The One Project in Sydney and Perth: Dr. William Johnsson is Keynote Speaker
August 4, 2016: Dr. William Johnsson, the noted Bible scholar and long-time editor of the Adventist Review, will lead the lineup of speakers at The One Project gatherings in Australia later this month in Sydney, August 20-21, and Perth, August 27-28. Hundreds of participants are reading his two-volume Jesus of Nazareth, published by the denomination’s Biblical Research Institute, in preparation.
The theme of these two events on the east and west coasts of the country is “His Message, His Passion” with the goal of knowing more about Christ and a Christ-centered faith. The book finds Jesus “a real flesh and blood Person who transcended accepted norms and crossed cultural boundaries, sometimes shocking even His devoted followers. He mingled with sinners, cared deeply for the marginalized and shattered concepts regarding women. He changed the world for all time.”
Johnsson grew up in Australia and began his career as a missionary from Australia to India, later joining the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University in the United States. He and his wife have retired in Loma Linda, California, where he continues to write and represent the denomination in inter-faith activities.
Other speakers will include Pastor Japhet De Oliveira, senior pastor for the Boulder (Colorado) Adventist Church; Pastor Dilys Brooks, director of the Center for Women Clergy at Loma Linda University; Pastor Tim Gillespie, a liaison with religious leaders in the community for Loma Linda University and a chaplain at Azusa Pacific University, another Christian institution in southern California; Dr. Terry Swenson, a campus chaplain and faculty member in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University; Dena King, co-owner of The Grey House, a boutique in Estes Park, Colorado; and Pastor Jessyka Albert, pastor for discipleship at the Boulder Adventist Church. Elia King, minister of music at the Boulder Adventist Church will serve as the worship leader for both events.
Copies of Johnsson’s book can be obtained from Amazon. Additional information about these events is available at www.the1project.org on the Web.
” He and his wife have retired in Loma Linda, California, where he continues to write and represent the denomination in inter-faith activities.”
He may well represent himself in this activity, but he does not represent the denomination.
What “official position” has been designated by the denomination that qualified him to be consider a representative of the denomination in “inter-faith activities”?
None of the speakers are “official” representatives of the church. They have personal opinions that they can pontificate, but the church has not officially appointed any of them to represent the church in these meetings.
“None of the speakers are “official” representatives of the church. They have personal opinions that they can pontificate, but the church has not officially appointed any of them to represent the church in these meetings.”
Hey Bill, don’t you feel great in the company of people like that who, according to you, have the exact same representative privileges and theological authority as you do? Exactly the same, i.e., none!
Same with me as well, no official authority for my own opinions. I don’t know about you, but I feel OK about it, no hurt feelings… 🙂
Bill, Elder Johnsson is listed in the current issue of the SDA Yearbook with ministerial credentials issued by the General Conference and his book was published recently by the Biblical Research Institute. He was appointed a special assistant to the GC president for interfaith relations. What additional “official” credentials does he need? And, who appointed you to make pronouncements about the credentials of these individuals? What is your position with the denomination? What credentials do you have?
“. He was appointed a special assistant to the GC president for interfaith relations. What additional “official” credentials does he need? And, who appointed you to make pronouncements about the credentials of these individuals? What is your position with the denomination? What credentials do you have?”
Well, Monte, I don’t know exactly what the title of “special assistant” implies, so I’ll let this point ride for now. But just because he has a book published by the SDA church means nothing in light of the fact they publish any and every doctrine and theology by any and every author.
And if they were dynamically confronted with any error by any author, they would cop out by saying, “Well that’s his personal opinion, and not necessarily a position endorsed by the church.”
And you can be sure if Bill Johnsson makes any challenging statement in his presentation, the leaders would appeal to the same “cop out” that it is his personal opinion and not necessarily endorsed by the church.
As for myself, I am a lowly church member at this point, although at one time was the head elder of a local church. That is until the conference used their influence to undermine my position on various issues. The basic church supported me, but, well, we know how that turns out in any conflict with those in a higher authority.
But that’s OK if the people will allow it. The church has a right to define itself outside scripture if the members OK it.
When was Johnsson appointed special assistant to the GC President for interfaith relations? Ministerial credentials do not make him a representative of the church, does it? Thanks for any clarification, Momte.
