is forbidden any and all “exercise of
authority.” …….
………The only way that any professing to be a Christian or the church can ever have in this world any office station or relation other than that of servant, is to assume it: which
is only to usurp it. And this spirit of assumption which is usurpation, by which a man or a clique in the church and in the name of “the church” has claimed and asserted “office station or
relation,” “to command and to enforce obedience,” by the “exercise of authority,” is the sprit of Satan: not of Christ. And that is why the rule, the reign and the authority of the church has always been Satanic, and has been denounced by Inspiration as “the mystery of iniquity.”
Under the Word of God there is no “fixed rule or law” for the “exercise of authority” by
Christians or the church, nor is there any room for these to act “by virtue of office station or relation”; Because Christians, and in the church of Christ and of God, all are equal.
It is in the Head which is Christ, not in the body which is The Church, where is the seat of authority, of intelligence, of decision, and of will. Therefore it is the Head only, never the body, who can “command and enforce obedience.” The Church, then, is subject, not sovereign. It is hers to obey, not to command. To obey Christ, not to command men. By the plain word of Christ, as well as by the whole nature situation and relation of The Church itself, everything claimed or claiming to be the church is positively forbidden to “exercise…
….authority”
It therefore follows that any exercise of dominion or authority by any professed Christian or any
professed church, upon or over anybody, in matters of faith, is in itself arbitrary authority. Every such exercise is only by the usurped “authority” of the will or caprice, or both, of some individual or collection of individuals in the church and in the name of “the church”; and in every possible feature is arbitrary only.
“Isn’t it a mystery that Christians never can learn that “ecclesiastical organization” is destructive of Christian efficiency?
E Ekimi,
In 1959, when I requested baptism and full voting membership in the Seventh-day Adventist organization, I thought of it as an evangelistic association similar to the Christian Connexion of which several of the pioneers of the advent movement were members. I thought the SdA organization was similar to the Christian Connexion at least in the way that Joshua V. Himes described the Connexion–that it was based on the principle that “The Scriptures are taken to be the only rule of faith and practice, each individual being at liberty to determine, for himself, in relation to these matters, what they enjoin: No member is subject to the loss of church fellowship on account of his sincere and conscientious belief, so long as he manifestly lives a pious and devout life”…”
I am a seventh-day sabbath keeping vegetarian but it is not because I think only seventh-day sabbath keeping vegetarians are the only people who will be translated when Jesus returns. I rest on the seventh day because I think it honors my creator AS creator and I eschew the use of animals for food because of health considerations.
My next question is for those members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination who have not written to conference officers at every level of the organization in an attempt to explain what E Ekimi has explained here: Why not?
“It’s true! The pen IS mightier than the sword. But only if you have the courage to pick it up once in a while.” quote attributed to a…
A listless, unfeeling manner of presenting the truth will never arouse men and women from their deathlike slumber. They must show by their manners, by their acts and words, and by their preaching and praying, that they believe that Christ is at the door. Men and women are in the last hours of probation, and yet are careless and stupid, and ministers have no power to arouse them; they are asleep themselves. Sleeping preachers preaching to a sleeping people! 2T p.337
According to Dr Ben Clawson, there is no model for the creation of the world in six days. Well I have a library full of books that would dispute that, many of them SDA scientists. The models may not be exact but if you are going to believe in the six day creation, you better believe there is a correct mode. AQs to the women’s ordination, when you provide scripture to support it maybe it will work in the meantime the church is creating a dichotomy in defying the clear Word and the vote of the church.
It’s more accurate to say that there are NO UNFALSIFIED scientific model for a recent 6KYA creation week. That’s how I take Dr Clausen’s statement.
Simply claiming that one has “scientific” models to support one’s belief is not enough. After all, the Flat Earth Society can also claim to have models to support its worldview.
Whenever I hear anyone say “Jesus is coming soon” or worse, “very soon” I equate it to the relative length of time that person expects to live. Because after their death/unconscious sleep, the next thing they’ll be conscious of is the coming of Jesus.
