JESUIT DIALOGUES !!
(Probing the Mind of Greg Billock!)
Updated 12/27/2005
As you probably remember, Greg expulsed Emmanuel Clarke (EC) from the Atoday forums. Among the charges against him was the charge that he was opposed to meaningful discussion because the substance of his arguments was derived from attacking others personally, and in making accusations. EC's arguments were in defense of Adventism. There were also "accusations" against EC where he was charged with being upset and hostile with others just because they disagreed, and for doing all in his power to take away the right to disagree with his views.
We had already made the statement that Greg Billock had to go around and avoid many mountains in order to expulse this molehill. We are here to demonstrate this now; and this point cannot be demonstrated more clearly than in the continuously outrageous postings of one Tom Norris to this day on the Atoday forums. Tom is still on that forum in good standing and was even instrumental in adding his condemnations upon EC, charging him with accusations rightfully belonging to himself, after Greg expulsed EC. We are now about to see some key examples identifying the sons and daughters of the Papacy.
Below, Tom is responding to statements that were made in defense of Adventism by one "Bill." Tom Norris always contends that the Adventist Church MUST change. He claims that he means the best good for Adventism and that he defends it, but he has plainly stated that the changes he is calling for will require it to give up some of its fundamental pillars. He also does this through parading the idea that he is tolerant of opinions, while those who oppose his mandated changes are intolerant notwithstanding that he demonstrates no intention to succumb from his demand because of those who would differ. He claims that the Adventist Church MUST be "updated." He has stated that he will not be happy until this is done, and, naturally, he does not care if whole multitudes disagree with him in his mandate for change. He continues to state that the First, Second and Third Angels Messages have "closed up" and died, and that we MUST understand that.
The continuing accusation against Adventists is that they cannot tolerate different viewpoints. It should not take you long to see what is going on here, as one main such accuser posts. As you read, re-think again the continuing lie throughout the entire denomination that certain people in this arena demanding change want freedom of thought and the right for all to freely express their views. Next, ask yourselves why, even with all pleas, Greg Billock refuses to notice anything wrong with the postings of Tom Norris, even in contrast with the others he moves in to expel. Next, consider whether any such blindness should have any voice in dictating either that our church must change, or the manner in which this must be done.
Please remember that this is just one such posting by Tom Norris, and that it only scratches the surface:
By tom norris on Friday, September 17, 1999 - 07:58 pm:
Bill: You are in a fog! You cannot ever divorce William Miller's theology as represented in the first two Advent messages (paradigms) from the 3rd, or even from the 4th message that is yet to come.
This is the first of your many mistakes. The SDA pioneers would laugh at your position. This was their (SDA's) fundamental argument for leaving the Millerite Evangelical Adventist organization after the 1844 disappointment. You really don't know or understand what you are saying about historic Adventism. You are too obsessed with the IJ and the 3rd use of the Law and Ellen White. In addition, you actually think that SDA's have developed 100% truth for all time. These are major errors that would be obvious to you if you would take the time to read the various history books written about the Advent Movement. You need to study this whole history in a more objective and less cultic manner. The Advent movement was not started by the 3rd angel, nor is it the message of the loud cry or the 2nd coming. Furthermore, it is not perfect or up to the standards of the 21st century. In fact, you and others can stop defending it--because it is already over. It's gone! Just like the two messages before it. All three are complete, and there is one more to follow. So, you need to lose this obsession with the 3rd message--it is just one or four. Look at the whole movement.
Your second error is to misunderstand the actual history of the IJ. You are incorrect to assume that both the term and the concepts under fire known as the IJ were around in 1844. They were not! This term had not been invented in the 1840's and in fact, there was no discussion of the IJ during the Sabbath conferences that were the foundational meetings for the development of the 3rd angel's message. This is why you are so very wrong in your bold statement that the IJ is the foundation of SDAdventism. History laughs at you! You are talking trash!
Bill: You and many others are confused in thinking that the SDA movement was based upon the IJ. It is a late myth designed to destroy the Gospel! The fact is, that the re-interpretation of Dan 8:14 allowed the pioneers to discover and promote the 3rd Angels Message in Rev. 14. And that was a message about Sabbath reform-not the IJ! The Sabbath was added to the millerite foundations and became the pillar- the Sabbath was the pillar--not the IJ. Not the IJ! (Don't confuse scoffolding with the actual building structure: sure you can't build the building without the scaffolding, but once the building is errected, it no longer needs or wants the once critical scaffolding. The 3rd angels message is the building, the IJ and 1844 was but the scaffolding.)
