Alex,

THANK YOU for this marvelous New Year's present!

You are very welcome Arlyn. It's really interesting to see the raw confrontation between Martin and Johnsson -- it makes it easier for me to see how the tension from outside caused so much tension inside.

Have a great 2008.

I had my choice and I took it. Be true to the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or be true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ plus nothing.

"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide."

QOD was the first awakening. Glacier View was my moment to decide and I took it. Tom.

Interesting video. I hadn't ever seen Walter Martin on a scent trail before. He is certainly a blood hound. In one sense I have respect for Johnsson to repeatedly expose himself to Martin. On the other hand it is a bit dishonorable to excuse some of these accused contradictions. And it all reveals the real and main cause of the problems experienced in the SDA Church, the inability to decide (or the fear of the decision) where we will place EGW.

Tom, I too get uncomfortable with this insistence on complete compliance with the church "creed" and that it is put together by the highest order of power on earth.

I still wonder who went and made Walter Martin "Keeper of the Gates" for the "mainstream".

Anonymous

Guess the Book Answers to Questions on Doctrine did it.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church felt compelled to answer Martin. Therefore, he became the "Keeper of the Gates".

To my little mind, neither side has been fair with the other.

Some of my best friends are Seventh-day Adventists and other of my best friends are not. All of my best friends find their assurance in Jesus Christ and not in memberships. Tom

Yeah, it is a tough situation for Johnsson because he has to essentially say, look at what the church actually does with Ellen White on doctrine, not what it says about her.

I wonder what would have happened if the anti-QoD crowd also sat in on a debate versus the cult-hunting crowd.

I have watched down through the 9-14 of the video posts. Some where in there Martin demands an answer for what it would take for Johnsson to see EGW as a false prophet. Finally Johnsson says if she contradicts scripture, Martin triumphantly pulls an EGW quote and Johnsson returns with an EGW quote that contradicts the first but agrees with scripture. I am not sure how to take all that.

Martin keeps pulling quotes from authoritative SDAs that state EGW’s writings as cannon and infallibility of her writings and Johnsson dismisses them as personal opinion referring back to the "Fundamentals". At one point Johnsson points out that Ford was dismissed because he didn't go along with the "Fundamentals". It seems like there was a double standard being actively used. I am surprised Martin call him on this.

Anonymous@11, I have always wondered who can place their self as the "keeper" and guard of Orthodoxy. In this video the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is mentioned. What about the Holiness teachings of the Nazarenes. Martin does have an attack when a sect proclaims to solely follow the Bible, proselytizes accordingly and in reality has a different practice.

I realize that I am viewed a snippet of the conversations that took place on the program. If the SDA church must be labeled a cult because EGW writings are considered an infallible interpreter of scripture then the RC church must also be labelled a cult. The RC church has a teaching magisterium, tradition, and Pope, all who claim to infallibly interpret the scriptures.

I am baffled by this infatuation with Desmond Ford. I would challenge anyone to identify one scholar of note who embraces Desmond Ford's views on the Sanctuary. It seems that the only thing that is endorsed is his rejection of the Church's teachings on the investigative judgement. Is there any scholar of note out there who embraces his unique conclusions based upon the apotelesmatic principle?

It seems to me that Dr. Johnsson was not given ample opportunity to respond before being interrupted by either the Host or Dr. Martin.

The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to use the scriptures alone, but tradition is part of their doctrine.

Protestants, OTOH, claim to use the Bible and the Bible only. With that rubric, the Mormons and Adventists, to the extent the latter use EGW as an infallible interpreter, are both not Protestants. To their credit, the Mormons never claim to use the Bible only but "The Pearl of Great Price" and the Book of Mormon, as well as the decrees of their current prophet, i.e., eliminating polygamy and admission of Blacks (both under duress and pressure from the government or society).

I would challenge anyone to name a non-SDA scholar who accepts the SDA position on the sanctuary and the IJ.

As for scholars who agree with Dr. Ford, no SDA scholar who values his paycheck and position would formally agree. However, privately, is another question.

If you remember Glacier View, it was a fiasco and falsely reported by the "administration" and NOT by the majority of theologians who were there.

Just wanted to insert here a Very Happy New Year to my "old" friends of Spectrum since it is 12:03am in Michigan. It is the lively people here that make this spot on the internet my favorite spot to visit whenever I can grab a few minutes throughout the day (I know some of you think I must sit at this computer all day from the frequent posts!)Thanks for enriching my spiritual and intellectual life and May God Bless you all richly as we walk into another year closer to the second coming!

