GODS CHURCH WILL WEATHER THE

THUNDER, WIND AND THE RAIN!!

A Response to Elce Thunder Lauristons
2016 Religious Hardtalk Presentation!!
By Derrick Gillespie
Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and
remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.
(Contact Info: ddgillespie@live.com OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)

Published April, 2016

1 Kings 19:11-12 Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And,
behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains,
and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the
wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the
earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire:
and after the fire a still small voice.
God speaks to me not through the thunder and the earthquake but through
the Son of Man, and speaks in a language adapted to my imperfect sight and
hearing.
-- William Lyon Phelps
Be grateful for luck [blessings]. Pay the thunder no mind - listen to the birds.
And don't hate nobody. --- Eubie Blake

--- Prove all things ---

INTRODUCTION:
Almost mid-way in the year 2016, just like three or four years before (i.e. 2012-2013),
the Seventh-day Adventists in Jamaica again faced formidable and (to the unlearned)
seemingly unanswerable charges that were publicly levelled against the Church on
local national television (Television Jamaica; or TVJ), via the popular Religious
Hardtalk program, as hosted by veteran journalist, Ian Boyne. This time around, the
charges came via the mouth of former member, Elce Thunder Lauriston; a very
zealous, active and popular young preacher who was well known in many parts of
Jamaica (especially western Jamaica) as the little man called Thunder (see his 2013
picture at front). After his short stint with the SDA Church from 2006 (thereabout) to
about late 2015, Brother Elce Thunder Lauriston felt convicted that his previously
held SDA beliefs were misguided, and so he chose to leave the SDA Church and
chronicle on Religious Hardtalk his previous SDA experience and theological reasons
for his subsequent defection from the ranks of SD Adventism.
But, as was seen three to four years before, with former SDA member Dr. Andre Hill
who also defected and appeared on Religious Hardtalk, upon Brother Thunders
departure many false charges and claims were publicly made about the SDA Church.
And just like I did before in 2013, where Dr. Andre Hills charges/claims were answered
by me (click this link to see my 2013 response to him then), in this 2016 presentation, it
is my intention to give a respectful but candid and open response to Brother
Lauristons charges against and claims about the SDA Church. This presentation is not
meant to attack him, nor castigate him for his present convictions, nor rob him of his
freedom/right to choose whatever he presently believes, nor is it meant to force him
to change his mind about or re-accept what he previously believed, but it is simply my
attempt to make a reasonable response to him, so that the public can see the other
side of the story (or vista) and decide for themselves what is truth.
While I am not one who relishes the practice of cut and thrust debates when dealing
with the message of the Bible (click this link to see my reason for avoiding heated
public theological debates as much as possible), yet am guided by the wisdom of the
following counsel from E.G. White; the prophetess in SD Adventism who was equally
demonized by Brother Thunder Lauriston along with the SDA Church (a church
which he now labels an anti-Christian cult). She made plain:
"When man assails his fellow men, and presents in a ridiculous light those whom
God has appointed to do work for him, we would not be doing justice to the
accusers, or to those who are misled by their accusations should we keep silent
Every charge should be carefully investigated; it should not be left in any uncertain
way, the people should not be left to think that it may be or it may not be.This
should be done in the case of every church. And when there is a servant of God
[whether individually or collectively], whom He has appointed to do a certain
workwhen for some reason one of the brethren .begins to work against the

truth, and make his disaffection public, declaring things untrue which are true,
these things must be met. The people must not be left to believe a lie. They must
be undeceived. The filthy garments with which the servant of God has been clothed
must be removed."
--E.G. White, Letter 98a, 1897. (Selected
Messages, Vol. 3, pgs. 348-9)

That is precisely what this document from me is setting out to do, and I encourage you, dear
reader, to not put it down until you fully expose yourself to its findings. Read it to the very end.
SDAs are cautioned (biblically and otherwise) against a love for public theological debates just
for debate sakes, yet we are also counseled in the SDA church to "meet" all "charges" against
the Church with well-reasoned answers, and not leave questions unanswered, or brethren in
doubt about issues, and WORST of all, have the watching world we are aiming to reach left
resistant to or suspicious of our Message because we fail to give an answer to GENUINE
questions raised about our Movement. "He that winneth souls must be wise" (said Jesus in the
Bible). So dear reader, happy reading, and I pray the Holy Spirit will be your guide as you draw
your own conclusions!

Brother Thunder Lauristons Questionable Judgment Skills

Critical to the whole exercise of determining whether Brother Thunder Lauristons

charges levelled against the SDA are valid, is to determine whether he himself is a
sound thinker in the first place, and hence can make real sound/value judgments when
it comes to technical issues of a theological nature. The first major red flag seen while
watching his Hardtalk presentation was his insistence (despite the quizzical
looks/remarks from the program host, Ian Boyne) that not even a single doctrine of SD
Adventism can stand biblical scrutiny or is supported by the Bible. Now this alone tells
me that youthful exuberance has unfortunately led Brother Thunder Lauriston to
make extreme statements which make him look less than sound/balanced in his
judgment, and hence is clearly lacking in the ability to make really sound value
judgments about more high powered doctrinal issues. I say this because, more than
half of what SDAs believe and teach as doctrines is equally taught by almost all other
churches, and if all these doctrines are in error, then it means that indeed all of
Christianity is in error someway, somehow, and hence the gates of hell has indeed
prevailed against it (and hence Brother Thunder should now be hard pressed to
find a church thats free from the cultic doctrinal errors that he has denounced by
denouncing *ALL SDA doctrines). This, more than any other utterance from Brother
Thunder, proves that he has questionable judgment skills, despite he publicly claims
to be such a logician (i.e. one who is very logical or is a logical specialist).To
demonstrate the above-described failing on his part, I wrote the following online
response to Brother Thunder:

RESPONSE No. 3: Is it the case that all 28 fundamental doctrines of SDAs are
unbiblical, as Elce Thunder Lauriston has proposed, when he said "NOTHING can
stand biblical examination"?
ANSWER: Well, if that be the case, then am I to assume that he is saying that (just to
use some examples):
1. To hold the Bible as the infallible Word of God and the foundation of Christian
teaching and practice (including its teaching about the role of prophets in the church),
that this is an unbiblical doctrine, as taught by doctrine No. 1 of SDAs?
2. To teach that baptism is to be by immersion, that this is unbiblical, as taught by
doctrine No. 15 of SDAs?
3. To teach that marriage was divinely established by God from Eden, and must be
between one man and one woman, that this is unbiblical, as taught by doctrine No. 23
of SDAs?
4. To teach that in the earth made new God will provide an eternal home for the saved,
that this is unbiblical as taught by doctrine No. 28 of SDAs?
And if the above four (4) doctrines are unbiblical, where is the evidence for that charge?
I would be happy to see the evidence straight from the Bible. But if Elce Thunder
Lauriston should retract the statement he made that every doctrine of SDAs is unbiblical
(and change it to mean "some"), then should it not be the case that he was "bearing
false witness" on national television, and breaking one of the commandments still
binding in the New Testament to "love thy neighbor as thyself", i.e. the command which
specifically says "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?? Romans
13:9. end quote
Now that I have proven the questionable nature of Brother Thunders logical
thinking, and proven that he cannot be fully trusted to judge more high powered and
technical doctrinal matters (like the Daniel 7, 8 and 9 prophetic issues, which I will
come to eventually), let me go on to irrefutably prove it further by quoting my other
online responses made to him before writing this presentation!!

Brother Lauriston Turns New Testament Prophets into False Prophets

In order to make the prophetic ministry of E.G. White in SD Adventism seem null and
void, or unbiblical or unnecessary, Brother Thunder made the shocking statement on
Hardtalk that Jesus was the last prophet and all other prophets after him are false
prophets. In response I wrote online:

RESPONSE No. 2: Was Jesus to have been the last prophet in the Church, as Elce
Thunder Lauriston proposed?
ANSWER: As seen in Acts 13:1, Paul (Saul), who wrote most of the New Testament, was
among several New Testament prophets AFTER Jesus had already ascended, and he
himself wrote epistles/letters to show clearly the role of prophets in the church. From
the biblical standpoint, it is *unbiblical to reject the need for a prophet in the last days,
seeing it is the very Bible (after Jesus already left earth) which, through Paul,
commands in 1 Thess.5:19, 20 to "despise not prophesying"; and that was after further
stating that (according to Joel 2:27-32) in the "last days" God's Spirit will cause both
sons and daughters (women and men) to "prophesy". While this applies in one
sense to the preaching ministry, "prophesying" also applies to the prophetic
utterances of prophets in the church after Jesus ascended, such as those of THE
PROPHET JOHN who operated many years after Jesus ascended, and who after seeing
many visions in the apocalyptic themes wrote [in the book of Revelation] what he saw
as a prophet.
Malachi 4:1, 4-6 compared with Rev. 11:18-19 and 1 Kings 8:9 indicate that in the last
days, or just before the fiery judgment day, God will not just be calling people back to
keeping all his Ten Commandments, but also will send the prophetic spirit of Elijah to
prepare and unite Gods people; a clear indication that the work of Gods last day people
will be accompanied with the spirit of or ministry of the prophets (see Rev. 12:17; Rev.
19:10; Rev. 22:8, 9). In addition, the very bible itself makes plain that one of the
enduring gifts of the Holy Spirit in the church *after Jesus ascension (according to Eph.
4: 8, 10-14) is that of "prophets" so that the church may grow up into maturity.
Prophets are also for the "edifying" of the church while Jesus is away in heaven. All
this is in addition to the scriptures already given. So then, how can the bible say all
this, and it be "unbiblical" to accept prophets in the church (AFTER Jesus ascended) in
addition to the bible? Not at all. Elce Thunder Lauriston is certainly not being mindful
of several Scriptural facts on this one!!
Sola scriptura or the bible only obligates Christians to accept the place of the gifts
of the Spirit, and to obey the commands to despite not prophesyings, to prove all
things spoken by the prophet and to hold fast to that which is good coming through
them!! Only if the Church ended with the apostles of the New Testament, and only if the
Church attained the full perfection Ephesians 4:10-14 spoke of, would there be no more
need for the gifts of the Spirit. God is not partial or discriminatory. Once the Church
remains in place today then the gifts are still relevant, and once the Bible does not
change its prophecy FOR THE LASTS DAYS in Joel 2:27-32 and Mal. 4:1,4-6, then we can
expect prophets (and healers, preachers, teachers, etc.) to still remain with the Church.
WE ARE TO "TRY THE SPIRITS" AND BEWARE OF "FALSE PROPHETS" THE BIBLE MAKES
PLAIN...ALL INDICATING THAT BOTH THE REAL/TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL BE IN

THE CHURCH TILL THE END OF TIME!! PERIOD!! After "proving" the prophetic
utterances, then we are further commanded to "hold fast to that which is good" ...in
other words, preserve, respect and abide by the counsels and insights made available
via the prophetic gift once it passes the Biblical test!! end quote
Obviously, if the prophetic utterances are to be held fast in this way, then (by their
biblical endorsement) they would obviously be a continuing and authoritative source
of comfort, guide, truth, et al, for the church; and not that they are THE final doctrinal
authority or THE ultimate source of truth, which is the place only held by the Bible
itself (the same Bible which gives place for the role of prophets and their inspired
utterances in addition to the Bible)!!
Interestingly, while claiming online (via Facebook conversations subsequent to his
Hardtalk appearance) that his experience in leaving SD Adventism was like Pauls
conversion in the New Testament, I had no choice but to write Brother Thunder to
say:
Actually, Paul/Saul was converted to being a Christian "prophet" (Acts 13:1) after he
met Jesus (even later taken up in vision to the "third heaven"), and yet you unwittingly
say, brother Lauriston, that Paul would have been a 'false prophet', since according to
your new theology, any prophet after Jesus (the "last prophet") is not a prophet.
Hmmmm. How then can you compare yourself to Paul, when your theology makes him
out to be a 'false prophet' since, according to you today, quote:
"the role and function of prophets and prophecy as was understood in the Old Testament
ceased at the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. "
- Elce Lauriston, Facebook conversation
Hence if Paul was a 'false prophet', then it is plain that all the prophets placed in the
Church after Jesus (including John who wrote the Revelation), as seen prophesied
about by Paul himself in Ephesians 4 , they were not true prophets either, since Jesus
would have been the last prophet (according to you). That would seem to be the logical
outcome/conclusion of your new theology about prophets, Lauriston. So if they were not
true prophets, how can you appeal to Paul's experience who became a prophet (Acts
13:1), or consider his words as inspired, yet he spoke in Ephesians 4 about prophets
being placed in the church after Jesus ascended?
You say I lack the "biblical scholarship" that you now possess, but why am I seeing these
gaping cracks in your new theology, my brother. Care to say? end quote