Even with the signs of the times, no one knows how soon is”soon”. If we take it that human life span, even 100yrs, is short, then for each of us, Jesus is coming soon but not necessarily in chronological time. We should, therefore, be cautious how we teach/preach the soon coming of Christ so as to avoid misunderstanding.
Good comment, E. Ekimi… Remember A.T. Jones’s take on individuality, especially when it pertains to a voluntary exercise like our own religious beliefs!
I have a hard time with those who quibble over the “age” of the stars or the earth. Adam was created as a grown man, why couldn’t the stars have been created the same way?
DJ, asserting that stars were created circa 6000 years ago but made to look as if they are millions/billions of years old is problematic. It makes God a deceiver.
Even some creationists advise against using this particular line of argument. As in this article entitled “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use”:
<>
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
The quote got deleted, here it is:
‘Light was created in transit.’ Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.
It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.
For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.
***
DJ, you may also read this article addressing your omphalos argument:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/cosmos-neil-tyson-creationists-crab-nebula
yogi, I’m responding to your reply to me above.
Suggesting that “stars” refers to the planets and comets of our solar system is a way to take the Bible literally, as it reads. It is not less than literal since certainly the planets have been called stars by various cultures for millennia. Can you document any reason why Moses around 1450 BC, after being trained in Egypt and while herding sheep, would not have meant our planets when he wrote “stars”?
“So when do you think the stars were created?”
I don’t know for sure. I am open to various possibilities, and I think you should be too.
One scientist has suggested that the visible universe was created during creation week, while the stars beyond what we can see were created earlier.
But I don’t presently think that that possibility has to be the right one, and we shall soon find out which view is correct.
Bob, when the writer of Genesis looked up at the night sky thousands of years ago and wrote “he made the stars also”, a literal reading means he was referring to the numerous stars above.
Now you’re suggesting that he “DELETED” these thousands of visible stars and were referring only to a few planets. Only people in denial can possibly accept this “creative” interpretation.
Your post clearly illustrates my point about your inconsistency. You are literal when it serves your purpose, but becomes “creative” when it does not — for you, “day” really means a literal day but “stars” do not really mean literal stars.
You’re also putting forward the possibility that stars were “created earlier”. Which means that when Genesis intoned “In the beginning…”, it was not actually THE beginning. There was in fact a “prequel”!
There goes your literal reading of Genesis.
While there are a lot of things we don’t know, we do know that stars have existed for millions of years and were not “created” circa 6000 years ago as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest.
No, yogi, you are incorrect.
It’s quite telling. You evaded my question. Where’s your documentation that ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia never called the planets “stars”? Apparently, you have none. And thus your assertions are merely based on your personal opinions and biases. Not real good.
See a 2010 book at https://books.google.com/books?id=wLUjtPDyu-IC&pg=PT38&lpg=PT3 which says that the ancient Egyptians called the planets “the stars that never rest,” a term used in the Pyramid Texts in the Old Kingdom. By the Middle Kingdom, it says, the Egyptians had identified 5 such “stars.”
At any rate, I don’t see how you can say that we know that the stars were created millions of years ago, unless you’ve talked to someone who witnessed the event. Conventional cosmological theory calls for that sort of thing in order to explain how we ended up with elements heavier than H and He. And that is all based on the assumption that there is no God, or God never created everything by just speaking it into existence, and/or God never created any of this in a moment of time. Sounds like circular reasoning to me: The stars must be older than the Bible might indicate because the Bible’s account can’t possibly be right, because the stars have to be older, because the Bible can’t be right, etc.
For Adventists, we need to have unfallen worlds predating Creation, and thus there had to be at least some stars earlier than creation week. Both of my suggestions show how this can…
Bob, you resort to obfuscation and logical fallacy to avoid the fact that you have twisted the meaning of the word “stars”. Obviously, a literal reading will suggest that the Genesis writer refers to both the stars and the planets, which to his eyes are no different. Instead, you cite the ancient Egyptians who are not credited with writing Genesis. I consider your line of argument as nothing more but squid tactics.
