Well upon me having (generally) sent an email complaint (supplied below) to the parent Conference of the Grand Advent SDA Church, the Northern California Conference about these ‘outrightly and/or obtusely (=“beyond the pale”) blasphemous/slanderous (public) waywardness/statements’ of Jonathan Henderson, (-since the various several attempts by other people/members to correct him (=Matt 18:15-16) had not worked (cf. Matt 18:17a...)), apparently ‘his president, James Pedersen, sent them to him “as an FYI”. Henderson then proceeded to respond to me about the email ((somehow) through my Facebook personal message, instead of my blog’s contact email, (also included in the email text & NCC emailing)). Upon having first also posted his response in its entirety below, (for this is not at all a private/personal matter[1], -and it also is more efficient to post these developments as a dedicated blog post here rather than within Facebook or in an attached PDF), I then give my point by point response. His original, immediate statements then are left in bold.
August 12, 2014
To the Northern California Conference of SDAs:
In case you have not (seriously) taken note of this, you have a pretty, indifferently, “loose canon” in Jonathan Henderson at the Grand Advent SDA Church who repeatedly wantonly and recklessly claims things about God, the Bible and Bible people which are just unbiblical, heretical, blasphemous and/or slanderous, and thus just plainly “confusing” at best. I have samply cited/documented several instances of these, -which are also not limited to his home church preaching, on my blog: See:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacrifice-of-christ.html#militarycensus
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacrifice-of-christ.html#JHvJoseph
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacrifice-of-christ.html#JHvJoseph
And from recordings of his sermons and his own ‘smoke screening’ recounting, several other people, even beyond his own congregation, have had issues, and expressed concern, about just these wayward preaching claims, including from a president of your conference. (And frankly, I moreover frankly can’t see why such a wantonly ‘confused, confusing and confusion’ spirit (which he desperately, wishfully purports is “(calculatedly) deliberate” -well it’s still utterly confusing, ergo that all, indeed increasingly provedly, just a part of Satan’s SDA-Babylonian work/agenda) is now to be unleashed full-time as a chaplain on pivotally plastic college students!)
Basic “Gospel Order” in the Church requires a formal holding to account of your pastor on such serious issues.
[...]
Director NJK Project
August 12, 2014
Possible correction in my prior email:
As per this statement at (04-27-13 sermon) [04:14-04:31] in:
-cited and discussed at the very end of Section #8 in here: http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/11/ministry-of-david-gates.html#AUS2013
it perhaps may have been the President of your parent North Pacific Union, along with the PUC’s interim senior pastor then, who had quasi-remonstrated Jonathan Henderson.
[...]
NJK Project
August 15, 2014
Jonathan Henderson 4:10am Aug 15
[...], my brother. My conference president passed along your email with links to your blog concerning my sermons as a FYI. Let me say that I'm quite impressed with all you have written concerning my sermons. I'm not offended in anyway, and have heard similar objections all throughout my ministry. I do think you might be able to generate more meaningful dialogue if you adjusted your writing style. My guess is that you're attempting a more academic prose, but it's a bit distracting, and hard to follow. Maybe a more linear approach would be more helpful. There are misunderstandings, as well as misinformation, in your blog concerning several points I was made, but I have no need to clear any of that up unless you desire clarity. There will be points that we simply disagree on, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. Anyhow, if you ever care to thoughtfully dialogue, I'm willing. You can message me here. Keep up the good work. I know you're doing what you believe our church needs.
Jonathan Henderson
Jonathan Henderson 4:41am Aug 15
To illustrate how some of your contentions were either misplaced or misinformed, I did want to pass along a quote from Sister White concerning one of your points of contention regarding Joseph: "But, in the providence of God, even this experience was to be a blessing to him. He had learned in a few hours that which years might not otherwise have taught him. His father, strong and tender as his love had been, had done him wrong by his PARTIALITY and INDULGENCE. This unwise preference had angered his brothers and provoked them to the cruel deed that had separated him from his home. Its EFFECTS were MANIFEST also in his own CHARACTER. FAULTS had been encouraged that were now to be CORRECTED. He was becoming SELF-SUFFICIENT and EXACTING. Accustomed to the tenderness of his father’s care, he felt that he was unprepared to cope with the difficulties before him, in the bitter, uncared-for life of a stranger and a slave." – Patriarchs and Prophets, 213.(caps all mine)
Just because Joseph was a kind and caring individual, didn't mean he didn't have faults with his character. It's not an either/or thing. In my message I chose to focus on the character flaws that aided in his dysfunctional relationship with his siblings so that I could celebrate the transformation and redemption he experience in Egypt. Ellen White says in the above quote "He had learned in a few hours that which years might not otherwise have taught him." That's powerful! You can't celebrate his salvation, if you don't see him as a sinner. Just saying...
August 15, 2014
[...], my brother.
