The Church Triumphant: Author Interview with Mark Finley


(Steve Mga) #22

Elmer -
So far in 2018 and 2019 it is the Clergy telling the Laity.
No conversation regarding grievances of differences in understanding
reading “the Word”.
Parent talk – “My way or the highway”.


(Thomas J Zwemer) #23

The Book Of Revelation If correctly understood is the victory of the Lamb over the beast. Men and women who stands firm with the Lamb are the trophies of that victory.The emphasis on the final generation as expressed in classic Adventism is totally misplaced. The Cross is the evidence God has of the final victory. The church does not get a victory lap. So humility rather than boasting is in order. Let us sing the mighty power of God.,. Man is either the prize or the pawn.

Ted Wilson et al treats man as pawns to his will.For shame, however the initial intent is seems that all churches fall into that trap. Redemption is personal not institutional.


(Stan Lastings) #24

As always Phillip thank you for your informed responses. Could you steer me in the direction of the anti trinitarian strain and their presentations/writings present in the anti WO crowd.


(George Tichy) #25

WOW… Just another story among many of the same kind.


(George Tichy) #26

I wonder what would it take to get a new generation of Adventist that would be different. Can something filter those bad things that we know from the past?


(George Tichy) #27

Yes, but those guys are paid to talk, not to act.
Sorry, you won’t see action!


(Robert Lindbeck) #28

A pure and simple case of entrapment.


#29

The Jews, of Israel, of Shem, of . . . were once the family of people chosen by God to retain a proper imagination of Themselves on Earth, and of the transcript of Their own character, inscribed by the Christ’s own finger in stone. But at some point the Jews became distracted by the very limited topic of themselves. Then they chose to ‘create’ God in their own character and image,-- instead of the other way around – in a twisted perversion of the limited truth they then had regarding God. (Before Christ.) Ellen White described this self-elevating, step-by-step falling procedure of the Jewish nation (or ‘church’) very well:

“The effort to earn salvation by one’s own works inevitably leads men to pile up human exactions as a barrier against sin. For, seeing that they fail to keep the law, they will devise rules and regulations of their own to force themselves to obey. All this turns the mind away from God to self. His love dies out of the heart, and with it perishes love for his fellow men. (Note: EGW just described the two self-less ‘love’-focuses of the 10 mandates engraved in stone – God and peers.) A system of human invention, with its multitudinous exactions, will lead its advocates to judge all who come short of the prescribed human standard. (Note: The Jewish leaders even judged God, the Christ, according to their own, personal, human standard.) The atmosphere of selfish and narrow criticism stifles the noble and generous emotions, and causes men to become self-centered judges and petty spies.” {MB 123.1}

The Pharisees were of this class. They came forth from their religious services, not humbled with a sense of their own weakness, not grateful for the great privileges that God had given them. They came forth filled with spiritual pride, and their theme was, “Myself, my feelings, my knowledge, my ways.” Their own attainments became the standard by which they judged others. Putting on the robes of self-dignity, they mounted the judgment seat to criticize and condemn." {MB 123.2}

"The people partook largely of the same spirit, intruding upon the province of conscience and judging one another in matters that lay between the soul and God. It was in reference to this spirit and practice that Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” . . . . “That is, do not set yourself up as a standard. Do not make your opinions, your views of duty, your interpretations of Scripture, a criterion for others and in your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal. Do not criticize others, conjecturing as to their motives and passing judgment upon them.” {MB 123.3}

Apparently, it is not only reluctance to continue learning the truth about God – as opposed to Satan’s lies – that can bring any society down. Such a ‘fall’ can also be the natural consequence of twisting and fragmenting such limited truth that is known in ways tailored to suit the desires of those who would be the supreme ‘judges’ of all others, whether the ‘others’ be human, or Divine.

So, on the face of it, I am guilty of criticizing and judging the hearts of SDA General Conference leaders that I can not possibly know. Yet, a tree is judged by its fruit and only a fool would blindly choose to be poisoned more than once by the same tree.

Trust is earned.
The SDA General Conference has not only refused to continue learning about God, but chooses to continue twisting the limited truth that they have in that regard, to suit the desires of a minor, bullying ‘majority’ of judges. They have chosen to condemn others – and the infinite God, even – to justify themselves, by a mere ‘majority vote’. Whom will they judge and condemn next ?
Myself, and others who refuse to trust them ?
. . . refuse to trust them simply because they ‘advertise’ that they and their ‘brand’ of GC ‘self’-poisoned truth can be trusted ?
Trust is a gift worthy of being earned.

It would be safer to trust a General Conference that highly valued such trust with both God and with peers, instead of more highly valuing their elusive ‘brand’.
I don’t want to hear from arrogant, truth-twisting GC ‘salesmen’,
(Even if they say they want to learn more . . . so they can twist that, too?)
I want to hear from un-twisted satisfied GC ‘customers’.


(Nathan Robinson) #30

If I had read this statement seven years ago, I would have completely agreed . . . but that was when I was paid to believe it. Today, I find the notion that the 28 FBs are “non-negotiable” to be utterly incomprehensible and indefensible. I wonder if Finley truly believes this. (Or is the grammar suggesting that only the FBs that “identify and distinguish” SDAs are non-negotiable? And is this any better?)

