Monday, January 21, 2008

Response to, "Presents of God Ministry" also known as, POGM

Note: Within the first five minutes that this article was posted "The Adventist Way of Life" received what can only be described, in my opinion, as "hate email" from the founder of POGM. I don't dare post the comments made by this person. I would ask that all "born again" believers in Jesus Christ pray for those stuck in cults. Thank you


"The Adventist Way of Life", online Christian website ministry, fully supports the true Seventh Day Adventist Church and the General Conference. "The Adventist Way of Life" is in no way legitimately, legally, or officially connected with the Seventh Day Adventist Church nor is it officially endorsed by the SDA Church. This ministry also contains opinions that are not held by all Seventh Day Adventist Christians. That being said, please understand that I believe that the official SDA Church is the Church that Jesus Christ built and I currently worship at my local SDA Church.

Now, I start this article out with that statement to show that by this article I am not trying to say that "my way is the only right way". I simply believe that what I understand to be true is TRUE! So many ex-adventist Christians try and start a "new movement". They try and find something exciting and different to cause a chaotic controversy within the true SDA Church.

This is how the Davidian's got their start. This is how the CSDA group got it's start. And this is even how some "evangelicals" got their start, such as the "elite" ex-adventist evangelical movement. I have responded to some of these groups without response. The CSDA group did respond and I talked to some of the "ex-adventists" on the phone. We certainly did not change each others view points.

In this article I am yet responding to another off-shoot ministry of the true Seventh Day Adventist Church. This ministry in question is called, "Presents of God Ministry". It's founder was once Catholic. As a Catholic he taught in the Catholic church. He once held to the fallen churches beliefs. But one day he was introduced to the Truth as it is in Jesus.

He found that the SDA Church was correct in identifying the anti-christ power. He even saw much more than the standard Adventist Christian sees because of his background in error all those years. He became a Seventh Day Adventist. Along the way he recognized "Romanism" happening within the SDA Church. This troubled him and he began to speak out. So far no true Adventist Christian would see a problem with this man's concern.

But......but then he began to call the true Seventh Day Adventist Church "Babylon the Great". This basically amounts to calling God's church the "Church of Satan". This is the unfortunate mistake that many misinformed Adventists fall into. This is the same mistake that the CSDA group made and got them into the mess their in today.

This is the same mistake that starts almost all the Adventist Cults. Ellen G. White saw a tendency of fanatacism and false excitement demonstrated shortly after the "Great Disappointment" of 1844. This lead her to write out against this fanatacism and the movements it generated.

She also warned in her writings that some people would set out to look for "something strange" and or "exciting" in some new found doctrine. With this information she warned that they will cause a division in the church, or at least try to. Ellen White clearly stated that the true Seventh Day Adventist Church can never be called "Babylon" [a phrase of the false church]. She did say that the Church leadership of a certain time was in danger of being called a "sister" [not daughter] of fallen apostate Babylon.

So if she said that the SDA Church could never be called Babylon but that some of it's leadership could, would, and did fall into apostasy we are talking about apostasy and not Babylon. Wow! Seems simple. Any apostate can be likened to "babylonian". This is why Sister White pointed out the danger of becoming like a "sister" to but not a "daughter" of spiritual Babylon. In other words, some SDA local churches and their leadership would completely "fall asleep", become the Laodiceans in practice and worship. Jesus said that the wheat and the tares would grow together, in the Church He said He built and that would never fall. Never did Jesus call His own Church "Babylon the Great" and neither did Ellen White!

She agrees with the Bible and further states that the entire world and Satan will have his final conflict with "Seventh Day Adventists", not "creation" or "davidian" Seventh Day Adventist Christians. [see TM, p.37] And not with "Presents of God" people.

Though local churches have their problems because of "Babylonian" influences this does not make Christ's church "babylon". All local Christian churches have their problems...but they are not the "harlot" church. They could only become a Babylonian church in the "sister" sense, but never collectively a "daughter of the harlot".

