Hal Steenson And John Lomacang, Power Options

[roxe]

and how is what they do different from the old sermons we use to hear in adventism regarding the ABC's of prayer, i.e. Ask, Believe and Claim?

In fact isn't it possible that the church at large has been influenced by this concept and not just 3ABN?

clay,

i've been thru three seminars in years past by glenn coon; and have his books.

(1) he does not advocate putting the promises into our own words.

(2) he does not advocate using the promises as DEMANDS.

(3) he does not say that while we are abc-ing the promises, that everything we think, or dream, or say, is coming from God.


one method DEMANDS, and then alleges that we are a "prophet"...

the other method shows faith and trust in God's word and His timing.


at least, this is how i see a BIG difference in the two methods.

roxe

This post has been edited by roxe: Dec 4 2006, 10:44 PM

[IMM]

It has been a long time since the preferred SDA teaching on the trumpets went "back to Josiah Litch".... though there are those who still use that, I'm sure. I'm not sure of Gallimore's qualifications as a scholar, but if he is going back to Litch and Jones, then he is certainly behind the times himself. That is NOT to say that I would agree with any futuristic version of the trumpets... especially if they are being used to predict specific "cataclysmic events"... and if they are being used that way because they are seen as being the same as the seven last plagues.


Yes there are similarities between the trumpets and the plagues. But there are also differences... the chief of which is that the trumpets come in the historical section of Revelation and the plagues come in the eschatological section... and also that the trumpets are given as warning and for the purpose of turning men's hearts to God, while the plagues are "poured out unmixed with mercy" which we have understood to mean that they are not poured out until after the close of probation.

The main difference between our interpretations in the 19th century and those that are developing now is that then we were mainly looking at physical literal interpretations/applications... while now we are primarily looking at them for their symbolic and spiritual applications. I'm not sure who really started the move in that direction, but certainly Ellen White, while never speaking against the literal applications of her day, did give a gentle nudge in the direction of spiritual applications when she talked about the spiritual blessings that would come from a deeper study of Revelation.

Probably the most prominent scholars in this area that we have at present are Jon Paulien, who just recently moved from being the Chair of the New Testament Department at the Seminary at Andrews to being the Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda University, and Ranko Stefanovic, Chair of the Department of Religion at Andrews, who just recently published a very readable Commentary on the book of Revelation, entitled, Revelation of Jesus Christ copyright 2002 by Andrews University Press, where it can be purchased on-line. Jon Paulien has a set of tapes on Revelation and is currently working in cooperation with Graeme Bradford to produce a new Revelation Seminar Series. Paulien's doctoral thesis was in Revelation with focus on the trumpets. Hans LaRondelle is also an authority in the area of end time prophecies, and his section on the trumpets compares different views and explains why he holds some and disagrees with others. His book that covers this is entitled How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible unfortunately this book seems to be out of print so you would have to find it in someone's library. Perhaps he has replaced this with another title, but that I do not know about.


It would probably be more helpful to become familiar with the authors above before you try to sort out what Galimore and Lomacang are saying.

This thread has definitely encouraged me to go back and study things that I haven't studied for awhile. That said, I do not wish to take sides regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anyone's views of the trumpets until I have done more personal studying.

Regarding Gallimore supporting Litch's and Jones' views of the trumpets--since I haven't yet heard his sermon I'm not sure that's what he said. My mother commented that the "traditional SDA views" began with studies by Litch and Jones, but she did not say whether or not that is what Gallimore teaches. He may or may not, I will know more after I listen to his tapes and read through the powerpoint.

I am concerned to see that you listed LaRondelle, whose book has been reviewed and seemingly endorsed by Desmond Ford http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/199...nderstand.shtml , as an authority. Again, I have not read that book, but it is interesting to think that a prophetic view endorsed by Ford represents the currently held SDA views on prophecy.

[Clay]

clay,

i've been thru three seminars in years past by glenn coon; and have his books.

(1) he does not advocate putting the promises into our own words.

