Advertisements
Posted by: adventlife | August 25, 2017

Our Lopsided Adventist Eschatology, by Nic Samojluk

Sabbath1-150x140

A pro-life Adventist wrote to me: “I am keenly interested in your thoughts on how abortion fits in with Adventist ethics and eschatology, as you see it

Is it possible that our eschatology might be lopsided? We have demonstrated an obsession with the sanctity of the holy day of rest while neglecting the value of human life. Jesus said: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

If the Sabbath was made for man, then it follows that human life is more sacred than the Sabbath. This is where those who killed the Author of life made a fatal mistake. They concluded that sacrificing the life of Jesus was a small price to pay for the sake of the rules they had made for the protection of the sanctity of the weekly day of rest.

We have been teaching that the final test that will determine the destiny of every soul is our attitude towards the correct day of worship. Did Jesus ever teach this eschatological doctrine? Perhaps he did, but I can’t fin any evidence of this.

What he no doubt did teach was that our eternal destiny will be determined by the way we treat the least, and I am having a hard time finding a group of human beings more entitled to the “the least” label than the unborn.

Ellen White did teach that the final test will be connected with the Sabbath, and we should not deny this. Nevertheless, should not what Jesus taught about the final events take priority over what Ellen White’s prediction?

Both teachings are probably correct, but which of the two should be more important for the Remnant Church? Should not Jesus emphasis prevail, and he emphasized the way we treat “the least of these.”

For some reason the Lord did not reveal to Mrs. White anything about the coming large-scale genocide of the unborn. I would venture that this was probably in order to test the faith and faithfulness of God’s chosen people. Unfortunately, we failed the test, and we failed this test in a big way: We even profited from the killing of innocent unborn babies.

Will the Lord apply the three strikes law on his people? First we failed in Nazi Germany by our compromise on the Sabbath and the sixth commandment; then we failed in Rwanda when Adventist engaged in the killing of fellow believers of the wrong ethnicity; finally we failed in 1970 when our leaders embraced the pro-abortion policy for the sake of shameful profit.

There is no time to waste! We need to repent and seek God’s forgiveness for this great sin against heaven.

 

Posted by: adventlife | August 24, 2017

ABORTION PRO & CON ARGUMENTS, by Nic Samojluk

Argument-150x119

A Summary of Pro-life and Pro-choice Arguments

Dispersed throughout this report there is a large number of arguments utilized on behalf of both the pro-life and the pro-choice position on abortion. The material that follows was generated in response to such arguments and it might be of help in determining the moral strength or weakness of our attitude towards the practice of abortion.

Argument: We cannot pinpoint the precise moment human life begins.
Counter Argument: If we don’t know the precise moment human life begins, then we should err on the side of caution.

A: Jesus died to restore our freedom.
C: Yes, but not freedom to kill the innocent. He died to make us free from sin!

A: Christ valued choice over life.
C: Jesus Christ chose to sacrifice his own life for the benefit of others. Women who abort choose to sacrifice the life of others for their own convenience.

A: A victim of rape or incest should be free to choose abortion.
C: If society lets the rapist live, then the innocent baby should be allowed to live as well. Letting the guilty go free while killing the innocent is a travesty of justice.

A: The Bible is silent on abortion.
C: The Bible is also silent about slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Nevertheless, it is not silent about the killing of innocent human beings, nor is it silent about the shedding of innocent blood.

A: Ellen White is silent on abortion.
C: Ellen White stated that neglecting the health of the pregnant woman is almost equivalent to murdering the unborn baby. If she condemned the almost killing of the baby, would she condone the actual killing of the same?

A: The unborn is not entitled to personhood.
C: Before the American Civil War slaves were not entitled to personhood either, but they were definitely human. In Nazi Germany, Gypsies, Jews, the handicapped, the sick, and the non-productive members of the human race were also legally deprived of personhood.

A: Population control demands the sacrifice of the unborn under certain conditions.
C: It is a shame that this argument is made in the richest country of the world. Killing human beings because there are too many of us is morally abhorrent.

A: The majority of Americans approve of therapeutic abortions.
C: Abortion is no therapy for the unborn baby, and it is no therapy for the pregnant woman either.

A: It is cheaper to provide abortion services to the poor than providing welfare for the pregnant woman after birth.
C: Reducing the welfare benefits to women would be a more humane solution than killing the most vulnerable members of the human race.

