Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Leroy Froom's Omega Heresy? (Edited & Expanded)

Leroy Froom's Omega Heresy? (Edited & Expanded)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 108|Likes:
BE INFORMED, AND CHALLENGED AS AN SD ADVENTIST, ON THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE, AND THEN SEE ALSO THE MANUSCRIPT "THE OMEGA HERESY IN ADVENTISM" BY THIS AUTHOR.
BE INFORMED, AND CHALLENGED AS AN SD ADVENTIST, ON THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE, AND THEN SEE ALSO THE MANUSCRIPT "THE OMEGA HERESY IN ADVENTISM" BY THIS AUTHOR.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: DERRICK D. GILLESPIE (Mr.) on Aug 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/03/2012

pdf

text

original

 
DID LEROY FROOM BRING IN THE OMEGA HERESY, MAKING THEADVENTIST CHURCH A PART OF BABYLON TODAY?
 
By Derrick Gillespie
 
Choice quote from this presentation:
 
"Who do we find among Seventh-day Adventists, more than any other group, denying the 'person-hood 
’ 
of the numerically third person of the Godhead, and denyingvehemently that he was called by Mrs. White herself a "living person" of "three", or one of the "threeholiest beings in heaven", and that he too must be "served"? 
 
INTRODUCTION:
 What is "heresy", and what is "apostasy" with which it is sometimes equated?The
Encarta Encyclopedia
defines the two words as follows:
HERESY 
- any religious doctrine [or movement] opposed to the dogma [set principles of doctrine] of a particular church, especially doctrine held by a person professing faith in the teachings of that church.
The term originally meant belief that one arrived at by one‘s self (Greek 'hairesis’ 
- choosing for oneself)and is used to denote *SECTARIANISM [smaller dissident group] in Acts of the Apostles and in the epistlesof Paul. In later Christian writings, the term is used in the opprobrious [approved by some] sense of belief held in opposition to the teaching of the church." 
 
 APOSTASY 
- (from Greek 'apostasia
’ 
- insurrection, uprising), the total abandonment of Christianity [or a
 particular denomination] by a baptized person… Apostasy is distinguished from laxity in the practice of 
religion and [from] *HERESY, [which is] the formal denial of one or more doctrines of the Christian faith[or of one
’s denomination]…" 
 
It is necessary in answering the question before us that we first look at:[1] Who was Leroy Froom, and what exactly is he charged with by some within the Adventist Churchtoday?
*2+ What was Mrs. White‘s "omega" heresy prediction really about?
 
First of all, Leroy Froom is probably the SD Adventist Church‘s greatest historian, who did an intense and
comprehensive study (over a span of 40 years), on the Adventist
Church‘s doctrinal and organizational
history. In 1971 he published his findings in his greatest work as an Adventist writer (after being assistedby hundreds of sincere Adventist researchers, and even by late pioneers of the time). This very detailedwork was entitled,
"Movement of Destiny" 
. In this book he traces the history of the Advent faith, as it
 
doctrinally and organizationally found its feet, from infancy to what it is presently.He is also famous for publishing another valuable book,
"the Coming of the Comforter" 
, in which heoutlines in detail what Adventists should believe about the "third Person of the Godhead", the HolySpirit, in light of Biblical and "Spirit of Prophecy" truths (i.e. E.G. White writings).Let the reader here note that, this writer has personally read Leroy Froom
s over 700 page book,
Movement of Destiny 
, and can attest to the depth, overall accuracy, honesty, general consistency, andthe comprehensive nature of his research. This was easily determined, by cross referencing with otherresearchers who, many of them, were not even Adventist writers, but who presented many of the samehistorical facts, and, independently of the Church, came to certain similar conclusions as Leroy Froom.However,
as is usually the case with writers, and which is understandable, in this book, Leroy Froomgave his personal opinion (some right, some wrong) on some issues under discussion, which remainedsimply that; his opinion.
This will be proved shortly.
WHAT LEROY FROOM IS CHARGED WITH
 After the evidence presented by Leroy Froom was carefully and honestly analyzed by this writer, it canbe said that despite Leroy Froom is 'charged
with 'heresy
or falsehood by some, these charges havebeen found to be, for the most part, groundless. He is 'charged
with:1. Falsely declaring Jesus to be fully eternal and without beginning at a point in time, despite He was"begotten", falsely declaring Jesus to be fully equal with the Father, though subject to Him in a certaincontext, and falsely declaring Jesus to be "consubstantial" with, or "of one substance" with the Father,
in the same way
, or
in the same sense
that He is said to be "consubstantial" with, or "of one substance"with us humans.2. Falsely declaring the Holy Spirit to be a Person, "the Third Person of the Godhead", to be "served", just like the Father and the Son; even drawing on non-Adventist literature in his initial research on thisissue.3. Falsely declaring that the Adventist Church, at the 1888 General Conference and especially after,came to grips with the truth about the "constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead", or the "HeavenlyTrio", and certain other "old truths", closely related to the Trinitarian-type viewpoints, but seen "in anew light" in some points.Froom is
‘charged’
with 'heresy
, meaning, 'a denial of fundamental doctrine of one
s Church
, but is this'charge
valid? Is it Leroy Froom, or is it those who
‘charge’ him
with denial who are guilty of denial?This writer contends that Leroy Froom was not in error in what he reported, but what, in this writ
er‘s
humble opinion, could be hone
stly counted as faulty on Froom’
s part, was his treatment of two things.
 