(2) he does not advocate using the promises as DEMANDS.

(3) he does not say that while we are abc-ing the promises, that everything we think, or dream, or say, is coming from God.
one method DEMANDS, and then alleges that we are a "prophet"...

the other method shows faith and trust in God's word and His timing.
at least, this is how i see a BIG difference in the two methods.

roxe

Thanks for your two comments that have cleared up things a bit... I am familiar with the "word of faith" concept (there is a thread around here somewhere on it), and agree that the way it is used by those who practice it is wrong or at least arrogant.... it is like they have the "power" tp tell God what they want and he better do it no questions asked... that in my opinion is dangerous....

[watchbird]

This thread has definitely encouraged me to go back and study things that I haven't studied for awhile. That said, I do not wish to take sides regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anyone's views of the trumpets until I have done more personal studying.

Regarding Gallimore supporting Litch's and Jones' views of the trumpets--since I haven't yet heard his sermon I'm not sure that's what he said. My mother commented that the "traditional SDA views" began with studies by Litch and Jones, but she did not say whether or not that is what Gallimore teaches. He may or may not, I will know more after I listen to his tapes and read through the powerpoint.

I am concerned to see that you listed LaRondelle, whose book has been reviewed and seemingly endorsed by Desmond Ford http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/199...nderstand.shtml , as an authority. Again, I have not read that book, but it is interesting to think that a prophetic view endorsed by Ford represents the currently held SDA views on prophecy.

Very good points you make... especially about Gallimore.... and what he really said about the topic. I will be very interested to hear more details once you have seen and heard his material.

As for your concern about LaRondelle... he is a Professor Emeritus of the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews. There is no cloud over his name so far as I know. And the fact that Ford wrote approvingly of it should not be taken as a "cloud". In the disputes between Ford and the church there were only four points out of the 14 or so that were brought up at Glacier View that he and the church could not come to an agreement on. He is still one of the best defenders of the Sabbath around... especially in those areas where we are challenged by Evangelical arguments... which are somewhat different than those we have historically had to meet.

This book of LaRondelle's is focused on HOW TO understand Apocalyptic prophecy in the whole of scripture. But in actuallity nearly the whole book is devoted to Revelation. Nowhere that I could see does he even intersect with the positions that Ford took contrary to SDA views on a few verses in Daniel. So there would be no reason for either Ford or a mainline SDA to have any quarrels with LaRondelle in this book. Yes, Ford did play up the ways in which LaRondelle echoed his own views... but he had to stretch some to try and paint LaRondelle into the same corner he habitually paints himself into.

It is the best of the three for comparing and explaining the different views that are "out there". And along the way, as he gives his views of which is correct and which is incorrect, I think you will find all three books essentially in harmony.

[watchbird]

and how is what they do different from the old sermons we use to hear in adventism regarding the ABC's of prayer, i.e. Ask, Believe and Claim?

In fact isn't it possible that the church at large has been influenced by this concept and not just 3ABN?

These are very good questions, Clay. And yes, the "church at large" has definitely been influenced by "this concept"... and not only nor primarily from Glen Coon's seminars on "The ABC's of Prayer", though probably most devient teachings on prayer use the same "Ask, Believe, and Claim" formula that is developed from Matthew 21, Mark 11, and John 16.

Now it may not be intuitively obvious how one gets the "formula" from those chapters.... but when they present it, it sounds convincing and it is nearly impossible to listen and realize how much they are distorting the intended message of the passages.

But once the formula is developed... then all it takes is a little mixing together with New Thought concepts of the "intrinsic power" in our words and thoughts, Eastern concepts of "reality" (for lack of a better word at the moment), Theosophical world views, and various strains of "Name it and Claim it gospels". And once that is all stirred together, accepted and promulgated by Pentecostals so that it enters Adventism from a "Christian source".... then... given the same strains that have lurked in our own history.... they make for easy acceptance and further morphing into views that sound a lot like Adventism but in fact are from a whole different source and on a far different foundation.