-Well, factually and seriously speaking, all things considered, that just cannot Spiritually (Matt 12:50), nor technically, be the case. (Cf. here, and conclusion in here)...I.e. when I have to wastefully, thus nullifyingly, spend so much of my ministry time and effort having to repeatedly correct someone, then they just cannot be considered even as ‘fellow workers’ (Matt 12:30-31)...and frankly, the, especially closet, -as Henderson is, “Character of God” faction, also in the SDA Church are a most insidious group, not merely in what they theologically and doctrinally claim about God, but even more deeply, in the effectively self-idolatrous, subjective and selective way in which they claim the Bible (and SOP) should be read/studied/interpreted. It is no accident that Satan himself has used that very same approach to deceive people, even in his attempt against the most elect, Jesus Christ. (Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:1-13|DA ).
And, as consistently seen from my own discussion with several of these COG proponents, they smugly don’t care that they so fancifully “mal-divide” and unexegetically distort the word/revelations of God, for when they do not even have a spurious Bible or SOP text to substantiate their view, they just don’t address the contradiction...but of course continue to claim that they are right...all because these people are, tellingly enough, quite sentimentally led and overruled by their various ‘(humanistic) feelings’. Indeed these hermeneutically miscalibrated people, as also done in “Babylon”, specialize and “excel” in, undisciplinedly, “majoring on the minors”.
My conference president passed along your email with links to your blog concerning my sermons as a FYI.
-How responsible....And non-facetiously so if it was actually him, (and not the Pacific Union Conference president) who, as also referencedly documented above, had quasi-remonstrated Henderson just before a sermon at Pacific Union College.
Let me say that I'm quite impressed with all you have written concerning my sermons.
-Well given the actual correcting nature of these writings... that certainly is not an honoring thing.....Just as David Gates indeed....Typically individuals/ministries who, necessarily get so much, especially dedicated, mention and digital ink on my blog (e.g. also Eugene Shubert; James Tierney (+here); Stephen Bohr, the SDA Church in “General”, are variously (i.e., substantively and/or influentially) the most deceivingly dangerous cases which need to be dealt with. People/Instances who/when I can simply just make a reference to their own sermons website/writings while presenting these more advanced studies on these Church Triumphant issues are the ones/instances which need no Biblical correcting. (cf. Matt 9:12)
I'm not offended in anyway,
-Evidently-Surely not...especially if the “purpose” of the Matt 23-type statements is being deflectively, sanctimonious spinned as: ‘offensive/offending attempts’ (=Matt 15:12-14; PK 139.3-142.2). Being “ashamed” should instead be the implicated term. To me a: (1) formally (University) educated; (2) paid (3) pastor of an, and (4) preacher in the (5) SDA Church; addedly with a (6) potential and (7) general world-reaching internet audience, who, most significantly, influence/teaches, especially trusting/unsuspecting people to so mistreat the Bible and Revelations of God (cf. Matt 18:6) is the epitome of “false shepherding” deception (Ezek 34:1-22) for that is indeed how “Babylon” was “wolvedly” (Matt 7:15-20; Acts 20:26-30) started in Church History (=2 Thess 2:7-12) and has been maintained, and thus will (“doubly”) be adjudged (Rev 18:6-8, 21).
...I don’t know...I am guessing that it must be the fact that I myself self-denyingly and sacrificely repeatedly chose to ‘do the “terribly” right thing’ by me, correspondingly:
(1) straightly engaging in the Biblical research work which clearly was needed and superior to what I was going to be taught at the undergraduate and evidently. actually even seminary level at Andrews University;
(2) thus choosing not to conform to an easier official/validating, but accuracy-hollow ministry track which could easily have provided me a salary as a (3) pastor, (4a) preacher, (4b) evangelist and/or (4c) teacher in (5) the (non-the-wiser) SDA Church and with a guaranteed congregation and/or convention audience in (6) potentially, travellingly, (7) and easily through internet podcasting, around the world;
which makes me so unsympathetic to SDAs who have, especially systemically, niched out these conditions for ease and easy reward by variously opting not to do such required, foundational work, which they indeed could, as long proposed to them, be most easily be collectively, systematically doing...but pertinently enough here, talk about a ‘Joseph vs. his hateful and envious, shortcoming brother development.’ (SR 101.2)...
and have heard similar objections all throughout my ministry.
-Now here is an inherent problem...because from just my recent years of listening to Henderson’s sermons going back to 2007+, and (more availably) 2010+, I have seen the reason why these objections keep coming back...he either has not sought to better present/substantiate his “objectionable” claims and/or, as stated above as patent with COG-susceptible personalities/psyches, when, clearly, no even plausible substantiation could be later presented, he has just merely repeated his obtuse and beyond-the-pale claims. Now how serious or responsible is that for a (paid) pastor/preacher. It rather seems to be the subversive work of someone who, for arrogant and/or spiteful reasons, ‘defiantly’ just wants to incite controversy and confusion and thus clearly just for the sake of doing so.