William Johnson was chosen to represent the SDA church in a discussion with Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show years ago. One would think that his being a former Review editor would give him credibility; however, at a time when Uriah Smith was editor of the Review, he wrote an article “Our Righteousness” When Sr. White was asked about it, she said “He doesn’t know what he is talking about.”
Not to go off on a tangent here but it was the counsel of a denominational employee to “sell out” and retain a comfy pastoral position and benefits that set Dale Ratzlaff off on his mission to destroy Adventism, if that is what he is doing.
“William Johnson was chosen to represent the SDA church in a discussion with Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show years ago.”
Yeah… we saw how well that went. Martin made him look like a clown. Sorry, there are many credentialed people in the GC, but that does not make them represenative of them.
Its my guess that TW is probably not supportive of this 1P escapade.
Also, lest we forget, WJ was a guest speaker of the Spectrum Third Way debachle a couple of years back that also had Brian McLaren and Samir Selmanovic as speakers.
WJ does not represent me regardless of what is espoused here
That is precisely the purpose of ministerial credentials. Read what it says on the card and in the Working Policy. I do not understand why so many readers make pronouncements about things when they are so obviously ignorant.
Thanks for your input Monte. I am always amazed (or amused???… 🙂 ) by the reaction of some people who honestly believe that nobody but they only have the real, true, and authorized power and understanding of the Bible, therefore their beliefs and interpretations are the only ones that should be accepted by the Church.
Yes, it’s strange enough, but they really and honestly believe that!!! They speak as representing a Church, though we don’t actually know what Church it is – sometimes we don’t even know what they are talking about. Maybe because they talk as some kind of “semi-gods”…
Astonishing, isn’t it?
But George, should we interfere in groups or individuals like this; until proven otherwise necessary? Are all not bad or good as the individuals may decide?
Many times they do speak as represents of the Church; but does the Denomination hold that liability they create upon and by themselves? I would hope that those claiming such authorization are in fact authorized. Does hoping make it true? Is that kind of not like my grandson wanting to be President; without the vote of the elect?
I would always suggest we all think inside HIS Box, or we won’t think at all for long; HE will make sure of that. Evil abounds out there. CHRIST prayed to keep the Disciples out of evil while they were in the world. HE watches out over us also; as long as we let HIM.
If I am credentialed as a dog, does it make me a cat? If I fail to renew or represent my credentials am I still a dog? Then who is my owner holding authority over me; especially if I run away? Is my owner still responsible for me; even though I have the ability to run away?
I assume One Project invited them. I assume the pastor at Boulder Adventist Church authorized them to speak; since One Project states they are housed from there. It would be the pastors responsibility to ensure the mission and credentials in such.
Monte, maybe we do get into a lot of questions here. Maybe not quite so simple.
One Project was formed by 7 Adventist pastors and solicits within its own. Does this make it Adventist or does the denomination hold responsibility in such? Since the One Project bylaws state it is hosted at the Boulder Church and “normally shall conduct its worldwide work through and by permission of the
Divisions, Unions and Conferences in the Church.”; does this mean it is normally under the responsibility of the Church?
I think the intent of individuals and organizations within credentialing also holds precedence here; along with the overriding Denomination intent. Otherwise, who are “we” and what do “we” sanction. I think any of us as “we” hold not only the ability, but the responsibility to question. Otherwise, the question would be “what credentials do we need to represent HIM”?
Monte,
I got the message. I bought Johnsson’s Jesus of Nazareth on Amazon. It isn’t untrue; you can get it on Amazon, but it isn’t cheap and it isn’t reviewed and it isn’t direct, its through a reseller.
Now, how will Johnsson’s books compare to Joseph Ratzinger’s volumes (3) of the same name? They are available in a kindle addition. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Baptism-Jordan-Transfiguration/dp/0385523416/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470488302&sr=1-1&keywords=joseph+ratzinger+jesus
I would call these books about Jesus by Ratzinger, transformative. There was never a pope like him. He spent his pontificate writing and talking about Jesus. Not at all like Bergoglio, who hardly ever mentions Jesus name. I read these books and found almost a kinship with Ratziner’s mind.
Off-topic I suppose, but this thread never really was on-topic, was it?
“I read these books and found almost a kinship with Ratziner’s mind.”
WOW! What do you feel like when you feel so close to “the beast?”…..
Hey, I am not asking this question, this is what some people even here probably want to ask you, but don’t have the courage!
