Where Is John Osborne?, Are his talents not appreciated? Options

[watchbird]

How did I get into this subject here? I came to this site on BSDA to register concern for Linda Shelton and for the integrity of 3ABN.

As for many ... perhaps even most... Linda Shelton's situation was the thing that gave them the first clue that all was not right in the "House of 3abn". Some however, knew from the beginning that the problems with "the integrity of 3abn" went far beyond the "perils of Linda".... and many of us learned that very early. If you read the earliest postings by Sister and Von Jorgen and Beartrap and others, you will find the very subjects we are discussing now brought to our attention even then. But it has taken time for us to work our way through the most obvious problems of behavior and morals to ge to things unseen... the belief systems of some of the leaders and how those have affected 3abn throughout different stages of their history.

"... infatuation with 3ABN..."? Could it be that despite apparent evidence for behind-the-scenes concerns, the Holy Spirit still leads people to 3ABN's on-the-screen witness, using it to lead souls to salvation, and stablish them in the faith? It is this concern, and the fact that I have never been to 3ABN or personally met any of its workers over there, that continually holds be back from going too far in calling for repentance at 3ABN. I do not wish to be found working to shackle God - a not very wise endeavour for any mere fallible mortal to take up. But we are praying daily for God's leading.

God uses everything that is available to Him. And we never "shackle God" by attempting to make sure the tools we supply for Him to use are as free from seeds of error as possible. And never does repentance act to "shackle God".

And whenever we are thinking along the lines of 3abn leading "souls to salvation".... for the purpose of determining our own assessment of 3abn,..... we must never forget the people who, at the same time they were learning of God by things they heard on 3abn, were also imbibing seeds of error.... some of which has or will bear its own "bitter fruit" in the lives of these believers, fruit that varies from distrust of the very church they think 3abn represents to error that gives them wrong concepts of God, salvation, and character building.

We still watch 3ABN and are blessed thereby. We hop over to check out LLBN and Hope, too, and we're not about to join any new church.

I do not think 3ABN's current on-the-screen witness with all its many different speakers and evangelists should be compared with the final witness of John Osborne's Prophecy Countdown ministry.

For someone who understands the true and the false and is able to pick and choose among the programs that 3abn currently offers, and assuming that one actually DOES choose only that which is relatively free from error, there is no doubt but what one can be "blessed thereby". But what is there that will steer the unaware or unchurched away from the seeds of doubt and downright error that are included in some of the programming? And for those who "fall in love" with the leaders so that they follow them more closely than they do the more "main-line" speakers and evangelists.... we should not be surprised if they pick up the "seeds of doubt" about the "main-line SDA church" as well as the seeds of false doctrine that are sprinkled among the "good seed", and grow a belief system of their own which may be even more inclined to separate from the main church than were those who became entangled with John Osborne.

The significance of his "final witness" is to show where the path he took led. Those who became entangled with him did so when he was only beginning, and his message and criticisms of the church sounded very legitimate. So it is in the seed sowing (or selecting) stage that we need to be the most careful in what seed we choose to implant in our minds. And the most careful in what seed we label "SDA" and sow in the minds of others.

[daylily]

It seems a little unfair to lump all historic-believing Adventists together. Maybe some are thinking of the "reformed movement"?. We have had several friends become part of that amovement then become very discouraged with all the "rules" and drop out of Adventism altogether.

Maybe some of you have read Gwen Shorter's book "Thy Nakedness" where she makes a case using Scripture and EGW for not wearing pants; no sleeveless blouses, long dresses, limbs fully covered i.e. socks to the knees, long johns, pants and then a long dress on top of all that. I have a friend into that mess right now. If you read all that EGW wrote about dress you come away with the idea that she encouraged dress reform, saw how devisive it was, backed off and basically said don't urge the dress reform, dress healthfully and modestly according to the culture and age your are living in, and get on to bigger and more important things like preaching the Gospel. The Shorters take EGW quotes out of context to further their ideas of dress reform.

I believe the historical doctrines, I believe that EGW was a prophet. I do not believe that every word she wrote, every word she said or every thought she thought was inspired.. She was human, for crying out loud. I am a vegan, I wear pants. Some of these strange ideas that people get up and blame on EGW are just not what she said. Read it for yourself, don't believe somebody's compliation of quotes. They are naturally biased toward their own opinions.

[watchbird]

It seems a little unfair to lump all historic-believing Adventists together.

Precisely... but is that what anyone here is doing?

I for one, have pointed out from the beginning that there are MANY uses of the word "historic" in connection with Adventism, and have urged everyone to do research to find out what variances there really are.

The question actually came up in connection with 3abn and the picture that many have of it... that it appeals to the "historic Adventist". And this brought up other questions.