Again as a paid, thus doubly responsible to your (SDA) audiences, pastor/preacher, and moreover for the above other 6 reasons cited, Henderson just does not have that rogue/“belligerent” option. Continuing to make these unsubstantiated claims, and even if a (plausible) exegetical and/or SOP substantiation can be claimed, but is not duly explicitly, and, if still necessary (i.e., to duly preempt/avoid any confusion), satisfactorily expoundedly cited, not merely constitutes “false shepherding” but indeed addedly ravenous, even thieving “wolfing”. If he is ‘unimpeachably so right’ then why can’t, or why doesn’t, he just clearly demonstrate so...or are people to instead just sheepishly/imbecilely trust him, and/or his caricaturish depictions as the concrete proof instead!??? Nothing but an entrenched prideful, vain, condescending and patronizing psyche could ever begin, and persist, to think and believe so!!...
I do think you might be able to generate more meaningful dialogue if you adjusted your writing style.
-Well from my ministry-directing vision (=Isa 6:4b) related in my bio-post, I know that is just not to be a pursued option (=Isa 6:8-13)....In fact me writing anything in this blog, pointedly for/about SDAs beyond just having told them to read Isa 58|Matt 25:31-46|WM 23-63ff has, indeed, as now concretely seen/experienced by me (cf. Rev 11:3), been both a waste of my time, and various detriment to my life. (=Ezek 3:1-3, 4-9; versus Ezek 3:10-11ff; 11:14-25) So anything beyond these deliberate brainstorming postings, compoundedly confounded by my partially mastered typing skill/speed would indeed be much more than enough. So my “writing style” is just what it deservingly needs to be. (i.e. for God’s Rev 11:13 purposes)...
My guess is that you're attempting a more academic prose,
LOL, not even close. Only through human eyes/wisdom can this be thought to be the attempt. No I only care to confusingly entrench the willfully confusable....and on top of the writing style towards that end, unexplainedly mentioning academic things is an added great facilitator. (Cf. Matt 15:15-16ff)...for as Biblically/Exegetically explained in here at Rev 20:9 Christ’s preaching in “parables” was indeed an offensive para-militaristic strategy!! (Matt 13:10-17)
but it's a bit distracting, and hard to follow.
-Thus: ‘ministry/mission (Isa 6:8-13|Matt 13:10-17), “dually”, indeed properly accomplished!!’ (=Luke 2:34; Rom 9:33; Isa 8:13-16; 28:7-13, 14-22; 29:9-16; 22:22-25)
Maybe a more linear approach would be more helpful.
-Actually the involve (Spiritual (=EW 271.1-2)) hindrance here is that: ‘one just can’t teach Spiritual Calculus (2 Cor 3:7-18) to “grown up children” (1SM 110.1) who still have not yet mastered even their most basic Elementary Math....no matter how “linear” one gets. (EW 50.3 = Ezek 3:4-9)
There are misunderstandings, as well as misinformation, in your blog concerning several points I was made,
-Just variously, duly, sequiturly concluding to what Henderson has either erroneously and/or confusedly claimed...Moreover it is his self-appointed, (supposed) ‘needed “other side”’ blasphemous/slanderous agenda against God, His Word and His Truths, is fundamentally needing of (at best, incompetently negligent) “mal-understandings” and “misinformation’...
but I have no need to clear any of that up unless you desire clarity.
-Hey...these erroneous and confusing things were ‘not preached only to me’....And I indeed have no mandate or responsibility towards SDAs....The trumping fact is that the evidence, when actually possibly supplied by Henderson, objectively just do not support his vacuous claims..and that is ‘clear proof enough.’ So it actually bindingly only behooves him to defaultly, publicly ‘make himself clear’ to any and all....I really couldn’t care else...
There will be points that we simply disagree on,
-Well concrete Biblical/Exegetical Truth just has this way of objectively, substantively and ideologically, ‘triumphantly “dividing”’ (Heb 4:12-13; Rev 19:15)
but that shouldn't stop us from trying.
-I have long done my part. My objections and corrections are clearly and publicly posted...So ‘the ball is in his court’....and I so want to win this “set and match”...Anything else, less from him would simply be his own “unforced error”...
Anyhow, if you ever care to thoughtfully dialogue, I'm willing.
...(And I just do not negotiate with vexatiously bullying, tortious/torturous criminals who especially strategically play innocent and dumb....So “you all” can keep toying with yourselves!!...Not fooling, impressing nor hoodwinking me!!!)
You can message me here. Keep up the good work. I know you're doing what you believe our church needs.
-Ohhh... I actually have long stopped providing/doing what the Church “needs”....I am rather endeavoring to help it deservingly, “whirlwindly” reap what it has sown. (Hos 8:7)
To illustrate how some of your contentions were either misplaced or misinformed, I did want to pass along a quote from Sister White concerning one of your points of contention regarding Joseph:
-Well, as shown below, not only is that quote/response to my commenting not at all ‘emblematic’ of my supposed own misunderstandings of Henderson, it is rather most emblematic of how his COG “majoring in the minors” disposition/psyche works. I.e. pulling texts out of their context and then also grammatically/exegetically glibly misinterpreting it, and from that shoddy basis, claiming and building a most spurious, “controlling” ideology and theology.
