On April 26, Adventist Today published an article titled “Roanoke Virginia Church Asked to Reconsider Invitation to Stephen Bohr” which contained several false accusations against Bohr.
This was—of course—regarding the Roanoke, VA Seventh-day Adventist church’s invitation to Stephen Bohr to speak on end times at their church on May 5-6, 2023. The Potomac Conference tried to prevent the Roanoke church from inviting Bohr, through intimidation.
Here is a response to the accusations by Stephen Bohr himself,
“A notice appeared in Adventist Today regarding an invitation I have to speak at the Roanoke, Virginia Seventh-day Adventist Church on May 5, 6, 2023. One wonders who communicated with Adventist Today encouraging them to write the article just three days before the church is to vote on whether to maintain or rescind the invitation for pastor Bohr to speak at Roanoke. The timing of the article is very suspicious. The article is riddled with inaccuracies and innuendos so I feel that I must provide a response. Furthermore, it is surprising that Adventist Today would be concerned about doctrinal orthodoxy concerning the Godhead when they printed an article by Desmond Ford questioning the historicity of Genesis 1-11!
The article states that the Potomac Conference has asked the Roanoke church to cancel the invitation. The word ‘ask’ is too mild. The conference has insisted and persisted that the church cancel the event.
The article refers to Secrets Unsealed as an independent ministry which is controversial. I do not like our ministry to be called ‘independent’. We prefer the word ‘supporting’ because our ministry maintains all 28 fundamental beliefs of the church. Furthermore, all persons who accept the message through our ministry (and there are many) become baptized members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Additionally, Secrets Unsealed is a member of ASI which identifies bona fide ministries with the organized church.
Even a quick reading of the article clearly indicates that the issue at hand is not about my view of Christ within the Godhead, but rather about women’s ordination to pastoral leadership which the Potomac Conference has embraced in violation of the decision of the world church in San Antonio in 2015. This is made clear by the statement in the article that says that my theology ‘effectively downgrades Jesus in order to downgrade women.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. As many know, leading up to the General Conference session in San Antonio, Secrets Unsealed prepared a symposium on issues regarding women’s ordination and I personally wrote many articles on the various issues relating to the subject. Ever since, the Potomac Conference has been in ‘payback mode’.
The Potomac Conference has banned my coming to Roanoke by using the guideline voted at the last General Conference session that speakers invited by local churches must be cleared by the Conference in harmony with conference guidelines. So here is the conundrum. I have a ministerial credential, am a member in good and regular standing in my church, I return my tithe and offerings to my local church and our ministry is a member of ASI.
I rather doubt that the intention of the voted guideline at the General Conference intended to ban speakers who are in harmony with the 28 fundamental beliefs of the church. Of course, the question begs to be asked is this: Why can Potomac use a policy voted by the world church at the GC session in 2022 to ban speakers and yet unabashedly and openly violate the vote of the world church on the issue of pastoral ordination at the GC session in 2015! Can conferences pick and choose the policies they wish to apply and those they don’t?
The accusations regarding my theology are a more serious matter. The hasty article claims that I question the divinity of Christ. This is not true. I have always believed in the full divinity of Christ. After all, if He is of the same substance as the Father (homousios), then He is fully God!!
My view is clearly expressed in my series, ‘Revisiting the Godhead’ which anyone can watch by going to our SUMTV app. Furthermore, I shared my views on the Godhead with the Fairview SDA Church in the Pennsylvania Conference on May 3, 4, 2019 where they were having problems with some who were questioning the divinity of Christ. Members who were there can be contacted for first-hand information concerning my view of the Godhead and the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, in last year’s Anchor Study Notes, ‘What Jesus Said’, I dedicated no less than 30 pages (pp. 37-66) to the issue of the Godhead and the identity of Christ. One wishes that the author of the article had done some serious research into my positions before writing what has gone viral. Lest there be any misunderstanding of my position concerning the nature of Christ, I share here my personal view of the Godhead:
There are three persons in the Godhead—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who work out man’s salvation.
Jesus is 100% co-substantial with the Father.
Jesus is one hundred percent God in the highest sense of the word.
Although Jesus is ontologically equal with His Father, He is a distinct person.
As God, Jesus possesses within Himself all the divine attributes.
Jesus has voluntarily subjected Himself to the Father’s authority since eternity past and in eternity future. Voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father does not make the Son any less a person than children who subject voluntarily to their father’s authority.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, the text is clear for anyone to read. It explicitly states that the man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of the man and God is the head of Christ. Notice that Paul does not say that the Father was the head of Christ only during His incarnation. He was the head of Christ still when Paul wrote to the Corinthians after the ascension of Christ.
