State of ATomorrow

Ryan · 03-27-10 4:17 am

Hi.

1) I am slowly, but surely, converting all of the old posts from the Discus Pro board. Here's the deal: When I transferred the posts from the Discus Pro board to this PunBB board, the Discus posts were full of HTML code that PunBB doesn't use (for security reasons). Therefore, the old posts that I haven't cleaned up yet are basically unreadable. I have to edit each individual post by the following process: 1) Copy the original text with the HTML code; 2) Paste it into a text file and save it as a .html file; 3) Open the new .html file to see the correctly-formatted text; 4) replace the post's original text with this new text; 5) make any necessary formatting changes (colors, links, etc.). This takes an enormous amount of time. But, when it's finished, it will be nice. If anyone would like to help me with this, send me an e-mail.

2) There has been a large downturn in the amount of recent posts on here. I believe one reason why ATomorrow has entered a slow phase is that there is only so much one can really talk about in regards to Adventism. I see the site's future as a library of past discussion peppered with a few new posts here and there. In my opinion, this is a fine status for ATomorrow.

Ryan

elaine · 03-28-10 10:25 pm

There are so few posting, and that draws fewer readers and thus a vicious cycle. Several other SDA blogs, notably Spectrum and Adventist Today are very active and perhaps former commentators here have gone to those blogs which have multiple threads and more than a dozen or so posters daily.

That may be no consolation but that seems to be the situation.

Ryan · 03-28-10 11:41 pm

I understand and am aware of familiar faces showing up on AToday and Spectrum. I was merely stating the current situation of our site and an opinion on why it's so. Yes, few posting draw few readers, and though I'm working on optimizing the site for web searches, I can't help but wonder if there is still a reason for ATomorrow to exist.

It's my understanding that ATomorrow was born when AToday was censored by the Church and even went offline. The current AToday, however, seems to be doing a good job of getting Adventists to think logically and broadly and also seems to have become a valid place for non-censored discussion of the Church. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, here's the question I want to ask everyone who frequents this site: Is there still a reason for the existence of ATomorrow? Or, has the sites (.com and .net) simply served their purpose in the history of online Adventist dialogue?

I'll be frank. I've e-mailed Tom about this to see what he though; let me paste my first paragraph:

I think ATomorrow would benefit from some sort of steering committee [or a board] taking control of the site and moving it to fulfill its purpose. To be honest, I've grown tired of administering the site. I think that when I started ATomorrow.net in Dec. 2008 after the closing of the .com version, it was for the best. It allowed people to continue what they were doing without any possible conflicts arising over what pet subjects or interests the site should serve... I was a newcomer to ATomorrow when I took it over, and I've never truly developed the appreciation of its history nor the motivation to move it in its proper direction. I feel like I have done what I should have done and now it's time for me to step back.

I do believe there is a purpose for ATomorrow, though I may not have a clear view of it. If the right people can figure out what should be done with this site in terms of furthering online Adventist dialogue, I think that this site will still have a reason to exist. Specifically, I like the discussion board format because I think it's more conducive to a dialogue that a blog post and comments. There must be some way to leverage this format to meet a real need. But, like I've intimated, I'm somewhat removed from the current "needs" of Adventist dialogue and feel like I am now hindering what ATomorrow could, and maybe should, be.

As for me, I enjoy the behind-the-scenes, technical aspect of maintaining the site and would like to continue in that capacity while reserving a voice in regards to the site's direction and growth.

Thoughts?

Ryan

bob_2 · 03-29-10 12:05 am

Ryan, I noticed a drop in postings with the last format change. I have gotten use to it, but the material between the .com archive and current hopefully is gaining complete translation in to usable language. I know you said you are working on it.

The registration process I know was different with the new format. How does that strike existing members and those sticking there nose in as prospective member.

Tom Norris, I know feels that Adventism needs reform, ala Tom Norris' version. He's written too much to abandon that.

I feel pretty strongly about New Covenant Theology. If you Google it, you will see it is a movement that may very well help solve some of Christendom's rifts, IMO. Whether all member agree that NCT will or not isn't the point but because SDAs are so tied to the Sabbath and NCT addresses the right or wrongness or academic wisdom of such a position, through exegesis, and proper hermeneutics, it is evident that some posters are still hanging on to old positions, because that is the way they were brought up. SDAism has a lot of work to sort out from whence we have come, to abandon this site now.

AToday is a pay site, Atomorrow is one of the only non pay sites left. Atomorrow.com has a tremendous volumn of material that if left as an archive is fine with me. Uniting the two is not necessary, but the language of .net MUST be readable to be searchable and usable. I think I hear you saying you are well along with it, but may be wearying of it, also.

Last edited by bob_2 (03-29-10 12:08 am)

Ryan · 03-29-10 12:28 am

Bob,

Thanks for the reply.

You bring up a good distinction between AToday and ATomorrow which I, for some reason, forgot about. But the fact remains that much of the dialogue on AToday happens in the free section.