Succinctly here is the proper analysis and interpretation of this statement, indeed in/according to its context:
First of all, by Henderson having introduced this claim of “arrogance:” against Joseph in his sermon by saying: ‘People do not like when I say this...’ and indeed not at all giving any such (supposedly) supporting “evidence” from the SOP just sequiturly shows that it was either just being based on his view/assumption about Joseph and/or he did know of this SOP quote but did not in any way mention/cite it, -which thus, in regards to that second possibility, has now provedly be seen by me to probably be because he knew that even that SOP statement did not go to the/his patent “beyond the pale” “arrogant” extent which he most disparagingly (thus “slanderously” = blasphemously) wanted/“needed” to “shockingly” paint Joseph in....
-Foundationally important here, EGW makes it clear that the source of these issues between Joseph and his brothers was indeed Jacob. (PP 209.2) Furthermore, EGW also foundationally states that the shortcomings developed in Jacob other sons were also naturally due to his various, still present, errors from his past (PP 208.3)[2] And more than anything else, it evidently was the giving to Joseph of that multi-colored tunic, being seen as ‘another evidence of Jacob’s partiality towards Joseph’ and suspected signifying that Joseph would be given the birthright (PP 209.4b) which set in motion their vindictive agenda towards Joseph...and it probably was in response to this ‘engendered/“aroused” “malice”’ that God then gave Joseph his dreams PP 209.4b-210.2) which showed that God also agreed that he should rule over them, and even over Jacob, thus further showing that God was also holding him responsible for these failings and contentions in the family.
Tellingly enough, not only did Jacob, from similar personal experience (Gen 28:10-22; 1SP 127.3), know that such reordering approving dreams were indeed from God (PP 210.2b) but his brothers clearly also knew that the dreams were from God, for if they did not thinks so, they simply would have ignored and scoffed at Joseph. But they were so steeped in their sinfulness that even such clear revelations from God could not lead them to penitently and humbly just reform and conform themselves to God’s overruling Plan.
"But, in the providence of God, even this experience was to be a blessing to him. He had learned in a few hours that which years might not otherwise have taught him. His father, strong and tender as his love had been, had done him wrong by his PARTIALITY and INDULGENCE.
-Now, from the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary which EGW either used/relied on and/or straightly reflected her own understanding of words:
PARTIALITY meant/involved: “Inclination to favor one party or one side of a question more than the other; an undue bias of mind towards one party or side, which is apt to warp the judgment. Partiality springs from the will and affections, rather than from a love of truth and justice.”
and,
INDULGENCE = Free permission to the appetites, humor, desires, passions or will to act or operate; forbearance of restraint or control. How many children are ruined by indulgence! Indulgence is not kindness or tenderness, but it may be the effect of one or the other, or of negligence.
2. Favor granted; liberality; gratification.
If all these gracious indulgencies are without effect on us, we must perish in our folly.
(Definitions 1 (Gratification, lust, appetite) + 3 (Catholic penances) were omitted as not being pertinent)
And from EGW’s account, it is seen just how this was indeed so done by Jacob towards Joseph...but here these faults were entirely Jacob’s own, and not Joseph’s. In fact they only facilitated Joseph’s actual irreproachable conduct amongst his brothers. Furthermore, instead of resorting to just favor the model character Joseph, Jacob should have actually been working to properly discipline his other sons, but he instead was neglectful in this duty (PP 209.3) and it was dually thus that the onus and “bull’s-eye” was instead focused on Joseph.
This unwise preference had angered his brothers and provoked them to the cruel deed that had separated him from his home.
As actually/clearly stated here by the SOP, it was rather the faults and errors of Jacob which was the cause and ‘provocation’ of the problems between Joseph vs. his brothers. Indeed proper parenting/disciplining by Jacob instead of his Joseph-favoring and brothers-neglecting approach. So it really was not actually, as Henderson had premised, ‘the faults of/in Joseph himself’ which had Caused his brothers to act that way. Moreover it indeed really only was Jacob who had the authority to place Joseph over them and so, since they rationally could not take out this anger and malice against Jacob himself, they instead turned to the object of his great affection and favoritism....Indeed even in what Henderson caps-ly emphasizes next, the “fault” for that act by the brothers was not actually with Joseph himself.
Its EFFECTS ...
-Grammatically sequiturly: the “effects” from the (parenting and disciplining) faults & errors of Jacob....
were MANIFEST ...
-Again Jacob’s bad parenting and disciplining towards Joseph also...
also in his own CHARACTER.
-Keyly keep in mind here that one’s character is basically a neutral slate. So in itself it of course is not defaultly speaking of either a good or bad thing. It is the worth of the involved traits themselves are self-determinative.
