Fragmentation of Philadelphia Or My Confession and Apology

Posted Jan 19, 2016 by Adrian Ebens in Adrian Ebens

For any group of people who find themselves freed from the creedal mindset, there follows the freedom and responsibility of moving forward in the pursuit of truth in the fullness of the stature of Christ. For those of us who have found freedom in the Spirit through the Father and His Son in the context of the Adventist movement, we have certainly embraced this opportunity.

As with any such movement, it has been challenged with a wide range of ideas and a struggle for identity in a post SDA creedal situation. All of this is to be expected. New faces have appeared on the scene with very limited experience in the Advent movement and within a very short space have assumed positions that are calculated to snare the honest Adventist seeker for truth and lead them off the solid platform established by the pioneers of Adventism and honed in the preaching of the 1888 message. Spiritually Juvenile minds have not had time to grasp the implications of how Adventism was forged and developed and therefore are likely to wither under the noon tide heat. Still others who also miss the implications of the nature of this movement fall into the trap of calling the Adventist Church Babylon and calling people out into oblivion not content to follow the Lord’s purposes and timing. Laodicea has many seductive faces.

It was inevitable that a group of people with an Adventist heritage coming back to the foundations of the true God as preached by William Miller, Joshua Himes, Joseph Bates, James White and others that there could be a return to one of the central questions of the 1888 debate. The Trinity apostasy rendered key aspects of this message impassable and destined the 1888 study committee to failure until this central pillar would be addressed.

Over the past few years the rise of feast keeping within Adventism has provided a decided test as to whether people understand the gospel, the law and the covenants within an 1888 message context.

My heavy investment into studying the 1888 message previously in the 1990’s set me up for an interesting situation in considering feast keeping in relation to the gospel. My initial response was negative as often is the case but as I continued to weigh the evidence carefully the pieces began to come together. I was also pressed on this question as many feast keepers were coming into an understanding of the Father and His Son. How should these people be received? Should they be condemned as anti-gospel legalists? Again my initial response was to say yes, but again with much prayer and consideration a different view emerged anchored more firmly on the pioneer principles and the 1888 message. Even though many people were embracing feast keeping in a poor framework and in some cases were simply perverting the gospel, this was not enough to dissuade an honest seeker for harmony upon this question.

An understanding of the sealing power of the Sabbath that has great light in it and the process of the marriage in a Most Holy Place context led me to dig deeper into my understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Testament. This statement was a defining moment in my mind as I placed it in this context.

Many who claim to believe and to teach the gospel are in a similar error. They set aside the Old Testament Scriptures, of which Christ declared, "They are they which testify of Me." John 5:39. In rejecting the Old, they virtually reject the New; for both are parts of an inseparable whole. No man can rightly present the law of God without the gospel, or the gospel without the law. The law is the gospel embodied, and the gospel is the law unfolded. The law is the root, the gospel is the fragrant blossom and fruit which it bears.  {COL 128.2}     

The relationship defined by the Spirit of Prophecy was Old Testament root and New Testament fruit. This is a source and channel relationship that matched the Divine Pattern of Father and Son and immediately there was seen a complete method of reading Scripture in light of the True God and His Son. Knowing them provided the key to reading Scripture correctly. It was a bold thought and yet for many truth seekers it was rejected completely. It was stated simply that it claimed too much. The majority of the Godhead movement ministries rejected this discovery. Amongst the feast keeping movement the principle was gathered up with joy in the context of its application to the Sabbath and the feasts. I took the opportunity to share my confession that I had trampled upon the statutes and judgments of God and invited fellow feast keepers to join me in that confession. The response was muted by the expression of the thought that we have always been faithful to God’s commandments and statutes leaving the suggestion that there was little to repent for. How easy it is for advanced light to drive us into a Laodicean mindset.

The path was indeed becoming narrow as many of my Godhead friends who rejected the feasts were moved to a very intensive assault on the covenant question. Of course the covenant question holds the key to any validity in the feasts. I saw the feast question as the perfect test of one’s understanding of the covenants in 1888 and I determined to move forward in this conviction both as a proclamation of the Sabbath more fully and a test of religious liberty on those things freely practiced in Scripture without condemnation.

This process led to somewhat of a repeat of the aspects of the 1888 crisis over the covenants. The majority choosing to cross the Rubicon in regard to clear testimony from the prophet that E.J. Waggoner had the truth on the covenants.