Brother Lauriston Unwittingly Turns the Holy Spirit into an Inanimate Object
In his bid to denounce the SDA teaching that Gods weekly Sabbath remains the sign
(emblem, token, mark) of true worship of the Creator, he has declared that it is the Holy
Spirit that is Gods sign or seal. Here again his lack of good judgment is seen. In my
online responses to him I wrote:
QUESTION: Is the Holy Spirit the "seal" of God (an inanimate object or token to signify
God's ownership) or is He the Agent whereby one is "sealed" with the token of God's
ownership?
ANSWER: A seal is always something *inanimate that's stamped or affixed or associated
with something or someone to indicate ownership, and while the authoritative person is
he who "seals" what is owned, the actual "seal" itself is NEVER the person who does
the "sealing". Go to any government and or tax office, and we see this in operation
every day. The much respected Encarta Encyclopedia defines a seal as:
"SEAL [seel]
noun (plural seals)
3. authenticating *stamp: a ring or stamp with a raised or engraved symbol or emblem
that is pressed into wax in order to certify a signature or authenticate a document
4. wax marked with seal: a piece of wax bearing the mark of a seal
5. *symbol of office: a *device, *emblem, or *symbol that is a *mark of office
6. ornamental adhesive stamp: an ornamental adhesive stamp used to close a letter or
package
7. *something giving confirmation: something that gives confirmation or assurance
e.g. Mother gave our plans for the party her seal of approval.
*Word origin (etymology) --[12th century. Via Anglo-Norman < Latin sigillum "little
mark" < signum "sign, token"]
---Microsoft Encarta 2009. 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Notice carefully that nowhere is a "seal" ever a PERSON (it is always *something), but
a person certainly can be the agent who authenticates a "seal" on anything. This is
important to consider whenever we read passages of the Bible speaking of the Holy
Spirit as related to God's "seal" or the "sealing" of his people. For instance, note
carefully:

"Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, WHEREBY [or is the
instrumentality through whom] ye are *sealed unto the day of redemption."

"Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he [God] might gather
together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
even in him:
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with [or by] that Holy
Spirit of promise"
Now if one believes the Holy Spirit is an inanimate thing, then this will certainly cause
one to misinterpret the Scriptures and think the Spirit is the inanimate "seal" of God, but
if one recognizes that the Spirit is a divine being (Acts 13:1,2 with 1 Cor. 12:11), and is
God (2 Samuels 23:2-3 with 2 Cor. 3:17, 18), then it is easy to see why the Spirit is the
AGENT *"whereby" (Eph. 4:30) one is "sealed" and not that he is the inanimate "seal"
itself. Its just like the Bible says the Ten Commandments were written "with" [or by] the
finger of God" (Ex. 31:18), meaning God Himself via the Holy Spirit was the Agent
whereby the Ten Commandments were written; and not that the "the finger of God" is
the Ten Commandments themselves. Anyone who makes the Holy Spirit God's
INANIMATE "seal" is making the Holy Spirit into a THING; not recognizing he's a divine
person!!!
In the book of Revelation, in chapter 7 verses 1-7 and Rev. 14:1, 4-5 we see the "seal"
of God is AGAIN proven to be an *inanimate subject thats equal to or contains God's
name that's symbolically placed on/in the foreheads/minds of those who are saved.
Nowhere is the Holy Spirit ever deemed to be God's "name", but certainly God's holy
character or lifestyle are often designated his "name", and when Christians pattern
the character of God, by living in obedience to his laws (see Rev. 22:14), they are
deemed to have his "name" in them, or in their minds!!
Of course, the Holy Spirit is the Agent "whereby" God's "name" or character is reproduced in the Christian who surrenders to and lives in willing obedience to all of God's
commandments, including obeying the only commandment the Bible ever calls God's
INANIMATE "sign" or "seal" to show his ownership of his people or true worshippers:
"Ezekiel 20:19 I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments,
and do them;
Eze 20:20 And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign [mark, token, seal] between
me and you, that ye [i.e. the believers] may know that I am the LORD your God."
The Holy Spirit is the empowering Agent "whereby" God's true people will obey his laws

under the new covenant (Heb. 8:8-10); laws which were never abolished, but are placed
in their heart or minds, or laws which MUST have the only inanimate subject/object ever
[directly] called God's "sign" or "seal" or "mark" to prove that we are his true
worshipers...i.e. the Sabbath!!
Do you want to prove that God never abolished his INANIMATE "sign" or "seal" in the
form of the Sabbath; which was always meant to identify his true believers? Well here it
is (prove for yourself as you check the Bible for yourself):
Click this link end of quote