FAULTS had been encouraged that were now to be CORRECTED.
-Again this is not said by the SOP as the causal proof that the action of Joseph’s brothers were due to the faults in Joseph, but rather that Joseph had developed faults which were detrimental to himself. So this is still not an SOP statement which substantiates Henderson claim that ‘Joseph’s own fault had duly caused his brother to act against him.’ The fact that Joseph (also) had faults due to Jacob’s bad parenting is still distinct from the prior SOP stated fact that it was Jacob’s own fault which had aroused the anger of Jacob’s brothers and led them to take that (indirect) action on him...but really all meant towards Jacob.
He was becoming SELF-SUFFICIENT and EXACTING.
Again from Webster 1828:
SELF-SUFFICIENT: “Having full confidence in one's own strength, abilities or endowments; whence, haughty; overbearing.”
EXACTING: “Demanding and compelling to pay or yield under color of authority; requiring authoritatively; demanding without pity or justice; extorting; compelling by necessity.”
And as the extended manifestation of “self-sufficiency” is typically seen “whence” one is:
HAUGHTY:
1. Proud and disdainful; having a high opinion of one's self, with some contempt for others; lofty and arrogant; supercilious.
His wife was a woman of a haughty and imperious nature.
A haughty spirit goeth before a fall. Proverbs 16:18.
2. Proceeding from excessive pride, or pride mingled with contempt; manifesting pride and disdain; as a haughty air or walk.
3. Proud and imperious; as a haughty nation.
4. Lofty; bold; of high hazard; as a haughty enterprise.
Modern definition: “Able to provide for your own needs without help from others.”
OVERBEARING:
1. Bearing down; repressing.
2. a. Haughty and dogmatical; disposed or tending to repress or subdue by insolence or effrontery.
Modern definitions:
1. Expecting unquestioning obedience
2. Having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy
So the operative issue here is: ‘did Joseph actually go to the (even) ‘little bit arrogant’
extent that Henderson “majorally” claimed....and whatever the case, it is still clear from the SOP that this would not have been the cause/provocation for the ‘vengeful’ act of the brothers, indirectly towards Joseph, instead of Jacob. For one can actually “technically” be self-sufficient without actually being haughty, overbearing or arrogant towards others. E.g. a person who is able to “self-sufficiently” work to provide for his family is not being haughty, overbearing nor arrogant by not seeking income contributions from other people. Similarly a e.g. policeman who issues a ticket for a driver doing 1-5 mile over the speed limit is technically not wrong for being exacting. Only valid attenuating circumstances about that speeding issue would determine if this exaction of the law was warranted.
So in Joseph’s case, it is first of all key to see that EGW said that Joseph was “becoming” self-sufficient and exacting. Meaning that he was not always like that, and that this extent had only recently started...My assumption was that it all started after God had clearly, validatingly/approvingly spoken on this issue that Joseph would indeed rule over his brothers, and also Jacob. So Joseph would then have not seen any need to accept anything less from his brothers, or from his neglectful father for that matter....and yet again, these neutral self-sufficiency and exacting character trait “faults” were only wrong, and pointedly for Joseph in relation to the present change of episode in his life. I.e., it thus was evidently Divinely-justified and fully approved of amongst his brothers and Jacob who should know better, -(indeed show me a Biblical text were God reproach anything but the best from those who clearly know what is the right thing to do; whereas the converse can easily be amply substantiated, even by God Himself e.g. Lev 10:1-2; 2 Sam 6:7; Ezek 7:1-4, 9; 10:18), but where he was now going, in a land of people who did not fear God (which is really why Joseph had not been killed) and moreover where he was going to be a slave, if, as his later experiences went on to show, Joseph continued to manifest the same non-merciful/compassionate expecting traits towards people who, like the sincere(-ly wrong) Ninevites, ‘did not know their right hand from their left’ (Jon 4:11) that now would only have served to greatly hinder, if not potentially foil, barring some greater supernatural intervention, God’s ruling plans and purposes for him in that heathen realm.
So what Jacob’s bad parenting had led Joseph to resort to (one-sidedly) develop as, again, relatively in themselves, not necessarily/actually wrong traits, now had to be, and that quickly, i.e. in “hours” during the trip to Egypt, and not in Joseph’s later imprisonment ordeals, corrected by God so that nothing would now come to hinder God’s ‘grand raising up’ project for Joseph.
Confirmingly enough given the objection by Joseph’s brothers, God used their action towards him for Joseph’s own benefit. So this action was actually not any form of due punishment (by God) on Joseph, moreover ‘for having provocatively been arrogant’ as Henderson purports, -but, at the direct worst: “jealousy” (Acts 7:9).