In regards to ATomorrow.com, I've been thinking about what will happen to the site once the hosting and the domain name expires. The domain name expires next year; I have no idea about the hosting. Something should be done to save/archive the discussions there.

Not really wearying from fixing what I broke, but I do see how it can be testing some people's patience.

Good thoughts all around.

Ryan

bob_2 · 03-29-10 12:18 pm

Oh, you may say, "But Spectrum is free," yes, but you can't pick the topic, guys like Alexander Carpenter do and you respond. You may be able to sneak in some of your ideas on a topic you WANT to talk about, but get reminded you are off topic by the moderators, like Alexander Carpenter, who in November 2008 fought on Spectrum for Homosexual Marriage, though against the Church and no hope of that ever changing. Notice also the faculty of LSU and LLU and the President of Kettering, Scriven, were in on this desire to have Homosexual Marriage. Go figure?

ATomorrow.net's objective should be for people to pick their related topic to SDAism, politics included, and promote how they feel their topic and intuition could make Adventism better tomorrow. Spectrum is to liberal and they don't care when you tell them, and AToday, you have to pay for the experience to be told your comments aren't appropriate. Been their done that.

No ATomorrow.net, may have a marketing problem but it has a place in Adventism's progress toward it place in Christiandom's history.

Last edited by bob_2 (03-29-10 12:20 pm)

elaine · 03-29-10 9:05 pm

There was no inference that this topic was not as good as others, only that with many more comments it has more topics under discussion. Maybe with time that will improve, but often there is only one new post every day, compared with many more at some of the other sites. Not sure if, or how that could be remedied. It always helps to have many different topics on which to read or comment.

tom_norris · 03-29-10 11:17 pm

There is a compelling case for Adventist Tomorrow to go forward.

Starting with the fact that it is the only place online where the real issues can be openly and honestly discussed. THIS is what makes this site so special, and JR’s site that preceded it.

This fundamental position about speaking to the issues must never be removed or marginalized. It is the point of this site.

The Advent Community needs to have place where their history and doctrines can be studied, discussed, and better understood without the leaders evil interference. Where genuine Gospel reform can be developed as well as credible, 21st century, eschatology.

ATomorrow is the only discussion site, right now, that promotes serious Adventist Reform. All these other sites, such as AToday or Spectrum, are carefully censored and controlled. They all support the errors of the hierarchy, thus pluralism, Phariseeism, and double-talk is normative.

The real issues are placed off limits. Which is why there is no discussion about the great error of tithe or the massive fraud in the White Estate, much less any new views about the Sabbath, eschatology, or Gospel Reform.

The discussions on these sites do not live up to the graphics, even as the real agenda is propaganda, evasion, and mind control. Such behavior is hardly a fruit of the Spirit.

These sites exist primarily for the sake of propaganda and to protect the status quo. They pander to the hierarchy as they try and make it seem as if the SDA’s are functional, and have something to say, when we all know they are fragmented, confused, and corrupt.

These Denominationally controlled sites are an insult to anyone that has any level of intelligence, knowledge, and self respect. And so too are the many other SDA doctrinal sites that have been set up to promote their false doctrines like the IJ, tithe, and the Old Covenant Sabbath.

The Web is full of these stealth SDA sites, as the leaders desperately try to convince the world that they are honest and in need of no reform. But they are not honest, and great reform is needed.

All the fancy graphics, combined with an unlimited marketing budget, will never amount to anything worthwhile without repentance, the Gospel, and the proper attitude to search for truth.

As for the other SDA Forums, they too censor and avoid dealing with the real issues. In fact, when some try to share what they have learned at either the All Experts or ATomorrow sites, the conversation is cut off and the subject changed.

Today, in the 21st century, there must be a site that tells the truth about the Advent Movement. Both the good and the bad.

There must be a site that honestly seeks to move Adventism forward to what the Pioneers called the Loud Cry of the 4th Angels Message. (Rev 18). This has always been part of Adventist eschatology and so too is the Laodicean Message, which we now know is the genuine Pre- Advent Judgment, which replaces the error of the IJ.

There must be site that promotes Gospel Reform and a better understanding of the final events, including how the Tribulation will start. This is the reason why the Adventists exist.

If ever there was a time for Adventism to wake up and get serious about the end of the world, - it is NOW!

These are just some of the reasons why this site needs to stay up and become better focused and organized. It is time to move the paradigm forward, not defend the failures of the past.

Bob 2 said: ATomorrow.net's objective should be for people to pick their related topic to SDAism, politics included, and promote how they feel their topic and intuition could make Adventism better tomorrow.

Tom said: That is a pretty good description. But I think we should go further and come right out and say this site supports serious and open ADVENTIST REFORM. Whatever form that eventually takes.

If someone has a better path than the one that Dr. Ford and Tom Norris have laid out, then truth must be followed.

But at this point, there is no real competition to refute what has been articulated. Adventist Reform has proven itself over and over again, against all sorts of critics and fanatics, online, and on the record, for all to see. Not one Denominational scholar has been able to refute any major points of Adventist Reform, which is why they all run away from this discussion that has exposed their many errors.

