Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

We have to watch out that we miss the main point of this discussion. It may be important to understand what Paul means when he speaks of the law in Galatians, and what Ellen White says about that. But the main point that the author of the articles deals with is the sadness he feels because the book on the commandments twice renounced fails to bring the reader to see Jesus Christ. There he refers to the admonition given by Ellen White as well in this connection.

We have to watch out that our discussion does not get so involved in which commandments that we forget Jesus Christ and the main Corner Stone in our Salvation.

Many of us love to quote 1 John 3:4. It gives a completely new dimension of Jesus Christ in that connection when you compare that verse with the rest of the chapter. No matter how much I tell some people to do that they will stick to verse 4, and that verse alone. Is that fair?

[Murcielago]

If one looks at what is taught as the gospel truth in many sda circles, one has to question whether God suffers from a severe case of MPD.

[childoftheking]

I think understanding the difference between the two laws is important but the main thing is to uplift Christ.

Remember it was the correct understanding of  which law (both) was discussed in Galatians that led to the revelation of the beauty of  Christ, His glory and His love to Waggoner and Jones and which might have led to the finishing of the work in or around 1888.

The author of the Danish article indeed does claim that the book  by DS and SQ disappoints because he could not find Jesus in it but then he goes on to discuss why he feels this way.

It seems to me that there are two mistakes that can be made. One is to misuse Colossians 2:14 as an excuse to practice lawlessness and the other is to claim that it was only the ceremonial law that is spoken of in Galatians. The author of the Danish article perhaps believes there was a 3rd mistake made. He believes that DS and SQ have focused on the difference between the ceremonial law and the 10 commandments in an effort to defend the Sabbath to such an extent that Christ himself and His love is hidden. It seems that he believes that DS and SQ have unnecessarily used that difference to defend the Sabbath.

Back in 1888 the opposition to Waggoner and Jones felt and many feel today that the correct understanding of  the law in Galatians or righteousness by faith is also an excuse to practice lawlessness. Instead it does the opposite.

[Johann]

I think understanding the difference between the two laws is important but the main thing is to uplift Christ.

Remember it was the correct understanding of  which law (both) was discussed in Galatians that led to the revelation of the beauty of  Christ, His glory and His love to Waggoner and Jones and which might have led to the finishing of the work in or around 1888.

The author of the Danish article indeed does claim that the book  by DS and SQ disappoints because he could not find Jesus in it but then he goes on to discuss why he feels this way.

It seems to me that there are two mistakes that can be made. One is to misuse Colossians 2:14 as an excuse to practice lawlessness and the other is to claim that it was only the ceremonial law that is spoken of in Galatians. The author of the Danish article perhaps believes there was a 3rd mistake made. He believes that DS and SQ have focused on the difference between the ceremonial law and the 10 commandments in an effort to defend the Sabbath to such an extent that Christ himself and His love is hidden. It seems that he believes that DS and SQ have unnecessarily used that difference to defend the Sabbath.

Back in 1888 the opposition to Waggoner and Jones felt and many feel today that the correct understanding of  the law in Galatians or righteousness by faith is also an excuse to practice lawlessness. Instead it does the opposite.

I'd have an awful hard time disagreeing with you!

[Daryl Fawcett]

How close is the timing of this to the timing of the request to have the lawsuit against you and Joy dismissed?

I think so. As reliable as any.

And it's the only thing that makes sense. We were also told that some board members resigned in protest. That would be May 2008. Not till early 2009 did we find out who were the current board members. Garwin McNeilus, Stan Smith, and May Chung were gone. Larry Welch was also replaced by C.A. Murray.

Now why would Garwin and Stan have resigned if the story wasn't true?

And I don't see how anyone can question the idea that Danny was funneling 3ABN money into his pocket using book deals, kickbacks, and royalties.

Were those reliable sources?

Even with the few programs that were preaching the third angel’s message, like The Voice of Prophecy, It Is Written, and Faith for Today, I knew it would be an enormous task...

So 3ABN is able to give the message properly which is good since Voice of Prophecy, It is Written, and Faith for Today were not quite up to the task?

Sources tell us that Jim Gilley cast the deciding vote in May 2008 after the directors were informed that the book deal scandal was true, and when Danny then had to leave the room while the directors voted on whether to boot him out of there.

[Bob Pickle]

How close is the timing of this to the timing of the request to have the lawsuit against you and Joy dismissed?

In order to dismiss the suit, they had to come up with excuses to do so. June 26-27, 2008 was when Ronnie got the ball going on that, spreading the unsubstantiated and impossible rumor that the IRS had totally vindicated Danny and 3ABN.

They filed for dismissal on October 23, the day after Simpson led the court in southern Illinois to believe that dismissal was anything but imminent, since he led that court to believe that they would be complying with a court-ordered discovery date, which was October 27, a date he had no intention of complying with.

I really think Jim Gilley, Walt Thompson, and Danny Shelton should be disciplined by their local churches for such deceptions. It was a clear violation of the 10 Commandments.