My point is that since there are so many different "kinds" of "historic Adventists", and since few of them realize that there is any kind other than the one they are familiar with.... then it would be quite possible for a lot of persons.... who actually had beliefs that were quite different from each other... to expect that what they would hear from 3abn would be a reflection of what they themselves believe.

What I would like to learn is what "historic Adventism" means to the 3abn leaders who select the programming and who expound on their own beliefs. I think that some listeners who think of themselves as "historic Adventists" might be quite shocked to learn about the belief system of others who call themselves that.

Maybe some are thinking of the "reformed movement"?. We have had several friends become part of that amovement then become very discouraged with all the "rules" and drop out of Adventism altogether.

Maybe some of you have read Gwen Shorter's book "Thy Nakedness" where she makes a case using Scripture and EGW for not wearing pants; no sleeveless blouses, long dresses, limbs fully covered i.e. socks to the knees, long johns, pants and then a long dress on top of all that. I have a friend into that mess right now. If you read all that EGW wrote about dress you come away with the idea that she encouraged dress reform, saw how devisive it was, backed off and basically said don't urge the dress reform, dress healthfully and modestly according to the culture and age your are living in, and get on to bigger and more important things like preaching the Gospel. The Shorters take EGW quotes out of context to further their ideas of dress reform.

I believe the historical doctrines, I believe that EGW was a prophet. I do not believe that every word she wrote, every word she said or every thought she thought was inspired.. She was human, for crying out loud. I am a vegan, I wear pants. Some of these strange ideas that people get up and blame on EGW are just not what she said. Read it for yourself, don't believe somebody's compliation of quotes. They are naturally biased toward their own opinions.

There are, in fact, several groups which call themselves "reformed movement" ... besides the one which had that as a formal designator back in the mid to late 20th century.

As for how Ellen White fits into all of this, I'd suggest that you read the book More than a Prophet, by Graeme Bradford, which is available for reading on-line HERE<<<. I think you will resonate very well with his handling of the topic. And it will give you information that will be helpful in case you feel a need to respond to some who have unrealistic views of her role and writings.

[mystery- man]

Precisely... but is that what anyone here is doing?

I for one, have pointed out from the beginning that there are MANY uses of the word "historic" in connection with Adventism, and have urged everyone to do research to find out what variances there really are.

The question actually came up in connection with 3abn and the picture that many have of it... that it appeals to the "historic Adventist". And this brought up other questions.

My point is that since there are so many different "kinds" of "historic Adventists", and since few of them realize that there is any kind other than the one they are familiar with.... then it would be quite possible for a lot of persons.... who actually had beliefs that were quite different from each other... to expect that what they would hear from 3abn would be a reflection of what they themselves believe.

What I would like to learn is what "historic Adventism" means to the 3abn leaders who select the programming and who expound on their own beliefs. I think that some listeners who think of themselves as "historic Adventists" might be quite shocked to learn about the belief system of others who call themselves that.



There are, in fact, several groups which call themselves "reformed movement" ... besides the one which had that as a formal designator back in the mid to late 20th century.

As for how Ellen White fits into all of this, I'd suggest that you read the book More than a Prophet, by Graeme Bradford, which is available for reading on-line HERE<<<. I think you will resonate very well with his handling of the topic. And it will give you information that will be helpful in case you feel a need to respond to some who have unrealistic views of her role and writings.

Herein lies the problem it would seem that (we) as Adventist have reached a point to where we no longer know what we believe. With the exception of one disclaimer, we seem to be pretty much uniform on the topic of tithe. There is a striking disconnect between what Ellen White taught and what we teach today aka. music, movies, television and the the like. Somehow or other we seem to have come up with a way of getting around the very things we once considered important and inspired by God.

My personal belief is that we have become exactly like the Jewish Nation of old in that the churchs primary mission has become to sustain itself instead of hastening the comming of the Lord. Many (I believe) preaching from our pulpits are no more than hired servants concerned more with family and keeping a job than preaching the truth and hastening the Lords comming. The Historic Adventist for the most part are the older Adventist who remember what the church use to teach from its pulpits these individuals are stuck betweent the progressives that seem to believe that the churches reputation is more important than the truth. They are very concerened it would seem about the standing of the church in the eyes of the world and thus conform to the world to keep peace. The reality of the matter is that when the church preaches the true message they will indeed be labeled fanatical and the like a term that most Adventist are afraid of and try to avoid at every turn.

[SoulEspresso]

Herein lies the problem it would seem that (we) as Adventist have reached a point to where we no longer know what we believe. With the exception of one disclaimer, we seem to be pretty much uniform on the topic of tithe. There is a striking disconnect between what Ellen White taught and what we teach today aka. music, movies, television and the the like. Somehow or other we seem to have come up with a way of getting around the very things we once considered important and inspired by God.