1.
 
The nature or the
how
of Jesus
Son-ship was unfortunately misinterpreted by Froom.
Froom
’ 
s unreservedly acceptance of Jesus
’ 
full Deity, as well as his full eternity, i.e. he existingindividually from
“ 
 from all eternity 
” 
is laudable, and must not be forgotten! But in his trying toguard that truth he blundered on the
“ 
how 
” 
of Jesus
’ 
Son-ship. He thought that if he wasliterally begotten in eternity he would have had a beginning and could not be
“ 
 from all eternity 
” 
as E.G. White confirmed, and hence reasoned that he being
“ 
the only begotten
” 
 means he is a
“ 
unique Son
” 
.
I however believe it is absolutely critical to accept that Jesus beingGod
s Son means he is God in fullest nature and is eternal in the unlimited or sense, even if oneblunders on
how
he is God
s Son. But no one is perfect, and so I do believe that while Froomblundered, yet he was in a way better position of being more informed than even the Jews whorejected Jesus
Deity, and even the earliest SDA pioneers, who, ironically, accepted Jesus asliterally God
s
only begotten Son
, but then sadly used that expression to deny that Jesus isfully God, i.e.
in the highest sense
, and hence was equal with the Father in the fullest sense,i.e.
in
all
respects
. That earlier restricted viewpoint was what the 1888 MinneapolisConference was helpful in refuting and expunging from Adventism, despite widespreadresistance from very many SDA pioneers
even leaders. A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, and E.G.White, had to labor intensely under the power of the Spirit to break that old viewpoint of theearliest SDA pioneers. Today, I am sure, God is still working with His Church to help the presentmembers to see where weaknesses in their viewpoints exist, and eventually, the honest andteachable ones will grow towards a fuller understanding.2.
 
Froom also blundered on the way he saw the creeds of Christendom on pages 284 and 285, inhis book "Movement of Destiny", 1971, which related to the "oneness" of the "three Persons" of the "Eternal Godhead". It can be said that, though many of the statements in the creedscertainly has *some (not all) truths which Adventism eventually accepted in basic terms by1915, Leroy Froom failed to properly clarify the "oneness" between the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit, which is
not a numeric oneness
, but a spiritual oneness, as so graphically illustratedin John 17:21 and 22.The creeds spoke, almost unanimously, of the oneness, "not confounding the persons [of theGodhead] *NEITHER DIVIDING THE SUBSTANCE", as was stated by the Athanasian Creedoriginally. His failure to properly address the last part of this here quoted creedal statement,that is, "neither dividing the substance", is where Leroy Froom
s personal opinion on this issuewas evidenced. There is, obviously, no problem with the first part of this creedal statement, thatis, "not confounding the persons", because that part is certainly a correct viewpoint, whichAdventism also shared; that there is a "Trio" of "Persons", or, better yet,
three holiest beings
 in the "Eternal Godhead", since "Trio" indicates distinction of persons in a group, as well as theirunity because of a common feature.Froom subsequently seem to draw the conclusion that because there was such a closenessbetween these creeds, and
what pioneering Adventism came to gradually accept
about the"constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead" after 1888, that nothing in the original Trinity

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->