It is time to admit the obvious and move forward with reform. It is time for Adventism to go forward and not backwards.

Here are two fundamental points from JR’s site that must be embraced:

1. Adventism is broken and needs reform.

2. There can be no censorship of the issues.

It is a pretty simple formula that all should embrace, and most did, except Goldstein and the leaders. They had the nerve to pretend all was well and that there was no cause for alarm or need for Reform.

This is why we had so much fun with Clifford, and why JR baited him and Tom Norris chased him and embarrassed him so badly. He refused to admit there was anything wrong with the present doctrines, even as he also refused to enter into any debates unless there was heavy censorship imposed on the discussion.

It was great comedy. But it also underscored the tragedy and corruption of the present evil system that mirrors the 1st century Pharisees.

Adventism today is badly confused and fragmented. It is on a very wrong course that is not sustainable or correct. There can be no denying this obvious fact, much less censoring any discussion about the problems and the solutions. That is why such a site as ATomorrow is necessary.

Bob 2 said: No ATomorrow.net, may have a marketing problem but it has a place in Adventism's progress toward its’ place in Christiandom's history.

Tom said: Well said. I agree.

But guess what? It is much more difficult to find Gospel truth than execute a marketing campaign that only pretends to have truth.

This is the problem with Adventism today. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all marketing and propaganda. There is no substance, truth, or Spirit, much less the Gospel freedom to discuss the issues and solve the problems.

Just imagine if there had been no Dr. Ford promoting the Gospel and refuting the IJ?

Just think if there had not been any worthwhile discussion on the old AToday Forum? Or that JR did not set up the ATomorrow site where Adventist Reform came in to better focus? Or that this site, or the All Experts site, did not exist?

Adventist Reform is the correct path for the Advent Movement and it is time this fact becomes better understood. This is the point of ATomorrow. This has always been the point.

Adventist Reform must go forward.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

bob_2 · 03-30-10 8:53 am

Tom may not want the "leaders evil interference" on the ATomorrow site, but most of us have wishes for their involvement. However, if individuals like Tom continue to call them evil or such other incendiary names, ATomorrow may not grow but won't have much needed interaction of those that run the organization we wish to help change.

bob_2 · 03-30-10 9:02 am

Tom said: That is a pretty good description. But I think we should go further and come right out and say this site supports serious and open ADVENTIST REFORM. Whatever form that eventually takes.

I couldn't disagree more. To suggest blatantly the need for Adventist Reform will not attract those that initially don't see that. Even Tom and I disagree with Reform issues. I attended a Presbyterian Church for awhile that labeled themselves as Reformed. Were they, not in my opinion.

bob_2 · 03-30-10 9:14 am

Question: Would Adventist Reform survive without Tom Norris, Des Ford or JR. That is also the question to present for the future of ATomorrow. If the future depends on one man or one idea, it will die with that individual. If it is bigger than those men, it will and should survive. I am reluctant to refer to what needs to happen as Adventist Reform. There needs to be Adventist Discussion based on Solo Scriptura. No EGW, and no tradition that originates from man or tradition. I fear I see some of that with Tom and Des's rhetoric. Let the Word of God speak for itself. If the future of Adventism depends on having individuals there to interpret the "Reform" and the Bible can't speak for itself, it is cultish, IMO.

Last edited by bob_2 (03-30-10 9:15 am)

bob_2 · 03-30-10 9:34 am

Another point: Study Spectrum, for awhile when Dwyer, Scriven and Carpenter were your main contributors, there was a certain activity. Spectrum recently apparently has asked "safe" contributors to write so many topics a month or a year. Ryan is not connected to these individuals as Dwyer, Scriven or Carpenter, but if Elaine Nelson, or John Alfke can approach individuals that don't have an axe to grind for Nelson or Alfke's position but can open up topics to discuss and can jump in with knowledge on the topic when it goes astray, ATommorrow could change, IMO. Are there Adventists going outside Universities that can serve such a purpose? They may only be willing to engage if the predicts of corruption, imploding or destruction are toned down.

tom_norris · 03-31-10 11:21 am

Bob 2 said: Question: Would Adventist Reform survive without Tom Norris, Des Ford or JR? That is also the question to present for the future of ATomorrow.

Tom said: Adventist Reform is based on the paradigm of the Three Angels Messages, as well as the 7 doctrines contained within this unique apocalyptic.

It has taken a number of people to develop and advance Adventist eschatology, and this pattern is not about to stop now. Adventism, as a credible movement, will not survive unless people step forward to solve the problems. This should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Unless the 3 A’s are better understood, the Advent Movement cannot go forward. The 3rd Angels Message has terminated, even as the SDA’s have become very dysfunctional and useless. The incompetent leaders have embraced an incorrect view of the Gospel as well as Adventist history and Protestant theology.

The madness has to stop. The Advent Movement must be saved so that it can go forward to the next level, which is the 4th Angels Message. Take away Dr. Ford’s contributions, and those that have come after from Tom Norris, and there is no path forward, much less an explanation about what went wrong.

