Posted by: adventlife | March 12, 2018

Revelation of Jesus Christ Kenneth Cox Part 10



A Lesson for our Adventist Family

I believe that there is a serious warning contained in the experience of Prophet Ezekiel for our Adventist evangelists, our Adventist leaders, and even our Adventist lay members as well.

The Lord warned Ezekiel that he had been assigned the role of spiritual watchmen for the people of Israel. His duty was similar to the duty of the sentry guarding the safety of a city. Those watchmen were expected to stay awake at night while the rest of the city dwellers were asleep and were ordered to sound the trumpet at the sight of approaching danger.

Our evangelists and leaders have a similar duty today. They are expected to be spiritually awake and sound the trumpet in the event of danger to the spiritual safety of people. Are our Adventist evangelists, our leaders and lay members fulfilling this sacred duty?

Ezekiel’s Sacred Assignment

“1The word of the LORD came to me: 2“Son of man, speak to your people and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, 3and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, 4then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not heed the warning and the sword comes and takes their life, their blood will be on their own head. 5Since they heard the sound of the trumpet but did not heed the warning, their blood will be on their own head. If they had heeded the warning, they would have saved themselves. 6But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes someone’s life, that person’s life will be taken because of their sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for their blood.’
7“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 8When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die fora their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.” [Ezekiel 33:1-7]

The Duty to Blow the Trumpet

“Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming. It is close at hand”—[Joel 2:1]

“Lift up your voice like a trumpet; Tell My people their transgression, And the house of Jacob their sins.” [Isaiah 58:1]

The Penalty for Failure to Blow the Trumpet

What was the penalty for those who were responsible to sound the trumpet at the sight of enemies coming to attack a city? The penalty was DEATH.

Was this penalty unfair? The safety of an entire city was at risk. In this case the safety and lives of thousands of innocent unborn children was at risk, and our sentinels remained silent instead of sounding the alarm.

Will the Lord commend the Adventist leaders, pastors, evangelists and lay members for being silent at the sight of danger? Let’s take a look at what happened almost five decades ago:

What Happened in 1970?

What happened in 1970? The state of Hawaii legalized the killing of innocent unborn children. This was a clear sign of danger, a sign that the one who has been described in the Bible as “a murderer from the beginning,” the one who induced King Herod to order the genocide of children in the Jewish city of Bethlehem, was preparing for the mass slaughter of children again.

How did our church respond to this emergency? Did the church decide to stand firm on the side of moral duty “though the heavens fall”? Did our leaders choose to be faithful to God’s Law “as the compass is to the North Pole?” Did the president of the General Conference respond with an “over my dead body”? Unfortunately, we must admit that this was not the case.

What Was at Stake?

What was so crucial that let the General Conference president to compromise with evil? What happened is that half of the medical staff at our Castle Memorial Hospital– who happened to be non-Adventists—demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients and threatened to take their patients to other hospitals in the event their request was denied.

This meant that the financial future of this medical facility would be in danger of collapse. The choice was between the needed revenue and the lives of thousands of unborn children. The fear of bankruptcy prevailed and the fear of the Lord evaporated at the sight of this emergency.

The Church Takes a Moral Detour

The decision of the Adventist Church became evident when Pastor Neal Wilson made the following incredible announcement:

“Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population.”

Ref.: George Gainer, The Wisdom of Solomon? Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46.

A Shameful Document is Born

In order to accommodate the provision of elective abortions in our Adventist hospitals and clinics a document was created known as “Guidelines on Abortion.” It is a cleverly designed paper containing lofty prolife elements with a list of exceptions to the “You shall not murder” prohibition inscribed by God himself on tablets of stone.

The current version of said document was approved by the Annual Council of the General Conference in 1992. It is still followed by our Adventist Health System, and it is responsible for the death of thousands of unborn children in our hospitals and clinics.

Those guidelines on abortion are a relic and a monument to the tragic decision of the church to follow tradition instead of God’s Holy Law. It is high time for us to abandon this moral detour and return to the prolife example set by our Adventist pioneers who were not afraid to label the practice of abortion as plain MURDER.

The Biblical Solution to this Moral Anomaly

The Biblical solution to moral problems is repentance. Someone may ask: Who must repent of this great moral detour? Is it the General Conference, is it the leadership of the church, is it our evangelists and pastors, is it the members of the church. The right answer is “Yes” to all those questions.

1. The General Conference must repent for approving the abortion guidelines.
2. The entire church leadership must repent for their failure to sound the alarm.
3. The pastors must repent for their failure to speak in defense of the unborn.
4. The evangelists must repent of their silence regarding this major issue
5. The members of the church for their failure to protest this corporate sin.

God’s Punishment if We Fail to Repent

Nearly five decades have gone by since our Adventist Church departed from the original prolife Adventist position on abortion. The Lord is patient and merciful, but his patience has a limit. Sooner of later, he may take drastic action to stop this great evil among his people. In Old Testament times, the penalty for a watchmen’s failure to sound the trumpet was death.

