Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[appletree]

but, the three angel's message is not non-denominational. Of course you knew that much. (more evidence of the double-minded)
Then I trust you'll be the first to successfully explain how the apostle Paul took the message to "the whole world" (Rom 1:8) but the end didn't come.
If only...well, you know what I mean.

The mountain that you all have made out of the court documents that say 3abn is non denominational, is nothing more than burying your head in the sand. It seems a simple thing to realize that the statements are a technicality of accurately staying within the law's descriptions.
Technically: 3abn is not a denomination in and of itself. It is an independant ministry.
Therefore: 3abn cannot be referred to (in a court of law) as an Adventist denomination, an Adventist church or an Adventist organization. Again, 3abn did not make this decision. The attorney's have expertly researched the differences, by law, of an independant ministry vs the organized church. That being said, under the law, 3abn is technically not an Adventist organization. Strictly "BY LAW."

3abn has and always will teach adventists beliefs along with health practices that are no longer just the "adventist way." They have never in any way, varied from beliefs of the church.

The mainstay beliefs of the church such as, Burning Forever, The seventh day Sabbath, The State of the Dead, The 3 Angels Message, are represented daily on their programming. Anyone who even insinuates differently would be telling a lie. As much as it seems Johann wants to plant seeds of question as to "where 3abn is heading", the question does not exist.

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

[SoulEspresso]

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?

I've heard more than one church leader privately express extreme reservations about 3ABN for many reasons, and one master's-level Bible teacher who said publicly that church leaders (with whom he was in regular contact) were concerned because all 3ABN's programming was decided by one man--implying that the channel could go astray very easily when it came to Bible issues.

Ten Commandments Twice Removed is a case in point--and I do beg your pardon if anyone here helped pass it out--but there were major flaws in that book that demonstrated a lack of Bible knowledge on the part of its authors. (I'm also bitter because we lost some evangelistic prospects in our community when a couple of members mailed it out, without the leaders reading it first. Why did we lose prospects? Not especially because of the flaws in scholarship. The book is so soaked in spiritual pride it's a wonder it doesn't spontaneously combust ...)

The church used to cooperate with 3ABN because it brought people in, but I've gathered over the years that at least some leaders privately have held for years that Danny was a loose cannon.

This post is pseudonymous, so you'll have to take it for that; I can't name names without potentially identifying myself.

[lurker]

A major doctinal recent doctrinal deviation by a certain leader is the teaching by implication and insinuation that a certain person's (or a certain ministry's) good is weighed against the bad and God approves, blesses and saves those who measure up. That prosperity is proof of this salvation. The teaching is that all are sinners but if one brings enough souls into the church and/or benefits the church or benefits others by his works or by his donations, God will approve his or her personal life.

Instead , the way I understand the gospel, God has already forgiven us. One must unconditionally surrender to the influence of the Holy Spirit and truly repent of his sins, depending on the atoning blood of Christ for salvation and yielding to God's leading in living the Christian life.

This post has been edited by lurker: Aug 22 2007, 06:51 PM

[PeacefulBe]

You keep saying this... and yet you never quite manage to do it...

I suppose if we give in and let you have the last word, peut-etre, then you might actually accomplish this, non?

In His service,
Mr. J

Ou peut-être pas..., oui?

[PeacefulBe]

The mainstay beliefs of the church such as, Burning Forever, The seventh day Sabbath, The State of the Dead, The 3 Angels Message, are represented daily on their programming. Anyone who even insinuates differently would be telling a lie. As much as it seems Johann wants to plant seeds of question as to "where 3abn is heading", the question does not exist.

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

Burning Forever?!!! 3abn daily teaches that someone is going to be burning forever? Which fundamental is this one?

[panther]

PB: NO 3abn does not believe in burning forever. My guess is that appletree forgot to put in "NOT" in front of it.

[WillowRun]

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

I believe this was an error in judgement. 3 ABN was always presented in my part of the world as a Historic Adventist undertaking. I think the GC saw this as a means to get their message out on the cheap. From the beginning they should have been doing what they are now with the Hope Channel. Then who did what and when on 3ABN would be a non issue.