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.--Letter 30, 1890, p. 2. (To W. C. White and wife, March 10, 1890.)  {9MR 329.3} 

The process intensified when the release of the unpublished writings of Ellen White revealed the priestly work of Christ began at the fall of mankind.

The priesthood of Christ commenced as soon as man had sinned. He was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek. {Ms43b-1891 (July 4, 1891) par. 5}

To these statements there was a determination to stand by perceived landmarks and in order to neuter the growing interest in this light it was inevitable that a flash point would be created to warn people against walking in this new light. A statement was made on facebook indicating that those who need to keep the feasts have not received Christ. Several people in the Godhead movement agreed to the statement and so I determined to get a clarification on this as to the firmness of this conviction and how wide spread it was.

The outcome of that discussion with several leaders in the movement was that feast keeping is diametrically opposed to the gospel and that it is anti-Christ and anti-gospel to entertain it. The manner in which the discussion unfolded and the convictions expressed spelt the end of a meaningful brotherhood where there could be collaboration. I was instructed to cease and desist and repent for my convictions. This left no options but to step back from this part of the movement. If people are deeply convicted that you are insulting Jehovah and that you have the spirit of Anti-Christ then obviously relations are going to be strained.

One small consolation is that those on both sides of the born sinners debate have found an odd harmony in their unison response to the statutes and judgements.

Below is my letter in response to several leaders of the Godhead movement that took place in the end of November 2015 just over seven years from when I first engaged it.   

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

Dear Brethren and Friends

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and offering your counsel to me. I have documented the keypoints from each email and put them together to get a consensus of thought.

I found Brother A (and therefore Brother B) and Brother C the most objective in their assessments . I completely understand Brother D would feel defensive because of the way things unfolded and therefore naturally would speak to the subjective as well. That is totally understandable.

In reference to feast keeping I note the following including the original post on FB and thread

The majority of points that actually addressed the issue seemed to be as follows:

The only people who still need to keep the feast days or any part of the system of the law are those who have not yet found Christ. – Brother D

Anti christ means a doctrine which removes Christ from the people and this is exactly what feast-keeping does. It seeks Christ in rituals and shadows because it does not have the reality. That is the painful truth. – Brother D

the truth about God is not a feast-keeping movement. – Brother D.

God bless you Adrian, and if that wish is granted, I know you will turn from feast-keeping. – Brother D

Such behavior is contrary to Christ though, and if he truly has been converted God will be sure to show him his folly. I feel the same way about feast keepers – Sister A

I'm very much against the feast keeping position, being a former believer in them, and I believe the end of the road leads to ruin – Brother C

When we have serious differences we can at best have a surface level relationship. I believe its impossible to press together when we hold to serious differences. – Brother C

I would not say you haven't found Christ at all. I would say you need to see Him more clearly. – Brother E

Feast keeping is the same as circumcision period! Your problem is you are a minister! I will not use Brother D’s words nor my own. Here is what Paul says about ministers who believe and promote (which you do) such doctrine and positions. Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision(or they that cut off, circumcision)

To the minister he says they are:

Evil Workers
Accursed (says it twice)
False Brethren

I think Brother D’s words are much more mild than Pauls but yes, this is a line in the sand! As a ministers we must be very careful what we preach! In love I say Repent! – Brother F

Ultimately, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is very similar to the situation which existed in Galatia. Actions say more clearly than professions what a person really believes. Perhaps Adrian has never considered this but I hope he will consider that in the light of his behavior. He may be wrong, but Brother F’s conclusions are not unreasonable. – Brother D

The truth about God is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the feast days and I believe the devil has brought it in as a diversion to take away the impact of the Non-Trinitarian message – Brother H.

If Brother F’s assessment is not unreasonable and feast keeping has absolutely no place in the truth about God movement and it is the spirit of Antichrist fit for dogs, evil workers and false brethren then I think that it is a little naive at best and deceptive at worst to say that I misunderstood the meaning of Brother D’s words. I simply put a face on the words “The only people.” If people are spoken about then which people? If we put a face on the label then we have to own the statement in the flesh and not simply beat the air with meaningless words. Words are intended for a purpose and they are intended for people to hear. I heard those words and I put my hand up and said I am one of those people you are talking about. The only person that objected to this characterisation from Brother F that was stated as reasonable by Brother D was Brother A. I did not hear anyone else protest this assessment. I did have private communication with one other person who didn’t support it. Maybe some did it privately to Brother D, I don’t know, but this says something about the general feeling most of you have.