Roxie did a very good job of putting her finger on some of the readily observable differences.

clay,

i've been thru three seminars in years past by glenn coon; and have his books.

(1) he does not advocate putting the promises into our own words.

(2) he does not advocate using the promises as DEMANDS.

(3) he does not say that while we are abc-ing the promises, that everything we think, or dream, or say, is coming from God.
one method DEMANDS, and then alleges that we are a "prophet"...

the other method shows faith and trust in God's word and His timing.
at least, this is how i see a BIG difference in the two methods.

roxe

Glenn Coon was a very popular "campmeeting speaker" for most of his active life... (he is dead now but his son carries on his same lectures, or so I am told, I have not examined them.) I recall hearing him in 1957... a year that had some specific traumas such that his messages should have been a very welcome thing.... and would have been had not I even then had the sense that it was not all that easy nor that predictable. So essentially, even that far back, I backed away from it.

In the late '70's it morphed into a seminar course called "The Positive Way"... which carried on from where Glenn left off, and inserted things that I was to learn later to recognize as coming straight from the "Positive Thinking" messages of many different groups... from the Crystal Cathedral, to Norman Vincent Peale, to various secular Success and Goal setting groups, to near occultic teaching from New Age materials, and back to Christian sources again with the various Word of Faith and Pentecostal groups.

That prepared the ground for the even more strident versions that Roxe notes as "demanding".... which quickly became "commanding" God to act... and along the way picked up the power concepts of "commanding" demons. It is not a pretty scene... but it is difficult to describe the differences between that and true Biblical Christianity because of the similarity of their terminology with truly Christian terms.

[watchbird]

Thanks for your two comments that have cleared up things a bit... I am familiar with the "word of faith" concept (there is a thread around here somewhere on it), and agree that the way it is used by those who practice it is wrong or at least arrogant.... it is like they have the "power" tp tell God what they want and he better do it no questions asked... that in my opinion is dangerous....

Exactly. And it is "dangerous" for a variety of reasons. The most dangerous, of course, being that it does involve commanding not only God, but Satan as well.... and that opens the way for spirit communications that come from Satan... even though the spirit may appear as an "angel of light".

But besides this (and the facts are that God protects people who dabble in this much more than they or we realize) there are the immediate psychological and physical dangers inherent in "claiming" a promise as though it had already happened when in fact it hasn't. This becomes very obvious when utilized to the point of claiming "healings" from God rather than consulting with medical doctors. But it is equally dangerous when it involves things of the mind... habits that are denied rather than overcome, for example... to say nothing of the fact that it is essentially lying... and lying has it's own penalties.... not only from a moral standpoint, but also from the practical damage one does to oneself when doing whatever mental gymnastics are required to believe the lies that one is telling.

And when this is extended to "claiming the promise"... or the victory... or the healing... for someone ELSE...... then there is the potential for even more damage... not only to oneself, but for ones associates for whom one is "praying"..... in the stident (New Thought, New Age, Spiritistic) demanding sort of way.

As I said.... it ain't a pretty picture.... and the more one sees of it the more repulsive it becomes.

[Ed White]

You're so right.

Having heard only the last of a series of sermons on the 7 trumpets by John Lomacang I would say John is biblical & SOP correct in stating that the 7 trumpets are in the future, he is following bible truth in quoting Revelation 9:4 where it tells of the 144,000 being sealed with the Fathers name in their forehead and they cannot be “hurt” by any of the 7 last plagues that will be falling as soon as Jesus throws down the censer in Revelation 8:5 which is the close of probation. If Jay Gallimore would have studied this subject out for himself as John is attempting to do instead of repeating the memory work of old material that Adventist inherited from the world his sermon could have been a benefit to the Adventist people/tongues/nations instead of a hindrance. It is reported on this thread that he used he the Josiah Litch factor in suggesting that his message was right & John’s message was wrong. Many Adventist seem to think when this Sunday keeper made his prediction about the Ottoman Empire falling, he was in a prayer circle with Ellen White. Not so, she was only a child of about 12 years old. What Jay G. was doing in his sermon was “damage control” but it is impossible Jay to fight error with more error, especially what you have never studied for yourself as John is attempting to do. You listen to this last sermon of John’s and give it as must thought and prayer as the time you spent preparing your damage control sermon & your knees would tremble like Belshazzar knees did the night when an unseen Watcher wrote on his palace walls.
John just may be wise enough to not allow this mans [or any man] interpretation of prophecy rob him of his conviction; at least that is my prayer.