Sincerely,
Arlyn

Elaine I do not understand your point. If the basis for being labelled a cult is having an infallible interpreter of scripture how does the RC church avoid this designation?
How is the Pope's claim to be an apostle different from EGW's claim to have the prophetic gift?

I also find it interesting the most protestants also believe that some of the early creeds of the church infallible define the doctrines of scripture.

When I listen to Martin attacking the SDA church on the basis that he did it just seems to me that he should first label the big elephant in the room, the RC church, before he goes after the SDA church.

Elaine,

Dr. Ford presented his systematic views on prophecy. Are there SDA or non-SDA scholars who have peer-reviewed his work and concluded that his interpretation of prophecy are correct? For example, did Dr. Martin embrace Dr. Ford's views on prophecy? Are the views of Dr. Ford and Cottrell consistent?

Dr. Ford is fond of saying that there are many who embrace his views. Who are they?

jashmeade, the big elephant wasn't in the room where the conversation between Martin and Johnsson was taking place. The discussion was about Adventism and if it's claim and actual practices add up.

jashmeade, I cannot verify the views of all scholars on Dr. Ford, nor was Dr. Martin ever asked to opine on them, so far as I know.

I have heard both Raymond Cottrell and Ford speak several times and if you have read Cottrell, he did not accept the SDA position on the Sanctuary or Daniel's prophecy, on which it is based. Some of his papers can be found on the internet.

As to who embraces his view, my earlier statement still stands: The Glacier View consensus was NOT agreed upon by most of the scholars, it was the administrators who agreed but some of them had never even read Dr. Ford's papers he gave everyone. IOW, their minds were made up before they attended the meeting! Again, to be redundant, theologians teaching at SDA colleges would be committing professional suicide if they publicly denounced the SDA position. That should be crystal clear. Are you aware of Peter Ballis' book on the pastors who left the church in Australia, Ford's home, after Glacier View? Enlightening reading.

Elaine,
The point is not whether scholars who currently teach at SDA colleges believe in the Sanctuary teaching.

Are they any who embrace Dr. Ford's views on the Sanctuary? He specifically taught certain things about the Sanctuary and the real meaning of 1844. Do you or anyone else embrace Dr. Ford's views on the Sanctuary. Even if we were to assume that the SDA church's teachings on the Sanctuary are not bible based does that automatically mean that Ford's views are correct?

I too have read some of Cottrell's views on the Sanctuary. They do not line up with Ford.

Who would you recommend as having the correct teaching on the Sanctuary?

You state:"The Glacier View consensus was NOT agreed upon by most of the scholars, it was the administrators who agreed but some of them had never even read Dr. Ford's papers he gave everyone. IOW, their minds were made up before they attended the meeting!"

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Dick,

If the show is a critique of the SDA church and it's practices, shouldn't the basis for assessing both have some objectivity? If Martin feels that an infallible interpreter of scripture makes the SDA church a cult shouldn't he apply that standard to other churches as well?

That Glacier View did not have the theologian's agreements has been stated by some who were there. The Review gave the "official" administrative position; a position that I have verbally heard some of them say. That many of the administrators had never read the paper was also admitted by some. This is old history. Were you around during this time? Some of us were and there were several ministers who were "defrocked" or fearful of that if they spoke publicly.
Ever heard of Smuts van Rooyen? There are other ministers who also either were "removed" or left because of this. Read the history.

I have viewed all 14 posts on youtube. The dialogue between both sides is certainly stimulating. And so much of the debate centers on the role and authority of EGW, and her relationship to the Bible and to the Adventist church.Part of the crux of the problem, as I see it, is a misunderstanding of Ellen White's authority and role within Adventism by both supporters and detractors.

If she is equivalent to the canonical OT prophets, then one mistake means everything she says should be totally disregarded(and according to Deut. she should also have been stoned for that matter!). This seems to be behind Martin's line of attack on her writings and the church's use of and stance on her writings. One statement out of line with Scripture, and she is totally discredited. It's all or nothing!

Unfortunately, the Adventist church's real life practice throughout history seems to spring from the same view(at least in many quarters of North America), no matter what the fundamental beliefs may state in theory. As I've had the argument put to me, since she is inspired by the same Spirit as the Bible writers, would she ever say anything out of harmony with them? This is the kind of thinking that leads to viewing her as a source of authority that is totally beyond the scrutiny of the church and the Scriptures. If the same Spirit inspires her, what need is there to ever test anything she says? This leads to the slippery slope that elevates her writings to the position of final arbiter of what the Bible says, and how we view all matters of life and practice as we grapple with the Biblical text. She ends up as the infallible interpreter and arbiter.