[LaurenceD]

The mountain that you all have made out of the court documents that say 3abn is non denominational, is nothing more than burying your head in the sand. It seems a simple thing to realize that the statements are a technicality of accurately staying within the law's descriptions.
Technically: 3abn is not a denomination in and of itself. It is an independant ministry.
Therefore: 3abn cannot be referred to (in a court of law) as an Adventist denomination, an Adventist church or an Adventist organization. Again, 3abn did not make this decision. The attorney's have expertly researched the differences, by law, of an independant ministry vs the organized church. That being said, under the law, 3abn is technically not an Adventist organization. Strictly "BY LAW."

3abn has and always will teach adventists beliefs along with health practices that are no longer just the "adventist way." They have never in any way, varied from beliefs of the church.

The mainstay beliefs of the church such as, Burning Forever, The seventh day Sabbath, The State of the Dead, The 3 Angels Message, are represented daily on their programming. Anyone who even insinuates differently would be telling a lie. As much as it seems Johann wants to plant seeds of question as to "where 3abn is heading", the question does not exist.

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

appletree, wist ye not what a rhetorical non sequitur your response is to my comments? Your friend Aletheia said...

"The gospel, the everlasting good news is not to go to just one denomination, the message is not denominational, it is just God's truth, and it is to go to the world. (see Matt 24, see Rev 14)

Our ministry, (not just 3ABN's or AF's) is non-denominational.

We reach out to ALL, to introduce Christ, give them the good news, and to help prepare a people to stand, and to meet Jesus when he returns!

And then, shall the end come..."

...which made me write this correction:

The three angel's message is not non-denominational.
3abn does broadcast a denominational message

Do you see what was wrong with Aletheia's picture?

[Brick Step]

The mountain that you all have made out of the court documents that say 3abn is non denominational, is nothing more than burying your head in the sand. It seems a simple thing to realize that the statements are a technicality of accurately staying within the law's descriptions.
Technically: 3abn is not a denomination in and of itself. It is an independant ministry.
Therefore: 3abn cannot be referred to (in a court of law) as an Adventist denomination, an Adventist church or an Adventist organization. Again, 3abn did not make this decision. The attorney's have expertly researched the differences, by law, of an independant ministry vs the organized church. That being said, under the law, 3abn is technically not an Adventist organization. Strictly "BY LAW."

3abn has and always will teach adventists beliefs along with health practices that are no longer just the "adventist way." They have never in any way, varied from beliefs of the church.

The mainstay beliefs of the church such as, Burning Forever, The seventh day Sabbath, The State of the Dead, The 3 Angels Message, are represented daily on their programming. Anyone who even insinuates differently would be telling a lie. As much as it seems Johann wants to plant seeds of question as to "where 3abn is heading", the question does not exist.

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

It's a shame it appeared, but I think we could all guess that the highlighted "Burning Forever" statement above is just an unfortunate mistake in grammar. The church's teaching on "The State of the Dead" mentioned later in the sentence, is clear that God alone is immortal so that the wicked do not experience immortal life suffering in the flames of hell.

But I was interested in Appeltree's explanation about the use of the word "non-denominational" in the court documents. I thought, in at least some respects, it is was a reasonable explanation, deserving of some points.

[appletree]

Burning Forever?!!! 3abn daily teaches that someone is going to be burning forever? Which fundamental is this one?

Meaning people's question Do we Burn Forever? Clearer?

[appletree]

PB: NO 3abn does not believe in burning forever. My guess is that appletree forgot to put in "NOT" in front of it.

Thank you, even though I am quite sure she knew exactly what was meant.

[appletree]

I've heard more than one church leader privately express extreme reservations about 3ABN for many reasons, and one master's-level Bible teacher who said publicly that church leaders (with whom he was in regular contact) were concerned because all 3ABN's programming was decided by one man--i

Wow, you have either been mislead or have come to some mistaken conclusions all by yourself.
Danny Shelton does not decide what goes on the air, period. A programming committee is in place for programming ideas. Once that those ideas are put in effect and a program taped, it then goes before the pastoral committee for doctrinal review of content. If something is amiss or doesn't line up with the standards, it is sent back to the programming committee with all the reasons stated as to why it can't be aired. Many times it is just a mistake made by a speaker or presenter, nevertheless, the problem is either corrected or another program made.