Now you even express doubt about the age of the stars, which is not surprising as creationists often resort to science denial.
So where is your documentation that the Genesis writer never intended the word “stars” to mean literal stars but only the planets?
Yogi,what you fail to recognize is that understanding the Bible is not just one passage, but several passages put together to give a better understanding. With a better understand we can then look at passages that seem conflicting and get a better understanding of them. One’s own logic has to be tested on the bigger picture of the biblical passages, but that may be outside you ambit so it would be circular trying to explain alternative interpretations. Also, even if there is a error in understand the description of ‘day four,’ shifting to a belief in evolution is not an option. Cosmos evolution is an impossibility and an absurdity. Many scientists will tell you that the Big Bang is a dying belief, it is only surviving because the option to believe in God does not exist in secular science.
Ron, you said: “Cosmos evolution is an impossibility and an absurdity.” Are you not aware that “cosmos evolution”, such as galaxy formation and collision, can actually be observed? Why are you saying it’s impossible?
“Alternative interpretations” are just a way to deny reality in order to perpetuate a falsified belief in a “recent” creation. It can be said that something similar happened during Galileo’s time: his opponents came up with all sorts of “alternative scenarios” to prop up their geocentric worldview.
The argument here is rather limited: the veracity of FB#6, which is a literal intepretation of Genesis. In fact, we don’t really need to go back to the Big Bang to disprove the 6KYA creation week; even 20K years will do.
I’m not going to be able to continue this conversation, but I think you really need to be specific as to how a recent creation has ever been really falsified.
Well, it’s not my problem anymore if you refuse to see the obvious.
And I suppose it isn’t my problem if you refuse to see the obvious, that anything but a recent creation has already been falsified. And unlike you, I am not adverse to putting scientific facts where my mouth is. The problem is that I can’t continue conversing because I will be away, and thus I can’t effectively do that.
Last fall I spoke at a Free Thinker sponsored meeting on scientific evidence for the biblical accounts of creation and the flood, and the best the scientists present had to rebut the evidence I presented was material that didn’t do the job, and which they should have already known didn’t do the job. The peer-reviewed published reports that I was relying on laid out specific points that any refutation would have to account for, and the material the scientists had copied from the internet did not come anywhere close to doing that.
One obvious fact here is that your line of argument consists of nothing substantial but merely to deny, deny, and deny that “stars” really mean stars. Because you very well know that once you accept that stars mean literal stars, you will be robbed of your flimsy and false argument.
I can only shake my head at how fundamentalists/literalists can resort to such dishonest argument as twisting the meaning of common words.
From someone who cannot even present a substantial argument here, your account of your ‘debate’ is quite telling. You claimed that you relied on “peer-reviewed published reports” while the scientists merely “copied from the internet”. Scientists who can’t do better than COPY from the internet? How funny. Your credibility just went down the drain.
Even your logic is faulty. So what if ancient Egyptians also called planets “stars”? IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that the word “stars” cannot apply to stars anymore. It’s non sequitor, Bob.
That’s why you avoided answering my question above, which is: Where is your documentation that the Genesis writer never intended the word “stars” to mean literal stars but only the planets?
Because God has not allowed some people to finally adulterate our faith, they end up chastising our leaders and their speech. it will serve you right to go ahead and establish your church with the new believes you have. After all, that will expand God’s work.
Is there a text in the Bible designating which specific denomination is the one true church? If so, was it not the one originating in NT times and not until the 19th century was there God’s true church?