As I said before, I will state again, God's church will have true believers and false believers in it up until the Second Coming of Christ. [Laodicean church: Rev. 3:14-22] But no Christian has the authority or the right or the power to judge in the sense of separating the "wheat" from the "tares". This is the work of Jesus Christ and His angels! [Matthew 24:31] These false movements claim to be full of wheat only, if not they claim that there is a "remnant" within the Remnant. Are we confused yet?

Jesus informs us that when the "purification" of the Church of God begins, He will send His angels to separate the "wheat" from the "chaff". He will not send "independent ministries" to do the separating. So those who start "new movements", and claim that there is a "remnant" within the Remnant are liars! Plain and simple!The true Seventh Day Adventist Church has missionaries all over the world and hospitals healing the sick and hurting. None of these "off-shoot" groups have any Biblical authority or "good fruit doctrine" for their claims or existance. We pray for them.

Ellen White stated that the church may appear to be falling through all this confusion but that it will not fall! No doubt that their are spiritual "babylonians" or "tares" within the true church. But the true SDA Church is still the true church. One problem with these Adventist off-shoot groups is that they take Ellen White's statements out of context. In 1911 she emphasized that "regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered."

As Herbert E. Douglass points out:

-" 1875 Ellen White wrote concerning the General Conference in session: "When the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered."

Why the difference in her position? During the late 1880s and 1890s, as the record shows in her letters and sermons, some of the policies of the General Conference officers were not ones that Ellen White could endorse. On April 1, 1901, the day before the General Conference session opened, she spoke these words: "It is working upon wrong principles that has brought the cause of God into its present embarrassment. The people have lost confidence in those who have the management of the work. Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not." Obviously, times had changed and her observations changed accordingly.

But that 1901 General Conference session made significant changes in policies and personnel. Ellen White was pleased. Only two months after the changes, she became aware that her son Edson was quoting some of her pre-1901-session statements and applying them in the new, post-1901-session period. Times had changed--the statements of the 1890s no longer applied. She wrote to Edson: "Your course would have been the course to be pursued, if no changes had been made in the General Conference [1901]. But a change has been made, and many more changes will be made [in 1903, many more were made] and great developments will [yet] be seen. No issues are to be forced. . . . It hurts me to think that you are using words which I wrote prior to the Conference." -

So you see, it is true that "context controls meaning". How many more off-shoot, ex-adventist movements will arise before the Second Coming? Probably lots. This is unfortunate but it is the Signs of the Times. If you are currently attending a true Seventh Day Adventist Church stay with the "bride of Christ". Pray for the leadership. Pray for those who may be off in some wrong area of doctrine within the church. Show mercy for the bride that Christ is coming back for. She makes mistakes but God hates divorce! So stay faithful till the end.

God bless!

Written by, Eric W. King [January 21,2008]


Anonymous said...

This is very delightful! I have been waiting for somebody to speak out against this guy!


Sista Tina said...

The "Presents of God Ministry" has always frightened me. The pictures of presents all over the dudes he is some kind of Santa Claus. And the fact that he is an ex-Roman Catholic. How do we know that he is not trying to create confusion in our church becuase he himself is a undercover Roman Catholic? Freaky!

Sister Tina

Ewk said...

The following was sent to: "The Adventist Way of Life" and further supports our position regarding this very important issue. I post it here for your edification:

I read your articles about the SDA Church being Babylon since 1903 and I humbly submit the following comments and admonitions for your consideration:

A. "The SDA Church is Babylon"

You say:

"We firmly believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church today has joined fallen Babylon, and is no longer corporately part of God’s remnant. We believe that there is overwhelming evidence in support of this conclusion."

In seeking to support this position you quote the following statement of E.G. White:

"The Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness.... said to me: .... ‘How is the faithful city become an harlot!’ My Father’s house is made a house of merchandise... the divine presence and glory have departed!’” 8T 248, 250.

You then go on to make the following conclusions: "that (1) the presence of God, as of 1903, is no longer in her midst, and hence (2) His glory is no longer to be found in the Church."

You further pray in aid the following statements by E.G. White:

“I was shown that the testimony to the Laodiceans applies to God's people at the present time, and the reason it has not accomplished a greater work is because of the hardness of their hearts.” 1T 186-87.