I have no problem in reading any book. Reading books actually increases our ability to “think outside the box,” while some people refuse to “think outside the boox. You know, outside the walls of the SOP “boox”….. 🙂
George,
Read one of his books. It is worth the $10. He isn’t even pope anymore, you’ll be safe.
William, Is there one book you’d recommend above the others?
Has your reading given you any thoughts on why he is no longer pope?
Serge,
Baptism to the transfiguration – That is the one I read first. His thoughts on Jesus and the Sabbath are especially interesting.
I think he resigned because he is a very humble man. You remember what King George said when he heard George Washington had resigned his commission and returned to his farm at Mount Vernon? “…He is the greatest man in the world”
Ratzinger wrote when the small town/church was celebrating his elevation to the priesthood from a novice, “I kept telling myself, ‘this is not about you Joseph.’
He probably believes his prayers do as much good as his administration. Maybe more. He is a man of faith.
I worked for a year in a RC monastery, a teaching order. I had a very good time there, met some very dear people. I had a good friend in the spiritual director of the place. Later, I sent him the Desire of Ages, thinking it might find a place in their library. He sent me a note back saying ~the book contained pernicious error, that he would never recommend it or allow it to be placed in their library.
He never said exactly what it was that irked him. I guess it might have had to do with Mary in her married state but it’s just a guess. I always thought DA was a pretty good book but he hated it
William, I’ll have a look, thanks.
Here is a little more backstory to the resignation, ie, that he felt he lacked the strength to tackle ‘the wolves’ of the Curia, but also allows/ concurs with your view.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-original-story-when-jesuit-cardinal.html
Mark 9:39-40. Matt 7
I dislike blogs for this very reason but I just have to say – really? Why is this even a conversation. The man (WJ) was humble, obviously lacked interest in position or power, pointing all glory to God, the One who gives all authority. A church that criticises is divided. Just focus on what you can do to love others.
Sounds like you are describing the Pope??????
Do you even know the difference?
I notice that CONVICTION is still distorting the English language to the point where he/she is incomprehensible.
And BILL has finally told us the reason for his bitterness towards the SDA church. I noticed, again, that when corrected (this time by Monte) there was no apology forthcoming. There was just a side-step from the real issue followed by a detour down some favourite track off-topic. Typical.
Bill, you make the assertion, “they [the SDA church] publish any and every doctrine and theology by any and every author.” That statement is simply not true. They are extremely selective with authors and theology. They have book committees with rigorous vetting protocols in place. Try getting one of your books printed by them and then let me know how you fare.
Back to the original objection about Johnsson —- For the purposes of the One Project it’s not important whether he or the other speakers are credentialled by the SDA church. The paramount question is, “Are they representatives of Christ?” Many Adventists absent themselves from their regular church and travel long distances (and pay $150 each) to attend the annual One Project simply because they are guaranteed a spiritual feast centred around Christ.
“Bill, you make the assertion, “they [the SDA church] publish any and every doctrine and theology by any and every author.” That statement is simply not true. They are extremely selective with authors and theology. They have book committees with rigorous vetting protocols in place.”
Then they are cursed ten times more than I thought. For you admit they willingly publish spiritual trash after careful consideration.
And if they are so ignorant of the bible and EGW, then they were never qualified to hold any position in the church to have the influence they have on the church community.
All you did, Milton, is heap more contempt and guilt on these people in your zeal to defend blatant apostasy from the word of God. That honest SDA’s would spend money to go hear doctrines of devils is not necessarily their fault. They assume church leaders have some spiritual discernment and would not endorse the attack on the bible they will hear by people who “worship, they know not what.”
The church should apologize to me and every faithful soul they have deluded who assumed they were qualified viable bible scholars and teachers, but are not.
And that you think it is a “spiritual feast” only affirms your own ignorance of the matter. Happily, not every church member is deluded on this issue, even if many are. Obviously, you will get no apology from me. And I expect none from the church. There will no unity. Truth and error do not mix.
Bill, Why are you, an admitted supporter of Amazing Facts, concerned about official channels publishing spiritual trash?
Milton, Bill isn’t one for apologies, even when he makes grotesque statements of falsehood such as “It is finished” uttered by Jesus upon the cross, is written in the future perfect tense; he belches this nonsense to justify his views, derived, not from inductive Bible study but from EGW, the Amazing Facts “ministry,” or other tertiary sources.