All SDA’s should be very thankful for Dr. Ford. He is the man that launched Adventist Reform. Tom Norris is following his correct reforms.

In fact, Dr. Ford PROVED to all but the most dishonest and cultic, that there is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible. He also explained the Gospel correctly. Thus he reaffirmed the genuine fundamentals of the 1st Angels Message, upon which Adventism depends. He saved the paradigm of the Three Angels Messages, which was being changed and destroyed by the Leadership.

Tom Norris followed up and PROVED, from a historical point, that the IJ was NEVER viewed in the manner that the White Estate and the Review claimed.

The IJ was never, never, never, viewed by Ellen White or any of the Battle Creek Pioneers as being the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message. (Which changes everything for SDA’s, proving that the White Estate is a great deceiver).

Moreover, Ellen White, after 1888, did not endorse or support what we call today Traditional Adventism. Most all of what the Takoma Park leaders taught was historically incorrect and purposefully mileading.

All SDA’s have been greatly deceived by their leaders, and this scam lives on in every church web site, publication, and sermon. But enough is enough. It is time to expose this present farce for all to see.

Those that know the facts about theology and history have a duty to share this information with the Community. To remain quiet, and enable the continuation of this corrupt situation would be wrong.

Thus, truth demands action, even as those that know the Gospel are compelled to promote it.

Bob 2 said; If the future depends on one man or one idea, it will die with that individual. If it is bigger than those men, it will and should survive.

Tom said: The future of the church depends primarily on the teachings of Jesus. He died, but his ideas did not. So your premise is wrong. Truth goes forward through the work of many people, no matter the opposition.

The foundation of Adventism is the Gospel and the Judgment, which represents the 1st Angels Message. Dr. Ford has been responsible for correcting both of these key doctrines, but the leaders rejected the truth. They liked the IJ and their false Gospel, as well the control they exercised through their Old Covenant rules and regulations.

The future of the SDA’s depends on their repentance of Glacier View, and an apology to Dr. Ford. If they refuse, they have no future. Those that reject the Gospel, and persecute those that bring it to them, are cursed and doomed.

There is no future for any that follow the present course of the Denomination. The modern SDA leaders have led the Advent Movement in the wrong direction. Everyone should acknowledge this fact and demand reform.

Bob 2 said: I am reluctant to refer to what needs to happen as Adventist Reform.

Tom said: Bob, people have been working on Adventist Reform before you were born. In fact, I was researching in the White Estate 30 years ago. Why? So that one-day, you and others could know the facts.

So don’t think you have to figure it all out by yourself. Enjoy the labors of those that have worked to help you understand. Don’t shoot the messengers.

There is a clear path emerging for those that want to understand Adventist Reform. We have been explaining it online for a number of years. It is gaining traction as people come to understand the issues and see the evidence that disproves most of what they have been taught about theology and church history.

It is only a matter of time before the facts catch up to the present dysfunctional situation. When that happens, a paradigm shift will occur, and the Advent Movement will go forward and not backwards, as it is doing right now.

Bob 2 said: There needs to be Adventist Discussion based on Solo Scriptura. No EGW, and no tradition that originates from man or tradition. I fear I see some of that with Tom and Des's rhetoric.

Tom said: The Advent Movement and the SDA’s were Protestant. The Battle Creek leaders did not abuse Ellen White and pretend she wrote scripture. This was the error of the Takoma Park leaders, of which they have never confessed or repented.

So the real Ellen White gets a seat at the table, while Arthur White and many others will be thrown out of the discussion. Her contributions must not be ignored.

Truth is progressive. Especially eschatology, which is very difficult to understand. We must learn from those that have gone before us.

There is great truth in the Advent Movement, and it would be a mistake to think otherwise and ignore the areas where they have found truth or to learn from their mistakes.

Bob 2 said: Let the Word of God speak for itself.

Tom said: man must interpret The Word. This process is called hermeneutics. It is a science that Dr. Ford understands very well, and so too does Tom Norris.

Adventist Reform fully embraces the fundamentals of the Protestant Faith, which includes the Scripture Only position for doctrine.

Bob 2 said: If the future of Adventism depends on having individuals there to interpret the "Reform" and the Bible can't speak for itself, it is cultish, IMO.

Tom said: In every age, the church needs “individuals” to explain the Bible, expose error, and promote the Gospel.

The Bible does not speak for itself. If you place your ear on it, you will hear nothing. If you ask it a question, it will not speak. Thus, the Word must be combined with the human agent in order to understand it, as well as preach the Gospel.

Be thankful that there are some individuals today, like Dr. Ford, that understand the Gospel correctly, as well as church history. Most have a suspect agenda, full of tradition and myth.

Be thankful that Adventist Reform is being articulated and promoted, and that there is a path out of the present confusion and schism.

These other sites, like Spectrum, exist only to promote propaganda for the hierarchy. This is a worthless and dishonest mission. This is not what we need to be doing on this site.