A: Abortion will secure the affection of the woman’s boyfriend or husband.
C: Experience has demonstrated the opposite effect. Abortion has the tendency to accelerate the dissolution of relationships between lovers.

A: The legalization of abortion insures that every child is wanted and loved.
C: Statistics have demonstrated that child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion.

A: Abortion is biblically justified because the unborn have not developed the “power to think and to do” which represents the “image of God” according to E.G. White.
C: The image of God is more than just merely the “power to think and to do.” It is the power to do God’s will. Without this, human beings develop the image of the evil one, who has been a “murderer from the beginning.”

A: Women deserve to be free from unwanted pregnancies.
C: The sexual freedom promised by feminists is a mirage. Abortion is quite often followed by side effects, including guilt, depression, and emotional detachment from any other wanted children the woman may have.

A: There is nothing wrong with abortion, since nature causes spontaneous abortions quite often in the case of serious physical deformities in the fetus.
C: It is morally wrong to imitate nature. Nature kills through tornados, earthquakes, and floods, but people who kill end in jail or the electric chair.

A: The Bible states that “there is a time to kill.”
C: Yes, the Bible condones the death penalty, but it condemns the “shedding of innocent blood.” The Bible does not say this, but there is also a time to sit on the electric chair.

A: The abortion of defective fetuses is prudent, since anencephalic babies, for example, are likely to die soon after birth.
C: The role of physicians is to prolong the life of their patients. Killing people simply because they are going to die anyway is morally unacceptable.

A: An unwanted pregnancy sometimes affects the mental health of women.
C: Mental depression can’t justify the killing of innocent babies. Giving the unwanted baby for adoption is much better than killing it. Nine months of inconvenience cannot balance the guilt of having deprived the baby of life.

A: An unwanted pregnancy may threaten the lifestyle of the pregnant woman.
C. A temporary disruption of a woman’s lifestyle cannot be compared with the total, permanent, and irreversible deprivation of the baby’s life. Adoption is always a better option for unwanted babies.

A: Women should have a right to have total control over their own bodies.
C: The Bible states that God is the rightful owner of our bodies.

A: Functional human life should have priority over potential human life.
C: Was the life of baby Jesus before his birth functional of merely potential human life?

A: Unwanted babies might be better off dead than be subjected to neglect, suffering, and abuse.
C: Can fallible human beings predict with any degree of certainty the future life of an unborn baby?

A: A minor should not be required to carry her pregnancy to term.
C: The Bible states that children should not be put to death for the sins of the parents. If someone needs to die, it should be the man who impregnated the minor.

A: No woman becomes pregnant with the purpose of having an abortion.
C: True! Nevertheless, the abortion is the result of an intentional decision to take the life of an innocent human being.

A: It is unchristian to exhibit a judgmental attitude towards women who are considering the abortion alternative.
C: Would it be also wrong to try to dissuade somebody planning to steal, rape, or sexually abuse a child?

A: It would be unchristian to manifest a condemnatory attitude towards women who had an abortion.
C: Women who have had an abortion need God’s forgiveness. How can these women seek God’s forgiveness, if we justify abortion?

A: Christians need to hold in high esteem the personal autonomy of pregnant women seeking abortion.
C: Autonomy means self rule, and it reflects a godless, humanistic philosophy. Christians recognize that they are subject to God’s rule, to whom they will one day have to give an account for their actions.

A: For a victim of rape, a live baby is a constant reminder of the violent act perpetrated against her.
C: Yes, and a dead baby will be a constant reminder of the violence she exhibited towards her own child. Giving the baby for adoption is a much better option.

A: Jesus did approve abortion when he stated that it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born.
C: Yes! The problem is that human beings do not have a crystal ball to determine the future of a developing baby.

A: Abortion is sometimes the best alternative for a pregnant woman.
C: Death cannot be the best alternative for the baby. For the woman, adoption is always a better alternative than abortion.

A: Nine months is a long time for a woman who is not ready to be a mother.
C: A lifetime of regret and guilt is much longer.

A: Pregnant women are entitled to freedom of choice.
C: Of course, and that choice should be life. The Bible states that wrong choices are accompanied by a curse: “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. . . .This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live”[1]

A: Abortion is necessary because our planet is already overcrowded.
C: If that is the case, then how about killing the criminals instead of killing the innocents?