The typical hermeneutic employed by this tribe consists of skimming through EGW, getting some half cocked notions, and then going on a fishing expedition in Scripture to “verify” what they think EGW said. Unfortunately, even EGW is read through the eyes of personal prejudice, in this case, perhaps derived from Amazing Facts; consequently, nonsense is read back into EGW and then the fishing in Scripture begins.
Wonder why people are confused?
“Amazing Facts; consequently, nonsense is read back into EGW and then the fishing in Scripture begins.”
Why I would support AF is a good question, Glen. It is comparable to why I still support the local church I attend. Neither advocate in its true historic SDA message given in the beginning of the movement. Theological understanding moves over time as is more than evident in all the various forums around the SDA church. And it always boils down to this. Is the law and gospel being advocated, defended and articulated in the church community in a consistent biblical format?
The original emphasis was sanctification and the law of God and how the law applies to the believing community. It was about the judgment of the church and how the church was to respond to be ready for Jesus to come. The “door was shut” and probation was closed for unbelievers. This was a short period and “didn’t fly long”. Unbelievers were still being “converted” and invited to accept new bible truth and even find Christ for the first time.
It was soon apparent the “door was not shut” for the world, and as time went along it was also necessary to not only define how the law applied to believers after probation was closed, but also how the gospel applied to believers after probation was closed. The 1888 fiasco developed over this issue.
Ever since then, the struggle over law and gospel has never been resolved in any consistent biblical contest.
Amazing Facts and Joe Crews had no real viable answer to the problem and pontificated all over the church what they were sure was the true historic faith. They opposed the doctrine of original sin then, and still do today. They are simply not qualified to teach people the true position of law and gospel in a consistent biblical format. But they also knew that there was a false application of the gospel being advocated and they were “hell bent” to keep false doctrine out of the church. Hello??? False doctrine against false doctrine. And this is where we are today.
It is not truth against error from either side. It is error against error and as Luther stated in his day, “The church community is like a drunken German peasant, you push him up on one side of his donkey, and he falls off on the other.” This is a classic illustration of the SDA movement of today.
So Amazing Facts opposes the false gospel while the advocate a false law. Anyone who denies the doctrine of original sin can not articulate either law, or gospel in a biblical context. So I am in a dilemma as to who or what to support as I see the SDA movement “self destruct” by way of ignorance from top to bottom on both sides of the issue.
EGW understood it and went to Australia and just let it alone for the rest of her life. She just wrote the truth and let the chips fall where they may. She understood the SDA church may not be the final means of grace, but the bible only.
Bill, You ride on a theological Merry Go Round. Always going in circles always stopping at the Decalogue and Mrs. White. Historic Adventism was a nightmare of legalism and confusion. EGW didn’t write at length about the IJ until 1884, JW opposed it in 1850, then espoused it in 1857 but his dear wife waited nearly 30 years.
Uriah Smith and J.N. Andrews [Sanctuary of the Bible uncertain date but early] carried the torch on the IJ until EGW detailed it in SOP vol 4 in 1884. Smith wrote about the IJ before EGW ever did [Sanctuary and the 2300 Days, 1877]. EGW’s IJ comments in the ARSH prior to 1890 appear contradictory and confusing. Perhaps they can be understood but how much time must one spend to understand what she’s talking about?
Then you’ve got J.H. Waggoner’s book on Justification written in 1882, another embarrassment to the denomination.
Around 1888, EGW wrote that “Brother Smith doesn’t know what he is talking about”; the editor of the Review, one of the denominations most influential theologians, doesn’t know what he is talking about.
That remark was almost certainly in response to an article about RBF he wrote, entitled “Our Righteousness.”
The Reformation was confusing at times, too but it was reshaping the future of the Western world and tearing down a thousand years of culture and tradition.
May I suggest that the only sure manner for the views of Mr. Sorenson and his type to be finally dealt with in a definitive manner can be found in actuarial tables. This is typically how different theological differences of opinion are usually resolved with a given faith community. The problem is that these things take time and some of us — the writer included — are impatient.
Bill, I categorically deny that I “admit they [the SDA church] willingly publish spiritual trash.” You are dishonestly putting words into my mouth. Readers of this thread will quickly see through your ruse.
Have you ever attended a One Project meeting? If you haven’t then I suggest you have little right to judge. If you have attended then I suggest that you completely misunderstood the message. The meetings I attended were Christ-centred. To label them as “doctrines of devils” is to repeat the charge of the Pharisees when they accused Jesus of being demon-possessed. As a Christian I find your accusation to be offensive. It’s in need of clarification or elaboration. What are the”doctrines of devils” preached at the One Project? Give me your short list. Simplify it to about three.