The Advent Movement is in a great crisis, and this is what needs to be corrected and fixed. It cannot be done by avoiding the issues and pretending all is well. Much less by winking at the many false doctrines and speaking smooth things.

Gospel Reform in the SDA Community is greatly needed. This should be obvious to all by now. But it is not for the timid or the shy. Or for those that prefer myths to facts.

The time has come for genuine Adventist Reform. I suggest that you give it a serious look.

bob_2 · 03-31-10 12:19 pm

The Three Angels Message [my interlining is in blue]

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel [Is this Reformed Adventism or the SoloScriptura Gospel?] to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."[This last sentence is the object of every Bible believing church. SDAism is not uniquely pointed to here.]

8A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries." [Now unless you have identified this "Babylon" and used "hate language" to pass your message around, this doesn't identify SDAism as the co-messenger. What are the ear marks?]

9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

This last part is where Tom, I feel you are pretty brazen, in addition to the SDAs. If, Christ, per the Scripture, fulfilled the Law, including the Sabbath and actually became the Sabbath, Col 2: 16-17, then the word "commandments" may be something different, like Christ's Law, and you, Tom and the SDAs have deluded thousands taught at the Revelation seminars. Might the final test be something in the Royal Law, the two laws that Christ emphasized, "Love God, and love man as you would yourself". That could open the final test way open to .......

Last edited by bob_2 (03-31-10 12:23 pm)

bob_2 · 03-31-10 12:42 pm

Tom in your above diatribe, you insinuate that when I say "man" I am speaking of Jesus the very heart of the Gospel. Be silly if you wish, but you waste people's time when you do these obvious goof off remarks.

Tom to say: The future of the SDA’s depends on their repentance of Glacier View, and an apology to Dr. Ford. If they refuse, they have no future. Those that reject the Gospel, and persecute those that bring it to them, are cursed and doomed. is ridiculous and most Protestantism would laugh you out of the debate room to cling to Des Ford and a repentance to him by SDA leaders to save the messenger of end times. Sheeeeeeesh!!!!

Last edited by bob_2 (03-31-10 12:43 pm)

bob_2 · 03-31-10 12:45 pm

Again, another silly remark:

The Bible does not speak for itself. If you place your ear on it, you will hear nothing. If you ask it a question, it will not speak. Thus, the Word must be combined with the human agent in order to understand it, as well as preach the Gospel.

If the Bible can not be read and speak for itself as one reads it, then one is going down a cultish path.The only human agents you seem to bless in your silliness is Tom Norris and Des Ford. That's how cults start or get called cults.

Last edited by bob_2 (03-31-10 12:47 pm)

bob_2 · 03-31-10 12:49 pm

I believe what is needed is clear reading of the Bible, not Adventist Reform directed by Tom Norris and Des Ford.

bob_2 · 03-31-10 1:05 pm

Ryan , this thread has sort of gotten hijacked I think, let me bring it back.

You have indicated that you are working on the translation of posts from current back to the inception of this new format. I went on to see this progress, but only got to about the 6th item under INDEX and BIBLE until I ran into posts that were unreadable. Where have you been working. I would be willing to help with this project, but first let me ask, would it not be easier to go back to DISCUS format. We were having more activity with it, were we not. Does this create another translation problem if we reverse the action of coming to PunBB, and we still have to translate all those postings to DISCUS format and language?

I repeat, I would be willing to help with the translation if we have a plan.

Last edited by bob_2 (03-31-10 1:06 pm)

tom_norris · 04-01-10 9:31 am

Bob 2 said: I believe what is needed is clear reading of the Bible, not Adventist Reform directed by Tom Norris and Des Ford.

Tom said: I agree. The Bible needs to be better understood. And when it is, the Gospel Sabbath will emerge for all to see and marvel at. It is a new doctrine for the Gentile church, even as it is a great surprise to the SDA’s, who arrogantly thought that they fully understood the Sabbath.

But they missed the mark and have bungled this doctrine as they have the Gospel and prophecy and all else. This is why there must be REFORM.

Remember, it was Dr. Ford that clearly explained to all that the IJ does not exist in the Bible. He is the man that explained to SDA’s how to understand the Bible. Of course many thought he did not know what he was doing and that he had become an enemy of Ellen White and the Pioneers, and was misreading the Bible. But he was correct all along.

Dr. Ford is a world class Protestant expert. He is a genuine Bible scholar and he has proved to all but the most cultic and delusional that there is no such doctrine as the IJ. It is an error and a great mistake. All SDA’s must repent of this false doctrine. Not because Dr. Ford says so, but because the Bible requires all to run from false doctrine.

Today, we know that the Bible NOWHERE teaches such a doctrine. There once was a time when sincere Christians thought they saw it, but they were wrong.

Following Dr. Ford, Tom Norris came along and proved that Ellen White never taught that the IJ was a pillar in the 1st Angels Message in the first place. And that the White Estate was outright lying about a very critical point of SDA eschatology, as well as many other points.