Accustomed to the tenderness of his father’s care, he felt that he was unprepared to cope with the difficulties before him, in the bitter, uncared-for life of a stranger and a slave." – Patriarchs and Prophets, 213.(caps all mine)
-Indeed, and addedly, and really corroborating the understanding that Joseph’s self-sufficiency and exaction traits were not wrong nor sinful in the very context of his brothers who knew to do/be better/best, Jacob had indeed under-prepared Joseph, for this unexpected great turn of even when now Joseph would indeed be uncared-for, a stranger and a slave, and moreover living amongst a people who neither knew God nor delighted in righteousness.
Better parenting and Godly disciplining by Jacob instead of slothful, and as typical with such parents, guilt-assuaging favoritism, partiality and indulgence would have properly modelled for Joseph how people who are not on the same Spiritual level as him should be understandingly and compassionately, but firmly and consistently dealt with, and that then would be an education that Joseph would possess as he was now thrust into such a context where even the greatest authority in charge would not honor his faithfulness, -as seen with Potiphar unfairly sending Joseph to prison despite him clearly having perceived that Joseph was not at all at fault with his wife.
Indeed, as EGW states about the soundness of Joseph’s charater:
“How was Joseph enabled to make such a record of firmness of character, uprightness, and wisdom?--In his early years he had consulted duty rather than inclination; and the integrity, the simple trust, the noble nature, of the youth, bore fruit in the deeds of the man. . . . Faithful attention to duty in every station, from the lowliest to the most exalted, had been training every power for its highest service. He who lives in accordance with the Creator's will is securing to himself the truest and noblest development of character. {ML 66.3}
So clearly, what the SOP actually saw as a “fault”, =deficiency in Joseph’s character was that Jacob’s bad parenting had not prepared him to be able to cope with a world/context where his faithfulness towards God and righteousness would not be so generously, even if at all, appreciated or rewarded. Thus having inculcated the still teenagedly young Joseph with such an artificially utopic notion ‘that righteousness would always be immediately and generously be rewarded, something that God Himself had not done with prior righteous (e.g Job) ones, nor later even martyrs, was indeed not the be training/education for Joseph, for it could easily lead him to basely not do what is right is no reward would be given. He was instead to learn to do right out of purely principle, and just because it is the right thing to do...‘though the heavens falls’....for that is indeed ‘what this fallen world needs the most’ and ‘is not achieved by accident, nor learned through even Divine/Providential favors or endowments’ (Ed 57.2-4)...Indeed any such sudden, perhaps even the very first, adverse “reward” (=consequence) due to faithfulness, could have cause Joseph choose to just not suffer for righteousness’ sake (2 Tim 3:12) and just give in to unrighteousness and given the confluence of (1) Joseph’s natural good looks (Gen 39:6b) and beautifully attractive character (PP 209.1); (2) God’s sure settled plan to have Potiphar immediately buy him when he arrived in the slave market (Gen 37:36); (3) the probably festering marital dissatisfaction of Potiphar’s wife; (4) Joseph’s own Divine ambitions which may now seem to be forever defeated; God probably saw that Joseph did have to learn this lesson as soon as possible, indeed long before he arrived in the Egyptian slave-market, so that ‘calibrating education in mere hours on that journey’ was probably done through Holy Spirit revelations to Joseph, probably to a revue of all the events which had led up to his present fate and a showing of how God had always been with, and approved of, him, and perhaps also a very impressive recollecting of the experience of prior likewise more/most faithful Patriarchs, starting with the episodes of Jacob (vs. Esau) themselves. So, speaking also from personal experience, (e.g. here) what may have seem to Joseph, as he no doubt just silently quasi-moped along in that Ishmaelite merchant convoy, as a sudden flow of impressive recollective and elucidatingly validating thoughts, would really have been a special, “express”, ‘forehead (=mentality Jer 3:)) steeling/“flinting”’ (=Ezek 3:8-10) = “sealing” (LDE 219.4) impartation of God’s Holy Spirit.
So again, Henderson’s ‘causal arrogance’ premise is not at all supported from what the SOP fully & contextually is actually saying on this development.
Just because Joseph was a kind and caring individual, didn't mean he didn't have faults with his character.
-As shown about these “character faults” were not actually wrong traits, but rather well-rounding deficiencies...
Relatedly many people who will be saved will likewise have ‘character deficiencies’ by them not having had the chance to priorly develop these in this life. So God will be given them the chance to Spiritually mature in character...and like the initiating Holy Spirit intervention with Joseph towards a similar complimentary ends, the post-Second Coming revelations that they redeemed will be seeing will surely help set and keep them on the proper track as they go on to perfect/complete their character.
When you are working from a fundamentally shoddy hermeneutics and prefer to engage the text eisegetically and biasedly, it is thus easy fro Henderson to glossingly color things according to his subjectively preferred, defaultly slanderous, “beyond-the-pale” extent.
It's not an either/or thing.