“Have you ever attended a One Project meeting? If you haven’t then I suggest you have little right to judge.”
No, Milton, I have not attended a “One Project” meeting. And I don’t go to the Catholic church either. But I don’t need to “attend” either to evaluate what they teach. I can read.
And I can discern that the “Jesus only” emphasis is simply an attack on the law in the name of the gospel. The bible is not “all about Jesus”. It is about man and the fall of man, and sin and man’s accountability to God and more than a few other things that concern the kingdom of God.
I know it sounds so “highly spiritual” when it is suggested that the purpose is to “uplift Jesus” and “glorify Jesus” and “honor Jesus” and who could oppose that? I can. That’s who. And others are equally aware of the false application and even phony ideas that captivate the minds of the people who are so ignorant of bible truth they are easily led into oblivion by false ideas that sound so spiritual and so highly commendable.
It reminds of the Morris Venden and his “sanctification by faith alone” that helped prepare the way for the “One Project” that is the offspring of the Venden delusion. But it is just one of many and every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” spouts some off the wall idea from “God doesn’t kill” to who knows what, it is all published by the church.
How about Kevin Ferris and his article in the Review in 2005?
It was entitled, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment”
It was a typical “off the wall” presentation endorsed by “the church”, or it would not have been in the Review. He affirmed that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place at His ascension to perform the work typified by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in the old covenant service.
And he built his whole argument based on this false Dr. Ford delusion that most of you embrace on this forum and over on Spectrum. Never mind it is was blatant denial of our historic bible position, our “highly enlightened” spiritual leaders published it in our “official” church paper as a viable understanding of what SDA teach about the judgment.
And the book “Perfect in Christ” by Helmet Ott who described the SDA presentation by EGW the “so-called investigative judgment” with his scorn and contempt for our historic teaching based on the bible and articulated by EGW.
Oh yes, our leaders are “highly enlightened” in the bible as they spread every lying deception of the devil all over the church even in our official publications.
As David Read pointed out, who needs “Jesuits” to corrupt the church when it can corrupt itself as Rome sits by and laughs at the pure stupidity of the church that claims to defend and support the bible? And watch as many even here support Rome as the spiritual leader in the world today?
You will have God apologizing to the devil before you all get through. Sick church.
Even if your position is more correct than the others, I’m just wondering if the aggressiveness in debate can really cause them to re-think their position; or, if, rather, perhaps, it counterintuitively encourages them to dig in more.
Note, that I am attempting to encourage civility — not discourage the message you are bringing.
“Note, that I am attempting to encourage civility — not discourage the message you are bringing.”
Well, Ted, methods of communication are diverse, aren’t they? It can be a soft gentle breeze, or a Tornado. And all levels in between. This is how the bible is written in all levels of communication by the various writers.
Anyone could chide Paul for being to forward and dynamic in dealing with his critics. And John seemed a bit wimpy at times with his message of “love” and tolerance and patronizing others. And Jesus was classic of all types of witnessing depending on his subjects who he addressed.
Mr. “Nice Guy” in Matt. 23 is “in your face” with the self righteous elements of leadership in His day. And on one occasion after such an encounter, his disciples stated, “Don’t you know they were offended by what you said?” He simply replied “Offenses must come, but woe to that man by who the offense cometh.”
True bible faith has been “helter-skelter” from here to there and back again for six thousand years. Sometimes, truth against error. But more often, error against error.
The 1888 fiasco was classic and the angel told EGW that neither side had it all right. But then, neither side had it all wrong, either. In which case, what do we do? We try to sort out what was true on both sides, and what was error on both sides. One side used the law (Smith) to negate the full implication of the gospel.
The other side used the gospel (Jones) to negate the full implication of the law. All you have to do is read EGW’s letter to Jones to see he was a real novice in understanding law and gospel, and she tried to correct him. Didn’t work, did it? He eventually attack her and left the church.
But just in case anybody is wondering how and why it happens, this is it. Someone will state some objective bible truth, and almost immediately wrest it from the bible and place their own idea of just what it means, and how it should be applied. Dr. Ford is classic. Then they try to “force” the bible to say what they think it ought to say in meaning and application.