The IJ was never located in the 1st Angels Message as the SDA’s still teach today. That point was nothing but historical myth and biblical incompetence. Shame on the blind SDA’s. Their errors will not stand.

Those that follow the path of truth will also come to understand that the NT clearly teaches a very different Sabbath than what the SDA’s (and the Sunday keepers), have promoted all these years.

So Adventist Reform is all about being honest with the historical evidence and clear about what the Bible teaches and what it does not.

Although the SDA’s made many mistakes, they were correct to embrace the 7th day as the Sabbath of the church, and to also claim that this point would be part of the last Gospel message.

So we must embrace what they got right, and reject what they did not. This is part of the process of Gospel Reform.

Bob 2 said: If, Christ, per the Scripture, fulfilled the Law, including the Sabbath and actually became the Sabbath, Col 2: 16-17, then the word "commandments" may be something different, like Christ's Law, and you,

Tom said: The church has never taught that “Jesus is the Sabbath” or that he did away with a weekly Sabbath, or Lord’s Day. This is your own personal obsession, which the Bible does not support.

Which is why Billions of people correctly refute your view, and why every church in the world meets once a week on either the 7th or 1st day.

Bob 2 said: Tom and the SDA’s have deluded thousands taught at the Revelation seminars.

Tom said: I do not support what is taught in the Revelation Seminars. Amazing Facts is wrong about most every point, which is why there must be Adventist Reform.

The SDA’s are very wrong to think that the OC Sabbath is to be embraced and obeyed. They are deluded to think that the Sabbath of the Pharisees is the same Sabbath that Jesus teaches. They are making fools of themselves for all to see. They do not understand the Gospel or the Gospel Sabbath correctly.

Bob 2 said: Might the final test be something in the Royal Law, the two laws that Christ emphasized, "Love God, and love man as you would yourself". That could open the final test way open to .......

Tom said: The final test is about the GOSPEL, which alone is salvific.

However, the NC Sabbath is a wonderful test to see who is paying attention to the Gospel teachings of Jesus. It shows who is serious about following the Word and who is not.

Bob 2 said: Tom may not want the "leaders evil interference" on the ATomorrow site, but most of us have wishes for their involvement.

Tom said: Ha! So you think people want to be censored, stonewalled, and lied to by the arrogant SDA leaders?

Do you also want to give them the keys to the site so they can shut it down like they did the last two sites?

I really doubt anyone around here wants to submit to these incompetent and evil buffoons that mirror the Pharisees in detail. I have no desire for such abuse, nor should anyone. Why do you think so many have left the church, and they are not going back unless there is major reform. Who can blame them?

Unless the leaders are going to be honest and open, who needs their involvement? They have proven that they cannot tell the truth, nor do they want to, so what is the point?

The Advent Movement can go on without them.

Bob 2 said: However, if individuals like Tom continue to call them evil or such other incendiary names, ATomorrow may not grow but won't have much needed interaction of those that run the organization we wish to help change.

Tom said: Bob, I think you misunderstand. Gospel Reform does not play politics. The SDA organization has gone corrupt, even as they have most every doctrine wrong. This point is not up for negotiation with me, and neither is the fact that the White Estate has been running a massive scam all these years. The facts are clear.

Those in the church that embrace false doctrine and historical fraud are not to be given shelter or comfort. They are not to be excused in the slightest, nor is this disgusting cover-up going to be swept under the rug.

Those that understand the Bible and church history correctly have an obligation to tell the truth. They will not put up with false doctrine from the corrupt leaders. This is non-negotiable. Sorry.

Tom Norris for genuine Gospel Reform in the SDA Community

bob_2 · 04-01-10 9:44 am

Tom said, not the Bible or Jesus:

Tom said: I agree. The Bible needs to be better understood. And when it is, the Gospel Sabbath will emerge for all to see and marvel at. It is a new doctrine for the Gentile church, even as it is a great surprise to the SDA’s, who arrogantly thought that they fully understood the Sabbath.

That is a manmade statement. It does not help this discussion to put forth one'own wishes or desires above the Bible or Christ. Scripture is the answer, Use it so, like metal on metal it can sharpen itself. Your diatribes are lengthy for two reasons:

1. They are your own words.

2. Or you quote the Bible totally unrelated to what we are talking about and proves nothing.

Also your statement of ultimate conclusion or purpose is stated as the Gospel Sabbath, no it is the Master of the Gospel, Jesus. To have a day as your god, puts you in a helpless position.

Last edited by bob_2 (04-01-10 9:46 am)

tom_norris · 04-01-10 10:00 am

Bob, you are the one inventing “man made” doctrines, not me.

Your view that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and removed it from the church is absurd and unsupported by the NT as well as the long history of the church.

So you are the one making up wishful doctrines, not me.

Your own words condemn you, while I am pointing to the Sabbath teachings of Christ in the Gospels, as well as to other NT passages.

I am pointing to Jesus words and actions, while you are ignoring them and making up your own views.