I never said that Jesus was literally born from the Father’s bosom. My reference to the bosom has been given a meaning I never intended. In the Bible the ‘bosom’ is a metaphor for intimacy and closeness. Thus, John wrote that Jesus is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) and Ellen White wrote that the Father tore Jesus from His bosom when He gave His Son:
“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.
No sane person would argue that the Father tore a portion of His ‘flesh’ off His body to give Christ. This is metaphorical language and should not be taken literally!
The article states that I claim that “the Father has absolute authority, and the Son has delegated authority.” I have never used the word ‘absolute’ or ‘delegated’ to describe the authority structure of the Father and Son. However, I do believe that Jesus has voluntarily submitted to the Father’s authority since eternity past and in eternity future. Although Jesus is 100% God, equal with the Father by nature, He has ever been voluntarily subject to His Father’s will. This is considered a bad thing by many but in God’s view, voluntary submission to His will is a good thing! Our next Secrets Unsealed Newsletter will provide the irrefutable biblical and Spirit of Prophecy evidence that Jesus has ever been subject to the Father’s headship. This does not demean the full divinity of Jesus. The problem is with our view of subjection. We tend to think that to be subject means to be ontologically inferior. However, subjection is not to be understood as inferiority of being but rather difference in function. Jesus has eternally exemplified that the greatest in the kingdom is the one who humbles himself to serve.
The article claims that “for Bohr, Jesus’ death on the cross was merely to ‘fulfill the will’ of the Father.” I have never used the word ‘merely’. Anyone who is acquainted with our ministry knows that I believe that Jesus came to vindicate the Father before the universe and to die for our sins. This statement by the author is a gross misrepresentation of my view of why Jesus came.
Regarding Last Generation Theology, the author uses hyperbolic language to express what he considers to be my view. Ellen White does make it clear that the faithful must live without an intercessor during the time of trouble so to question this is to question the inspiration of Ellen White:
“When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor” (GC 614).
The fact is that when probation closes God’s faithful people will have to live in the sight of holy God without an intercessor/mediator. They will therefore not be able to introduce sins into the sanctuary for forgiveness because the sanctuary has already been cleansed. At this point the responsibility for sin will have already been rolled over on the scapegoat and Jesus will have already changed His garments from those of as High Priest to those of a King. To question this, is to question the integrity of Ellen White’s prophetic gift as well as the beliefs of countless Adventists in good and regular standing in the church.
The following statement from the writer of the article does not reflect the view of anyone who embraces Last Generation Theology. It is simply a straw man created by those who oppose LGT:
“The implication is that Christ’s death on the cross is not enough to provide salvation in the final conflict, but must be augmented by human beings who, by their effort, have become flawless. Thus, the return of Jesus waits upon a sinless generation and not, as Jesus made clear, the will of God.”
The accusation that LGT makes salvation anthropocentric is misguided. Jesus is our only means of salvation. Justification and sanctification are His work, not ours, and the glory belongs to Him alone. Secrets Unsealed has produced a 32-hour seminar on Last Generation Theology in both English and Spanish and the series is available to all who want to know where our ministry truly stands on this subject.
With regards to the statement that ‘the Scriptures say that perfection will only be achieved when we are ‘transformed’ at the time of the Second Coming’, suffice it to say that the texts provided are not dealing with perfection of character but rather the mortal body being changed from corruptible to incorruptible. We will not have holy flesh before Jesus comes but we must have a holy character. That is, we will have our sinful natures until Jesus comes but our sinful natures will be under the total control of the Holy Spirit during the time of trouble.
One wonders why the writer included the Michigan Conference Camp Meeting in his remarks. Is it perhaps to demean the Michigan Conference for abiding by the vote on the world church on the matter of women’s ordination? By the way, the fact that Michigan Conference invited me to speak does not mean that the Conference has embraced our ministry as the article indicates.”
Pastor Stephen Bohr
Director
Secrets Unsealed
****
AToday is openly supportive of accepting LGBTQ individuals into SDA church membership. The editors of that site are coming to the aid of the Potomac Conference. You can guess why.
The church will vote on Sabbath (tomorrow) whether to maintain or rescind the invitation for pastor Bohr to speak at Roanoke.
“Do not be afraid of sudden terror, nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes; for the Lord will be your confidence, and will keep your foot from being caught. Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do so” (Proverbs 3:25-27).