Brother Lauriston Rejects Gods Commandments Which Shows Our Love for *HIM
Brother Lauristons next fatal blunder, is to claim that the only sign of Christian
discipleship is love for our fellowmen, and he said this is order to do away with the SDA
teaching that the weekly Sabbath remains Gods sign or seal, but observed along
with the sign of discipleship in loving others!! Heres why he is evidencing another
blunder, as seen quoted from my online responses to him:
QUESTION: How does John 13:35 reconcile with Ezekiel 20:19, 20, where in John 13:35
love for people is the sign others see to know the disciples of Christ, and yet in Ezekiel
20:19, 20 the Sabbath is the sign for God's people themselves to know him as their
God?
ANSWER: It is plain that many/some people fail to read carefully and reconcile all parts
of the Bible; often setting it in tension against itself, and subsequently making God and
his Word look contradictory (despite what 1 Cor. 14: 33 says).
If love for the *brethren alone was the only way to know God's true people, then there is
no way John (the disciple), who heard when Jesus spoke in John 13:35, could have
written the following:
"1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and
keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his
commandments are not grievous."
Here John, UNDER INSPIRATION, is adding the portion of truth many like to escape from,
when he said "love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that
we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
Obviously, John understood that Jesus was not saying loving people is the only thing

needed to be identified as his disciples, but at that juncture in John 13:35 Jesus was
focusing only on that aspect at the time [a much neglected commandment among the
Jews, as seen in Leviticus 19:18, and hence it was not really new, but that was Jesus
way of saying (as it were): heres what youve all been neglecting for so long, and now I
must emphasize and magnify it for you, my disciples. Love the way I love you, and
people will see and know that you are my followers]. In other places [in Scripture] Jesus
made plain that the two greatest requirements for his disciples are to love God
supremely and then love one's neighbor as one's self. He them makes plain that on
BOTH these two requirements hang all the law and the words of the prophets [see
Matt. 22:36-40]. Thus it cannot be that one who is a true disciple would neglect the
part which says love God and keep his commandments to show one's love for
*HIM. And notice carefully that John, who heard Jesus speak, later made plain:
"1 John 5:2 By this we know [i.e. you are proven to be people of God who love
others]...when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his
commandments are not grievous."
Thus it is a full package!! When we love God and keep his commandments, it
automatically covers love for our fellowmen as well. But it doesn't do away with the
commandment to love God, and to honor him supremely by not making and
worshiping idols, by not taking his name in vain, and [among many other requirements
of Scripture] by not ignoring his "sign" of Creator-ship (i.e. the Sabbath), given to his
followers to know HIM as their God, and for the world to know who is the Creator!!
[Remember the Sabbath day is certainly for many today an unwelcome but a crucial
reminder, especially needed in these days of widespread acceptance of evolution
theories] See why in Exodus 20:8-11.
When one reads the whole Bible carefully (not just cherry pick portions to suit the
masses), and then harmonizes it properly, then the whole truth and nothing but the truth
becomes plain!! end of quote
Brother Lauriston Rejects the Sabbath as Gods own Holy day of Worship
As seen in his Hardtalk presentation, Brother Thunder Lauriston also rejected the
Sabbath, on the grounds that, according to his interpretation of Romans 14 and
Colossians 2, a specific holy day of worship is not biblical anymore, and no one is
obligated to obey any command related to the Sabbath. I subsequently wrote him to
say:
RESPONSE No. 7: Is it true that SDAs are biblically unsupported in their observance of
the Sabbath, and in our teaching that the Sabbath is important in one's salvation?

Since I have already BIBLICALLY dealt with this issue in-depth in another [Facebook]
thread/discussion (answering all the major counter-arguments and common objections,
including the ones raised by brother Elce Thunder Lauriston), I will allow that
thread/discussion to demonstrate the Biblical arguments in favor of the SABBATH today,
and allow readers to decide for themselves (click this link to view Sabbath issues)
But suffice it say here, in passing, I am quite sure Brother Thunder DOESNT
understand the CONTEXT of Romans 14:1-17, and so I think he is using his (and the antiSabbatarian critics) misunderstanding of that popularly misused passage as an 'escape'
from being obedient to ALL of the Ten Commandments (the same ones transferred into
the new covenant, since the covenant was or included the actual commandments
themselves see Hebrews 8:8-10 and Rev. 11:18, 19 with 1 Kings 8:9). In effect Brother
Thunder has made the Bible seem contradictory to itself!! Romans 14 was speaking
about man-made days of fasting (see Luke 5:33-35) that were set up by religious
authorities, and not by the command of God, and how these should be related to. Plus
the matter of eating "meat" was in the context of *food (usually sacrificed animals; but
not always) that was offered to idols in pagan Rome (and later sold in markets); an issue
that Paul addressed elsewhere in his writings (see 1 Cor. 8:4-13), including how the
matter should be related to!! NOTHING MORE!! God does not contradict himself (like
what homosexuals today think, in order to escape God's commands on their lives), and
he does not give a command (e.g. see Ex. 20:8-11 and Deut. 14:3 with Isaiah 66:15-18)
and then say it matters not how someone relates to those commands (such as regarding
the Sabbath and not to eat "abominable" foods). This principle alone proves why Paul
was dealing with *man-made days of fasting and about food/"meat" offered to idols;
issues that bothered the Gentile Christians in Rome as to how to relate.
With reference to Colossians 2:14-16 the famous Reformer, and founder of a major
Sunday keeping Church (the Methodist Church), indicated the classical Protestant
understanding of what was 'abolished' in terms of the "handwriting of ordinances "Paul
referred to. Remarkably, this respected Protestant writer did not think it was the Ten
Commandments which were abolished but notice:
JOHN WESLEY SAID:
The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel, containing
all the injunctions and ordinances which related to the old sacrifices and service of the
temple, our Lord did indeed come to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish. To this
bear all the apostles witness This *hand writing of ordinances [Col. 2:14] our Lord
did blot out, take away, and nail to his cross. BUT THE MORAL LAW CONTAINED *IN
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, AND ENFORCED BY THE PROPHETS, HE DID NOT TAKE
AWAY. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a Law,
which never can be broken, which *stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven

[Rev. 11:19]. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial
or ritual lawEvery part of this Law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all
ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstance liable to
change, but on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their unchangeable
relation to each otherIn the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are
they who openly and explicitly judge the Law itself, and speak evil of the Law; who
teach men to break (to dissolve, to loose, to untie, the obligation of) not one only,
whether of the least, or of the greatest, but all the commandments at a stroke O Lord,
lay not this sin to their charge. Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
doThe most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is, that
they who are given up to it, really believe that they honor Christ by overthrowing his
Law, and that they are magnifying his office, while they are destroying his doctrine
[Matt. 5:17-20]. Yea, they honor him just as Judas did, when he said, Hail, Master and
kissed him. And he may as justly say to every one of them, Betrayest thou the Son of
Man with a kiss? It is no other than betraying him with a kiss, to talk of his blood, and
take away his crown; to set light by any part of his Law, under pretence of advancing his
gospel.
- John Wesley, Sermon 25, Upon Our Lords Sermon on the Mount, Sermons on
Several Occasions, Vol. 1 (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1836), pgs. 221, 222, and
317.
This is the shared view of Seventh-day Adventists on this passage, and, as the following
quotes will show, it is the commonly held view of respected writers of several Bible
Commentaries who didn't even keep the 7th day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments
(they unfortunately kept Sunday as the Sabbath), and yet they could not deny
seeing the same thing about this passage (proving this doctrine is no E.G. White
invention as Brother Thunder Lauriston opined). They clearly saw a distinction
between the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, and rightly felt it could never be
considered a part of any "handwriting of ordinances" which were "blotted out"
among any written laws of the Old Testament. Hence they too saw a distinction in the
perpetuity of some laws as opposed to others:

ALBERT BARNE'S COMMENTARY SAYS:

"There is no evidence from this passage that he[Paul] would teach that there was no
obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe
that he meant to teach that one of the Ten Commandments had ceased to be binding
on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number - the Sabbath, it would
then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had
ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of
the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great
number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their

ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments...
These [Ten] commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and
universal obligation."
JAMEISON, FAUSSET AND BROWN'S COMMENTARY SAYS:
"(not *the Sabbaths but) SABBATHS of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles
have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev_23:32,
Lev_23:37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having
been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days.
Lev_23:38 expressly distinguished "the sabbath of the Lord" from the other sabbaths.
A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when
abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right."
N.B. *In the above quote this commentary rightfully recognizes that while the weekly
Sabbath is usually written in the plural, yet it is designated in the plural with the
definite article, "the" ("ho" in Greek), and hence the absence of the article "the" in Col.
2:16 clearly meant Paul was not focusing on the weekly Sabbath, but the numerous
other Sabbaths (or annual festivals) which the weekly Sabbath is usually distinguished
from (as in Lev. 23:37,38).

MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY SAYS:

"The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the
Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the
shadows fled...[BUT] The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and
service of God [as in the Ten Commandments], is a moral and unchangeable duty..."

Thus it can be seen from just four non-SDA authoritative sources that the view that
there was a distinction in ceremonial and moral laws (the Decalogue primarily, but not
exclusively) is not unique to the Seventh-day Adventist Church whom this writer
represents, and, as even The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (another nonSDA publication) indicates, we have to be careful of the word "law" in the New
Testament.
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA SAYS:
"[in] the Gospels.. the word law always refers to the Mosaic law, although it has
different applications. That law was really threefold: the Moral Law, as summed up in
the Decalogue, the Ceremonial Law, prescribing the ritual and all the typical enactments,
and what might be called the Civil or Political Law, that relating to the people in their

national, political life. The distinction is not closely observed, though sometimes the
reference emphasizes one aspect, sometimes another.."
---International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, M.A., D.D., General Editor
Now, what is very evident is that if some form of "handwriting of ordinances" was
blotted out, and then Paul immediately turned around and cautioned Gentiles to not
allow anyone to "judge them" in terms of things clearly related to ceremonies and
"shadows" or types, then obviously he meant something related to these were
abolished? But what? THIS IS WHERE THE SIMPLE RULE OF SOME LAWS BEING
TEMPORARY, AND SOME LAWS BEING PERMANENT MUST BE APPLIED!! And that is why
so many scholars saw in Colossians 2:14-16 a reference to the "meat" [food] offering
(both from plant and animal source), and "drink" offering laws (see Leviticus 6:14,
Exodus 29:41 and Hebrews 10:1-9) and the various holidays of the Jewish calendar,
since the Jews were at that very time in which Paul lived preaching that Gentiles must
still be circumcised and keep *all Jewish rituals of the past. But Paul, already knowing
that Gentile Christians would not confuse the binding nature of the Ten Commandments
with the temporary ritual laws, or confuse the Lord's Supper (newly instituted as a new
type of Passover celebration) with all other Jewish holidays, was able to speak as he did
in Col. 2:16. Thus Seventh-day Adventists strongly feel that here is where Paul strongly
signaled to *Gentile Christians that while Jews (like himself) could still respect their own
history with all its holidays, yet they did not all apply to Gentiles, and they should not
allow themselves to be "judged" by anyone for them not keeping them all!! And, I must
say as an Adventist I am yet to see any doctrine (including Brother Thunder Lauristons
new theology) which can defeat Col. 2:14-16 actually presenting this message.
Brother Lauriston Misrepresents the Source of SDA Doctrines
As mentioned in passing before, it is the view of Brother Lauriston that SDAs sourced all
their doctrines from E.G. White, and not the Bible. In response I wrote to him to say:
RESPONSE No. 4: Is it really true that, as Elce Thunder Lauriston has said unequivocally, all
SDA doctrines are "E.G. White inventions", which were then confirmed in the Bible afterwards
by 'proof-texting' methods, yet the doctrines are not really biblical?
If, for instance, the four doctrines I quoted below were E.G. White 'inventions', why is it that
other or non-SDA churches widely teach the same thing straight from the Bible, and yet they
are not E.G. White 'followers' or SDA adherents? Is it that Elce is really saying that E.G. White
'invented' the doctrine:
1. To hold the Bible as the infallible Word of God and the foundation of Christian teaching and
practice (including its teaching about the role of prophets in the church), as taught by doctrine
No. 1 of SDAs?