In such a case, then both sides of such coin should be properly/substantiated presented, and not just one side....indeed simply to avoid any “confusion” in God’s (supposed still) Remnant Church. If/Since you really want to help you members, then do proceed to faithfully and properly help them. Obtusely or Ignorantly causing controversy should not be an option for him....or else he should actually not accept to be paid by the Church which he is causing just as much detriment than “good”...Telling how one is most likely hard-pressed to find a prophet which God had raised up in His Israel, (from e.g., Amos, to Elijah, to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, to Jesus, to Paul, Martin Luther and even EGW), to, especially enduringly, actually be on the Nation’s/Church’s formal (tithe) payroll!!
“Rule of thumb” for Henderson and other subjective/shoddy hermeneutic indifferent people like him, indeed according to the Divine-hierarchy hermeneutics for sound/proper Bible Study, it is whatever God says, reveals, approves and/or adjudges which are to be the fundamental and “controlling” building blocks of an idea and theology, and not other, lower-hierarchy statements, in both the Bible and SOP. So, relatedly, if God has shown in direct revelation to EGW that hell will involve naturalistic fire, which will also physically torment the wicked (indeed God won’t be allowing the consuming fire of His own glory to do this burning, as He may not be able to dimmingly control it as with naturally produced fire), then it is that which is the foundational controlling, even cornerstone, building block for that teaching...and not, flippingly, ‘a shingle sheet for the roof’.
In my message I chose to focus on the character flaws that aided in his dysfunctional relationship with his siblings
-...Except that he did not actually have a dysfunctional issue with his brothers. He rather had the proper faithfully reprimanding and remonstrating one. It was Jacob’s parenting which was “dysfunctional” and led to all these actions being deflectedly avenged on Joseph....if a proper and professionally competent studying out basis had been used such erroneous and widely skewed conclusions applications.
And in fact, that accurate application is that, as God does, people should be properly and faithfully dealt with according to their level of Spiritual knowledge and maturity which duly means that leaders, especially those formally educated, paid and networked should be more sternly and severely treated then the average lay person in the pew, or the newly baptized member or the unbeliever out in the world. Joseph’s brothers had no excuse for they all had had the same learning opportunity as he did. They just preferred to practise unrighteousness (perhaps, relatively, except Benjamin). In fact by 10 of them being older than Joseph, they had had a long, thus inherently better chance to know and practice the will of God. And it was thus moreover more commendable that the next to youngest son, Joseph, was so keen on doing good in this sea of seasoned wickedness practising brothers.
so that I could celebrate the transformation and redemption he experience in Egypt.
-that premise-claim is also erroneous....
Ellen White says in the above quote "He had learned in a few hours that which years might not otherwise have taught him."
-For, as discussed above, EGW actually stated that he had that, actually: character perfection/completion ‘in few hours, on the way to Egypt’.
That's powerful!
The actual Truth about this story is actually what is even more powerful (John 8:32)...Joseph, through his irreproachable character (again in that context of ‘fellow believers and leader’) was fully worthy of God clearly injunctively choosing him to be the preeminent leader in that burgeoning Israel, a blessing was also enshrinedly continued in God’s Israel in his unique dual tribe blessing (Gen 48:5, 22).
You can't celebrate his salvation, if you don't see him as a sinner.
Problem is...neither the Bible, nor actually the SOP, actually say that Joseph had ‘sinfulness issues’....indeed quite to the contrary. Again, and conclusionarily stated here:
-Jacob’s own actions had aroused the envy and hatred of Joseph.
-at worst, Joseph’s brother were merely “jealous” of him and his dreams, which thus also involves no fault of/from Joseph.
-Joseph being “self-sufficient” and “exacting” did not necessarily mean/involve an arrogant extent.
-these “cavalier” and “justice” demanding traits would not be appropriate for the comparatively completely innocent context which Joseph would now operate in, and would effectively need to compassionately inform/educate/evangelize instead of deservingly indict and judge.
-Joseph character was merely deficient, and not skewed, by not having been educated in the necessary traits which Jacob’s years of “partiality” and “indulgence”, had failed to give to him.
-Joseph character, was manifestly supernaturally perfected/completed by God before Joseph arrived in Egypt, and thus long before he experienced any of his trials there.
Just saying...
(...Can’t stand that (vacuously useless) phrase...)
Epilogue
As “Synagogue of Satan” SDAs, prominently its various, especially formal, teaching pastoring and administrating leaders, basely prefer, like Joseph’s brothers, their jealousy-based way of doing thing, which directly leads to such erroneously diverging and, even “Babylonianly”, effectively hellish, “confusing” things being variously claimed, and practised, week in, week out, in the Church, then, like Joseph, I’ll just continue to be “exactive” of concrete Truth and Practices from them. And whatever they secretly conspire and plot (Jer 18:18-23) will just not foil God’s actual “Davidicly-Triumphant” purposes which, tellingly enough, unlike Joseph’s brothers, actually deservingly has no plan which is, especially leadership-wise, inclusive of them (Ezek 34:1-24; Rev 11:13; LDE 59-61). So do keep actuating your various malicious tactics, strategies and designs...You are merely objectively just accelerating and sealing your own, indeed judiciously due, rejection and demise as “cumberers of the God’s ground” (4T 385.3ff).
