False Internet Slander Attack Against Scripture, Ellen White, and Omega Ministries

Click to go to our Home Page


Dear patrons of this Website,

The following attack was made against Ron Beaulieu and his ministry on an Internet Chat Group that is officiated and owned by a Seventh-day Adventist minister, who shall remain nameless. I will furnish it privately, but not publicly. Here is the attack made by one Robert Parker against Ron Beaulieu and the teachings of Omega Ministries:

"Greetings to the GCO List. Recently a Ron Beaulieu posted some messages to the List. On reading them briefly I immediately felt uneasy. I have since accessed his Website and downloaded some of his articles. My uneasiness has increased. This man is placed alongside of Ellen White as having been especially chosen as a prophet (not necessarily predicting future events) to bring urgent messages to the SDA Church and to the world. His special task is "exposing the cherished errors of the professing SDA Church, and to set things to order in a framework of truth which transcends the accomplishments of any other SDA Messenger who has ever been called to this task, other than Ellen G White herself." He is supposedly ordained as God's "Swift Messenger."

It is not for me to say that he is a false prophet, but I believe I must sound a warning of caution against hurriedly accepting this man as God's Messenger for this time. False prophets introduce themselves with a lot of truth before presenting specious errors (Jeanine Sautron for instance). We can sometimes be so caught up that it is hard for us to turn around and back away from error once we have falsely accepted a person as being genuine.

I could write much more, but at the moment I will point out just one thing that should make you hesitate about accepting the claims of Ron Beaulieu. He asserts that the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24 refers to Jacob's Trouble and the seven last plagues. This is false as a thorough study of Scripture will demonstrate. Ellen White applies the Tribulation of Matthew 24 to the papal persecutions during the 1260 years of Daniel 7. And she is correct while Ron Beaulieu is wrong (see Great Controversy 267, 393; Desire of Ages 630-631).

Has anyone else any thoughts about this matter?"

Robert Parker

********************************************

Ron Beaulieu's Response to Robert Parker

Mr. Parker,

If you are correct concerning Matthew 24:21, then the greatest time of trouble "...since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be," occurred during the 1260 years of Daniel 7. This would mean that the 1260 years of Daniel 7, was a greater time of trouble than Jacob's great time of trouble. That is preposterous. The entire context of Matthew 24 is extreme end-time in context. If Ellen White did take prophetic license in applying Matthew 24:22 to the 1260 years of Daniel 7, surely this prophecy would have a dual fulfillment as the greatest time of trouble known to man will be the great time of Jacob's trouble. Please note:

"None but the hundred and forty-four thousand can learn that song; for it is the song of their experience--an experience such as no other company have ever had. 'These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth." These, having been translated from the earth, from among the living, are counted as 'the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.' Revelation 15:2, 3; 14:1-5. 'These are they which came out of great tribulation;' they have passed through the time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation; they have endured the anguish of the time of Jacob's trouble; they have stood without an intercessor through the final outpouring of God's judgments." The Great Controversy, p. 648.

The above statement is why I believe there is a dual fulfillment of Matthew 24:21:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Matthew 24:21.

Interpreting Revelation above, in a way that does not contradict Matthew 24:21, as well as not making Ellen White contradict herself, makes a dual fulfillment absolutely necessary, otherwise one makes the Word contradict itself by depicting two different events as the greatest tribulation that ever occurs since there was a nation.

How many times of great tribulation are there? I say two. But the greatest of these since there was a nation is Armageddon and the final great tribulation contest between good and evil. The entire world will be destroyed at that time. That in itself transcends the more provincial occurrence of the 1260 day for a year prophecy. There could well be a literal 1260 day period after the healing of the wound, and according to the greater light, the Bible, that is precisely what the Word says in Revelation 13:3-5. However, I do not expect folk to accept my vision or my word; just the Word of God just as it reads in Revelation 13:3-5.

The days that are to be shortened in Matthew 24:22, refer to the very end-time conflagration, and Ellen White so applies this text. She does use prophetic license in applying Matthew 24:22, to the shortening of the 1260 days in order to protect the church during that period also. It appears that you are very errant in your conclusion. If anyone on this forum agrees with and can prove your assertion, I will never post to this forum again.

The Indisputable Evidence Concerning Matthew 24:21

Dear Forum,

Here is a case where Ellen White applies Matthew 24:21 to a time future to 1888, which was when she penned the statement:

"There is great need that our weakening faith should be quickened, and that we should ever keep before the mind the evidences that our Lord is soon coming, that we may ever be found not only waiting, but watching and working. We are not to be found in idle expectancy; for this leads to carelessness of life, and deficiency of character. We are to realize that the judgments of God are about to fall upon the earth, and we should most earnestly present before the people the warning that the Lord has commissioned us to give: 'For then shall be GREAT TRIBULATION, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.' [Matt. 24:21 quoted] 'Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, The Perils and Privileges of the LAST DAYS, pr. 6, p. 1073.