Out of all the thousands of conference employees obviously you will find a few that have negative opinions about Danny or 3abn. That hardly counteracts the huge majority of Conference Employees, presidents, vice presidents and so on that have worked steadily with 3abn through the years and still are.
Just turn your little scenerio around. Think you can find many Adventist christians that find fault with the conference? Enough said.

[beartrap]

The mountain that you all have made out of the court documents that say 3abn is non denominational, is nothing more than burying your head in the sand. It seems a simple thing to realize that the statements are a technicality of accurately staying within the law's descriptions.
Technically: 3abn is not a denomination in and of itself. It is an independant ministry.
Therefore: 3abn cannot be referred to (in a court of law) as an Adventist denomination, an Adventist church or an Adventist organization. Again, 3abn did not make this decision. The attorney's have expertly researched the differences, by law, of an independant ministry vs the organized church. That being said, under the law, 3abn is technically not an Adventist organization. Strictly "BY LAW."

3abn has and always will teach adventists beliefs along with health practices that are no longer just the "adventist way." They have never in any way, varied from beliefs of the church.

The mainstay beliefs of the church such as, Burning Forever, The seventh day Sabbath, The State of the Dead, The 3 Angels Message, are represented daily on their programming. Anyone who even insinuates differently would be telling a lie. As much as it seems Johann wants to plant seeds of question as to "where 3abn is heading", the question does not exist.

Also let's not forget, the organized church has worked with 3abn for 23 years. Would they have done that if 3abn was veering of course from the beliefs?
Definitions by law people. That's all it was.

I believe the language in the lawsuit went a little further than saying 3ABN is non denominational, and said that 3ABN is not affiliated with any denomination. That was surprising, as I had thought that there was some form of affiliation with the SDA church. As I recall, it also said something about 3ABN's message being non denominational. I had always thought that 3ABN's combined message regarding the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the interpretation of the beasts and dragons, the Three Angels Messages, etc. were very distinctly, denominationally SDA, but I could be wrong.

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 23 2007, 12:46 AM

[ex3ABNemployee]

Danny Shelton does not decide what goes on the air, period.

[watchbird]

Wow, you have either been mislead or have come to some mistaken conclusions all by yourself.
Danny Shelton does not decide what goes on the air, period. A programming committee is in place for programming ideas. Once that those ideas are put in effect and a program taped, it then goes before the pastoral committee for doctrinal review of content. If something is amiss or doesn't line up with the standards, it is sent back to the programming committee with all the reasons stated as to why it can't be aired. Many times it is just a mistake made by a speaker or presenter, nevertheless, the problem is either corrected or another program made.

Out of all the thousands of conference employees obviously you will find a few that have negative opinions about Danny or 3abn. That hardly counteracts the huge majority of Conference Employees, presidents, vice presidents and so on that have worked steadily with 3abn through the years and still are.
Just turn your little scenerio around. Think you can find many Adventist christians that find fault with the conference? Enough said.

The real issue is what criteria are used to determine what is suitable for airing.

Years ago, my personal experience with 3abn relative to this issue, involed an occasion when they abruptly stopped airing a very prominent Adventist minister, who just happened to be one of my favorite persons, so when that happened, I phoned 3abn to find out why. In the course of the rather extended discussions on this, in which I wanted to find out who there took the authority for declaring that this prominent SDA holding a prominent SDA position at that very moment, was being rejected for not teaching appropriate SDA doctrine. I was told that the person who made the final decisions on such things as doctrinal content was Pastor Rick Odel... supposedly himself an SDA minister. I was not impressed then, and even less impressed later when I learned that his total background was in Pentecostal non-SDA churches.

I was also very interested when a currently prominent SDA scholar, in talking face to face with me about a year ago, told me of an incident that happened between him and Danny Shelton some years previous. It happened when it was called to his attention that certain content on 3abn was not quite in harmony with good scriptural interpretations, and he offered to form a committee of experts in various areas which would review prospective progamming for 3abn and give advice as to its soundness from a biblical and doctrinal standpoint. His offer was rejected flat out, and the interesting reason given was that "that is not how we do things here. We judge a program solely on the basis of its appealing quality. If it has that appeal we show it. If it does not. We don't. We aren't interested in anything else."

Again I repeat... the important thing is not who makes the decisions.. it is the criteria upon which they are based.... and I'll add one other thing... the willingness they have to have the content scrutinized by scholarly Adventist experts in that particular field.