But don’t let me stop your from inventing whatever doctrines you want. This is what everyone in Laodicea is doing. It is a very popular fad, which explains why there is so much confusion and chaos in the church, and why Heaven has totally rejected what every denomination is teaching today.

bob_2 · 04-01-10 10:08 am

In your last post, Tom, not one text was used by you, but your own reasoning. Also to state that billions would disagree with me about NCT, at least that many would disagree with your Reformed Sabbath, because they keep the the 4th Commandment with the 1 day of the week. That is not the solution. Christ our Rest is. Read this following excerpt from an article and it's different perspective on work under the New Covenant:

Work on the Sabbath:

In John 5, let's see what Jesus did on the Sabbath, and what he said about the Sabbath. He had gone to the Pool of Bethesda and found a man who had been lame for 38 years. "When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, `Do you want to get well?' " (verse 6).

You might think that it's a strange question — but some people simply don't want to get well. They are comfortable in their old habits, their old way of life. The man had been crippled for 38 years, and if he were suddenly healed, he'd have to change the way he lived. He would have to learn a new role in the community. It might be frightening, so Jesus asked him, Do you really want to be healed? This man did want to be healed, so Jesus said:

"Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat" (verses 8-10).

Now admittedly, there was no emergency. The man didn't have to go anywhere on the Sabbath. He could have stayed until sunset. But Jesus had told him to carry something on the Sabbath, and the Jewish leaders didn't like that. They found out that Jesus had done this healing on the Sabbath, and in verses 16-17 we read: "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, `My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.' " So here Jesus admits that he was working on the Sabbath, and he was not sinning. Jesus was not afraid to use the word "work" to describe what he was doing. In the new covenant, we need to take a more flexible approach with work and humanitarian needs.

Scripture says that those who don't provide for their own families are worse than unbelievers, and common sense says that, too. If the choice is between working on the Sabbath and providing food for the family, it is not a sin to work on the Sabbath. We should not apply old covenant rules to the new covenant Sabbath. They aren't doing it for selfish benefit, but to avoid hunger and putting their families out on the street.

If other people want to be stricter, they certainly can be for themselves. But they should not judge their brothers. We are under the new covenant, you see, and the new covenant simply doesn't require the Sabbath like the old covenant did. We see New Testament examples of Sabbath-keeping, but we don't see commands like the Old Testament had: Do not gather food, do not carry a burden, do not travel out of the city, etc.

Some people want boundaries spelled out for them. Others do not, and they want to live their Christian faith as guided by broader principles. Jesus saw principles as more important than specific rules. We see this in the Sermon on the Mount, in his teachings about lust and hate and violence. We see it in his approach to the Sabbath, too. Humanitarian principles are more important than strict taboos.

But not everyone has a grasp of the broad principles as well as Jesus did. So, if they need rules, they are welcome to keep their own rules — as long as they do it to the glory of God, as long as their faith is in Christ and not in their rules. The main point is that one group shouldn't criticize the other. The conservatives should not condemn the actions of others, and the liberals shouldn't despise the rule-keepers. We should welcome each other based on faith in Jesus Christ.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/newcovsabb.htm

bob_2 · 04-01-10 10:16 am

Reasons why Jesus Christ has become our Sabbath Rest

1.The Sabbath was a command given specifically to Israel.
There is no biblical record whatsoever of anybody keeping the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16 (Neh. 9:13-14). Even after they received the full-blown Sabbath command (Ex. 20:8-11), Israel who often condemned the sins of her pagan neighbors, never criticized their violation of the Sabbath.

2.The Sabbath was part of God’s ceremonial law and not grounded in His unchanging character.
The Sabbath was a ceremonial law given specifically to Israel, not grounded in God’s unchanging nature. Similar to the entire old covenant, it has been fulfilled and brought to completion in Christ (Mt. 5:17). If David had a right to make an exception in the ceremonial law, Jesus had more (Mt. 12:1-8; c.f 5:21-48). Even Jesus said," The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27). Moreover, He called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Lk. 6:5).

3.The Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant
(Ex. 31:16-17; Neh. 9:14; Eze. 20:12). Because we are now under the New Covenant we are no longer under obligation to keep the Old Covenant, particularly the sign of the Old Covenant. The writer to the Hebrews remarked, "When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13).

4.The New Testament nowhere commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
The church is warned of many sins in the New Testament, but breaking (or observing) the Sabbath is never mentioned. The book of Acts mentions the Sabbath nine times, never once as a day of worship for Christians. If anything, the Apostle Paul rebuked the Galatians for attempting to add the observance of days to the sufficiency of Christ’s work for salvation (Gal. 4:9-11). The church even changed their day of worship from Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday (the Lord’s Day) (Ac. 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) to show that a new order had been erected with the resurrection of Christ (Jn. 20:1, 19).

5.Jesus Christ through His redemptive work regained the Sabbath that Adam lost.
Jesus Christ came to complete a redemptive work (Jn. 4:34; 5:36) by restoring the rest that was forfeited in the Garden. In following the same pattern for the first creation, Jesus Christ began the work spoken of in Genesis 3:15 (c.f. Gen. 1:3). He completed the work on the cross (Jn. 17:4; 19:30; c.f. Gen. 1:5). The work was met with God’s satisfaction by the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Rom. 1:3-4; Gen. 1:4) leading again to divine rest (Heb. 10:11-12; c.f. Gen. 2:1-3).