A: Interference with a woman’s plan to opt for an abortion is an infringement of her personal freedom.
C: Would trying to prevent a rape, burglary, or murder also be an infringement of the personal freedom of criminals?

A: Those citing the Psalms in defense of the unborn should remember that that portion of the Bible is mere poetry.
C: Does this imply that Jesus made a big mistake when he quoted the Psalms in his discussion with the Pharisees and Sadducees about theological issues?

A: Jesus died in order to preserve our freedom of choice.
C: Did he also die to preserve our freedom to rape, abuse, steal, and murder?

A: The health of the pregnant woman should not be ignored when considering the advisability of an abortion.
C: Yes, provided the health and life of the baby is given equal consideration.

A: A healthy family relationship should be taken into account when deciding about abortion.
C: How can killing a member of the family contribute to the healthy family relationship?

A: Catholics are opposed to abortion because they believe in the immortality of the human soul.
C: James White and the early SDA pioneers did not believe in the immortality of the human soul, yet they condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest terms.

A: Women should be free to have an abortion at least in the first trimester of pregnancy.
C: Most abortions are performed when there is a beating heart pumping blood through the baby’s body. Abortion is a bloody business.

A: A fetus can’t be equated with a real human being.
C: It has feet, hands, a face, and it sucks its thumb. If it is not human, then what is it? An animal? Animals are those who engage in the killing of these creatures for a profit!

A: Some feminists warn pro-lifers: “Get your hands off my body.”
C: Pro-lifers answer: “And you get off your hands off the baby’s body.”

A: Only women have been granted the ability to become pregnant, and they should be the ones making decision related to abortion.
C: It was a group of nine male judges who decided to deprive the unborn of personhood. Men should have the right to undo the damage they have done.

A: Many biblical scholars believe that Exodus 21:22-25 supports the belief that the value of the fetus is not equal to that of the mother.
C: Biblical scholars also agree that in those times the value of a slave was not on par with that of their masters.

A: Babies become alive when they take their first breath after birth.
C: Fish do not breathe either, yet they are definitely alive.

A: The church should not compel women to carry their pregnancy to term.
C: The church has no legal power to force women to carry their pregnancy to term, but they do have the moral duty to offer guidance on this matter.

A: Adventists should give priority to other moral issues, like poverty, hunger, and health.
C: The abundance of food and healthcare can do no good to a dead baby.

A: The most important commandment of the Decalogue is the one dealing with the Sabbath rest, because it will determine the final destiny of human beings.
C: Did Jesus say that? Didn’t he rather say that the eternal destiny of human being will be determined by the way we treat “the least of these”?

A: SDA hospitals do not provide elective abortions.
C: Wrong! Several hospitals owned by the SDA Church have been providing elective abortions, one of them even before the U.S. Congress legalized the practice, and one of them recently was described by a General Conference official as an “abortion mill.”

A: Adventists have opted to avoid both extremes on the issue of abortion, and decided to keep the middle ground attitude.
C: The SDA “middle ground attitude” results in thousand of totally dead innocent babies.

A: Aren’t women entitled to privacy under the U.S. Constitution?
C: The right to take the life of an innocent human being is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

A: The decision to sacrifice an unborn life should be made only when it is the best way to make a troubled life tolerable.
C: Tolerable for whom? The pregnant woman or the unborn baby? Why not both? Adoption benefits the pregnant woman unable to raise a child, the baby, and the adoptive parents.

A: There is no intrinsic right to life by a potential human being.
C: Does size determine the moral value of a human being? Is a giant worth more in God’s eyes than a pigmy? Was baby Jesus merely a potential human being before his birth?

A: We don’t know the precise moment human life begins.
C: Then we should err on the side of caution. If you are driving on a foggy night and see something on the road that looks like it might be a human being, you stop and investigate instead of running it over.

A: The moral value of a fetus is in direct relationship to the degree of its development.
C: Did the moral value of baby Jesus start from zero at conception and then increased in size with the passage of time?

A: Both Job and Jeremiah wished they had been aborted, thus approving of the practice of abortion.
C: No biblical scholar has ever suggested that the lives of these men were a mistake. Depressed individuals may wish to be dead, but we don’t kill them. The mental state of a pregnant woman should not be relied upon in deciding what is best for her and her unborn baby.

A: Human life does not begin at conception. It began with Adam and Eve.
C: True, human life began with Adam and Eve. Nevertheless the life of each individual begins with fertilization.