This closes the issue for me. I am not a false prophet for applying Matthew 24:21 to the end-time. Ellen White says in the above statement that the Lord has commissioned us to give the warning of Matthew 24:21, to the world; that this should be most earnestly presented before the people. I rest my case.

God bless all,

Ron Beaulieu

There have been more than one historical fleeing to the mountains. In AD 66, three and one-half years before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jews fled to the mountains of Pella. This was a secondary fulfillment of Matthew 24, but certainly not the primary end-time fulfillment, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 74-77.

The Great Controversy, p. 267 application of Matthew 24:22, is done strictly with prophetic license on the part of Ellen White, and does not preclude its application in the very strict sense of the end-time context of the entire chapter of Matthew 24! Ellen White does this hundreds of times with various Scriptures. She applies and reapplies them to myriad situations.

Your last reference Robert, Desire of Ages, p. 630, 631, is a classic example. That reference refers to two different fleeings; the AD 66 fleeing of the Jews to the mountains of Pella just prior to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, as well as the 1260 year prophecy of Daniel 7, which Christ also evidently cut short. It has everything to do also and SPECIFICALLY with the Jews fleeing from Jerusalem in the spring and autumn of AD 70, to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem three and one-half years later by Titus, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 74-77.

You must be totally ignorant of the AD 70 event referred to in your reference of Desire of Ages, 630, 631. On these two pages, Ellen White applies and re-applies Matthew 24 to two extremely different events; the 1260 day prophecy as well as The destruction of Jerusalem of much earlier occurence!

With all due consideration, you are a very confused Bible and Ellen White student Robert. No SDA minister or member in his/her right mind will agree with you. If you will do your homework properly, you will find that Ellen White says that the very end-time of Jacob's great time of trouble will be the worst trouble planet earth has ever experienced to that time, and this coincides with the entire context of Matthew 24, and verse 21 and 22 more specifically.

Conversely to your warning concerning my testimony, I warn folk on this list of your ignorance of Scripture and Ellen White. As far as I am concerned you have effectively destroyed any credibility you have on this forum until you apologize to me and this forum, and enhance your learning and study skills with the aid of the Holy Spirit, instead of the spirit of wrongful accusation and misrepresentation that is totally misaccusation of myself, Ellen White, and Scripture.

Sincerely,

Ron Beaulieu

PS

I wrote the above response to Robert Parker, late in the middle of the night after a most trying day. The next morning, I apologized to the list for any remarks that some might interpret as unkind, and stated that my only intent was to demonstrate the gravity of slandering the truth and the character and ministry of another, by pure, slanderous non-truth.

Ron's Apology to Robert Parker With Additional Pertinent Facts of the Matter

Dear Robert Parker and Forum,

The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 500, col. 2, says in commentary on Matthew 24:21: "In 538 began the 1260 years of papal supremacy and persecution (see Additional Note on Daniel 7)."

Then the same reference commenting on Matthew 24:16, says: "Flee into the mountains. As the Hebrew people through the centuries had done at times of foreign invasion (see Judges 6:2; 1 Sam. 13:6; Heb. 11:38). Josephus says (War vi. 9. 3 [420]) more than one million people perished during and after the siege of the city and 97,000 more were taken captive. However, during a temporary respite, when the Romans unexpectedly raised their siege of Jerusalem [AD 70], all the Christians fled, and it is said that not one of them lost his life. Their place of retreat was Pella, a city in the foothills east of the Jordan River, about 17 mi. south of the Lake of Galilee."

So Ellen White's mention of fleeing Jerusalem in your reference of Desire of Ages, 630, was in 70 AD, and the 1260 days of Daniel 7 began in AD 538. She uses Matthew 24:21, 22, in application to two very different events far removed from one another. This is called prophetic license.

She mentions another future, end-time fleeing to the mountains in Testimonies, vol. 5, 464, 465, as follows:

"As the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was the signal for flight to the Judean Christians, so the assumption of power on the part of our nation in the decree enforcing the papal sabbath will be a warning to us. It will then be time to leave the large cities, preparatory to leaving the smaller one for retired homes in secluded places among the mountains."

Robert, I responded to your charges at a very late hour last night after a most trying day. If you or anyone else on this list interpreted my remarks as unkind, please accept my apologies as that was not my intent. My express intent was to demonstrate the seriousness of making such serious charges without knowing the facts and presenting them correctly. This does nothing for one's credibility. Also, my concern was for the integrity of Ellen White and Scripture.