It has been a long time since the preferred SDA teaching on the trumpets went "back to Josiah Litch".... though there are those who still use that, I'm sure. I'm not sure of Gallimore's qualifications as a scholar, but if he is going back to Litch and Jones, then he is certainly behind the times himself. That is NOT to say that I would agree with any futuristic version of the trumpets... especially if they are being used to predict specific "cataclysmic events"... and if they are being used that way because they are seen as being the same as the seven last plagues.
Yes there are similarities between the trumpets and the plagues. But there are also differences... the chief of which is that the trumpets come in the historical section of Revelation and the plagues come in the eschatological section... and also that the trumpets are given as warning and for the purpose of turning men's hearts to God, while the plagues are "poured out unmixed with mercy" which we have understood to mean that they are not poured out until after the close of probation.

The main difference between our interpretations in the 19th century and those that are developing now is that then we were mainly looking at physical literal interpretations/applications... while now we are primarily looking at them for their symbolic and spiritual applications. I'm not sure who really started the move in that direction, but certainly Ellen White, while never speaking against the literal applications of her day, did give a gentle nudge in the direction of spiritual applications when she talked about the spiritual blessings that would come from a deeper study of Revelation.

Probably the most prominent scholars in this area that we have at present are Jon Paulien, who just recently moved from being the Chair of the New Testament Department at the Seminary at Andrews to being the Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda University, and Ranko Stefanovic, Chair of the Department of Religion at Andrews, who just recently published a very readable Commentary on the book of Revelation, entitled, Revelation of Jesus Christ copyright 2002 by Andrews University Press, where it can be purchased on-line. Jon Paulien has a set of tapes on Revelation and is currently working in cooperation with Graeme Bradford to produce a new Revelation Seminar Series. Paulien's doctoral thesis was in Revelation with focus on the trumpets. Hans LaRondelle is also an authority in the area of end time prophecies, and his section on the trumpets compares different views and explains why he holds some and disagrees with others. His book that covers this is entitled How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible unfortunately this book seems to be out of print so you would have to find it in someone's library. Perhaps he has replaced this with another title, but that I do not know about.
It would probably be more helpful to become familiar with the authors above before you try to sort out what Galimore and Lomacang are saying.

[PeacefulBe]

Having heard only the last of a series of sermons on the 7 trumpets by John Lomacang I would say John is biblical & SOP correct in stating that the 7 trumpets are in the future, he is following bible truth in quoting Revelation 9:4 where it tells of the 144,000 being sealed with the Fathers name in their forehead and they cannot be “hurt” by any of the 7 last plagues that will be falling as soon as Jesus throws down the censer in Revelation 8:5 which is the close of probation. If Jay Gallimore would have studied this subject out for himself as John is attempting to do instead of repeating the memory work of old material that Adventist inherited from the world his sermon could have been a benefit to the Adventist people/tongues/nations instead of a hindrance. It is reported on this thread that he used he the Josiah Litch factor in suggesting that his message was right & John’s message was wrong. Many Adventist seem to think when this Sunday keeper made his prediction about the Ottoman Empire falling, he was in a prayer circle with Ellen White. Not so, she was only a child of about 12 years old. What Jay G. was doing in his sermon was “damage control” but it is impossible Jay to fight error with more error, especially what you have never studied for yourself as John is attempting to do. You listen to this last sermon of John’s and give it as must thought and prayer as the time you spent preparing your damage control sermon & your knees would tremble like Belshazzar knees did the night when an unseen Watcher wrote on his palace walls.
John just may be wise enough to not allow this mans [or any man] interpretation of prophecy rob him of his conviction; at least that is my prayer.