This, of course is out of step with the NT view of the prophetic gift and prophets, their nature and function, and how they are to be related by the church to the Scriptures. This is made clear by such texts as Acts 17:11, 1Cor. 14:29, and 1 Thess. 5: 19-22. These texts show that the persons bearing the prophetic message are always to be held subject to the church's evaluation of their message on the basis of the Scriptures, just like we would evaluate any other charismatic person and message. Too often in practice, we have done just the opposite with EGW and her writings.

This opens up the reality that a NT prophet is capable of error, without compromising the validity of his or her gift. This can be seen especially from 1 Cor. 14:29. Why would Paul counsel the church to weigh carefully what the prophets are saying if there was no possibility of error? Paul seems to imply that a prophet can be wrong. This then presupposes the fallibility of the human vessel, rather than the infallibility of God Himself. This is a view of the prophetic gift that runs counter to what Martin is attacking and what our church often seems to support in practice.

If we were to seriously follow what the NT is saying, it then places the onus upon the church to always critically evaluate rather than blindly accept everything the gifted person says. It means that we are to be actively engaged with his or her messages, in light of the Biblical message and text itself, not the other way around. It also gives the picture of a healthy community free to engage with the Bible for itself, and not through the lens of one person, no matter how gifted.

If we, in reality, were to engage with EGW and her writings in this sense, we would be more biblical in our practice. We could sift out truth from error in her writings and also face her own human inconsistencies and shortcomings with no fear of the loss of her prophetic role. And just maybe, the voices that advocate throwing out the baby with the bathwater may also be led to reevalute their own positions too, in light of the Bible itself. I hope that day comes...

jashmeade, if you are interested in Walter Martin's challenges to the Roman Catholic Church you can see some of them on The John Ankerberg Show posted on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tClS31hNmII&feature=related

I think down towards the end of the 14 part Martin/Johnsson debate on YouTube Ankerberg and Martin refused to understand the problem with employment. There is a degree of incompatibility when someone says I want you to pay me but I don't agree with your Fundamental Beliefs or mission. A position that of course arises from the challenge of contradictions in the Fundamental Beliefs.

Frank, that's a compelling thought. In other words the church was errant when they did not sit EGW down and tell her that she could not get away with stating that her "Words from God" were unchallengeable.

Dick,

In a word I would say yes. As I understand the Bible and the NT, no one and their messages is beyond being measured by the canon. Isn't that what canon means? The rule, the measuring stick...For the church to not do this with any charismatic individual is to cop out on our responcibility.

For anyone interested in Raymond Cottrell's personal testimony to the initial beginning of the Sanctuary and IJ discussions which were more than a decade before Des. Ford go to:

http://www.truthorfables.com/Cottrell_IJ_Recollection.htm

You will also find responses to questions he sent to 27 Bible teachers, including the head of every Bible department, assuring them their names would never be revealed. "WITHOUT EXCEPTION the responses said that there is NO LINGUISTIC OR CONTEXTUAL BASIS FOR APPLYING DANIEL 8:14 TO THE ANTITYPICAL DAY OF ATONEMENT AND THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT"

That was more than 50 years ago! What do you think the responses would be today?

From the following URL you can download the book "Chronological Studies Related to Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27" in PDF. It contains Biblical, Historical, Calendrical and Astronomical evidences.
Roll down the page and go to the last item.

http://www.abibliarevela.com/?page_id=19

You will be surprised to understand what realy happened within the SDAC in relation to this subject.
Juarez

I appreciate the discussion here. Just wanted to let folks know that I've added the rest of the video here.

Dick,

The issue is not whether Martin has critiqued the RC church. The issue is has he threatened to label the RC church a cult on the basis that the Pope, the teaching Magisterium, and Catholic tradition are considered infallible interpreters of the scriptures.

His second reason for reconsidering his position that the SDA church was not a cult was the issue of firing ministers for affirming QOD. I find it hard to believe that ministers were fired in the numbers presented on the program for affirming what was published in QOD.

What do you think would happen if Martin threatened to label the RC church a cult on these grounds? He would not be taken seriously. The program seemed more like an episode of the Maury Povich show than a serious effort to discuss issues within the SDA church.

The definition of a cult is an exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric interest.

A sect is a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of common interests or beliefs; a schismatic religious body.

The Roman Catholic church (though not called that for nearly a thousand years) WAS THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PERIOD! There was no other church for more than a thousand years. It was impossible to be a cult with only one church. She was our mother and decided what would make up the canon; preserved them for us; decided the major doctrines accepted by all Christians today, including the Adventist church. They have always claimed to be the official interpreters of the Bible. Their positions are considered infallible only when the Pope has so stated.