“God’s professed people are selfish and self-caring. They love the things of this world, and have fellowship with the works of darkness. They have pleasure in unrighteousness...They are idolaters, and are worse, far worse, in the sight of God than the heathen, graven-image worshipers who have no knowledge of a better way.” 2T 440.2.

“My heart aches day after day and night after night for our churches. Many are progressing, but in the back track…Unless they shall become Christians indeed, they will go from weakness to weakness, divisions will increase, and many souls will be led to perdition.” 5T 93.

“Like ancient Israel, the church has dishonored her God by departing from the light, neglecting her duties, and abusing her high and exalted privilege of being peculiar and holy in character. Her members have violated their covenant to live for God and him only. They have joined with the selfish and world-loving. Pride, the love of pleasure, and sin have been cherished, and Christ has departed. His Spirit has been quenched in the church.” RH, May 5, 1885.

“Spiritual death has come upon the people that should be manifesting life and zeal, purity and consecration... and make it evident that some power has cut the cable that anchored them to the Eternal Rock, and that they are drifting away to sea, without chart or compass.” RH, July 24, 1888.

My Comments on the above quotes and your conclusion that the SDA Church is Babylon:

Do you not see the inconsistency and flaw in your contention that the SDA Church has become Babylon and was Babylon as early as 1903?
Here is the proof that you are wrong and has misconstrued and rested the words of E.G. White:

1. Despite all that E.G. White said, as you quoted above, she herself never left the SDA Church and supported it until her death? So was E.G. White a hypocrite, calling the SDA Church Babylon and yet staying in and supporting Babylon with her writings, tithes, and influence?

The first of the quotes above was given in 1859 and the last was in 1888, and yet E.G. White remained an active and tithe-paying, card-holding member on the SDA Church books, in "good and regular standing."

If, as you say, as early as 1859 E.G. White recognised the SDA Church as Babylon, why did she stay in Babylon and encouraged others to join the Babylonish SDA Church until her death in 1916? Was she a prophet of Babylon?

Incidentally, the GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS was formed on 4/15/1904 (i.e. during the life of E.G. White).

2. Despite all her hard warnings and reproofs, all justified then and more so now, E.G. White still did not call the SDA Church Babylon.

2A. While the General Conference, which is not a Church, may be led by men who have departed from the Lord (which I do not here say) the SDA churches are not the same as the General Conference (G.C.). The G.C. is a legal corporation, with its own separate legal identity, set up to manage the assets of the churches. If the G.C. where to go into Receivership (like bankruptcy) the local SDA churches will not have to close down. Nor will they have to get permission from the G.C.'s Receivers to use the name SDA.

2B. Thus, if the G.C. has becomes corrupt or has acted in flagrant violation of Scripture, as you assert it has (with some justification), that does not corrupt the local SDA churches over which the G.C. presides, until all those churches expressly or by practice accept the false "doctrines of Babylon".

2C. In other words, a corrupt CEO or Chief Executive or Executive Committee of a corporation does not make its assets or subsidiaries corrupt. That is what is called "the corporate veil." Likewise, if the Federal Government of the USA becomes corrupt that those not mean that all 50 States of the USA are also corrupt or that even local municipality is corrupt.

2D. You need to separate the legal entity called the G.C. from the local SDA churches. When the G.C. or the local SDA churches teach doctrines contrary to the Bible, we should stand up and speak out and hold to the Bible and SOP and ignore the 'new wine' of the G.C. and the churches.

2E. If they put you out of the Synagogue, "blessed are ye, for so did they to the prophets", but the church will not become Babylon in so doing. It may act like Babylon in its hierarchical and arbitrary dealings, but it will never be Babylon.

To so charge the SDA Church as a whole with the label "Babylon" is to corrupt the Word of God, which clearly shows Babylon to be the Church of Rome ("MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS") whom received its power, and authority from the "dragon"). This cannot apply to the SDA Church. Until the SDA Church adopts or teaches the actual doctrines of the Papacy it cannot even be a "daughter of the HARLOT, Babylon".

2F. God has already declared what organization and practices constitute the system called "Babylon" (Revelation 17:5) and no man can add to that list.