A point has been raised about where the emphasis is placed. Is it the word NEED to keep or is it the words KEEP THE FEASTS. No context was offered for the word need as to whether it was something to do in order to obtain salvation or whether it was a need based on the blessing it contained. Brother I provided an addition to the original statement as follows

Once a person finds Christ, he does not need to seek what else he NEEDS to do in order to be accepted. – Brother I

The addition of the words in order to be accepted placed the word NEED in the context of need to do this to obtain acceptance with God. If Brother D had written those words then certainly I would agree with him and all of you. But those words were not included and in the wider context you have provided that the feasts message is diametrically opposed to the truth about God movement and there is no place for it under any circumstances then I think I am responding in context of the entire picture. I can’t see much use in this campaign to say I misunderstood the meaning when several of you have provided such blanket statements against any connection to the feasts. I hope you can see this. 

Another point I would raise that I would urge caution and it relates to statements like these:

“when one understands how contrary feast-keeping is to the principles of the gospel and how one has to twist and manipulate the Scriptures to make it a legitimate part of Christian worship. If the truth be told it has always been a mystery to me how somebody of your intelligence could honestly buy the distorted interpretations of Colossians 2 and Galatians 3,4, which are popular with feast-keepers.” – Brother D

When a person questions another person’s intelligence in this context, he potentially releases himself from his responsibility to listen and consider carefully another point of view. I make the point that the Godhead movement is rife with this attitude and it is proving and will prove a great snare.   

It is within this context that I wish to speak to the bond of brotherly love. As I understand brotherly, it allows for brothers to view things in different ways without questioning ones intelligence or charging them indirectly or directly with having the spirit of antichrist. This breaks the bond of Philadelphia and makes one very vulnerable to the Laodicean condition. I confess I am just as vulnerable to this as anyone.

The charge has been made against me and others that we base everything on emotion and we are seeking selfishly for a blessing for ourselves. Is your religion so cold as to avoid having joy and blessing in the gospel of Christ? I don’t believe it to be the case. Must you put logic and emotion against each other like you do with the Old and New Testament? It does not matter if we dance or whether we mourn, whether we fast or whether we feast, we are condemned. Yet wisdom will be vindicated in her children.

A slightly different position came from Brother A and Brother B

I do not believe that God requires Christians today to keep (remember/acknowledge) the feast days. If you or anyone else wants to keep them, then that is entirely up to you. I will not judge you or anyone else by it. – Brother A

This position comes with a qualifier, that feast days should not be promoted:

We must not muddy the waters therefore by saying – or even implying – that Christians today are called by God to honour the feast days as well. If this is done it will cause confusion…This is one of the reasons why I say that in no way today should these days be promoted. – Brother A

I appreciate the sentiment in this approach and it is a position that I held previously. But as I pondered its implications I realised that it could not work and in fact this is what the Adventist church had said to me regarding the Son of God. It can’t work in the long term.

Merely announcing that one is having a feast camp as this could be seen as promoting it. The only way I imagine this could work in the movement is that you do it alone in your home and you don’t announce it anywhere or invite anyone to attend within the movement. This may not be what was intended in this statement but from the protests I received for even attending a feast, I think this is certainly true for some of you.

Then there is the whole issue of protection of the flock. What if new Father and Son believers take an interest in the feasts and choose to attend. This could easily be seen as promoting the feasts and destabilising the movement. So in the end this is not a workable solution even though I appreciate the sentiment in offering it and I appreciate spirit of my brothers who shared it.

So I think that somewhere between having the spirit of Antichrist and being a dog and remaining silent on the subject and not mentioning it and speaking about it, is the current spectrum within your portion of the truth about God movement. I believe this assessment is made allowable with the approach to the covenants I think most of you follow. If you would to true to this covenant system as championed by men like John Calvin and the reformers then there really is little reason for the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Calvin understood this and I think Brother D does as well. I am guessing this is the reason to keep the Sabbath of Eden rather than the fourth commandment. This is entirely consistent with the covenant system that most of you follow. I think this makes Brother D the most consistent.