The early SDA's had only a general view of the pre-advent judgement as it related to Dan 8:14. They saw it primarily as vindicating Miller's theology and they described it with very general, pre-advent terms such as; "completing the atonement", and the "blotting out" of sins, which resulted in the "cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary." They did not know about the detailed, legalistic, traditional view that the SDA's later developed after 1850 and promoted in the 20th. (Nor did they know all the scholarship to follow in the next century.)
It is important to understand this issue in historical context because what happened about Dan 8;14 in 1844, is different then what developed later. So there are two different doctrines about the pr-advent judgement in play, the early simple one in 1844 and the more complex and legalistic version known as the "IJ" that was developed well after the 3rd angel and become linked to the heresy of perfection in the 20th century. You must take this into account or you will be confused--and you are confused my friend. (see P. Damsteegt's work "Foundations of the SDA Message and Mission. Eerdmans, publishing).
Note: It is still impossible today to prove from scripture that either the early pre-advent judgement or the more legalistic one started on exactly Oct. 22, 1844 or any date! As I said before, if no one--including Jesus-- has been given the time and date for the 2nd coming--why on earth would anyone conclude that in the last days we are supposed to preach a doctrine to the world that is focused on the exact time and date of the pre-advent judgment in heaven? Have we lost our minds? This is insane! You are making up doctrines. How cultic! This is too weird! We have gone mad; Jesus doesn't know the date of the 2nd coming, but we Adventist know the date for the pre-advent judgment--and this is the secret we are to tell the world? wow? This makes no sense!
[As you can see here, at times Tom reveals himself. He has stated that our doctrines need to be "updated" stating that they are outdated sometimes, and at other times he comes right out to show that they were NEVER valid at all! Just check the Atoday archives or hang around the man. Be thoughtful and analytic and you will be able to see around him.]
Error #3. You fail to understand how insignificant the IJ doctrine was to the 19th century SDA's. Their mission of theological reform was NOT the IJ but rather the Sabbath. They hardly referenced the IJ at all. The law and the Sabbath gave them all the reasons they needed to become legalistic and promote their eschatology. And they did become legalistic! As a result, a big debate broke out over the gospel versus legalism in 1888; not the gospel versus the IJ--No! the law in Galatians. The IJ was not in play during that period! That's why it never came up in debate back then. The IJ was in the distant background during the 19th century. Only in the 20th century did it become the focus of the 2nd great gospel debate--Glacier View.
Error #4. You fail to understand that, today, the gospel is the real issue of conflict--not the IJ. In the 20th century the church once again became legalistic--due to the Sabbath --and the gospel, once again, clashed loudly against the legalistic SDA's. The cycle has repeated itself and now instead of Minneapolis, it was Glacier View. Instead of Dr. Waggoner and Professor ATJones. It was Dr. Ford and Robert Brimsmead. Different names, same basic debate; but this time focused on a different text. The 1888 Gospel debate and the Glacier View Gospel debate are historical twins, they are essentially the same. The later is but an updated re-run of the former, in color and with the internet.
While the 1888 debate focused on the law in Galatians and pitted Butler, Smith, Morrison and the Review against Waggoner, Jones & Ellen White, so too did the "mirror" 1980 gospel debate place Dr. Ford & RDB (for a time), against the Review, Weiland & Short, the Standish Bros. and by some accounts against Ellen White herself. (But in reality Ellen White would have been on Ford's side.) During this gospel debate the IJ was widely used to buttress the perfectionist case-- (The revised perfectionist version of the IJ--not the very early one)-- and the IJ was put in play by the anti-gospel forces. Ford had no choice but to destroy that unbiblical doctrine and proved it to be a fraud in order to vindicate the Gospel. He did a good job. It has been done! And Adventism must forever get out of the dating business! It was the lasting error of Miller, and it is still killing his biggest and most blessed child, the SDA's.
