Refuting Thunder Lauriston's Hardtalk Charges (2016)

8/18/2019 Refuting Thunder Lauriston's Hardtalk Charges (2016)

1/22

GOD’S CHURCH WILL WEATHER THE

“THUNDER”, WIND AND THE RAIN!!

A Response to Elce “Thunder” Lauriston’s

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: [email protected] 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” ---

http://g/My%20STORED%20Files%20(on%20External%20Hardrive)/LAPTOP%20Storage%20(latest)/LAPTOP%20Transfers%20(Storage)/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]://g/My%20STORED%20Files%20(on%20External%20Hardrive)/LAPTOP%20Storage%20(latest)/LAPTOP%20Transfers%20(Storage)/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttp://g/My%20STORED%20Files%20(on%20External%20Hardrive)/LAPTOP%20Storage%20(latest)/LAPTOP%20Transfers%20(Storage)/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]


2/22

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 “Thunder’s”

departure many false charges and claims were publicly made about the SDA Church.

And just like I did before in 2013, where Dr. Andre Hill’s 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

Lauriston’s 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

work …when for some reason one of the brethren ….begins to work against the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.scribd.com/doc/210968078/SDAs-CAN-TRUST-E-G-WHITE-a-Refutation-of-Dr-Andre-Hill-s-Thesishttps://www.scribd.com/doc/210968078/SDAs-CAN-TRUST-E-G-WHITE-a-Refutation-of-Dr-Andre-Hill-s-Thesishttps://www.scribd.com/doc/210968078/SDAs-CAN-TRUST-E-G-WHITE-a-Refutation-of-Dr-Andre-Hill-s-Thesishttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209788691580307https://www.scribd.com/doc/210968078/SDAs-CAN-TRUST-E-G-WHITE-a-Refutation-of-Dr-Andre-Hill-s-Thesishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.be


3/22

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 determin ing whether Brother “Thunder” Lauriston’s

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 whilewatching 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 ofChristianity 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 that’s 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”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBRDIxeqASk&feature=youtu.be


4/22

“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 “Thunder’s” “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:


5/22

“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 God’s people; a clear indication that the work of God’s 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


6/22

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 Paul’s

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 O ld 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


7/22

Brother Lauriston Unwittingly Turns the Holy Spirit into an Inanimate Object

In his bid to denounce the SDA teaching that God’s 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 God’s “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."


8/22

"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. It’s 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 that’s 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 re-

produced 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


9/22

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 Lauriston’s 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 God’s “sign” or “seal”, but observed along

with the sign of discipleship in loving others!! Here’s 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

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10


10/22

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): ‘here’s what you’ve 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 God’s 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?


11/22

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” DOESN’T

understand the CONTEXT of Romans 14:1-17, and so I think he is using his (and the anti-

Sabbatarian 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”

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10


12/22

[Rev. 11:19]. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial

or ritual law…Every 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 other …In 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

do…The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusi on, 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 Lord’s 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


13/22

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 andservice 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 non-

SDA 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


14/22

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” Lauriston’s

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?


15/22

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 onrecord 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 Thunder’s “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 Christianbrethren 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


16/22

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 purgatory —is 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


17/22

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 ‘anti -

Christian’, 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:


18/22

[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 days…will 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 Bible…Claims of this nature bear strong identifying marks

of a CULTIST. To accept anyone else’s writings as inspired (as the Word of God) will bring

a curse upon those persons…This 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


19/22

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

It’s 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 it’s

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 it’s 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 Adventism’s “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 “Thunder’s” past utterances while an SDA and

comparing them with what he is saying today, as well as, second, looking at how all SDAbrethren and Christians in general should treat with brethren having doctrinal issues

while being part of the church.

Brother “Thunder” Lauriston’s 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:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016


20/22

"[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

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583?hc_location=ufihttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583?hc_location=ufihttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583?hc_location=ufihttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583?hc_location=ufihttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209796462814583


21/22

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 it’s worth I am allowing people to

see that principle at work.” – end of quote

In the end one thing is for certain. Using Brother Lauriston’s own sentiments

expressed in the foregoing video, God’s 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 God’s much-maligned, much-

misrepresented and much-misunderstood people…the 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. It’s 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

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209789510480779?comment_id=10209796850584277&reply_comment_id=10209810651049280&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7Dhttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209789510480779?comment_id=10209796850584277&reply_comment_id=10209810651049280&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7Dhttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209789510480779?comment_id=10209796850584277&reply_comment_id=10209810651049280&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7Dhttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10209789510480779?comment_id=10209796850584277&reply_comment_id=10209810651049280&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D


22/22

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.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/310031717/PART-2-Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016

Documents

Refuting Thunder Lauriston's Hardtalk Charges (2016)