I hope that it will come to some of you that it does not matter if the Ten Commandments are eternal or not. Within the two covenant system where law and grace are contrasted, then any law keeping is against the gospel. I think Brother D understands this well. The emphasis of grace that came at Pentecost making the Spirit fully available at all times really makes the Sabbath a non-essential for salvation and if you would dare keep it because of the law – then in vain you worship the Creator as legalists still. This is what the dispensational covenant system demands.

If you would dare to believe that there is a special gift of the Spirit of God that comes on the Sabbath day then you are moving towards the Spirit being available at certain times that is not fully available at other times and once you take that step then you are denying the Protestant gospel of the reformers and their covenant system of grace. If you don’t believe there is a special gift of the Spirit available on the Sabbath and you still chose to observe it because of the eternal law of God then are you not a legalist still? As Calvin stated about the Sabbath:

Let us now see how far this [Sabbath] command has reference to us. In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed in Christ. (Col. 2:17). [Note carefully Calvin’s use of Col. 2:16,17. He was consistent in his application]

184. How? Because, by virtue of his death, our old man is crucified, and we are raised up to newness of life. (Rom. vi. 6).

185. What of the commandment then remains for us? Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.

186. But does the figure give us nothing more? Yes, indeed, We must give heed to the thing meant by it; namely, that being engrafted into the body of Christ, and made his members, we cease from our own works, and so resign ourselves to the government of God.

Gathering together on Sunday for Calvin was simply for the sake of order. We can say the same for those with an Adventist tradition. You can meet on Sabbath for the sake of order but the ceremony is abolished in Christ. It becomes totally irrelevant. By having the spiritual nature of Christ in you, you have the entire kingdom at all times and the Sabbath as an ordinance is irrelevant. This is the natural effect of the Protestant two covenant system. I know this will be unpalatable for some of you but this is the consistency of the matter.

It is my conviction that the Sabbath is the seal of God. I do not mean by this that because I have ticked the Sabbath box, God pats me on the head and stamps me with his celestial rubber stamp of approval. I mean that in the Sabbath the Spirit of God flows into my soul more deeply when I open it to Him in faith that He has promised His rest to me at these times. Once you stand in this place and you believe that the Melchizedek priesthood operated from the fall of man then it is quite a simple thing to see that this principle could be expanded into other special times. I have documented this process at length in several presentations. I openly and freely confess my joy for my Father’s commands and I claim the promise that in the righteousness of Christ freely given to me, it will manifest in my obedience to all the commandments of God. I delight in the prophecy of Malachi that in the last days God’s people will heed the joyous call to remember the law of Moses with the statutes and the judgements, for His commandments are not grievous but are a fountain of life to the converted soul. As inspiration tell us:

The old life of alienation from God has ended; the new life of reconciliation, of faith and love, has begun. Then "the righteousness of the law" will "be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:4. And the language of the soul will be: "O how love I Thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Psalm 119:97.  {GC 468.1}

What is utter heresy to many of you is life and freedom to me. Do you think that I should suppress the joy I have found in my Father’s Sabbath? Do you think I should sit silently and quietly for the sake of political expediency? Do you think it best to continue to operate in an environment where I am labelled a dog at worst and a second class Christian at best? I don’t wish to be a focal point to stir up your animosity on this question any further.

I am not blinded to the fact that many people in the feast movement are vulnerable to seeking God through rituals and ceremonies. Is it true that some of them may not have found Christ? It is very likely the case, does this mean that the whole question of feast keeping is condemned because of this? I have tried with some of you a number of times to appeal to you to not place all those who take delight in the feasts in one basket. We all accept that doctrine of the Father and Son does not need to obliterated because of the presence of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I have asked that you allow there could be a third option. I offered to you the term feast receiver with a Biblical context to show you there is another way of looking at this but the reply has been – “we can’t see any difference.” If you can’t see it then there is nothing more I can do.

I think Brother C summed it up well when he said:

I believe it’s impossible to press together when we hold to serious differences.

We do hold serious differences. Those differences stem from my conviction to hold to the teaching of E.J. Waggoner endorsed by Ellen White on the Covenants in 1888. I accept that many of you see this differently. I respect that. It also stems from my view of the Sabbath and how it works in our lives as a sanctifier and sealer.