None of the awful failings of the SDA Church as a body nor the admittedly grievous errors of the G.C. Leadership, to date, bring the local SDA churches within the Biblical definition of Babylon! Unless we accept the Papal errors in doctrine as a Church, the SDA global churches cannot become Babylon.

3. All the reproofs, rebukes and warnings of E.G. White, which you have quoted, were also give to the Israelites and later the Jewish nation, who often apostatized, backslide and rejected God, yet God always welcomed them backed, until their time was fulfilled (70 weeks were determined unto the Jewish, after which they expressly rejected the Lord). The SDA Church, and indeed not even the G.C. has expressly rejected the Lord. Backsliding is one thing, but it is not the same as an express rejection of God.

4. E.G. White herself, counselled against the words and advise you give. She said that god's Church will never become Babylon and we should never allow or entertain anyone who says we should come out of or separate from the SDA Church. This, above all, utterly refutes all the fine-spun arguments you have put forth, based on an inherently contradictory interpretation of the writings of E.G. White.

5. The reason why, as you say, there is no 'thus says the Lord' for such a call" i and the reason you may search the SOP for such a call, and not find is because it is not there. Moreover, the FACT that E.G. White stayed in what you have called SDA Babylon invalidates YOUR call out of the SDA Church!

B. "God is calling SDAs to come out of the SDA Church(es)"

Lastly, you say that Ellen White prophesied that God's people just before the falling of the plagues will be called out of the SDA churches. You then quote the following as you basis for this assertion:

“I saw that God has honest children among the nominal Adventists and the fallen churches, and before the plagues shall be poured out, ministers and people will be called out from these churches and will gladly receive the truth. Satan knows this; and before the loud cry of the third angel is given, he raises an excitement in these religious bodies, that those who have rejected the truth may think that God is with them.” {EW, p 261}.

My Comments:

6. You are in grave error on this point. The word "adventists" is not a synonym for Seventh day Adventists. This fact, as student of historic adventism, you must know. The term "adventists" was used to refer to all denominations whose members believed in and looked for the second coming of the Lord Jesus. It is not the same as Seventh day Adventists (SDAs).

7. In fact, modern Adventism began as an inter-denominational movement. As such, you entire premise is flawed since your interpretation of the above statement/quote by E.G. White regarding "adventists" is entirely misconstrued.

8. I admonish you to do only what E.G. White say you should do and not light your own fire and start your own movement:

“We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out. While we will endeavor to keep the “unity of the Spirit” in the bonds of peace, we will not with pen or voice cease to protest against bigotry.” EGW'88, 356, 357 (1889), LDE 48.1

“How dare mortal man pass his judgment upon them, and call the church a harlot, Babylon, a den of thieves, a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, the habitation of devils...?” Manuscript 21 , 1893.

9. Now, I note that you seek to distinguish the above statements of E.G. White as only applying to before or around the time of 1893 and not after that date. But again you rest the clear words of Inspiration. Sister White, under inspiration wrote:

“Those who assert that the Seventh-day Adventist churches constitute Babylon, or any part of Babylon, might better stay at home. Let them stop and consider what is the message to be proclaimed at this time.” TM 37.

“There is but one church [referring to the SDA] in the world who are at the present time standing in the breach, and making up the hedge, building up the old waste places; and for any man to call... this church [the SDA Church], denouncing her as Babylon, is to do a work in harmony with him who is the accuser of the brethren.” TM 50.

10. No, I note that you say that "at this time" in the TM, p. 37, suggests that there was a time when the SDA Church could or would become Babylon, but here again you ignore the plain words of E.G. White:

"Beware of those who arise with a great burden to denounce the church." - RH, June 12, 1893.

To Conclude:

11. You conflate and confuse the G.C. Corporation with the local SDA churches around the world and improperly and without Biblical basis or support from the SOP refer to ALL of these churches as "Babylon" when many of them are seeking to faithful, although many are in a state of spiritual decline. But, as I have explained above, that is not the same as being Babylon.