We failed the test in 1970 and we still persist in a state of dereliction of duty. All Adventists are responsible for this shameful state of affairs. We preach the validity and permanence of God’s Commandments, we claim to be God’s Remnants, but we are currently keeping only Nine of them. This cannot continue. If you think that we are innocent of this moral indictment, please watch the following videos created by our Adventist researchers Andrew Michell and Roy Farr:

“ALL Seventh-day Adventists Support Abortion – Official Documents”

Is It Just A Choice? Murder in the “REMNANT Church”?? Is SOP Silent on The Issue??

Here are some highlights from this video worth remembering:

0:27 The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in the abortion business.

0:44 Lay members who knew what was taking place, contacted the official repository of records and requested a correction by the church, the answer was silence.

2:43 The GC representative stated that the guidelines were not written in stone and that some timein the future they migh be changed.

3:16 Adventist leaders knew what was taking place, lied about it, and refused to correct the situation.

4:02 Adventists who the church were concerned about the abortion issue repeatedly requested to address this issue but their requests were repeatedly ignored by the church leadership.

4:12 During the 1991-1992 period at least 1,600 innocent unborn children were murdered in two Maryland Adventist hospitals. This does not include all the other Adventist hospitals in North America.

4:48 These abortion guidelines were approved by over 90 percent of Adventist leaders from the world church.

My question to Pastor Mark Finley: In this powerful and inspiring presentation you state that before Christ’s return to this earth people will be forced to choose between “obeying God’s Law or following the way of tradition” [see 14:04].

Does this prediction apply to God’s Remnant church on earth as well, because right now Adventist are faced with the need to choose between the Sixth Commandment that forbids the killing of innocent human beings and the Adventist tradition created in 1970 that allows certain elective abortions to be performed at our Adventist hospitals and clinics.

headship 2

The origin of the Headship Doctrine was developed in the 1970-1980 decades by a few Calvinist evangelical teachers and introduced into Adventism by Andrews theologian Samuelle Bacchiocchi in the late 1980.

Bacchiocchi’s main motivation for adopting the headship doctrine was the fear of feminism that was advancing rapidly in society at the time and his dislike of the women’s ordination movement.

There was nothing published in Adventism dealing with the headship doctrine in Adventism prior to 1980. The only support for this was Paul’s injunction against women speaking in church and his prohibition of women teaching men.

Adventists interpretation of those Pauline prohibitions alleged that Paul’s teaching regarding women’s role were based on cultural mores prevalent in the first century. The reason for this Adventist interpretation was the role played by Ellen White who did preach and taught openly in the church.

For 120 years the Church of Christ ministers criticized the example of Mrs. White on this issue and held that she violated Paul’s principle based on the need of women to be silent in church.

Up to that time, Adventists ignored the argument that ordained pastors and deacons must be the husband of one wife rule set by Paul, and interpreted this as implying that ordination required moral integrity.


Posted by: adventlife | January 21, 2018

Guidelines on Marital Affairs, a Parody by Doug Yowell

Marriage 3


In the event you are not familiar with the Adventist document known as “guidelines on abortion,” you might have some difficulty appreciating the clever irony contained in this literary piece created by its pro-life author. You may want to consider reading said document first. Here is the link:


1) Marriage bed is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of the marriage bed. The marriage institution is modeled after God’s image and requires respect for the marriage covenant. However, decisions about affairs must be made in the context of a fallen world. An affair is never an act of little moral consequence. Thus, the marriage bond must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Affairs should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) An affair is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning a violation of their wedding vows. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it’s commitment to the value of marital fidelity. These ways should include (a) strengthening family relationships, (b) educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality, (c) emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for intimate sexual planning, (d) calling both marriage partners to be responsible for the consequences of behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles, (e) creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with affairs, (f) offering assistance to spouses who choose to retain their marital faithfulness in a crisis situation, (g) encouraging and assisting parents to participate responsibly in the modeling of marriage for their children. The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, emotional, psychological, and physical factors that may lead to an affair and to care redemptively for those suffering the consequences of individual choices on this issue.

4) The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. An affair for reasons of sexual experimentation, lack of self control, or convenience are not condoned by the church, Couples, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or relational dilemmas, such as significant threats to the marital commitment, serious jeopardy to the emotional and sexual health of the marriage, severe physical defects carefully diagnosed in one of the spouses, intentionally withheld sexual responsibilities by one of the married persons, a previous or ongoing sexual infidelity by either of the couple, the chronic failure of one partner to provide sexual satisfaction for the other, an undetected gender misidentity, and consensual agreements with other intimately related couples. The final decision whether to have an affair or not should be made by the affected party after appropriate consultation. They should be aided in their decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

5) Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it’s ethics. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce a married person either to remain faithful to their sexual vows, or to engage in an affair should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to affairs should not be required to give support to an extra marital sexual experience.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to sexual faithfulness in the light of the teaching of Scripture.


What follows is a review of some of the salient points presented in the video coupled with the time count for easy location of the specific item presented in it.