Jesus remains the Head of His Bride, the Church. I trust Him and none other. All authority has been given to Jesus by the Father over the heavens and the earth, and none can take it from Him. All authorities on this earth are His instruments–whether they be right, obedient, or otherwise–He even used an insolent pharaoh whose remains and that of his vast army now lie at the bottom of a sea. I’ve looked over the comments above and fail to see mention of these most important facts. Is it not more pleasing to our God that we get to know Him rather than argue about that which is beyond our ken? Did Jesus not pray, as recorded in John 17, that we might become one IN HIM, as He is one with the Father? Jesus is returning not for all those who “figured it all out” or for “good SDA’s,” but for those who love Him and love each other just as He commanded us to do. Yes, it is important to know truth, but Jesus said HE is the Truth. What will He say to us who would not love one another because we could not agree on matters beyond our understanding? Our Creator and Savior is eternal–what know we of eternity and how might we interpret such? Know Jesus, recognize His voice, obey His commands, and He will know you when He returns.
Regarding Hokama’s statement that the church was founded on the Great Disappointment, I say, of course it was. Just look at the events.
– Jesus didn’t come in 1844
– All those who believed he would were disappointed
– A small group of them met and studied and prayed for God to reveal to them why he didn’t come
– They arose from prayer believing that he didn’t come because there wasn’t any church that was keeping all the rules…the most important of which was the seventh day as the Sabbath.
– They formed this church as a result.
As such, we are directly related to the Great Disappointment. Notice that they didn’t arise from prayer and conclude that Miller was wrong. No. They believed THEY held the key. THEIR action was necessary. THEIR works were missing.
The birth of this mid-1800’s church which many now believe is the exact design and organizational structure Jesus wanted (it is THE church, HIS church, HE is in control of it) is rooted in the very belief that he didn’t come because WE weren’t ready…We weren’t following him, WE weren’t obeying all the rules. It is in our name for goodness sakes. How can we possibly deny that “keeping” the Sabbath is not a criteria of membership in this church, and therefore, critical to salvation?
continued…
Historically, we have tried to deny that we are a rules or works-based church…that our fundamental beliefs are not the key to salvation. We officially preach that grace is sufficient. But the ORGANIIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, the way it is operated, and the claim that it is THE church contradicts those statements. We have made this church organization a necessary gateway to heaven.
I suppose one could say, “The Great Disappointment Continues” even while we try our best to focus on the Advent part of our name. Maybe making a ruling on exactly how many days it took God to create the world, and deciding whether or not women have equal spiritual gifts will finally qualify this church for the advent. There certainly seem to be a lot of people who believe that will work.
Yogi: Come on Yogi, what do galaxy formation and collision have to do with evolution? Besides, your ‘galaxy formation and collision is witnessed from whose interpretation? Even if it were granted that your galaxy formation and collision were true, what has that got to do with the formation of planets with life? The requirements for life on earth is witnessed to be not sporadic nor capricious, but planned, anthropomorphic, and intelligent. And remember, it’s a far cry from inorganic to organic. There’s no room for evolution fantasy in this system my friend.
Ron, you’re the one who introduced here the term “cosmos evolution”. By using the word “cosmos” and even citing the Big Bang, a “literal” reading of your post means you’re referring to how our universe evolved. (Besides, I was not previously talking about the evolution of life. But just a note: if it’s shown that there’s an outside intelligence behind life on earth, that’s fine with me). Now you’re backtracking by saying “what do galaxy formation and collision have to do with evolution”? Are you now employing Bob’s strategy of twisting the meaning of words? What does “cosmos” mean to you?
It so happened that galaxy formation (part of how our universe evolved and therefore “cosmos evolution”) can be seen by such powerful telescopes as the Hubble. It’s not conjecture but a fact, no matter how much you may deny it.
As I’ve said before, the discussion here is rather limited to the veracity of FB#6. Which is why I focused on the problem of distant starlight because it is enough to falsify a literal reading of Genesis.
Remember, it takes only one instance of falsification. Because stars are established to be much more than 6000 years old, then a literal reading of Genesis — as espoused by Ellen White and the SDA Church — is effectively falsified.
The most dangerous position one can be in is to believe that they are God’s chosen people. You don’t have to read very far through the Bible to find examples of where that belief leads you.