Was this series by John Lomacang titled something like "Revelation Revealed"? If so, I saw all but the Friday night episode and was very impressed with his presentations. As I recall, Shelly Quinn was the moderator for the programs and raved about the presentations. When my mother tried to order the Friday Night episode, she was told that they were not recorded would never be offered for sale. That raised our eyebrows a bit. This would explain that confusing development.

While I am not a Biblical scholar of any esteem, as I watched and wrote texts down I never noticed anything controversial. I did note some interesting takes on a few things. I will have to dig through my old recordings and see if I still can lay my hands on these.

My next observation is - if John Lomacang is presenting subjects that Hal would consider so wrong and controversial, why is he still one of the co-presenters of "House Calls" answering scriptural and spiritual questions that come in from viewers?

[Ed White]

Peacefully
This must have been the same series that your mother tried to order & was told no. As soon as I saw this last program I knew that trouble was coming. Within days I received an email from one of their program directors asking for my bible position on the 7 trumpets in CDs done over the last 8 years, she mentioning of the “stink” this sermon of John caused to the entire church family. This is not the place to consider the 7 trumpets of Revelation 8 & 9 to know with any certainty, but this subject if John would have only known that many SDA ministers on the payroll have heard these words "You teach the 7 trumpets the way we do or find yourself another job".
But don’t become bewildered truth can always stand investigation.

[Pickle]

Peacefully
This must have been the same series that your mother tried to order & was told no. As soon as I saw this last program I knew that trouble was coming. Within days I received an email from one of their program directors asking for my bible position on the 7 trumpets in CDs done over the last 8 years, she mentioning of the “stink” this sermon of John caused to the entire church family. This is not the place to consider the 7 trumpets of Revelation 8 & 9 to know with any certainty, but this subject if John would have only known that many SDA ministers on the payroll have heard these words "You teach the 7 trumpets the way we do or find yourself another job".
But don’t become bewildered truth can always stand investigation.

Ed, I see you've earlier claimed that this teaching is biblical and according to the SOP. Personally, I disagree, and I believe I have solid evidence to that effect.

I have not heard of any SDA ministers being told that. But if I were in a position where I would have opportunity to says such a thing, I would instead present the convincing evidence I have accumulated that supports what we have taught on this topic.

Part of the problem has been that we too often accept the positions of our pioneers without finding out why they taught what they did, and without seeking additional evidence in support of those positions. Another part of the problem is surface reading.

I have a relative who felt the trumpets were future, and we discussed it a bit. Unlike some, he still believed what Great Controversy says about Rev. 10 and 11. I therefore made two points:

• According to Rev. 10:7, six of the seven trumpets have already blown. Thus, if Rev. 10 refers to the Advent Awakening, those trumpets must have blown by 1844.
• According to Rev. 8:13; 9:12; and 11:14, the last three trumpets are called three woes, and Rev. 9:13-11:14 are all part of the timeframe of the sixth trumpet and second woe. Thus if Rev. 10-11:14 are past, the first six trumpets are past as well.

He thought awhile over both points and agreed that they were correct.

[Ed White]

Ed, I see you've earlier claimed that this teaching is biblical and according to the SOP. Personally, I disagree, and I believe I have solid evidence to that effect.

I have not heard of any SDA ministers being told that. But if I were in a position where I would have opportunity to says such a thing, I would instead present the convincing evidence I have accumulated that supports what we have taught on this topic.

Part of the problem has been that we too often accept the positions of our pioneers without finding out why they taught what they did, and without seeking additional evidence in support of those positions. Another part of the problem is surface reading.