A: Murder is not the appropriate word for describing the abortion of an embryo.
C: Altering the name of depriving a human being of life does not make it right.

A: Potential things are less valuable than actual things. A potential election winner does not have the same rights as an actual election winner.
C: We are not discussing political rights, but the right to life all human being are entitled to regardless of size, stage of development, or place of residence.

A: Some experts have estimated that 56 percent of all embryos spontaneously abort, usually due to the presence of some abnormality in them.
C: Society can’t sue nature for its alleged crimes against humanity, but it can sue those members of the human race who engage in criminal activity.

A: In the case of rape, abortion is a reasonable response.
C: The right response would be to punish the rapist, instead of executing one of the innocent victims of rape.

A: Society should forbid only elective abortions, and not those resulting from rape or incest.
C: All abortions are elective. A pregnant woman is free to elect adoption instead of death for the baby.

A: The church should stay away from controversial issues like abortion.
C: Smoking and Sabbath keeping are controversial issues. Should Adventists stop preaching and teaching about those controversial issues as well?

A: Women should be free to choose abortion if they so desire.
C: Should we add that man should be free to rape, abuse, and steal?

A: Abortion seems like a wise solution to the large number of unwanted pregnancies.
C: Hitler also thought that killing a certain group of human being was a wise solution to the Nazi German problem.

A: Society cannot ignore the quality of life of the pregnant woman.
C: Is quality of life more important than life itself? If your life is in mortal danger, do you care whether you have one or two cars in your driveway?

A: Abortion frees many unborn from a life of poverty, misery, and abuse.
C: Depression and suicide are rather uncommon among the poor and the handicapped.

A: Because of the predicted persecution towards the members of the remnant church, Adventists highly value personal freedom.
C: Freedom from persecution includes the unborn’s freedom from execution by abortionists who profit from their immoral business.

A: I find the pro-life case less than compelling.
C: Would you change your mind if you were the one doomed to die?

A: A minor is not ready to become a mother.
C: The unborn baby is not ready to become an abortion victim either.

A: The church has no right to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit by preaching against abortion.
C: Are God’s ministers of the Gospel usurping the role of the Holy Spirit when they preach against sin?

A: Abortion is the right response to a violent act.
C: One crime does not justify the commission of another crime against an innocent human being.

A: A rape victim will never be able to forget the violent act perpetrated against her.
C: It will be harder for her to forget the violent act against her own baby in which she was a willing participant.

A: Rape is a cruel act, but as Christians we must be willing to forgive the rapist for whom Jesus died also.
C: Yes, and we must let the baby live as well, more so because it has done no wrong.

A: Truth is progressive. Adventists pioneers were pro-life, but now the church has decided that the time was ripe for embracing the pro-choice position on abortion.
A: There seems to exist a disconnect between the church who encouraged young draftees to refuse to bear arms in self defense in times of war, and the current church which justifies the killing of the most innocent members of humanity.

A: Abortion must be seen as a lesser evil than raising an unwanted child.
C: Giving the child for adoption avoid both of these undesirable alternatives.

A: Jan Paulsen, the president of the General Conference has unequivocally stated that the Adventist church is pro-life.

C: Words must have a specific meaning. Redefining pro-life on pro-choice terms creates only confusion. The official SDA “Guidelines on Abortion” attempts to embrace both the pro-life and pro-choice position on abortion, thus rendering the document irrelevant.

A: Anencephalic babies could be valuable sources of organs for transplantation to patients who otherwise are doomed to die.
C: Yes, but killing one human being in order to save the life of another is morally abhorrent. Besides, if such babies are in fact dead, why do physicians instruct nurses to keep them alive until the harvesting of organs have been secured?

A: If a fetus is genetically human, so is every unfertilized egg in the body of a nun as well.
C: A DNA analysis would reveal that the unfertilized egg in the body of a nun bears the same genetic markers as any other cell in her body. This is not true about the fetus.

A: The unborn do not possess self-consciousness; therefore, they have no intrinsic right to life.
C: If that is the case, then perhaps society should legalize the killing of the newborn, the comatose, the senile, and those who are asleep.

A: Redefining death as the absence of higher brain activity would provide an ample supply of human organs for transplantation.
C: Does issuing a death certificate for a comatose patient or anencephalic baby make them dead? If they are already dead, why the need to kill them? Someone who is really dead, is ready for burial. Would society condone the burial of human beings who are still breathing?