Sincerely,

Ron Beaulieu

*******************************************

Response of the SDA Minister who Officiates the Internet Chat Group

Ron and the Forum:

We have a lot of freedom here and I intend that this shall be so. I do not intend that this list shall become predominantly a vehicle for any single individual's views.

We need to be very thoughtful about some things. It should be obvious to anyone reading the website that I do not hold the same viewpoint as Ron; I do not view the SDA church as fallen. I certainly view her as in grave danger, and the events of 1957 and following have not been good for us.

I want to encourage us to be especially careful of demanding or judging here. By this I mean let's not demand apologies of anyone (I think Ron was backtracking from that when he himself apologized, and we should sense that).

I am wary also of demands that just because an idea has been presented it MUST be studied. In some matters entirely separate from the present question, individuals have approached me with programs that the church MUST do, or it MUST demonstrate a superior plan of its own. One even told me this was a divine obligation.

True, how can an idea be weighed if it is not studied? We should as a general thing be very ready to study out ideas and suggestions. Yet we also are stewards of a very limited resource God grants us: probationary time. How we use it will be an important question in the judgment.

I have an individual plaguing my church right now who makes claims and operates essentially like a prophet. A few years ago he put out a tape on Y2K and claimed on it that God had called him to give the warning about Y2K. He indicated several times on the tape that Y2K would change things considerably for the world. I do not believe that God called him to shout the warning about Y2K, or that He called anyone to do that. Now here comes my point. Am I obligated, just because this person presents an idea in my hearing, to study it out and invest much time in it, when already I know that Deuteronomy 18:22 applies in his case?

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Since I am commanded not to be afraid of him, i.e. not to view him as a true prophet but as a false prophet, should I continue to pursue an examination of any of his claims or teachings as if I knew not his false prediction or the command of Deut 18:22, or should I proceed according to the counsel of inspiration applying to false prophets? I think the answer is plain.

In Ron's case, he has his website and he has email, and anyone wishing to examine his status can weigh his teachings and his interpersonal manner with them. Everyone must steward their time. To a point these things can be discussed here, but please let's not overburden the list with but one topic. Primary consideration of Ron's claims by anyone feeling led to do that can be conducted in other venues.

A more general discussion on identifying true and false prophets might benefit us here in this list too. Incidentally, my day is very full, but later today I hope to publish a 20 page document which is just an EGW compilation on fanaticism, and which can be used as a helpful resource in comparing behaviors.

BTW, this email is on the verge of becoming an example of an email that is too long, so I will stop.

LK

***************************************

Ron Beaulieu's Response to LK's Response to the Chat Group he Officiates

Questions:

1. Why does the pastor infer that I am attempting to make the Chat Group "predominantly a vehicle for any single individual's views."

2. Would it not be more proper to inform the Chat Group as to why the pastor does not consider the professing SDA Church as fallen, rather than merely giving his personal opinion that, in his estimate, it has not.

3. If a member of the Chat Group should defame another member as well as the truth according to Scripture and Ellen White, why would a pastor be against an apology per these remarks:

"I want to encourage us to be especially careful of demanding or judging here. By this I mean let's not demand apologies of anyone (I think Ron was backtracking from that when he himself apologized, and we should sense that)."

What right has a pastor to invoke his opinion and be "wary" over a fellow member apologizing for a grave error involving the teachings of the Bible, Ellen White and Ron Beaulieu, if all three agree? Does not Scripture invoke that we are to confess our errors and/or faults to one another? If one has committed a grave error and defamed a fellow believe and the truth by erroneous conclusions and slander, is it only proper that he/she should repent and apologize? Telling such an one that he/she owes such to the one offended and because truth has been offended, is hardly demanding an apology! It is merely instructing one in a Biblical duty and common courtesy.

4. Ellen White directs how we should respond to a brother's message. What right has any pastor to impugn the directive of Ellen White, by advising in contravention to her instruction ? Here are the pastor's words again:

"I am wary also of demands that just because an idea has been presented it MUST be studied. In some matters entirely separate from the present question, individuals have approached me with programs that the church MUST do, or it MUST demonstrate a superior plan of its own. One even told me this was a divine obligation."

In Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 43-51, Ellen White leaves no questioned unanswered in regards as to how we should treat new light. It would have been most apropos if the pastor had referred his Chat Group to this passage, instead of giving his own personal opinion, which, being in contravention to the Spirit of Prophecy, was totally out of place.

5. What equation is there with the obvious false prophet the pastor describes with Ron Beaulieu, until Ron has been proven as false? Why make the intonation?