I have a relative who felt the trumpets were future, and we discussed it a bit. Unlike some, he still believed what Great Controversy says about Rev. 10 and 11. I therefore made two points:

• According to Rev. 10:7, six of the seven trumpets have already blown. Thus, if Rev. 10 refers to the Advent Awakening, those trumpets must have blown by 1844.
• According to Rev. 8:13; 9:12; and 11:14, the last three trumpets are called three woes, and Rev. 9:13-11:14 are all part of the timeframe of the sixth trumpet and second woe. Thus if Rev. 10-11:14 are past, the first six trumpets are past as well.

He thought awhile over both points and agreed that they were correct.

Pickle then do you agree that Hal Steenson bible knoweledge is correct and the sayings an ordained SDA minister is wrong? You sound like one of the latter ministers to me, but let us not hyjack this thread & consider this subject elsewhere. So why don't you start a new subject on the 7 trumpets and invite me to the threads location? I maybe harder to convince than was your realtive which I think gave up to quickly without seeing all the evidence. It must be on the weight of evidence for us mortals to arrive at a decision on any of doctrines that Jesus hand delivered to John the Revelator.

[Pickle]

Pickle then do you agree that Hal Steenson bible knoweledge is correct and the sayings an ordained SDA minister is wrong? You sound like one of the latter ministers to me, but let us not hyjack this thread & consider this subject elsewhere. So why don't you start a new subject on the 7 trumpets and invite me to the threads location? I maybe harder to convince than was your realtive which I think gave up to quickly without seeing all the evidence. It must be on the weight of evidence for us mortals to arrive at a decision on any of doctrines that Jesus hand delivered to John the Revelator.

Hi Ed.

I enjoy this subject immensely and assure you that I have a lot of evidence on this. But you are correct that it should be taken up elsewhere. The problem is that my plate is too full at present, and the only reason I made comments here is that, given my convictions, I would not want this thread to promote those kind if ideas. That doesn't mean I can't respect people who hold differing views.

Until we do have time to discuss it, you might want to take a look at my paper, "The Seven Trumpets of Revelation: Were the Later Reformers Right?" It is by no means exhaustive, and does not address different points you might make, and thus there would be plenty for us to discuss whenever I get freed up.

[Ed White]

Hi Ed.

I enjoy this subject immensely and assure you that I have a lot of evidence on this. But you are correct that it should be taken up elsewhere. The problem is that my plate is too full at present, and the

Pickle what a loss to this forum to not see the documentation you have in contrast to the truth/error I might provide. This reminds me of a boy in the 9th grade science class that NEVER did his homework when asked by the teacher "John what is electricity"? John said, "I once knew, but I forgot". The teacher than said "What a lost to mankind, the ONLY person in the entire world that could define electricity and he forgot!"

[Clay]

Pickle what a loss to this forum to not see the documentation you have in contrast to the truth/error I might provide. This reminds me of a boy in the 9th grade science class that NEVER did his homework when asked by the teacher "John what is electricity"? John said, "I once knew, but I forgot". The teacher than said "What a lost to mankind, the ONLY person in the entire world that could define electricity and he forgot!"

Ed no need to attempt to bait or lure Pickle into a discussion... you have been a member here before you know how it works... you can post your info to your hearts content, so start a thread and share whatever if you are so inclined..... if it is on the 7 trumpets, I'd ask that you start it in the theology area....

[Ed White]

Ed no need to attempt to bait or lure Pickle into a discussion... you have been a member here before you know how it works... you can post your info to your hearts content, so start a thread and share whatever if you are so inclined..... if it is on the 7 trumpets, I'd ask that you start it in the theology area....

Clay I was hoping that you would have read the entire thread from the time I begin posting that way you would have see that my subject was about this thread & the reasoning for all my words. It was me that suggested to Pickle to start another thread in post # 41. Is this what you call "baiting"? If this is the case, then I am guilty, get on with your punishment/punishing, but in the mean time since this thread is about John L. sermon vs. a pentacostal pastors views, maybe you should ask John to give you a private bible study the next time he is in your area. He can defend his position a lot better than Hal S.