Even if it don’t fit, never mind, they think it should, and when it becomes obvious that it don’t fit, they then attack the bible as unreliable and hold tenaciously to their error. Strange infatuation. Self righteous “higher enlightenment” than anybody else, and even the bible must yield to their convoluted understanding.
A perfect picture of people like Ford, and his kind, but we see a more comprehensive view in this spirituality in the formation of the Catholic church.
And in the end, what is the final justification for all this false doctrine.
“We (I am) are led by the Holy Spirit and I can not be wrong.”
Women’s ordination is classic in Adventism. So, “these women have spiritual qualification and this ‘proves’ God has called them.” The bible be damned. The “Spirit has led.”
Bill, I asked for your short list of 3 “doctrines of devils” taught at the One Project. I have tried to extract the three from the verbiage. Here’s what I get.
1. They attack the law (I assume you mean selections of the Torah, not the whole)
2. They preach sanctification by faith alone (I assume this is in contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of sanctification by faith plus works)
3. Jesus went into the MHP at the Ascension. (I assume you refer to that devilish doctrine found in the Book of Hebrews)
And you threw in another horror for good measure. That is, the One Project supports Rome.
So, Bill, you have picked up all this valuable information from your reading. You don’t want to attend and verify it for yourself. What a shame.
I just want to say that before a court makes a judgment of condemnation (as you do) or exoneration the judge insists on the testimony being from an eye-witness. The judge will throw out testimony that the witness has read in the newspapers or on the internet. The court goes to great lengths to shield a witness from reports made by others. It’s called bias.
Don’t believe everything you read, especially about the One Project. My first-hand experience is that the speakers do not preach any of the topics you mention. Your condemnation is unwarranted.
“I just want to say that before a court makes a judgment of condemnation (as you do) or exoneration the judge insists on the testimony being from an eye-witness.”
Hog wash. A Christian doesn’t have to experience sin to testify against it, nor does he have to attend meetings where sin and error are advocated.
“Get a life” Milton. You guys are so desperate to defend lies and false teaching you will manufacture any scenario to defend your false agenda. I reject your testimony as false and impious.
Bill, “There is more hope for a fool than a man who answers before he hears the end of a matter.” I don’t have an opinion on the One Project since I haven’t attended but you seem to be quite certain in your view of it, also having never attended. You support “Amazing Facts,” even though you apologize for doing so. Does it depend on your audience? The work of Amazing Facts” is to teach Christians the “binding nature of the Decalogue”; additionally, the modus operandi is to let other denominations “make Christians” of people and then steer them into Adventism.
Fact is, SDA have been known as sheepstealers for decades because of this approach to “soul winning.” That’s one reason they were disliked by other Christians in China. People would come from abroad, even sacrificing their lives to win a soul for Jesus and SDA would come along and bring people under the Decalogue in order to be saved.
It’s very sad for you, Bill. Your real problem is that you are simply an old time legalist who doesn’t understand the gospel. I guess F.F. Bruce’s “Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free” might give you some insight. If that book is too thick, try “Christian Liberty.” One or both might help. Dr. Bruce, you know, was a Plymouth Brethren.
Is Mr. Sorensen sounding more and more like the text book narsististic Donald Trump? The constant dogmatic in-your-face comments, the lack of empathy, and the constant need to draw attention to himself as the fount of all truth. May I suggest that Mr. Sorensen’s response to this suggestion will provide additional evidence of his narcissistic characteristics.
May I quickly note that the truthfulness or lack thereof of Mr. Sorensen’s retrogressive ideas needs to be rebutted on the basis of the nature of his arguments not on the basis of his personality characteristics.
I don’t understand why anyone has bothered to engage Bill Sorensen and friends on this news piece. It is colossally narrow-minded of him to pettifog whether Johnsson represents the denomination in some capacity. if you folks had simply ignored him, how many comments do you think you would see posted by him here?
All religious discourse is opinion. Conv???tion, Bill Sorensen, William Abbot, et. al., please reveal to me how you know your opinion is “righter” than all the rest, including Ratzinger, and Dr. Johnsson. You allow no room for other professions of faith, only your own. Opinion is nothing but guesses, estimates, speculations, supposition, assumptions, presuppositions. Yes, you can copy and paste scriptures for your notion of support, key texting, but your choice of texts is only an opinion of what meets your private proof criteria. As doctrinaires, you make noise, but you wear no clothes, naked as Jay Birds. Your noise is Blah Blah Blah. That’s because every person is a proper assimilator and interpreter of his /her faith, always nothing but personal opinion.