JH and “Adam and Steve” Theology
There is really nothing substantively much new to add to here to that (more widely) controversial, likewise most moronic, sermonic claim by Jonathan Henderson, i.e., which was not already easily foreseen and addressed within here, but this is indeed just a natural development of things in the SDA Church which almost completely has no, or cares for, functional “Gospel Order”, which thus allows such blasphemous claims and preaching to be heard from its pulpit.
I’ll add here that Henderson started his “smoke and mirrors” diversion early by the moron-diffusing “disculpation” that ‘he is not a prophet’...Well he indeed/surely is not, and if God need to express a different stance and view on homosexuality other than what He had done, legislated and expressed throughout the Bible, He indeed would have long spoken through and sent a prophet. (Amos 3:7), especially through EGW. Unlike Henderson fundamental vacuous premise, this 20th/21st century further debacle on this issue did not ‘take God by surprise’ where He needed to “call an audible”....He saw it coming millenias ago. (Gen 12:2-3; 18:16-20; Rom 1:18-19ff; 1 Cor 13:6; Jude 1:6-7; Rev 22:15)
The following, most agreeable, decrying comment is an accurate deeming of Henderson’s preaching...Indeed several people before had, -as he himself arrogantly relates, (-as if that (moronically) would invalidate the criticism), that he does ‘act/speak as if he is demon-possessed when preaching’...Case in point, did you notice the not so subtle intimation by him during that blasphemous talk here[24:19-24:29ff], confusingly, ambivalently, also suggesting that ‘David and Jonathan were “absolutely possibly” more than merely platonically/emotionally involved with each other, as in also sexually “servicing” each other...but of course ‘that (somehow) would not have made them to be homosexuals’ (Why not, Jonathan??!!!..Just the ambivalent/“experimental” suggestions that these collegians need to hear)!!! The Devil certainly also need such deceiving mouthpieces of his within the SDA Church (=Gen 3:1, 4-5) who advance his variously-faceted and also SDA-targeted/honed, Spiritualistic agenda. Seriously, I think Henderson has not yet fully shaken the underlying demon, peer/cultural-pressuring, tellingly enough: ‘Prince-idolized’, psyche-influence which had led him to, as he relates in his sermon “Adam & Eve”[03:08-05:28ff], to have sex with his “pressuring” (~Gen 3:11-12) girlfriend while a sophomore Theology Major at PUC, and long-already an itinerant preacher...(And/or was it at least borne from, -from what is evidenced next, his girlfriend then seriously questioning his masculinity!?!!)...Moreover his admission in his “Adam & Mommy”[(audio) 02:20-04:44], as elsewhere, to having ‘feministic characteristics/tendencies’ because of an absentee/uninvolved father figure, and thus domineering female/mother figure, during his childhood is not only telling of his emotionally-linked sympathies, but is self-subterfuging of his chief premise in that abominable sermon, (self-blindedly, as patently for him, twisting and mal-applying Jesus’ statement in Matt 19:12a) that: ‘people are born with such tendencies’. The fact is, as already stated in here[Note #7], that children are most “plastic” and “spongy”, mostly emulating creatures in their (character/psyche)-formative infancy and childhood stages of development, -as easily seen by how easily, fully and defaultly permanently they e.g., learn to speak, and that even any secondary language, and acquire an accent, and then code/wire themselves potentially for life, unless this early affectation is later, or sustainedly, not reinforced, or correctingly altered. Same goes with sexual identifications and relating.
For more, see my various posted forum commenting, and responses linking, here:
Notes
[1] Interestingly enough, that is exactly how my blog post on David Gates got started/developed. And it currently is the fourth longest (and 2nd most visited) Blog Post (Subject) on my blog (146 pages), after: my bio|calling|ministry|experience post (181 pp); my pivotal 2-Part Eschatological exposition of Revelation’s Delineating Series of 7 (total of 302 pp); and my summary evaluation of the genuine revelations from SDA “half-prophets” (160 pp)[2] Though, as discussed starting in here vs. Henderson, I do not Biblically see that Jacob’s marrying of up to 4 wives was inherently/automatically an “evil”...except in the relative extent that, like Abraham’s similar error, it stemmed from a failure of their faith in God, both His National Promise to them and in His Supernatural Power to surely accomplish that promise. So really only pointedly in that faith-relative sense, this was “(grave) sin” for them (Rom 14:23b)...unless they actually honestly had no faith at those instances..which to me would explain why/how God could mercifully forgive them, and still work with them, however justly could not prevent them from reaping the natural consequence of these failings.
Really, only if these Patriarchs, and other similarly faithlessly failing Bible people, had successfully put forth necessary efforts to remedy these faults, could those naturally developing consequences be naturally averted, but, here, manifestly Jacob was not able to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.
-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.
[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]