12. That I am correct in saying that you confuse the G.C. with the local churches is seen from your following statement:

"It was in 1926, under the presidency of William Spicer, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church took an action, which we point to as the one single one which sealed her fate, and converted the Church from a harlot Babylonian to harlot Babylonian fallen."

13. You then go on to say who took this action: "This action... tagged General Conference working policy #075... the General Conference Executive Committee adopted an important statement that is now a part of the General Conference Working Policy (075)."

14. As you admit in the above statement on your site, it was "the General Conference Executive Committee adopted an important statement"!

15. In fact, most SDA churches do not follow that statement adopted by the G.C.

16. Not every statement made by the G.C. has weight or even authority among the SDA Churches. I can think of many, many G.C. statements, policies and positions statements that are expressly and openly rejected by SDA churches, and the G.C. knows of it and cannot do anything about it. The G.C. needs the tithes you see, and only if the wider and global SDA churches accept the G.C.'s 'new wine' can the G.C. impose its will on them. The G.C. knows this, and so it seeks to pick off small groups like yours or little churches that they think are powerless. But I can tell you of many SDA churches, which although far from perfect and even in some degree of compromise, but which do not accept the G.C.'s ecumenical or Roman Catholic "friendly" agenda.

17. Think on these things. Your position is on this issue side of the accuser of the brethren.

18. "Rebuke, and exhort with all authority," point out the sins and errors or the G.C. and the SDA churches, but do not persist in your sins of calling God's Church Babylon. Sister White's writings do not support you in this, but rebuke you:

"Although there are evils existing in the church, and will be until the end of the world, the church in these last days is to be the light of the world that is polluted and demoralized by sin. The church, enfeebled and defective, needing to be reproved, warned, and counseled, is the only object upon earth upon which Christ bestows.... The prayer of Christ that His church may be one as He was one with His Father will finally be answered. There is but one church [NOT THE G.C. CORPORATION] in the world who are at the present time standing in the breach, and making up the hedge, building up the old waste places; and for any man to call the attention of the world and other churches to this church, denouncing her as Babylon, is to do a work in harmony with him who is the accuser of the brethren (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 48-50)."

19. The examples you give about individual SDA churches forming alliances with Rome or the 'daughters' of Rome, such as the merger of SDA Churches in China with non-SDA churches, is not the accepted position of the body called SDAs or Seventh day Adventists churches. Rather, these decisions are just what they say they are: the decisions of the local SDA church or of the men at the G.C.--the folly and "backsliding" of those churches and those who make such decisions in the G.C.

20. In other words, such acts are the personal backsliding of those churches and not that of the entire SDA church body. We may expect many strange things from some of our churches and from the G.C., too, but the SDA CHURCH OF GOD WILL LIVE ON--"FAIR AS THE MOON, CLEAR AS THE SUN, AND TERRIBLE AS AN ARMY WITH BANNERS." {Songs of Solomon 6:10}

Kind regards



Semper vigilans ("Always watchful")

Post nubila PhÅ“bus “After clouds comes sunshine”.

Nick said...

Here is a balanced response for those concerned about the SDA connections with the WCC.

The statements about the Seventh-day Adventist Church being a member of the W.C.C. in the Directory of Christian Councils, published by the World Council of Churches, 1985 and the Letter from the National Council of Churches of Christ, January 13, 1965, are speaking of their relationship with the G.C. not the local SDA churches.

I guarantee you that the W.C. does not have any relationship or contact with most, if any, of the SDA churches. That the G.C. has presumptuously joined this organization does not make the local SDA churches part of the W.C.

If they are members of the W.C. then they are dissident members and certainly not in "good and regular standing" with the W.C., as the vast majority of SDAs are against relations with the W.C.! That is the proof of the puddling.

Kind regards


WATCHER! said...

ALERT: Those who have tried to correct the errors of the founder [Monster] at the online POGM cult, please be careful.

After he knows you refuse to agree with his error your computer may get spamed. I know somebody who received upset emails from the POGM founder started getting "Crital Objects" sent to his chache. They came by the dozens. I cannot prove that somebody from the POGM is responsible by what a coincidence. Perhaps after visiting the dudes site you get put on a SPAM list. Who knows?

Just though i'd put that out there.