A: The right to life protected by the Declaration of Independence does not include the unborn.
C: Neither does it include women or children. It names “men” only.

A: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution protects the life of U.S. citizens, and the unborn are not citizens of the U.S.
C: Does this mean that we are free to take the life of immigrants who have not become citizens yet?

A: Adventists have a tradition of defending our religious freedom to worship according to our conscience. It follows that we should stand behind women’s freedom of choice.
C: How about the rapists’ right to choose? Should there be a limit to free choice?

A: Abortion is a lesser evil than a life of poverty, neglect, and abuse.
C: Wrong! Giving the baby for adoption is a better option for the baby.

A: The official pro-choice position of the church accurately reflects the current general attitude of Adventists toward the issue of abortion.
C: Wrong! The final result of my investigation (see Chapter XIII of my “Pro-life to Pro-choice” book) indicates the opposite. Two thirds of those who have expressed their opinions in the leading SDA publications between 1970 and 2006 seem to belong in the pro-life group, and only one third in the pro-choice category.

[1] Deut. 30:19.

Posted by: adventlife | August 22, 2017

I Sing the Mighty Power of God

Posted by: adventlife | August 21, 2017

Abortion the Most Serious Adventist Problem, by Nic Samojluk

Abortion 9

There are many moral issues affecting the welfare and credibility of the Adventist church:

  1. Homosexuality
  2. Sexual abuse
  3. Transgenderism
  4. Women’s ordination
  5. Unity
  6. Apathy
  7. Abortion

None of the issues listed above can compare in gravity with the killing of innocent unborn children. The violation of none of them normally ends with the death of an innocent victim. If the blood of Abel claimed for justice, imagine how loud must be the voice of the millions of victims of abortion.

The Lord destroyed the flood generation because the earth was full of violence. The violence perpetrated against the most innocent and most vulnerable members of society is reaching monumental proportions and God will have to intervene again in defense of the unborn.

Most Adventists are not concerned about this problem because they rely of the predictions made by Ellen White about the eventual triumph of the Remnant church forgetting that God’s promises are contingent on human response.

In the Old Testament we have the record of the promise the Lord made to the House of Priest Eli. When this man of God failed to discipline his children, the Lord cancelled the promise he had made to him.

“Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. [1 Sam 2:30]

As long as God’s Remnant was faithful to all ten of God’s Commandments, there was hope for the world. “You are the salt of the earth,” Jesus said. God is about to do what he predicted in the last book of the Bible. He is about to spit the church of Laodicea out of his mouth.

When a wolf wears sheep’s clothing it becomes very dangerous for the safety of sheep. But when the wolf wears shepherds clothing his presence among the sheep becomes lethal.

Of course the church of Laodicea can choose to repent before it is too late. May this be the eventual outcome of the Adventist denomination!

Carter

In the event you don’t know who John Carter is, you may want to read the short description listed below before watching a short video clip in which he answers a question from one of his listeners. Make sure to read my comments at the bottom if this page!

Link: https://www.cartereport.org/media-library/2013/why-are-sda-hospitals-performing-abortions

“John Carter is a Seventh-day Adventist Christian evangelist known especially for his work in Russia. His presentation is known as the “Carter Report“, and he is a leading figure within the Adventist church. …”

A 1990 crusade was attended by thousands of people.[3] In 1991 a small mission was held in Moscow, the capital of the formerly Communist country of Russia. 100 people were baptized and joined the church. In 1992, 2500 were baptized in an outreach in the city of Nizhny Novgorod.[4][5]

Meetings there in the following year brought in 1200 people to the Adventist church.[6] Another series in 1994 saw 8000 conversions to Christianity.[7] Later, 1300 joined the Adventist church through his work.[8] In 1995, he ran meetings in Ukraine‘s capital Kiev.[9] 52,000 attended,[10] and 2819 joined the Adventist church.[11] There were city officials that harassed attenders at that evangelistic meeting.[12]

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(evangelist

My Comments

To his credit, John Carter stated that he didn’t believe in abortions on demand, which is the first big mistake the Adventist church was guilty of when the leaders of the church permitted our Adventist hospitals to offer elective abortions to their patients back in 1970 in the State of Hawaii.