6.The Sabbath was a sign that pointed to something greater.
Like much of the Old Testament, the Sabbath pointed to Jesus Christ. The Old Testament Sabbath preached the gospel when it called for faith and a cessation of work (Rom. 4:4-5). We dishonor our Savior when the signs still receive the preeminence that He alone deserves. Now that Jesus is here, the signs have become obsolete (Heb. 8:13). The Apostle Paul said, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col. 2:16-17). Jesus is the new Joshua that leads God’s children to a greater Promised Land of rest (Mt. 1:21). Jesus is the new Sabbatical Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-10) that provides a greater cancellation of debts (Lk. 4:18-19).

7.Jesus Christ has now become the Sabbath rest for Christians under the New Covenant.
God has completed His work of the new creation. Christians are the first fruits of that creation (2 Cor.. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). Our rest, as it was enjoyed by Adam everyday, has again been restored. During this life we still deal with some remnants of the curse, but we recognize our rest in Christ (from meritorious works) through faith and daily worship (Col. 3:17). Due to His redemptive work, He has become our Sabbath rest. Jesus said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Mt. 11:28-30; c.f. Heb. 4:1-11).

8.The Christian’s ultimate Sabbath rest will be enjoyed in heaven
(Rev. 14:13; c.f. 14:11). Though we currently rest in Jesus Christ under the New Covenant, our supreme Sabbatical rest will be realized in heaven where we will enjoy the ultimate rest in the culmination of God’s new creation (Rev. 21:4; 22:1-2) away from the curse in the direct presence of the Lamb (Rev. 22:3).

http://www.thegracetabernacle.org/studi … bbath.html

tom_norris · 04-01-10 11:11 am

Bob 2 said: In your last post, Tom, not one text was used by you, but your own reasoning.

Tom said: There are a number of active threads that deal with the Reformed Sabbath. See:

The Reformed Sabbath:

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=228

The Sabbath in Colossians:

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=242

The Tribulation:

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=768

These threads are full of texts. I suggest that if you want to continue this detailed discussion about the Sabbath that you do so on the correct thread.

Bob 2 said: Also to state that billions would disagree with me about NCT, at least that many would disagree with your Reformed Sabbath, because they keep the 4th Commandment with the 1 day of the week.

Tom said: You have missed the point. Your view that there is no Sabbath for the church has been totally repudiated by the church. No one takes this absurd view.

While many in the church disagree over the nature and definition of the Sabbath, no denomination has ever concluded that there is no weekly Sabbath or Lord’s Day for the church.

The facts are on my side, and thus many will change their view of the Sabbath when they better understand the NT. But those that think there is no Sabbath for the church are not only very rare, but also very wrong.

There is no chance that your NO SABBATH view will ever become part of the genuine Gospel or the church. Sorry.

Bob 2 said: Christ our Rest is the Sabbath. Read this following excerpt from an article and it's different perspective on work under the New Covenant:

Tom said: Bob, I don’t think you understand the discussion you quoted about the Sabbath. It supports my view before it does yours. Why? Because this article is opposing the Old Covenant Sabbath, not the NC one that we are discussing.

I too agree that there can be no OC Sabbath keeping in the church. So that article does not help your case.

Jesus did not become the Sabbath.

Such a position is absurd and unfounded. We have gone over this in detail on some other threads and you have never been able to prove your point.

If you think you have found something new that supports your view, then post it up on the proper thread. But you have nothing my friend. You are shooting blanks. At some point you are going to have to admit that you are wrong. Sorry.

elaine · 04-01-10 7:07 pm

What is the NC "Sabbath" that is being referred to? I find absolutely no reference in the NT to a "New Covenant Sabbath." In fact, there is no commendation of any holy day given to the Christians. What Bible translation are you reading to come to that conclusion?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 03-27-10 4:17 am

State of ATomorrow

#2 03-28-10 10:25 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#3 03-28-10 11:41 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#4 03-29-10 12:05 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#5 03-29-10 12:28 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#6 03-29-10 12:18 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#7 03-29-10 9:05 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#8 03-29-10 11:17 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#9 03-30-10 8:53 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#10 03-30-10 9:02 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#11 03-30-10 9:14 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#12 03-30-10 9:34 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#13 03-31-10 11:21 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#14 03-31-10 12:19 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#15 03-31-10 12:42 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#16 03-31-10 12:45 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#17 03-31-10 12:49 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#18 03-31-10 1:05 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

#19 04-01-10 9:31 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#20 04-01-10 9:44 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#21 04-01-10 10:00 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#22 04-01-10 10:08 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#23 04-01-10 10:16 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#24 04-01-10 11:11 am

Re: State of ATomorrow

#25 04-01-10 7:07 pm

Re: State of ATomorrow

Board footer