advindicate

Open full view…

Misreading Adventism's present conflict — ADvindicate

Tue, 02 Dec 2014 02:11:29 GMT

PrayFastWordGo
Sat, 06 Dec 2014 06:00:33 GMT

Happy Sabbath!

George Evans
Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:00:43 GMT

bobryan asked, >Have you ever seen/heard a sermon from Ty where he claims that on 4 sep occassions we have consistently voted down righteousness by faith? The rejections were never official votes although one was narrowly avoid at the Minneapolis Conference by Ellen White's own direct intervention. And Ty doesn't have to say it. It's written in history. The first one was right after 1844 which brought us the 45 years of "dry as the hills of Gilboa" she spoke of in the 1888 era. The second was the early 1890's rejection of Jones and Waggoner. The third was in the early 1930's when Taylor G. Bunch's thesis in _From Exodus to Advent In Type and Antitype_ was rejected. The fourth was in the 70's when the church went with Ford instead of acknowledging Wieland's thesis in _1888 Reexamined_. Three times God has brought messengers to correct the initial mistake after 1844, and three times these messengers have been turned down, leading to another 40 year lap in the wilderness. >…nobody here argues against righteousness by faith… As you can read in chapter five of Wieland's _18 88 Reexamined_, entitled "The Fundamental Problem: How to Evaluate the 1888 Message," the issue has never been righteous by faith _per se_. The question has always been whether or not we accept the particular brand of RBF identified as "the third angel's message in verity" and "the most precious message." When confronted with these unique elements in the other discussion of Ty's paper, David Read yesterday said, >Well, George, I did ask what J&W taught that the modern Adventist church does not believe, and if J&W taught what you're teaching, the modern SDA Church does not believe any of it at all. Question answered. So there's the elephant.

Doug Yowell
Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:48:42 GMT

"Ty, is not wrong to frame the contemporary issues in the past. His only mistake is he did not go back far enough.' As Bob Ryan continues to point out, trying to fix any particular happening in our church history as the reason we are having problems today is so nebulous that it becomes a problem in itself. And going back ever further is contradictory to the very positive admonition given us; “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history” . If God has led us in the past He has also led us in the creation of our corporate church structure. If not He has not led us since 1863. It is only if we deviate from that leading that we create problems. So far we've managed to keep the original model intact and Ty Gibson's 1888 example is still awaiting application.

George Evans
Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:55:30 GMT

Doug Y. wrote, >So far we've managed to keep the original model intact… Apparently you missed the line of questioning David put to me in the other discussion regarding whether or not the church has accepted the unique 1888 brand of righteousness by faith. The concluding answer to the question was, Not yet. So a more accurate assessment would have been, So far we have ignored the original 1844 model and Ty Gibson's 1888 example is still awaiting application.

Bob Ryan
Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:20:15 GMT

>BobRyan said > Have you ever seen/heard a sermon from Ty where he claims that on 4 sep occassions we have consistently voted down righteousness by faith? > @georgethe54th >The rejections were never official votes although one was narrowly avoid at the Minneapolis Conference by Ellen White's own direct intervention. And Ty doesn't have to say it. It's written in history. The first one was right after 1844 which brought us the 45 years of “dry as the hills of Gilboa” she spoke of in the 1888 era. The second was the early 1890's rejection of Jones and Waggoner. The third was in the early 1930's when Taylor G. Bunch's thesis in From Exodus to Advent In Type and Antitype was rejected. The fourth was in the 70's when the church went with Ford instead of acknowledging Wieland's thesis in 1888 Reexamined. If you believe Ty's article had to do with his view about Taylor G. Bunch, or something in the 70's about Desmond Ford -- why do you suppose he failed to mention any of it? It looks like the tendency to insert everything from WO, to methods of evangelism, to Taylor G. Bunch into Ty's article - is the result of Ty not actually naming any specifics other than complaints about Butler in the 1880's.

Bob Ryan
Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:23:25 GMT

> @richconstantinescu > Great to see you back, bobryan! Thanks Rich. Great to be here again and see a lot of friendly screen names from the EducateTruth and LSU days.

George Evans
Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:20:42 GMT

bobryan wrote, >It looks like the tendency to insert everything…is the result of Ty not actually naming any specifics other than complaints about Butler in the 1880's. Your attempt to limit Ty's comments to Butler are not supported by facts. In the section titled "A Confederacy of Control" he says, "Earlier, in 1894, Ellen White warned of those in positions of leadership who were 'looking to the formation of a confederacy that would make Battle Creek like Rome' (Publishing Ministry, p. 144)." Butler wasn't even a part of this confederacy she is warning about. The confederacy included Harmon Lindsay, A. R. Henry, Clement Eldredge and the one she named as leader, Dan T. Jones.

tilston
Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:44:33 GMT

Dear Kevin, God bless you for defending the church's position so eloquently: "It would seem the author is convinced that knowing the true gospel of grace, as he perceives it, is more important than strict faithfulness to the written Word" It fills me with great joy to SHOUT YES! YES! YES! The "gospel of grace" is JESUS, "The Word made Flesh," the beautiful one whom I'm in delirious love with, of whom Ghandi said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” "Faithfulness to the written word" is the "dry as bones" religion of the Pharisees. It does not make us beautiful or happy. In fact, a computer or a rock can keep God's laws perfectly but JESUS is a PERSON. He is all beautiful and ALL grace, read it for yourself in the gospels and spare yourself the grief of reaching back into the bondage and blackness of night that Jesus came to deliver us from. He is the lover who seeks after His beloved and satisfies her most intimate longing. I can testify of that. What madness would it be t o reject a lover like that to choose again to be a servant? I choose relationship over rules, a relationship that wants nothing but to please because love in its perfection (1st Corinthians 13) does not need to be told not to kill or steal or covet, thus it goes FAR beyond law. I KNOW this because I live it and there is NO TURNING BACK.

collins
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:20:29 GMT

I agree, tilston. It may be unfortunate wording, however, to describe it in a way which might seem, to some, to be putting relationship and rules in conflict with each other. They really aren't, as you alluded to.

todd
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:17:14 GMT

There is no such thing as relationship over rules. You can not have one without the other. Even our Father in heaven had rules in heaven before the fall and it was these rules that satan could not agree with and revolted over. Love fulfills rules and does not get rid of them or force one to choose one over the other.