The second big mistake was for the General Conference Autumn Council to approve the notorious document known as the “Guidelines on Abortion,” that justified the killing of innocent unborn children under a variety of circumstances including when an unwanted pregnancy began to affect the mental health of the woman.

Think of this: The church leaders felt that a temporary mental depression—so common in cases of unwanted pregnancies—had priority over the permanent and irreversible death of the unborn child.

Some Adventists claim: “That is history; this happened decades ago; our Adventist medical institutions no longer perform abortions.” If this is true, then why on earth when our Adventist Health System [AHS] was competing with Catholics for the building of a new hospital in Montgomery County, our representatives argued that the permits should be granted to Adventists who offer abortions to their patients? Here is the evidence:

“Adventist HealthCare is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which has no religious policies governing health care. Adventist hospitals perform abortions and provide a full range of reproductive care, Parris said.”

Ref.: http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/10142009/olnenew222839_32527.shtml

John Carter’s Mistake

In his response to one of his listeners, Carter sounded pro-life, but he made an exception in the case of rape, incest, and the mental health of the pregnant woman. That is precisely the moral error contained in the Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion.”

Said document justifies the killing of a healthy unborn child if the father of the baby was a sinner, something forbidden in the Bible. Scripture forbids imposing the death penalty on an innocent victim for the sins of the parents.

In addition, the same Adventist document places the temporary mental depression of a pregnant woman over the permanent and irreversible deprivation of life of an innocent victim. This humanly created policy places human opinion over the murder prohibition contained in God’s holy Law.

John Carter would do well to read the new book authored by Danny Shelton, the president of 3ABN, entitled “Spiritual Vigilantes.” In it Shelton talks about the Ten Commandments and condemns the practice of abortion with the clearest language. He is probably the first Adventist leader to do this in this century. In this he deviates from the policy created by the church two decades ago.

It is high time for the Adventist church to get out of the abortion business 100 percent!

Spiritual-vigilantes-book-danny-shelton

With the publication of a new book—“Spiritual Vigilantes”– by Danny Shelton, the president of 3ABN, a divergent position on abortion has developed within the Adventist denomination. Will this event break the two decades of silence on this issue within Adventism? We don’t know.

Historical Background

When the State of Hawaii legalized abortion back in 1970, our Adventist leaders were faced with a serious moral dilemma. Half of the medical staff at our Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH] demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients.

One particular philanthropist who had donated a sizable sum of money for the construction of our Adventist hospital in Hawaii demanded that the management provide an abortion for his young daughter. When the directors of this Adventist medical facility hesitated, the non-Adventist physicians at said institution threatened to take their patients elsewhere in the event their demands were not met.

This unusual situation reached our General Conference, the Adventist leaders panicked, the fear of the Lord went out the window, and our Adventist church allowed our CMH to offer elective abortions on demand in a direct violation of God’s Law which prohibited the killing of innocent human beings.

Soon after, other Adventist hospitals took advantage of this new situation and thousands of innocent unborn children lost their lives inside our Adventist medical facilities. Thus, killing became an integral part of our original mission–healing.

The Adventist Controversy Regarding Abortion

Many Adventist members were alarmed at this change of policy regarding killing, and a vigorous controversy developed within the Adventist community. The debate lasted over two decades, and then it abated following the publication of a document known as “Guidelines on Abortion” which justified the killing of innocent unborn human beings under a variety or circumstances, including when an unwanted pregnancy began to affect the mental health of pregnant women.

Think of this, the church decided that the temporary mental depression of a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy had precedence over the permanent deprivation of life of an innocent unborn baby. The deleterious effect of said abortion guidelines was that human beings justified the violation of one of God’s commandments in the name of mercy toward pregnant women. Of course, profit from the killing of unborn babies was a major factor in this shameful moral decision.

Is Silence the Right Answer When the House is on Fire?

Yesterday, I saw the following story as I was watching the daily news. A young man noticed that an apartment complex was on fire. He could have said to himself, “Alerting the dwellers of all these apartments might be risky. This is none of my business!”

He did not hesitate; he rushed to the rescue of those who were in great danger of loosing their lives; he started banging on doors and yelling: “Fire! The apartment is on fire,” and no one lost his life. This was a large apartment complex; had he chosen a silent response to the danger, a large number of people might have perished in the inferno.