Not until the 11th century was there a split into the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. Even so, their doctrines were largely the same, except they did not accept the Pope as their final head and authority.

Rodney Stark, well known religious sociologist and author of a number of books, has explained the difference between "cult" and "sect." The latter is what Adventists were originally when they merged from several different established churches. David Koresh and his followers were a "cult" springing from Adventism, and there are others.

jashmeade, I didn't watch all the YouTube video segments in Martin/Jesuit debate so I can't say where the level of accusations went.

"Martin was a figure of controversy who aroused great loyalty among his colleagues, and deep animosity from many of his detractors. He was criticized by some fundamentalist Protestants for his affiliations with Pentecostals and Charismatics (even though he was a Baptist), and for his refusal to classify the Roman Catholic church as a "cult"." -Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin

Maybe the difference is that the RCC was not claiming to be Evangelical Protestant.

Someone mentioned 'Peter' Ballis as an author on post-Ford departures. Maybe HARRY Ballis (ex SdA minister who was on staff in sociology department of an Australian university), who wrote a thesis on the subject, was meant.
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/expertline/details.php?contact_id=134
The Statement of Beliefs (now 28?) is flashed around like the ultimate arbiter. It is nothing of the kind, unless you happen to be employed by the body. The SoB is a statement that is agreed as representing the collective understanding at a specific date. That is, a delegate at one of the relevant sessions could vote for the current SoB, without believing all of them. Of course, canny administrators will let it be known that they agree, entirely and without exception, to each and every one of the items on the bill, but change the topic if Chapter 28 of Great Controversy is brought up.

New light on Glacier View!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Brinsmead had/has a brother John. They were very close during the first Brinsmead phase, as Bob changed his position the brothers drew further and further apart. By the time of Glacier View John had become totally alienated from Bob. John was in Australia during the Glacier View hearing. He went to the Union Conference president and told him that Bob and Des Ford were together on Ford's position. (The truth is that Des Ford asked Bob if his press could print up Ford's manuscript for the conference and others. Bob agreeded (Bob had been a student of Des years before. They maintained a conversational relationship but not theological consensus.)

The Union President immediately called Neal Wilson. It was late in the conference. The Scholars were at the verge of persuading Neal that Des was trying to help the church out of a tight spot and was not attempting to embarrass the Church. When Neal got the message from down under. He call Des to go for a walk, which they did. Neal told Des--he now know the truth about the cabal between Des and Bob. Des protested. Neal said, Des it's over. The rest is history.

From reliable sources. Tom

The link below takes one to the SDA website where they list their fundamental beliefs. As one can clearly see, they number 28, not the oft repeated (by the Review Editor - in the videos) number of 27.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

Though I was raised in the SDA church and attended their schools, and made every attempt to become a living representation of the SDA beliefs, I never saw any such list delineating the beliefs of the church prior to yesterday (some twenty-odd years following my baptism).

Hearing the repeated reference to the twenty-seven, not twenty-eight, fundamental beliefs, for me, begs these questions:

1) Which one was added, and when, and why?
2) In what manner did the SDA pastor ascertain that I believed in all of them prior to my baptism?

If anyone can shed some light on this for me, I'd so much appreciate it.

"The 28 Fundamentals are a core set of theological beliefs held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Traditionally, Adventists have been opposed to the formulation of creeds. It is claimed that the 28 Fundamentals are descriptors not prescriptors; that is, that they describe the official position of the church but are not a criterion for membership. The beliefs were known as the 27 Fundamentals until 2005 when another was added." Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Fundamentals

I don't know if they add more if members should be required to take a renewed vow or if they would be grandfathered in.

On the "More cult video debate: Walter Martin vs. William Johnsson" blog, Tihomir Kukolja mentions that the debate was from 1985.

Thank you Mr. Larsen.

Are you an Adventist? If so, were you given the list to affirm prior to your baptism? Would it matter to you if, perhaps for the sake of clarification by the GC, beliefs were added or withdrawn?

Descriptors, not prescriptors? Is "the 28" not a mixture of both? In addition, are Church Manual policies not often viewed by some as having prescriptive authority? In any case, as far as I'm concerned, it's life in the Spirit that really matters, more than anything else.

2 Corinthians 3 (The Message)
6The plan wasn't written out with ink on paper, with pages and pages of legal footnotes, killing your spirit. It's written with Spirit on spirit, his life on our lives!

Since the "27" was voted for the first time in 1980, there has developed a general consensus the preamble is as important as each of the fundamentals. Adding "Growing in Christ" changed the numbering, for it took the no 11 FB spot, but the same preamble stands.

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.