Intense belief doesn’t elevate one’s opinion to word from God. Opinions are human creations.
Get over it. Your belief is fine for your enjoyment, but has nothing to recommend to others. You aren’t right and everyone else wrong. It’s an ego exercise, pride on display, when you spout your viewpoint as singular orthodoxy. Didn’t Christ often pitch verbal hand grenades at the proud Pharisees theologicrats whom he called white washed tombs?
I await your proof that your opinion represents perfect orthodoxy in the face of everyone else’s heresy. Oh, then, why does it matter? We all die as do all thoughts and theologies. Judgment and reward delayed until after death is effectively meaningless.
Bugs,
What have I done?? Where’s the kindness? Where is your charity? Where is the love and understanding? What did I say?
Is it possible you did not read my posts?
Your real question is why. The answer is because someone has to.
Someone has to sweep the floors, clean up the messes and pick up the broken pieces. Is that you?
Someone has to be here for HIM and others. Is that you?
We are here because we made our choice; HE will not allow otherwise. You are here because you have choice and swayed by every whim that comes along.
We are here for and Love others. What are you here for? What is your purpose in life and the real question “why”?
You believe and profess self. We profess and reverence HIM.
You follow your traditions. We stand fast and hold tradition taught by Word and epistle.
HIS Theology does not die, HIS Judgement is real and HIS Sacrifice has meaning; all meaning.
We do not drive the nails in farther; because we preach HE came in Flesh and Blood. What do you preach?
From my daughters. Let’s drive a long distance and pay $150 for HIS Blessings? That really helps everyone. Why contend association with the Church, but not have sanction? Why do you preach that evil is good; only making the responsibilities in their network of multitudes much more difficult?
Why Australia, where families are scared to walk the street? Where Juvenal violence is rampant. Where the Country and many individuals and Churches have asked for help? Is preaching your same old failed doctrine going to help anyone? Did you not create the problem? Did anyone ask you for help? Did HE guide you to help or to complain?
Wow, that was quite a spray, Bill. How did you manage it in so few words?
I notice your neck is getting redder. Is that a rising blush of embarrassment, having realised your condemnation of the One Project was based on second-hand evidence and without foundation? Or are you a natural redneck?
“Wow, that was quite a spray, Bill. How did you manage it in so few words?”
Well, let’s see, Milton, if your “logic” has any credibility?
You contend that we must be there to evaluate the validity of what is taking place. We can’t read material, or listen to the testimony of others and hope to arrive at a viable conclusion.
In which case, your appeal to a “judge” who must make a decision based on testimony of others and the evidence they affirm is totally bogus. How could he possibly make any viable decision based on the testimony of others, since he was not there and did not see or hear what happened?
Your whole theory is as bogus as you are. But let’s go one step further. Since none of us actually saw Jesus die on the cross, we can not know if it is valid based solely on the testimony of others who affirm the event.
So let me ask you, “Do you still affirm that I must actually go to one of the “One Project” meetings before I can make any valid judgment about the spirituality of the ministry?”
If you still claim this is the only valid way of determining what they teach or the spirituality of the ministry, I’ll leave it to others to see if they affirm your inane conclusions as being valid or bogus.
You can plead calumny without proof, but then content that others need proof within plea of calumny? Are you not your own worse witness? Why would you consider yourself so special?
We have the best foundation in plea; you. We hear your discriminatory non-Loving remarks. We do not see the requests going to you to fix the problems in Australia or see you in the think tanks or as theological representation to help. We do hear your name many times as one perpetuating the problem. You grow rebellious children because you are nothing more than a child. Now others live with impact of that which you created. The self induced problem, the BIBLE is not good enough for you; HE is not good enough for you. Maybe the question you should ask yourself; are you good enough for HIM?
Your first problem is thinking that anyone would need to drive far distances and pay $150 for HIS Blessings. HE is always there; where we are. HIS Blessings are always there; where we are. But you have to deny yourself and take up your cross first. HE and HIS Loving arms are always there to hold you. You have not grown past the point of HIM holding you or you needing HIM. That is your problem, but it definitely does not help in solving the problems you created. Placing yourself into HIS works will help with that. Otherwise all you do is create problems for others to clean up; then have the audacity to place blame.