Dramatic increase in the number of abortions at the Glendale & the White Memorial hospitals: 558 % spike in one year as evidence that these were elective abortions.
Advance to 058

1986 American Hospital Association reported that 12 our of 56 SDA hospitals were offering abortion services
Advance to 1:52

“The number of elective abortions has increased since 1971.”
Advance to 3:32

Estimated elective abortion between 1970 & 2,000 is 20,0000
Advance to 4:42

The Washington Post report of elective abortions in Adventist hospitals was never denied by the church.
Advance to 5:24

Chaplain George Gainer asked by Ministry Magazine to write a report on abortion. Thr church’s secret abortion file was denied access to him, but later allowed following a Ministry Magazine special request. He copied half of the material in the file, but days later Neal Wilson ordered his access interrupted.
Advance to 5:58

In 1970 our Castle Memorial Hospital started offering abortion for social reasons.
Advance to 8:06

The Washington Adventist Hospital was reported to have performed 1494 abortion between 1975 & 1982.
Advance to 10:37

In 1991-1992 three SDA hospitals near the GC performed 1600 abortions. The total estimated number of abortion in just two of these hospitals is 15,000.
Advance to 11:51

In response to a pro-life complain, President Ron M Wisbey asserted that the Adventist church was not involved in the abortion business which resulted in a raise of his salary.
Advance to 14:15

In 1993, GC Health Ministry director wrote a letter asking a pro-lifer to support the guidelines on abortion, which means that if you want to help children being killed, you need to support the guidelines that authorize their murder.
Advance to 16:53

Following the Washington Post report of abortion in Adventist hospitals, the Adventist for Life web site was ordered by GC lawyers to cease and desist their pro-life activities.
Advance to 19:18

When a Washington Adventist Hospital employee complained about the abortion issue, she was provided with a list of Catholic hospitals where she could apply for employment.
Advance to 20:27

The women’s ordination issue was voted three times already by the church. The abortion issue not even once.
Advance to 24:02

Adventist hospitals have murdered more blacks than the KKK in all their history.
Advance to 26:14


According to an article published by the Adventist Review entitled “Church in South America Passes Statement Opposing Death Penalty” [1] the Adventist Church has come out against the execution of criminals and murderers while still allowing the execution of innocent unborn children as evidenced by a document approved by the church known as “guidelines on abortion.” [2]

If the killing of criminals is wrong, how in the world did the church decide that the execution of innocent human beings was morally acceptable back in 1970? And do not forget that said guidelines on abortion are still followed by our Adventist Health System!

Can’t we see that killing the innocent is contrary to the health ministry of our church? How did we manage to include killing among the health program designed to alleviate suffering, pain, and the protection of human life? We allow abortion to protect the lifestyle of the pregnant woman. Is lifestyle more sacred than life? Here are some of the statements contained in this new document of the church:

“The document contextually discusses biblical texts and passages that seem to support the application of the death penalty by governments, to conclude that “Adventists believe that violence and capital punishment have no place within the Church. In other words, it is not the task of the Church to take human life.”

How can we be against “violence” when dealing with criminals but in favor or neutral when violence is manifested against unborn and innocent human beings? Isn’t this evidence that we have a serious contradiction in our teachings regarding the right to life of those who were created in God’s image?

“The application of capital punishment “is often fraught with procedural difficulties,” and “is irreversible,” something that “should make us very cautious.”

Isn’t the capital punishment applied to the unborn “irreversible” as well?

“As the document states, however, the key task is to get to know the biblical view of capital punishment by studying biblical texts on the topic in various contexts. It is also important to understand it from “a robust biblical anthropology,” as over the years, the Adventist Church has issued official statements “against violence, war, and euthanasia, and in favor of tolerance and noncombatancy,” it reads.” 

If we are against violence in the case of war and euthanasia, on what moral or biblical basis can we continue to allow for violence to be manifested in the case of abortion?

“The Church shares the biblical teaching of the immense value of all life and the sanctity of human life especially, which was created in the image of God,” reads the statement. Accordingly, “[it] seeks to preserve and protect human life.””

Are we saying that the life of a convicted murderer is sacred but the life of the unborn is not? Aren’t the unborn created in God’s image as well? Why are convicted criminals entitled to the “protection of human life” but not the unborn who are not guilty of any crime? Here is what the Bible teaches:

“The one who acquits the guilty and the one who condemns the innocent–both of them are an abomination to the LORD.” [Proverbs 17:15]

Based on this biblical passage, we can safely conclude that the position of the Adventist church on this issue is and “abomination to the LORD” because we are protecting the life of the wicked but failing to protect the life of the innocent.




Please, take the time to watch the following powerful video created by Adventist researcher named Andrew Michell:

“Adventist Church Official Position Statement on Death Penalty”


Posted by: adventlife | January 9, 2018

Adventist Church Official Position Statement on Death Penalty



My Question: How can we claim to be opposed to the death penalty of guilty criminals but at the same time maintain a document known as “Guidelines on Abortion” that lists a variety of circumstances under which our hospitals and clinics are allowed to kill unborn children who have committed no crime? This is a mystery to me!

Older Posts »


Advent Life Books

The best books should be free--like air and water!




My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Confessions of a Teenage Runaway

My Voice... My Story...

Advent Life

Focusing on Life