Alex,
I got around to seeing the video today. Thanks so much for digging it up. While basically knowing what was in them, I had not seen them as Ankerburg was not on TV in Atlanta on general stations back then. This was an excellant educational service on Spectrum I believe.

I would be curious of how you would "classify" Ankerburg and Walter Martin now that you have seen them on TV... "Fundamentalist", "conservative Evangelicals" or what? What was your preconceived opinion of their belief and has it changed?

Regards,

pat

Glad that you enjoyed the video.

I was not really familiar with John Ankerberg before I posted this, but I poked around his website and read some reviews of his books on the KJV and on Masons. He's fine with newer translations while he makes a mess of factual errors regarding Masonry including recycling old wacky fears about Satanism. Rapture Ready notes that he helped author "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration" back in 1999.

So, following from second-hand information, I would not classify him a fundamentalist, just a good ol' mostly literal southern evangelical apologist, with conspiracy theory tendencies. How's that for labeling?

Reading through his publishing output since 1988, it's pretty clear that he sees his job as an apologist foremost, popping out popular books on the dangerous new Others of the day, whether the New World Order, New Age, the EU, or Islam.

Walter Martin is the consummate evangelical apologist.

One of the things most evident from people who take on theological topics without graduate training is a credulous tendency. Once a person reads widely and starts to notice the historical/cultural shapes to religions, it just becomes a lot harder to get really excited about nailing cults as heterodox. It becomes pretty clear in this video that Johnsson (with a PhD from Vanderbilt) personally knows a lot more about the actual Greek language than Martin does. In fact, Martin never completed his PhD, and got his MA in religious education, not textual criticism or the history of Christianity.

I'm a big fan of autodidactism -- I was home schooled after all -- but there is often a danger that reading oneself into ideas leaves a person without the kind of self-awareness (live, human-to-human contact) that helps in comparing between foundations for truth.

Why do you ask?

I have noticed that you seem to group all "conservative evangelicals" and "fundamentalist" together not noticing they may have different hermeneutical principles...and perhaps label all who believe that the scripture is God's revealed inspired word as "fundamentalist." Just my perception. Correct?

Anonymous, it was Peter Ballis and not Harry, that I referred to. He wrote a book about the departure of many SDA ministers in Australia following the Ford debacle.

Anonymous, I was baptized somewhere around 1970 in the 5th or 6th grade when the pastor insisted that we in that grade should get baptized. If the list had existed I wouldn't have understood it anyway. It would be my understanding that to become a member of the SDA Church it would be reasonable to accept their fundamental beliefs. It is odd to think though that they can be revised "at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word" and I guess I would be automatically expected to believe the revision ... or maybe at that point I wouldn't have to agree on the fundamentals. I am not sure. I am sure, though at this point in my life when asked during a baptism or other acceptance into membership to stand also and reconfirm belief in the "Fundamentals" I am free in Christ to remain seated.

On the question of Martin being a Fundamentalist. I watched part of an Ankerberg Show where he was attacking this Freemason. I thought Martin came off as quite unlikable and with a very narrow very of scripture.

Jashmeade wrote: "I am baffled by this infatuation with Desmond Ford. I would challenge anyone to identify one scholar of note who embraces Desmond Ford's views on the Sanctuary. It seems that the only thing that is endorsed is his rejection of the Church's teachings on the investigative judgement. Is there any scholar of note out there who embraces his unique conclusions based upon the apotelesmatic principle?"

May I refer you to:
http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/exegesisofdaniel/23part7.cfm where Dr. Cottrell recounts the history of what happened at Glacier View. You will see that the percentage of scholars present at Glacier view who agreed with Dr. Ford was over 30 percent. I could give you several names, but I don't feel at liberty to publish them because of all the "witch-hunting" that has gone on in the church since GV. In the report you will see "In the closing poll, on the basis of Hebrews 9, 28 percent still opted with Ford that Christ began His second apartment ministry in the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension rather than in 1844. 35 percent agreed that each of the prophecies of Daniel has more than one fulfillment, and were thus in basic agreement with Ford's apotelesmatic solution to the problem.
34 percent dissented from Article 23 of the Dallas Statement of Fundamental Beliefs."

So that is clear. Desmond Ford was not the black-sheep at Glacier View like the brethren have tried to paint him! Thirty-five percent were in agreement with "Ford's apotelesmatic solution to the problem."

Was it fair then, that Desmond Ford was fired when even the Consensus statement conceded to several of his key positions? Was it fair that the church spent all that money on GV and then to hide their Consensus statement from the church? Why, because it agreed with Desmond Ford? But remember it was voted on by the majority of those present at GV and the will of the people should be respected, instead of the manipulation of the minority.