The gospel was the point of the IJ debate. Ford showed that no one on earth can clearly prove from the bible alone that Oct 22, 1844 was the beginning of anything in heaven-much less the pre-advent judgement! It cannot be done without relying on contradictory, outside, experts and conflicting, ancient, historical sources. There is not enough evidence within the Bible itself to prove the case. Period! So let it go! Stop embarrassing the Advent movement over this silly issue. Who cares when the pre-advent judgment starts? The Bible makes it plain that time is short and we should be ready for the eschaton everyday. We don't need to interject some heavenly activities into the issue to make the point. The NT church did not point to the IJ in order to make anyone feel the need to get ready for the 2nd coming. So why should we today?
I find it interesting that those who make so much out the IJ-are then forced to rest upon such weak, unprovable, outside sources to prove your case for a date certain. Listen to you Bill: "Most will give your case 27 AD for the baptism of Christ. And in fact many will give you 427BC..". "Hello"-Salvific doctrine cannot rest on "most," "many" etc. Don't you remember in the interview with Ford how he quoted John 3:16 using such timid and unconvincing proof to show how silly this looks?. I see that it took you only an hour to explain 1844 to your class-and you are an expert! How long does it take the novice to explain all this 1844 twisting and turning? Days, weeks, years? I hope you can explain the Gospel quicker then one hour! If you can't do it within 30 seconds --you don't know it my book!
Bill: You need to understand that salvation is all about the Gospel. The IJ is not part of the Gospel, or the gospel commission. Do you think Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the IJ?" Sorry, he did not! Do you think Peter stood up and pointed to the IJ in order to bring in converts? In fact, the term IJ is nowhere to be found in the whole of the bible! "Hello?" And yet you and others want to worship this bizarre teaching. It is the gospel we want to promote-not the IJ! Nor for that matter do we want to promote a pre-advent judgement as if that is some big deal! God will take care of that admistrative function, he doesn't need us trying to explain to anyone the details that he has not seen fit to clearly articulate in his word or through his apostles. We want to promote the 2nd coming! That is the judgement that we are supposed to promote. It is the gospel that saves--not the IJ. We have this thing all confused. No wonder the world laughs at SDA's?
In the 19th century, the church battled the gospel in order to protect the law and the Sabbath. Because they failed to accept the gospel, the Battle Creek Adventist Empire was reduced to schism and smoking ruins shortly after the turn of the century. Likewise, in the 20th century, the leaders again battled the gospel in order (so they thought) to protect the law and the Sabbath-and this time- the IJ. Guess what? The IJ was victorious and the Gospel was the big loser-just like in 1888. That's why the Gospel today cannot be found in the 27 fundamentals.
So once again, the church will pay the price for saving the wrong doctrine. That's why today we face schism and utter denominational ruin-just like in Battle Creek. But the joke is that the IJ did little, if anything to help the Advent movement. The IJ is still beyond repair and the Sabbath and the Law are weaker then ever. We have defended many of the wrong doctrines and turned our backs on those that really matter. And we are paying the price, and we will keep paying it until the Gospel is elevated above silly side show doctrines like the IJ.
The church needs to accept the gospel and reject the traditional IJ that wars against the Gospel. The IJ--not the pre-advent judgement-- is legalistic and cultic. It is a teaching that cannot be supported by any clear texts in the bible!
Think about this; While the church was pouring all it's resources into unfairly defending the IJ, look at what else was taking place: the gospel was trashed, the ministry was persecuted, millions left the church, a corrupt, hierarchieal system became firmly entrenched, new eschatology for the 21st century was ignored, and the health message was destroyed. All this destruction to protect a doctrine that was never, ever, a part of the historic three angel's messages.
Although some think the IJ is a beautiful and meaningful message, it has in fact ruined Adventism at the end of the 20th century. Congratulations to all those IJ defenders out there for a job well done! Take a look around and see the high price the movement was forced to pay for defending the wrong doctrine. Have you seen enough? Or do we need to keep this theological fraud up for another 20 years to see if we can't wipe the Advent Movement off the face of the earth just before the second coming?
[Now watch the intolerance. No one who spues error will just leave his errors to himself. But since these strange figments of Jack Chick's very vivid imagination always cover their trails by throwin the opposite of what they are in the air, on a crusade they claim is for free thought is Tom Norris's following tyrannical and constant bellowing...]
Stop the insanity shall we? Let's get back to the real basics of the Advent movement and go forward!
Now time to enter the adventure of testing this very strange person
TO THE ADVENTIST BETRAYAL PAGE