2. To teach that baptism is to be by immersion, as taught by doctrine No. 15 of SDAs?

3. To teach that marriage was divinely established by God from Eden, and must be between one
man and one women, as taught by doctrine No. 23 of SDAs?
4. To teach that in the earth made new God will provide an eternal home for the saved, as
taught by doctrine No. 28 of SDAs?
Is it a reasonable charge to say the foregoing was sourced from E.G. White? I am sure any well
thinking, objective and fair-minded person would say, No!! And if Elce Thunder Lauriston was
simply making a blanket statement which ends up being false, isn't that making him out to be
extreme and unfair in his charges against Adventism? But even if he was saying the "distinctive
doctrines" of SD Adventism were E.G. White 'inventions', even that is questionable and easily
proven to be false, since the history of how the SDA pioneers arrived at the Sabbath Message,
the Sanctuary Message, the 1844 Investigative Judgment Message, etc., does show that E.G.
White featured very little in the initial studying out and establishment of these teachings. In
fact, during the time when the SDA pioneers were often studying far into the night TO ARRIVE
AT THEIR DOCTRINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THESE "DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES", E.G. White is on
record confessing her limited capacity for tough doctrinal topics, and often her mind was
"locked", and only after the brethren already learned the doctrinal truths through careful
Bible study did she see the issues herself afterwards!!

Enough said on the foregoing!

Brother Thunder Misrepresents SDA Attitude to Catholics and Others Christians
On this issue, I will demonstrate Brother Thunders bearing false witness on how SDAs
view Catholics and other Sunday worshippers, by quoting what I wrote to him online:
RESPONSE No. 5: Is it really true that, as Elce Thunder Lauriston opined, "the worst
enemy of SD Adventists is not the Devil and demons but the Papacy and members of
Sunday keeping Churches"?
ANSWER: Now, no one can take away that personally held sentiment which brother
Lauriston seemed to have operated by when he was a practicing SD Adventist preacher.
That was his own personal worldview, but unfortunately, in his zeal as a former SDA
preacher he had it totally wrong in terms of how he should have viewed other Christian
brethren in the Roman Catholic Church, and in general Christendom. Here's why:
"The Lord has His representatives in all the churches. These persons have not had the
special testing truths for these last days presented to them under circumstances that
brought conviction to heart and mind; therefore they have not, by rejecting light,
severed their connection with God." --E.G. White.
"Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians and who

walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf."--E.G.
White.
"In the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation the people of God are called upon to come
out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people must still be in
Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ
now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant
faith."--E.G. White.
"Thrusts at the Catholics.--It is true that we are commanded to "cry aloud, spare not,
lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show My people their transgression, and the house
of Jacob their sins." Isaiah 58:1. This message must be given, but while it must be
given, we should be careful not to thrust and crowd and condemn those who have not
the light that we have. We should not go out of our way to make hard thrusts at the
Catholics. Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians,
and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their
behalf." ---E.G. White.
COMMENTS: Nothing in the above suggests that TRUE Adventism sees Catholics and
other Churches to be avowed "enemies" even worse than Satan and his demons. Rather
the converse is true!! And ever since the days of E.G. White, and early pioneering
Adventism, the policy of the SDA Church towards the other Christian denominations has
been one reflected in the following statements:
"Every time we [SDAs] mention the papacy or the Roman Catholic Church... all seem to
feel we have some personal animosity toward them. We would like to correct this
impression. We have no personal animus [animosity] against any, not even against the
pope or the cardinals. For aught we know, all these church dignitaries may be the
finest Christian gentlemen...Not for a moment would we willingly hurt the feelings of
any of these good men. When we write as we do concerning the papacy, we write
about a *SYSTEM, not about individuals. When we mention the pope, we have in mind
the head of a system, not the man himself. Good men, honest men, noble men, may
belong unwittingly to an erroneous system. It is the system in this case that we believe
to be wrong.
Accepting the teachings of the Bible wholeheartedly as we [SDAs] do, we cannot but
take the position that a system of religion that maintains today an earthly priesthood,
with its elaborate ceremonial, its confessionals, its monasteries and nunneries, its
images and relics, its penances and penalties in purgatoryis a system of religion
entirely out of harmony with the mind and purpose of God. Furthermore, we believe
that some of the greatest prophecies of the Bible depict in clearest outline the rise,
progress, and destiny of this great religious power,for such indeed it is,and

conclude with the most solemn warning to all true children of God to separate
themselves from it.
Yet, because we take this position, which is the only position all real Protestants have
ever taken, or can take, does not mean that we are antagonistic to individual Roman
Catholics. No indeed! In fact, as we have moved from church to church on preaching
tours in the Old World and the New, we have been amazed to find how many entire
Protestant congregations have come directly out of Roman Catholicism. We know for a
fact that in some countries a large proportion of the members of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, for instance, have had this experience; and Baptists and others could
no doubt tell a similar story. Always we desire to, look upon the present adherents of
the papacy as "our Roman Catholic friends." We hold no grudge against any one of
them, and only pray that the religion we ourselves profess to believe and teach may
be so lived that they will want to share it with us." - Quoted from Signs of the Times,
Vol. 67 - No. 17, April 23, 1940-- "Our Catholic Friends"

Brother Thunder Lauriston Curses Adventism as an Anti-Christian Cult

My online responses to him on this issue will suffice here:
RESPONSE No. 6: Is it true that SDAs belong to a "cult"?
ANSWER: 'Cult' expert, or 'cult' chronicler, the late Dr. Walter Martin, in his revised
1985 version of his renowned book "The Kingdom of the Cults" (in chapter 1),
countenances the following definition of "cults", underscoring its negative connotation in
the minds of people:
"...any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or
practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions
of religion in our total culture..."
I hope that this helps to clarify why people have an aversion to the word "cult". However,
my comments below about being called a "cult" or not should remain valid for the
grounded SDA...at least they're valid for me
The truth is that the concept of what a cult is, usually seen as negative and antiChristian, is purely a perspective-driven, opinion-based, or subjective matter. The fact
that Adventism is not now regarded by some Christian writers as cultist (e.g. the late
Walter Martin, in Kingdom of the Cults), should neither be here nor there for the
balanced Adventist, because the truth is that many other writers still see Adventism
as a cult because, in their opinion, among other things:

[1] It does not teach the natural immortality of the soul

[2] It does not teach an eternally burning and tormenting hell
[3] It demands strict obedience to the Saturday-Sabbath command, and all
The Ten Commandments
[4] It believes the writings of Mrs. E.G White are inspired by the same Holy Spirit who
inspired writers of the Bible
Notice the following quotes, highlighting the view of one of the many writers (which this
writer has read) which labels Adventism cultist, because of the Sabbath and the
writings of Mrs. White:
Their [the Adventists] doctrine of keeping the Sabbath is an error Doctrinal error such
as this leads many to believe that the adherence to dayswill save them.
It is a fallacy to think that the old Mosaic Law of the Sabbath still stands
Mrs. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists, claimed that her
writings were inspired like the BibleClaims of this nature bear strong identifying marks
of a CULTIST. To accept anyone elses writings as inspired (as the Word of God) will bring
a curse upon those personsThis is the error of the Seventh-day Adventists. -Jimmy
Swaggart, Cults, 1984, pages 43, 51, and 53
This clearly illustrates the point that cultism is simply determined by men, based upon
what they perceive as error or unorthodox. Here Jimmy Swaggart labeled the Church
cultist, because of his own perspectives on what he thinks is Mosaic, which spiritual
gift he thinks should be important, or which gift is Holy Spirit inspired, as opposed to
another (e.g. tongues, which he so desperately cling to as Holy Spirit inspired). Any
REALLY GROUNDED Adventist can easily and Biblically refute these views, and yet some
will still see him as cultist, because he is different, even while sharing certain Christian
tenets of faith. The truth is that, if the word had existed then, even the early Christian
(Apostolic) Church would have been seen as a cult by the Sanhedrin and the
Pharisees, if the definition of cult, which is, the [religious] devotion to a person or
thing (Oxford Dictionary), was to be considered literally.
Jesus Himself was seen as a rabble leader and insurrectionist, and seen as going
against certain Jewish traditions! However, the question is, was He concerned about
this? Certainly not! He used tact and strategy in effectively carrying out His mission,
and did not unnecessarily invite trouble before time, thus fulfilling His own words: be
wise as a serpents and harmless as doves. However, this was as far as His concern
with being called even a wine bibber and Beelzebub went.

The Remnant [or SDA] Church should follow this example of Jesus today. It therefore
simply means that, to use the cult argument against Adventism is inconsequential; it
has no real substance to it, and should not be cause for concern. The word or label
should not be paid much attention; only false charges against the content of Adventist

doctrines should be stoutly refuted, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PRESENTATION IS DOING
AS YOU READ THESE WORDS!!
Brother Lauriston is a Misguided Scholar in Apocalyptic or Prophetic Matters,
including as it Concerns the SDA Sanctuary and 1844 Judgment Message
Its in this area that it was evidenced that Brother Thunder had bitten off more than
he could chew. While I will grant him honesty in admitting on Hardtalk that because of
his lack of a Ph.D. in theology he could be wrong, yet he proceeded to confidently reel
off so much of what he read from the critics, that one wonders if he realized how
woefully misguided he was in this area. It is in this area that he naturally misinterpreted
so much, because of course, as I already pointed out, if he was so misguided in making
judgments regarding less technical matters about Adventism, then it is plain that its
here that he would certainly lack true vision when dealing with high powered issues of
prophecy and its symbolisms involved.

I purposefully left this area of my response for last, since it is the most technical, and
since its the area that Brother Lauriston spent most time condemning the SDA Church
over (since it is the heart of Adventism). I intend to deal with this aspect in a Part 2
presentation, but suffice it to say here, almost every major concern and charge that
Brother Thunder raised was already addressed in a booklet I had purposefully written
a few years ago to address those very concerns. I will therefore link you to it (click this
link), while you prepare to read (in the Part 2 portion of my presentation) my full
response to Brother Thunder about what he said on Hardtalk about Adventisms 1844
Investigative Judgment and Sanctuary Messages. I also intend to edit, update, and
revise as well as refine/simplify the language of my booklet defending the SDA
Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment Messages of SDAs (as seen linked here), and so
look out for it when published (soon).

CLIMAX:
In closing, I cannot help but deal with two additional critical matters, and they have to
do with, first, looking at Brother Thunders past utterances while an SDA and
comparing them with what he is saying today, as well as, second, looking at how all SDA
brethren and Christians in general should treat with brethren having doctrinal issues
while being part of the church.
Brother Thunder Lauristons Theological Conundrum
The following 2013 video (click this link to view video) contrasts very sharply in content
and conviction with brother Elce Lauriston's pronouncements today, such as he saying in
2016 (on his Facebook page)...inserts in brackets [ ] are mine:

"[I had to appear and defend my good name on Religious Hardtalk because]... I will not
sit down while they [SDAs] seek to destroy me....my character was under heavy
assassination, individuals from all over had questions and speculations, so I saw it as the
best forum to state my position to everyone at one time, seeing that I can't go to them
ALL individually." --Elce Lauriston, April 14-15 2016 (Facebook conversation)
"I have come to realize [that] no amount of facts that is against or exposing Adventism
and Ellen White will ever be enough to convince the Church and majority of its adherents
that their positions are wrong" [hence Adventism is no longer the Remnant] -----Elce
Lauriston, April 14-15 2016 (Facebook
"Ellen White failed the biblical tests of prophets miserably, therefore, I don't fear her
false, fearful, and cultic pronouncements and discard her entirely, she was no different
from Joseph Smith, Mary Eddy, C. T. Russell and all the others of her time..."
- Elce Lauriston, April 15, 2016 (Facebook conversation)
COMMENTS:
When we consider that the above statements come from the same person who spoke in
the video seen at this link, and they are statements exactly the opposite of each other,
the question is, which of the two are we to believe? Brother Lauriston will say that
today (2016) he is "more enlightened" compared to 2013, but yet up to 2013 he
preached sermons making plain that one doesn't have to be a scholar to be taught of
God, and at that time he considered himself taught of God, and led by his Spirit as he
preached the sermon featured in the above video clip. Today he is claiming that
scholarship and the tools of exegesis, hermeneutics, and logic acquired/honed at NCU
have made him realize that what God had supposedly impressed on him years ago it
was not the truth. Hmmmm. Curious irony, indeed!!
Curious too is the fact that if, as he now claims, the SDA Church is/was an anti-Christian
"cult" all along, then is he saying that for six/seven years while he was in Adventism his
claim to being led by God's Spirit was experienced in said "cult"? How can we know
which of the two "Lauristons" is really the one led of God? The one before, or the one
today? And how does he prove that? By way of logic, exegesis, hermeneutics, and his
newly "enlightened" position? One wonders!!! What a conundrum!!
As Brother Lauriston viewed this linked video online, he made the following response to
me on Facebook about it (among other things I quoted from him):
[Your video was posted to] try [and] undermine me and set me against me as if one
cannot have a sincere experience or conversion from one thing into the next. When I was
in Adventism, I believed it to be truth, so I preached accordingly, so this cutting and
posting pieces of my sermons and pronouncements while a fanatical Adventist, to now
disprove me or my experience is small, very small. We all at one point or another go

through that, but if that comforts Adventists, I'm fine with that. I'm open to criticism or
whatever Adventists make of this. It's the world of intellectual rigor and enlightenment
and so I have no problem with it. Elce Thunder (Facebook conversation)
I responded by saying:
It is no intention of mine to "undermine" you, but I am an apologist and a polemicist
aiming to counteract your *arguments/theology, and what better way to counter your
own *arguments/theology but allow the two "Lauristons" to 'contend' and allow
people to judge for themselves? When D.M. Canright defected from Adventism in Mrs.
White's time, it is very instructive that the books and sermons he had presented before
he defected often had powerful arguments that debunked his own views after he
defected and sought to castigate Adventism. You can appreciate that the same
principle now applies to you, my brother, and for what its worth I am allowing people to
see that principle at work. end of quote
In the end one thing is for certain. Using Brother Lauristons own sentiments
expressed in the foregoing video, Gods Church (the Remnant SDA Church) will
weather the Thunder (pun intended), the wind and the rain, and whatever the
raging storms can muster. Of that we can be certain, and it is my intention to remain
in the ship and do my best to fight the battles with Gods much-maligned, muchmisrepresented and much-misunderstood peoplethe Seventh-day Adventists!!
How Should SDA Members and Leaders Treat Brethren With Doctrinal Issues:
How should members of the church and leaders handle brethren battling with
doctrinal issues?
Keeping brethren grounded doctrinally as well as responding to dissident brethren is
NOT always going to be easy in these very last days, since there are so many new
developments compared to E.G. White's time and bible times...e.g. the explosion of
Internet technology (Facebook, Skype, Youtube, websites, et al). Brethren are just a click
away from offshoot material and material from critics of varying description-- with their
material skillfully boosted by compelling audio-visuals --- and hence it is haaaaaard to
keep brethren 'sheltered' from misleading material. Its also hard to respond to one set
of ideas, and not expect other/new misleading ideas to immediately undo what you
responded to earlier. The Enemy is indeed in full "war" mode against God's people
(Rev. 12:17), and is using every means possible in this technological age.
When a brother/sister (like Elce Lauriston) choose to leave the church before their
grouses/issues are dealt with or answered, it makes it even harder to address the
concerns (than if they were still in the church), and the brother/sister can now spread
the poisonous influence (doubts, misleading ideas, etc.) ten times faster than before, via

Internet technology (email, social media, mobile phone, etc.).

While brother Elce's reports may or may not be true, regarding how he was dealt with at
NCU when he raised questions as a student there, assuming his reports are true, I do
believe if the authorities at NCU had properly addressed the matter, maybe all this
could have been avoided...and I say "maybe", since often, once a man's mind is made up
there's nothing anyone can do to change it.
Both the Bible and E.G. White give counsels about how to address a brother/sister who's
battling doubts and temptation as it concerns "every wind of doctrine". Galatians 6:1-2,
James 5:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 give worthwhile guides
regarding how to handle brethren experiencing doctrinal doubts (while not sharing
their erroneous position, or not "keeping [doctrinal] company" with them). And the
E.G. White counsels makes plain:
"If a brother differs with you on some points of truth, do not stoop to ridicule, do not
place him in a false light or misconstrue his words, making sport of them; do not
misinterpret his words and wrest them of their true meaning. This is not conscientious
argument. Do not present him before others as a heretic, when you have not with him
investigated his positions, taking the Scriptures text-by-text in the spirit of Christ to show
him what is truth....Take your Bible, and in a kindly spirit weigh every argument that
he presents, and show him by the Scriptures if he is in error. When you do this without
unkind feelings, you will do only that which is your duty and the duty of every minister
of Jesus Christ." - E.G. White.
HE THAT HATH AN EAR, LET HIM HEAR

CONCLUSION:
Dear reader, it is my hope that as you have read Part 1 of this presentation (and as you
now prepare to read Part 2), you would have arrived at the conclusion that I have
arrived at long ago; that SDAs are not anti-Christian, neither are we as misguided as
many people believe, but we certainly have strong biblical reasons why we believe as
we do. In the words of the program host of Religious Hardtalk, Ian Boyne:
the arguments for the SDA belief [doctrinal position] are very strong" Ian Boyne,
Hardtalk, April, 2016
He knows it. He also knows that there are aspects of what Brother Lauriston is
adamantly opposed to which are actually his own teaching in his Armstrongism, and he
knows the biblical support for them.
[*To be continued in Part 2]