A statement like this is the direct analogue to the position of the Catholic Church regarding the value and place of Apostolic/Church Tradition and Papal Edicts. It boggles the mind and chills the soul to read this interview.

Maybe the prophetic nature of the SDA church is rooted in Revelation 13, not 14.


#31

Sadly, this is a ‘tame’ interview. It lacks depth, insight and
the courage to come to grips with the issues currently
plaguing the Adventist Church.
One is tempted to question the credibility of both the
interviewer and the interviewee. Is this a book promotion for Mark Finley?


(Phillip Brantley) #32

This is a shockingly candid discussion in the SDA context by Matthew L. Tinkham, Jr.: https://www.academia.edu/34969929/Neo-subordinationism_The_Alien_Argumentation_in_the_Gender_Debate. And this is a good discussion in the general Christian context by Kevin Giles: https://godswordtowomen.org/trinity.htm.

Ted Wilson recently distanced himself from neo-subordinationism in his remarks at PMC. Before his remarks, he reviewed my question (which can be compared to a 95-mile per hour fastball right under his chin) along with about 70 other questions that were submitted online. If he were systematic in his thinking and capable of putting two and two together, he would bemoan what occurred in San Antonio in 2015 and change his position on women’s ordination. But let’s give him a little bit of credit. His remarks are green shoots in the wasteland inhabited by Seventh-day Adventist opponents of women’s ordination, none of whom have ever publicly and unequivocally denounced this anti-Trinitarian heresy.

The most charitable thing we can say about Mark Finley with respect to this heresy that has engulfed the Seventh-day Adventist Church is that he does not realize what is happening and does not understand what we are talking about.


(George Tichy) #33

The 28 are nonnegotiable for those people as long as they can violate number 14. What kind of nonnegotiability is this? Pure hypocrisy!


(George Tichy) #34

I am sure that the interviewee is reading this thread and the readers’ reactions. I wonder why doesn’t he come and answer some of the questions and concerns that have been raised. :thinking:


#35

The unity-at-all-costs thrust by the administration is lacking in one element. Actually, its prophet wrote it best:

“Wherever the power of intellect, of authority, or of force is employed, and love is not manifestly present, the affections and will of those whom we seek to reach assume a defensive, repelling position, and their strength of resistance is increased. Jesus was the Prince of peace. He came into the world to bring resistance and authority into subjection to Himself. Wisdom and strength He could command, but the means He employed with which to overcome evil were the wisdom and strength of love.”—Testimonies for the Church 2:135, 136 (1868). {1MCP 210.2}


(Steve Mga) #36

George –
Mark now has an office right next to President Wilson’s.
What ever is in PRINT is difficult to take back and you can’t tell your
Boss, “I didn’t say that.” or “I didn’t MEAN that”, like one can when just
speaking verbally without being recorded.


(ROBIN VANDERMOLEN) #37

ECCLESIASTES,

You hit the nail on the head, when you proclaimed this “ a TAME interview.”

The women’s ordination issue was “the elephant in the room” as both questions and responses did not confront this current controversy head on .

Let us call a spade a spade and not use euphemisms like “ unity “. Finley, another white man with “privilege” , parlays the church’s politically incorrect misogynistic stance perfectly.


(Steve Mga) #38

While we are semi-discussing Bible. Let me make 2 comments for
response.

  1. Revelation 1:12. John sees 7 lamp stands. But ONLY that he sees
    7 lamp stands. NOT where they were except next to Jesus.
  2. Revelation 4 and 5. The Throne. And something to burn incense on
    in front of the throne.
    It DOES NOT say it is a ROOM. Or, even in a BUILDING.
    Compare that with Revelation 21:22 John sees no Temple. Comments that
    the “bodies” of the Father and Jesus ARE the Temple.

In our descriptions of Heaven and all that pertain to Heaven in our Doctrines,
what do we do with this? OR, what do I do with this?


(George Tichy) #39

I know Steve, aren’t you glad that your desk is not in that room next door to TW? If I were the Prez, you would enjoy the position I would certainly offer to you. But not with a LGTarian there… :rofl:

Then, on a serious note, those people around Wilson are either, 1) Hypocrites who are failing to live by the right principles just to keep a job, or 2) They are just of the same fabric as Wilson, supporting discrimination, LGT, etc.

The whole gang must “go” in 2020, and be replaced by people who are more seriously committed to the Christian principles. Will it happen??? :roll_eyes:


(Harry Elliott) #40

Chapter 12 starts,

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

There never was such a woman–in the sky or in what we call heaven. ( Her head would have to be billions of miles in diameter to accommodate such a tiara.) The author uses the imagery and phraseology of the OT and our pioneers speculated which details–if any–represent tangible reality.

Well, it’s obvious that all of it doesn’t, so why do we keep pretending we know? I guess it’s the “invented here” syndrome. [Back-construction of N.I.H.]

Our brainstorm that the rites of the old covenant describe what Jesus will do in heaven is stamped void by:

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (Heb 10:11, 12)


(Harry Elliott) #41

There’s a part of the story that we are trained to overlook. "On the day that God created’ everything, there was no plant life, because God had not done either of two actions, each of which would have provided irrigation to the potential plants: God had not

  1. Caused it to rain, on the one hand, OR
  2. Created a human to distribute the abundant water table to plants which were in the soil.

(Why would God need a man to tend a garden in the midst of a world-wide garden?)