Doug Yowell
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:36:22 GMT

"There is no such thing as relationship over rules. You can not have one without the other." By using the contemporary word "relationship" it is assumed that simply having a "relationship" is the object of propriety. But it has become most often a misuse of the word. Everyone who has some sort of connection with another has a "relationship". The unfaithful wife has a "relationship" with her husband. The disobedient 14 year old has a "relationship" with his parents. The majority leader of the Senate has a "relationship" with the minority leader. The Lord has a "relationship" with Satan. I think todd has wisely alluded to the fact there is no PROPER, or RIGHT "relationship" apart from the rules which define it.

Bob Ryan
Tue, 09 Dec 2014 03:24:51 GMT

> @georgethe54th > Your attempt to limit Ty's comments to Butler are not supported by facts. In the section titled “A Confederacy of Control” he says, “Earlier, in 1894, Ellen White warned of those in positions of leadership who were ‘looking to the formation of a confederacy that would make Battle Creek like Rome’ (Publishing Ministry, p. 144).” Butler wasn't even a part of this confederacy she is warning about. The confederacy included Harmon Lindsay, A. R. Henry, Clement Eldredge and the one she named as leader, Dan T. Jones When I say "Butler" I mean to include all who joined with him. Ty's article does address Butler and Smith in their opposition to the 1888 message - right into 1892 and I assume beyond - ====================================================== >In 1892 Ellen White wrote to Uriah Smith: >> “The many and confused ideas in regard to Christ’s righteousness and justification by faith are the result of the position you have taken toward the man and the message sent of God. But oh, Jesus longs to bestow upon you the richest blessings . . . Justifica tion by faith and the righteousness of Christ are the themes to be presented to a perishing world. Oh, that you may open the door of your heart to Jesus!” (1888 Materials, pp. 1053–1054). >Two weeks earlier she had written to Stephen Haskell ==================================================== She was very specific with people and with the problem she saw in specific things they were teaching. That is refreshing.

George Evans
Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:09:57 GMT

bobryan wrote, >When I say “Butler” I mean to include all who joined with him…Ty's article does address Butler and Smith in their opposition to the 1888 message – right into 1892... I'm not sure you are understanding the Minneapolis event and what followed. It sounds more like you are accepting the party line that the whole thing simply was a dust up between four men, followed by a reconciliation within a decade. Butler quickly faded from view, and by 1890 Dan T. Jones was firmly established as the "ring" leader. Within a year of 1888 Ellen White was talking about his ring of control, saying it would have to be broken up if the 1888 message was going to get anywhere. By that time Butler was retired in Florida and O. A. Olsen was the president with Lindsay and Henry at his sides directing him. You need to read Ron Duffields _Return of the Latter Rain_. It covers all this history in detail. The ring was not broken up and, as President Daniells attests, was still c ausing trouble for the message in 1902. So it had survived for over ten years and I am guessing it is still alive.

George Evans
Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:19:11 GMT

bobryan also wrote, >She was very specific with people and with the problem she saw... Indeed she is provides a wealth of information in regard to church history. The letter to Uriah Smith quoted above is one of many items available for study in the four volume _1888 Materials_ published in 1987 by the White Estate.

Shane Hilde
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:24:07 GMT

Sorry about the comments disappearing. They're back now.

Paulo Cordeiro
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:28:05 GMT

Excellent article, Kevin Paulson and what an insightful response to Ty Gibson's article! I wonder why Ty Gibson had or is having (I really don't know!) an encounter with Rick Warren (I saw a picture with both of them), and one can simply ask: is he more comfortable with Rick Warren than he is with the "The Old Covenant Brood"? I don't know neither, but one thing is sure: some actions can probably speak louder than some words!

Gerry Wagoner
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:15:45 GMT

Ty's latest venture is co-authoring a book with Dwight Nelson, Tim Gillespie, Nathan Brown, Kendra Haloviak and Lisa Diller.

George Evans
Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:10:44 GMT

Paulo asked, >I wonder [if] Ty Gibson…is more comfortable with Rick Warren than he is with the “The Old Covenant Brood”? I'm guessing that Ty, like me, is trying to help both see the most precious message since we both learned at the same man's knee. >I don't know neither… Are you sure? Are you a Seventh-day Adventist? The "Brood" R Us. Do you ever agree with Kevin Paulson? What do you think of the idea of God's unilateral justification and forgiveness of the whole human race at the cross?

margaretsong
Mon, 06 Jul 2015 05:30:02 GMT

Excellent article. Gerry, oh no.

ruthfuraus
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:05:06 GMT

Kevin Paulson's article was more clear to me. I read it because I was so confused after reading Ty's article. Like Paulson said, there were many phrases and words that were not defined. There were insinuations that were not explained. I hope he responds with a version that has an interpretation for each vague idea presented and a descriptive explanation of the type of people in each group he is talking about. I really don't know which people groups he is referring to among the many varieties of Adventist groups we have. I need it to be spelled out and what the specific problem behavior is and the way it should be resolved specifically. Sorry but I didn't get Ty's message.

next
last page