I wish to raise another point that has to do with the line in the sand. Brother D expressed it this way in his email:

“You say I have drawn a line in the sand, but let me correct you. That line in the sand was drawn many years ago. I was writing against feast days from back in the 90s, long before you were even a part of the godhead movement. When you embraced feast-keeping, you simply stepped over a line which already existed.” – Brother D

I am willing to stand corrected Brother D. In accepting that correction I now can explain the disappointment I felt in the lead up to and the events that transpired at the unity meetings at Roan Mountain in September 2014. In the publications put out by some of you and the sermons some of you gave in the meetings before the unity meetings, it was evident that there would be no open discussion about this question of the statutes and the feasts in particular. I found the spirit quite harsh and unwilling to entertain any possibility of a different view. If such a line did exist then the meetings at Roan Mountain were never going to be conducted in an open dialog and therefore it was a farce in every sense of the word. At those meetings I certainly found a determination to shut out any line of thought that I wished to bring forward especially my thoughts on how the Father and Son relationship impact the relationship of the Old and New Testament. I determined from those meetings that the truth needed no such spirit to sustain it.

Some of you find it completely strange to understand my reasoning process and yet I have laid it out systematically in my preaching and writing. I sent some of the initial thoughts to you in the Divine Pattern and there was almost no response until I pushed for it. I have studied several of your sermons and materials and weighed them carefully and I have spoken to some of you at length face to face, on facebook and even on long haul flights, but I have had very little constructive feedback on my writings and preaching. All I hear is “I don’t agree” or “you take things too far.” Brother D wrote to me privately saying that if feast keeping is the fruit of your system then this is proof that the system is wrong. I question this approach to the subject. So it is inevitable that if what I am saying can’t be engaged and the simple reply is “I don’t agree.” Then eventually there will be a dividing. Yes, I confess that I could have tried harder and appealed more but I did not want to face the continual push back. Is this weakness on my part? I accept the charge.

At this point I want to offer my apology to Brother D for events that took place at Roan Mountain in 2014. I wanted to try and stay connected despite the serious differences that came out. I told Brother D I would state something of that commitment. When we had the final meeting and more information came out regarding the covenants and there was no written law in heaven but it was metaphorical and possibly the sanctuary in heaven, I was made to realise how broad are the differences. I was reaching over to try and hold on as best I could but these events made me realise that the differences were too great for any meaningful cohesion. Then when Brother J and Brother I pointed out the inconsistency of trying to say the weekly Sabbath is a set time and the annual Sabbaths can be on a flexible time, I knew I had to state clearly my position to show I did not support that inconsistency. I was willing to take a flexible position if it meant the group would be open to the idea and I suppose this is not the right way to do things. I had hoped that the movement would take an open approach to the subject and I wanted to do all I could to show openness from my side. It was only seen as inconsistent and I accept that. So I made the statement I did regarding the statutes and I did not reaffirm the bond of brotherly love. For this I am sorry and I accept the responsibility of what would be perceived as being double minded. From my part it was trying to hold onto to something that was not possible. So I accept this as a failure on my part.

My response to Brother D this time is partly to ask you all if your approach to this subject is truly Christian behaviour and secondly what those of you who are friends with Brother D think on this subject. I was not seeking to force the conscience of anyone or force anyone to take sides. I just wanted to know if you felt this is fair treatment. Most of you not only believe it is fair treatment but have amplified it with more statements in that same direction. If this is how you demonstrate your brotherly love then I am certainly sad. Even though I engaged this process in a faltering way and I might be charged with double mindedness the issue still needed a clear response. As Brother D said:

“you have escalated a Facebook discussion to the place where you have made it an international crisis. However, this may be a good thing because it may be time that it is clearly manifested that the truth about God is not a feast-keeping movement.”

The crisis already existed. As Brother D said, it was time to manifest the matter for all that there might be clear understanding.  So I do not apologise for emailing all of you. I think if you consider carefully I did not email persons that were antagonistic to your position. I am charged with seeking to enlist support to destroy Brother D’s influence. I wrote to you – those who support Brother D - saying “are you sure this is the direction you are all determined to follow. I want to know for sure. I have my answer.

Despite the fact that a number of you have assumed my motives and that some of you believe you know my intentions better than I do, I chose to interpret most of this as support for Brother D. As for seeking to secure a place for myself, study my history and consider where I came from. I was a respected ordained minister in the Adventist Church with a number of connections to those in power. If I wanted to secure a position of power and influence do you not think I would have done this on this far broader platform instead?