The Wrong Answer to a Tragic Situation

When two decades ago the Adventist leaders chose the silent response to the growing genocide of the unborn, this was the wrong answer to a tragic situation. Innocent unborn children were being dismembered and poisoned to death inside abortion clinics, and those with the last message to a perishing world decided to side with the enemy of souls. We even allowed abortionists to carry out their murderous plans inside our own medical institutions.

Honoring God and the Mighty Dollar

Our morally blind Adventist leaders decided that there was nothing wrong honoring both God and the mighty dollar at the same time. We erected a statue of the Good Samaritan on the campus of our Loma Linda University, and we placed several plaques in honor of the greatest abortionist in the history of California a short distance from this monument.

Something similar took place on the campus of La Sierra University. A significant portion of its newer building was named after the same murderer of innocent unbor children in gratitude for his philanthropic support of Adventist education—a man responsible for the untimely death of 250,000 unborn children.

Breaking the Silence on Abortion

By coincidence, or perhaps providential intervention, two pro-life voices suddenly appeared among Adventism. One of them, a talented video creator named Andrew Michell, and the other one a successful TV personality and writer. Will these daring pro-life leaders manage to break the silence on the topic of abortion? Only God knows!

Michell’s pro-life videos are already having a powerful impact on the conscience of many Adventist leaders and members; and the book recently published by Danny Shelton, the president of 3ABN, is being widely distributed to avid readers and promoters. The title of the book is “Spiritual Vigilantes,” and is free to the public.

How is this possible? This incredible project was made possible by the generosity of donors. One of them gifted $100,000 for the project, others are donating $20,000, $10,000 as well as other large and small donations.

You can request a few copies or hundreds of them. The only thing you will be asked to pay for is shipping. Here is a link for you:

Link for the Book:

https://3abnstore.com/

Link for Michell’s Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzWgG4VIui8&feature=em-subs_digest

.

Yes, a pro-life position by the Adventist church is attainable by simply empowering the same entity that approved the abortions guidelines back in 1992. It can be done this year. All we need is for the new members of the Autumn Council representing the entire world church to include this in their agenda.

What took place in San Antonio, Texas, in 2015 can be a guide to what could happen again. The representatives of the worldwide church revealed then their willingness to defeat the will of the North American delegation on the issue of women’s ordination. The same could be done on the abortion issue by the Autumn Council.

Perhaps the Lord is preparing the conditions for this miracle to take place.

Here are some highlights I jotted down from the above referenced video:

The General Conference Executive Committee includes representatives from the worldwide church, therefore it speaks for the entire world church.

In 1992, 93 percent of the representatives voted in favor of the guidelines on abortion and only 7 percent against said document.

In 1992 45 percent of the representatives were from the North American Division [NAD].

Since 1992, the year the guidelines on abortion was approved, the demographics of the church have changed in a dramatic way. The power has shifted away from the NAD. Today the NAD representation is only 8 percent of the total world church.

The GC Executive Committee meets every year, which means that doing away with the abortion guidelines is within the reach of the church if the altered voting power of the church is appealed to.

Silence is implied admission that you agree with what the church has been teaching and practicing regarding the violation of the biblical murder prohibition.

Posted by: adventlife | August 1, 2017

Spiritual Vigilantes, a New Book by 3ABN Danny Shelton

.

My Comments: As you watch this video, I suggest that you pay special attention to the comments made about abortion and homosexuality by the participants. You might be aware that the Adventist community has been strangely silent about these topics—especially the issue of abortion–while the genocide of the unborn has been in full swing in a direct violation of God’s prohibition against the murder of innocent human being. The book is free, and you can order any number of copies. The only expense you will be ask to contribute is the cost of shipping.

Link for Ordering: https://3abnstore.com/

 

plannedparenthood178

“The abortion company has also been exposed for selling the body parts of aborted children. The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all 14:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
  • In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
  • The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
  • The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
  • Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
  • The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
  • The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
  • The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.
  • The 14th video: catches Planned Parenthood executives discussing gruesome abortion procedures and the sale of body parts from aborted babies for profit.

More: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/07/24/senate-parliamentarian-may-have-killed-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood-possible-solution-emerges/

Older Posts »

Categories

Advent Life Books

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

KEEPLIFELEGAL

EXPOSING THE ABORTION AGENDA FROM THE PULPIT, ON THE SIDEWALK, IN THE MEDIA & AT THE STATEHOUSE.

kelzbelzphotography

My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Confessions of a Teenage Runaway

My Voice... My Story...

Advent Life

Focusing on Life