My personal belief is that we have become exactly like the Jewish Nation of old in that the churchs primary mission has become to sustain itself instead of hastening the comming of the Lord. Many (I believe) preaching from our pulpits are no more than hired servants concerned more with family and keeping a job than preaching the truth and hastening the Lords comming. The Historic Adventist for the most part are the older Adventist who remember what the church use to teach from its pulpits these individuals are stuck betweent the progressives that seem to believe that the churches reputation is more important than the truth. They are very concerened it would seem about the standing of the church in the eyes of the world and thus conform to the world to keep peace. The reality of the matter is that when the church preaches the true message they will indeed be labeled fanatical and the like a term that most Adventist are afraid of and try to avoid at every turn.

It all depends on your POV. On standards, for a lot of us growing up, the prohibitions were about keeping a set of rules, rather than using discernment and only engaging things that build up your relationship with Jesus. EGW never said a word about television ... but I bet she would have had a lot to say. IMO it's way more destructive than theatre ever was, content aside, because it's so cheap and so time-destructive. The only reason that even matters is our relationship with Jesus--but you can't get people to see that by saying, "Get rid of your television."

I know the angels don't wait outside the theaters, because I can tell when they're asking me to leave. And I do. (There, Lord. That's my reward. )

As far as the church's primary mission, that depends on the POV, too. It's the most traditional Adventists who are concerned about "hastening" the Lord's coming, or talking about a delay ... which upon hearing, I point to Luke 12:45 and ask, "Who said the Lord's delaying His coming, again?" (Not saying this parable is about you, MM, I'm just making the point.) The traditionalist says, "Progressives in our pulpits are more concerned with reputations than with the church's mission." The progressives say, "The traditionalists in our pulpits are more interested in raising SDA membership numbers than they are with connecting people with Jesus Christ."

I hope that we all can assume that everyone is trying to be faithful, even though we all fail to a greater or lesser degree.

[Brick Step]

As for how Ellen White fits into all of this, I'd suggest that you read the book More than a Prophet, by Graeme Bradford, which is available for reading on-line HERE<<<. I think you will resonate very well with his handling of the topic. And it will give you information that will be helpful in case you feel a need to respond to some who have unrealistic views of her role and writings.

In regard to Graeme Bradford's book, More than an Prophet, also check out the statement on http://www.whiteestate.org/ Scroll down to the bottom of the right hand column. The White Estate expresses reservations.

[SoulEspresso]

In regard to Graeme Bradford's book, More than an Prophet, also check out the statement on http://www.whiteestate.org/ Scroll down to the bottom of the right hand column. The White Estate expresses reservations.

This has been discussed in detail on the theology threads. What do you do with a book that's pro-EGW, but disapproved of by the White Estate?

I note with interest that in their statement, the White Estate does not argue with Dr. Bradford's methods of Bible study, but only with his conclusions. Am I the only one whom this bothers?

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Sep 27 2007, 05:14 PM

[Brick Step]

I hope that we all can assume that everyone is trying to be faithful, even though we all fail to a greater or lesser degree.

I resonate with that spirit (in the context). But it always costs something to maintain it, and it took a whole Bible to explain this way.

[watchbird]

In regard to Graeme Bradford's book, More than an Prophet, also check out the statement on http://www.whiteestate.org/ Scroll down to the bottom of the right hand column. The White Estate expresses reservations.

I suggest you read the book for yourself and see if you can figure out why the White Estate has "reservations".

It is one of the mysteries of life... why the White Estate... which is supposedly concerned with preserving Ellen White for future generations expresses "reservations" rather than extending ovations to an author who also has this as his goal.

This has been discussed in detail on the theology threads. What do you do with a book that's pro-EGW, but disapproved of by the White Estate?

Read it.... of course.....

I note with interest that in their statement, the White Estate does not argue with Dr. Bradford's methods of Bible study, but only with his conclusions. Am I the only one whom this bothers?

I'm more bothered that they don't really say what their "reservations" are... they just vaguely plant some doubts. Meanwhile, those who don't let them bother them are gaining a real blessing from it... and are learning how to meet some of the objections that critics make against Ellen White.

[daylily]

I will check out all the links mentioned above:-)

I don't know, watchbird. It's so easy to label people based on what we think they believe or even what we know they believe. We just don't know every little thing that a person believes. Mystery-man used the words "historic" and "progressive". I really don't know what one needs to believe to be called a progressive. Where did the name come from? Are they progressing away from the historical beliefs? Are they progressing toward a truer Truth? If the Adventist "forefathers" had the Truth, are the progressives going toward it or away from it? It's confusing. Why do we need progressives anyway? Can someone explain the progress to me?