I think you have made it all very clear that there is no place whatsoever for someone to enjoy the feasts openly in your environment. I thank you all for making this very clear to me. I sensed this to be the case but I wanted to hear it directly from you. and I want to thank brother F for being very direct and Brother D for supporting this as reasonable. I also thank Brother H for making it clear that feast keeping is diametrically opposed to the truth about God movement as you all have taken part in. Thank you for making this very clear. Consider also the fact that several of you have taken it upon yourselves to place my actions under as much suspicion as possible reveals that you have no confidence in me. I do not say I am worthy of confidence, I have made plenty of mistakes in the past and I am not going to tell you I did everything right.

I believe it is important for the best interests of all of you that I should step back and leave these things to our Father in heaven as to whether all of us have acted fairly and in love. I readily confess my mistakes and pray that the Lord will forgive me for my errors and wrong doing.  All I can do is trust that our Father in heaven will resolve this impasse even though that seems completely impossible at present. I guess we all hope that this will change and that we will be united together again in the blessed righteousness of Christ.

Those of you I know have been a real blessing in my life over the last number of years and I am very thankful for the good memories that we share together. I shall not lose those and I truly pray that God will bless and keep you all and that you will grow in the righteousness of Jesus our Lord. I hope you will accept that at face value. That is truly what I mean from my heart even if I might present this in a faltering and erring manner. I share your joy in the begotten Son and I trust he will bring down the current walls of difference that at present appear unsolvable. With God all things are possible. Thank you for your time and I wish the Father’s blessing upon you through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Adrian Ebens

Here is another letter from me and response representing another section of the movement.

Dear brother K

I admire the strength of your conviction even if I do not hold it.

So would you say that if I continue to hold this teaching and therefore I am insulting Jehovah, do you believe that such persistence on my part reveals that you believe I am rejecting the Holy Spirit and that if I do not repent of this that I am lost as far as you would assess. I am not afraid of a blunt assessment. I am interested in your thinking on this.

Also would you then believe that we are not in the same fellowship and therefore I am not considered a full brother in Christ. Meaning – can someone insult Jehovah willingly and be considered part of the body of Christ?

 I am truly interested in your assessment and judgement on this case.

Thank you in advance.


Dear Brother Adrian:

You ask some straight questions and I will try to answer as straight as I can.

You ask, "So would you say that if I continue to hold this teaching and therefore I am insulting Jehovah..." You do not define "this teaching" so I have to assume it means the keeping of the feasts. If this is so, it is not my prerogative to decide if you are insulting Jehovah but Jesus through his servant says you are.

The Holy Spirit is to guide us into all truth. Can I say you are rejecting the Holy Spirit? No, for I do not know your heart and where you have been and may be going to in your experience. If you are truly honestly following as best you know I am sure you are not rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit. However, it might be said that there are sincere Catholics who are following truth to the best of their knowledge. Are they rejecting the Holy Spirit? I would say no, but I would also say that if they are sincere, they will be presented the truth and if they knowingly reject truth at that point, then they are rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit.

You ask about fellowship. In a broad sense all humanity is a part of the brotherhood of humanity. But that does not make one a part of the body of Christ. Specifically, I have no ill will in my heart in any way against you at all. I only have love and a desire for you to serve Christ all you can in the manner that Christ approves. But could I share the communion table with you. No, I could not. I believe we have too different a view on the efficacy of the cross. Specifically you ask if someone can insult Jehovah and be a Christian. I am sure that all sin in our lives insults God to some degree. That of itself does not cause God to reject a person, but falling into temptation and then repenting is different than continually, knowingly, propagating errors about God. I will leave the judgment of all consciences up to God for he alone can know the heart but he has promised he will try it….

Brother K

So at the present time there is a firm split in the movement. My assessment is that a large section of the Godhead movement have rejected a central piece of Waggoner’s message through the covenants and I cannot follow this path. As for myself I am charged with many things and accept full responsibility for my actions and I weigh carefully my influence and responsibility to the people of God in these last days. My testimony stands for all who wish to receive it and for those who don’t. Nobody can say that I have been vague in my position and understanding of the matters at hand. May each of us study these things carefully and gather up the precious light that is available for God’s people at this time.

Adrian Ebens

For those who wish to examine my material on the questions of the covenants and the feasts please check these materials

The Divine Pattern of Life

A Priest Forever

Showing Respect for Colossians 2:16,17

Stand by the Landmarks and Build on the Platform

The Ceremonial Dividing Line in Adventist History

See Also

Apology and Confession