[watchbird]

I will check out all the links mentioned above:-)

I don't know, watchbird. It's so easy to label people based on what we think they believe or even what we know they believe. We just don't know every little thing that a person believes. Mystery-man used the words "historic" and "progressive". I really don't know what one needs to believe to be called a progressive. Where did the name come from? Are they progressing away from the historical beliefs? Are they progressing toward a truer Truth? If the Adventist "forefathers" had the Truth, are the progressives going toward it or away from it? It's confusing. Why do we need progressives anyway? Can someone explain the progress to me?

"First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."

All of life is progressive... when one ceases to progress, one begins to die.

Our church was founded by persons who believed in the principle of Present Truth.... the very term "present" implied that Truth was progressive. That what was known yesterday as truth might not be truth today... or at least might not be as full an understanding of truth as one has today. And what we know today is only the fore-runner of what we will know tomorrow.

Ellen White was herself a true Progressive. She taught the progressive nature of truth. She stood in the forefront of change and advancement. And she consistently spoke against "Conservatism".... especially that which stood in the way of progress... whether that progress be in extending our church into new areas or in extending our understanding of scriptures.

Progressive is not a set of doctrines... nor is it defined by what doctrines one rejects (though there are those who do define their progressivism in that way). Progressive is a mind-set... an attitude that looks always to grow beyond the present moment. An attitude that expects growth and change... even in those areas which seem to be "perfect" even in their infancy or youth.

It is well to remember that our early church did not have either perfect people or perfect doctrines. Ellen White, near the end of her life pointed out that "over the last 50 years I have had to fight every kind of error"....or did she say heresy or fanaticism... or at various times use all of these designators for the things she had to meet throughout the years of her ministry.

So when you ask whether Progressives are progressing away from historical beliefs.... I would say that yes... Progressives see beliefs that were held by some in our early church... and they feel strongly about progressing away from those. And when you ask if they are progressing toward a "truer Truth".... I would say again that yes, Progressives look for a clearer understanding of Truth... and additional light on many truths.

We had, among our forefathers, those who had truth... and those who had much error mixed in with their truth. It was Ellen's last challenge and directive to us to continue to learn... "We have", she said, "much new truth to learn, and much to unlearn." Progressives are those who take that seriously and are earnest students of scripture, nature, and history... always seeking to advance truth and sweep away error.

(Quotations above from memory so may be slightly paraphrased.)

[Brick Step]

"First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."

All of life is progressive... when one ceases to progress, one begins to die.

Our church was founded by persons who believed in the principle of Present Truth.... the very term "present" implied that Truth was progressive. That what was known yesterday as truth might not be truth today... or at least might not be as full an understanding of truth as one has today. And what we know today is only the fore-runner of what we will know tomorrow.

Ellen White was herself a true Progressive. She taught the progressive nature of truth. She stood in the forefront of change and advancement. And she consistently spoke against "Conservatism".... especially that which stood in the way of progress... whether that progress be in extending our church into new areas or in extending our understanding of scriptures.

Progressive is not a set of doctrines... nor is it defined by what doctrines one rejects (though there are those who do define their progressivism in that way). Progressive is a mind-set... an attitude that looks always to grow beyond the present moment. An attitude that expects growth and change... even in those areas which seem to be "perfect" even in their infancy or youth.

I agree so much with the principles stated above, WB, but it seems we would disagree at times with their application.

I have a copy of Graeme Bradford's book, Prophets are Human, have read it, appreciate much of what is said, hold questions and reservations in other areas, and note some of the fruitage of these teachings. I'm waiting to see the full report promised by the White Estate.

[SoulEspresso]

I agree so much with the principles stated above, WB, but it seems we would disagree at times with their application.

I have a copy of Graeme Bradford's book, Prophets are Human, have read it, appreciate much of what is said, hold questions and reservations in other areas, and note some of the fruitage of these teachings. I'm waiting to see the full report promised by the White Estate.

If you have that earlier volume, then you owe it to yourself to read More Than A Prophet. It's all the Bible study/historical research behind the stuff in Prophets Are Human and People Are Human.

I'm looking forward to the full report from the Estate as well--wonderful people in those offices even if we don't always agree. That's why I bolded part of the above quote--we agree we're all trying to do the right thing.

[Brick Step]

If you have that earlier volume, then you owe it to yourself to read More Than A Prophet. It's all the Bible study/historical research behind the stuff in Prophets Are Human and People Are Human.

I'm looking forward to the full report from the Estate as well--wonderful people in those offices even if we don't always agree. That's why I bolded part of the above quote--we agree we're all trying to do the right thing.

While I do not own a copy of More Than a Prophet, quite early in the piece I had a quick read through somebody else's copy.

Nice to know "we agree we're all trying to do the right thing!"

[daylily]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I will ponder these things and post a reply later.