Robert Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Therefore, she DOES remain the final interpreter of scripture. Exactly. As I have said before, "the measuring stick of truth". Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 God is free to do anything He wants to do. I despise this concept! God cannot sin. It is impossible! God is agape - it is not merely an attribute of His, but rather who He is. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Because he writes things that contradict what God revealed through both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. There are other reasons. God does not send a prophet to say something that contradicts previous genuine revelations. So then anything EGW endorsed or interpreted cannot be changed or considered wrong? Give some examples of where you believe this occurred. Ellen White has been accused of just everything under the sun. So, we can't guess what someone might have in mind, and I am not going to begin naming off "errors" that Ellen White may or may not have made. If you have something in mind, tell us what it is so we can deal with it. Quote: Therefore, she DOES remain the final interpreter of scripture. I would lend her more authority than I would the average commentary, yes. I know some people who would just about prefer the views of an uninspired man over those of God's prophet. Such is the human heart. The Bible itself is the final interpreter. It explains itself. Let's say that Ellen White had said that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Would we say that the Bible was wrong and Ellen White right? Of course not. Ellen White, as I said, is to be tested by a clear "thus saith the Lord." We don't test the Bible by Ellen White. (Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Mormon said the Jesus was born in Jerusalem, a flat contradiction of the Bible. Mormon missionaries told me their explanation was that when the original Book of Mormon was written on the brass plates, Bethlehem did not exist. Of course that is false, since Bethlehem existed long before David. Another said it was because Bethlehem and Jerusalem are pretty close, so it was almost true that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. They made it sound like it was only a technical difference. So much for attempts to explain away false teachings!) Quote: Any deviation from fresh bible study cannot be true by definition. Therefore, we CAN say (or should if we truly believe it) that EGW has solidified all truth and biblical interpretation and the SDA church does (and always has) interpreted all doctrine and all biblical dogma correct. In other words to use the Catholic church "The SDA church has not erred and cannot err' according to biblical interpretation. None of the above is true as far as I am concerned and as far as the SDA church is concerned. Quote: Why don't people just come out and say this? Because it's not true. You are misstating the teaching of the church and my own personal beliefs. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 God is free to do anything He wants to do. I despise this concept! God cannot sin. It is impossible! God is agape - it is not merely an attribute of His, but rather who He is. Rob Who said He could sin? But there are things that it is impossible for God to choose to do. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I disagree. He CAN choose to, but He decides not to... in the similar manner, in heaven we will not sin for the same reason. On top of that, God simply can not sin because law was made for human reality, not for God's. It'd be like saying that a policeman can't speed. God does not need this reality, and it is a mere expression of his creativity, just like a painting is an expression of creativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Because he writes things that contradict what God revealed through both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. There are other reasons. God does not send a prophet to say something that contradicts previous genuine revelations. So then anything EGW endorsed or interpreted cannot be changed or considered wrong? Therefore, she DOES remain the final interpreter of scripture. Any deviation from fresh bible study cannot be true by definition. This is what you really believe. When all the smoke and mirrors and double talk and speaking out of both sides of the mouth is cleared away... THIS is what many in the church ultimately believe. THIS is false theology and cultism. Is this the kind of church we belong to, that takes this official stance? I don't think so. Therefore, this kind of thinking must be wrong! So why do people keep promoting this view of the church?? Take a good look at Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Vol. 12 of the SDA Bible Commentary, pp. 625-637. Also: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-17.htm The above are very useful in understanding the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church in respect to the relationship between the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White. There are many others equally excellent for this purpose. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 I disagree. He CAN choose to, but He decides not to... in the similar manner, in heaven we will not sin for the same reason. On top of that, God simply can not sin because law was made for human reality, not for God's. It'd be like saying that a policeman can't speed. God does not need this reality, and it is a mere expression of his creativity, just like a painting is an expression of creativity. Even God is not free to be in opposition to his own character. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie or to be selfish. In the same way, since God is Being-itself, God cannot possibly will Himself into non-existence. God, who IS Agape-love, cannot be other than Apage-love. etc. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Ellen White was an inspired prophet of God Yes, I believe she inspired also, but clearly she mixed her theology with those things revealed by God. For example, Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, “The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.” [EW 294] Ellen White interpreted, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon", to mean, "as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained." First of all people who get burnt to death don't die from the fire. They die from smoke inhalation. Let's say a person is consumed, except for his foot. According to EGW I am to believe that he will feel the sensation of his foot burning even though the rest of him is consumed. How can that be if his brain is ashe? Her interpretation must be rejected for many reasons, but the major one is this act puts God, who is agape, in a very bad light. As I've said before, this act makes Hitler pale in comparison. Hitler comes off looking like a choirboy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 In the same way, since God is Being-itself, God cannot possibly will Himself into non-existence... And you you support your position based on what?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Said the angel, “The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.” [EW 294] Here's my interpretation: Until all life (and a foot, in my example, is living tissue) is consumed into ashes the fire shall not stop. In my interpretation there's no torture. The 2nd death is the complete annihilation of all fallen life that has willfully rejected Christ's deliverance from "under the law". Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Rob ... do you have grasp on hyperbole in poetry... purposeful exaggeration to achieve a strong emphasis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Rob ... do you have grasp on hyperbole in poetry... purposeful exaggeration to achieve a strong emphasis? So EGW exaggerated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away... “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV) “Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV) “The cities are great, and walled up to heaven.” Deut. 1:28 “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother…” Luke 14:26 “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought to hell (Hades/sheol).” Matt. 11:23 Luke 9:25 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? 2 Chronicles 1:15 The king [solomon] made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the foothills. John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!” Genesis 4:10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now, to answer your question... yes she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guibox Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 They are not the same because one is canon and the other is not. But they were both equally inspired. There is no different degrees of inspiration between the true prophets. You can't justifiably say that Moses was more inspired than Joel or that Paul was more inspired than Peter. If that is true of canonical prophets, there is no reason to believe it does not apply equally to true prophets whose writings didn't make it into the canon. If the Holy Spirit guided Ellen White and inspired her in writing out her visions-- and I believe He did-- then she was inspired. You can't be partly inspired-- a prophet of God either is inspired or is not. Ellen White said she was. Okay, so let's keep going. The FB says that she is 'an 'authoritative source of truth', which no matter which way you spin it is a dichotomous statement with the FB that states the Bible is to be that. So if the inspiration of EGW is the same as the Bible writers, and the bible is infallible, we must conclude that in the light of the FB stating that EGW is an 'authoritative source of truth', then EGW's writings hold as much clout and authority as the Bible. In other words, EGW's 'canon' is pretty much an unofficial 67th book of the Bible. John, you cannot disagree with this in the way you have defined and placed Sister White's writings. Either her writings are on par with the scriptures (due to same HS inspiration) and are an 'authority' just like they are, or they are NOT on the same level. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You basically agreed with me in this post where this quote came from, but end up contradicting yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. EGW cannot be both subservient to the scriptures and fallible but be placed on the same level of inspiration and as an authoritative source of truth. If EGW cannot contradict the Bible and what was revealed to her must be true, and she is an authoritative source of truth with the same inspiration on the same level as the bible writers then EGW is on par with the scriptures. Period. Quote www.corbel.theacaistory.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore Is a prophet inspired 100% of the time, in 100% of what they do, say and write? If so, why did EGW need , editors, proof-reading staff, researchers? Why did she edit and rewrite her own materials? Why did she change/modify/correct/abandon some of her views over time? Why do you think she directed people to NOT rely on her words, but to go to the Bible themselves for truth? And the Biblical evidence suggests prophets having faulty inspiration comprehension. Excellent point! Excellent point about an excellent point. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Quote: What exactly is it that compels you to try to dominate and control every single discussion and run it totally off the rails and into the ground? Good Question Tom. Like you say ... it is just exhausting and not worth the effort. It is not like it is going to change his mind. He is set in concrete. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Robert I despise this concept! God cannot sin. It is impossible! God is agape - it is not merely an attribute of His' date=' but rather who He is. Rob[/quote'] Who said He could sin? But there are things that it is impossible for God to choose to do. Some just refuse to be corrected. They keep fighting and keep fighting like the energizer bunny. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 They are not the same because one is canon and the other is not. But they were both equally inspired. There is no different degrees of inspiration between the true prophets. You can't justifiably say that Moses was more inspired than Joel or that Paul was more inspired than Peter. If that is true of canonical prophets, there is no reason to believe it does not apply equally to true prophets whose writings didn't make it into the canon. If the Holy Spirit guided Ellen White and inspired her in writing out her visions-- and I believe He did-- then she was inspired. You can't be partly inspired-- a prophet of God either is inspired or is not. Ellen White said she was. Okay, so let's keep going. The FB says that she is 'an 'authoritative source of truth', which no matter which way you spin it is a dichotomous statement with the FB that states the Bible is to be that. So if the inspiration of EGW is the same as the Bible writers, and the bible is infallible, we must conclude that in the light of the FB stating that EGW is an 'authoritative source of truth', then EGW's writings hold as much clout and authority as the Bible. In other words, EGW's 'canon' is pretty much an unofficial 67th book of the Bible. John, you cannot disagree with this in the way you have defined and placed Sister White's writings. Either her writings are on par with the scriptures (due to same HS inspiration) and are an 'authority' just like they are, or they are NOT on the same level. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You basically agreed with me in this post where this quote came from, but end up contradicting yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. EGW cannot be both subservient to the scriptures and fallible but be placed on the same level of inspiration and as an authoritative source of truth. If EGW cannot contradict the Bible and what was revealed to her must be true, and she is an authoritative source of truth with the same inspiration on the same level as the bible writers then EGW is on par with the scriptures. Period. Speaking of 'worms' ... I suspect that the poster will try to worm his way out of his post ... but Guibox ... you have come to the meat of the issue. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Robert Excellent point! Excellent point about an excellent point.[/quote'] Is it? Quote: TOM said, 3.) Is a prophet inspired 100% of the time, in 100% of what they do, say and write? Of course not. The church has never taught that Ellen White or any other prophet was "inspired 100% of the time" in everything they ever do, say or write. Inspiration does not require or imply that anyone is inspired 100% of the time. That is not even important or relevant to the issue at hand. See 1 SM 25 to 45 for comments where Ellen White discusses the difference between her ordinary talk and writing and those things that are inspired. Quote: If so, why did EGW need , editors, proof-reading staff, researchers? Why did she edit and rewrite her own materials? Why did Bible writers do the same? Jeremiah had Baruch's assistance in writing some of his messages. And we know that Paul also had help with his. Luke no doubt had help with his, and went through various research processes. Are you suggesting that those things are proof or evidences of a lack of "inspiration"? It sounds more likely that you are influenced by people who once believed in verbal inspiration and are disillusioned and have lost their faith because it was founded on false beliefs and understandings to begin with. Quote: Why did she change/modify/correct/abandon some of her views over time? Every human being grows and develops and becomes more aware. Ellen White was no different. To believe that this means her writings are not dependable or true shows that you have a misunderstanding of inspiration. The question is, what did Ellen White claim to have seen in vision that she later abandoned or corrected or changed? It goes without saying that like any other human, she had some wrong beliefs and concepts. The Bible prophets and apostles certainly were wrong about some things. John the Baptist-- the "greatest of the prophets"-- was very wrong about a number of things, wasn't he? So were Peter and James very wrong. James had some wrong thinking in Acts. 21, about the same year when he wrote the Epistle of James. Some argue that he even let his wrong ideas color his Inspired writing, just like some argue in regard to Ellen White. Is God dependent on finding someone without any errors in their thinking before he can inspire them to write messages for His people? If He is, He won't ever find anyone. Quote: Why do you think she directed people to NOT rely on her words, but to go to the Bible themselves for truth? Because as a prophet of God, she knows the Bible is the standard of doctrine, faith, practice, and reform. The faith of the church is to be based on Scripture, not on the gifts of the Spirit. It would be dangerous to teach believers to base their faith on noncanonical prophets. They must be tested by Scripture. 1 Thess. 5: 19-21. Her teaching this is an evidence that she was a genuine prophet of God. Paul did the same thing. He was tested by the Old Testament Scriptures, but of course that did not mean or imply that Paul was less inspired than the Old Testament writers. The same applies to a modern prophet. Either they are inspired or not-- there are no partly inspired prophets. Quote: And the Biblical evidence suggests prophets having faulty inspiration comprehension. Such as Elijah ,John the Baptist, Peter, James, etc. All these inspired servants of God were wrong on a number of their beliefs. But did their faulty comprehension and understanding cause their inspired messages to be untrue? No, they didn't. The messages were of God, and Gods send the Holy Spirit to inspire or guide the prophets in giving God's messages. We can trust God. It's not about the prophet but about God. The word is, "Believe His prophets-- so shall you be established." See the book by that title: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/bhp/bhptoc.html Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 This deserves my 'Oh Brother' award. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: guibox Okay, so let's keep going. The FB says that she is 'an 'authoritative source of truth', which no matter which way you spin it is a dichotomous statement with the FB that states the Bible is to be that. [/quote'] Redwood, do you believe the FB statement that Ellen White is "an authoritative source of truth"? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Robert Excellent point! [/quote'] Excellent point about an excellent point. Still stands... Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Redwood You know I do ... so why ask .... Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: fccool Rob ... do you have grasp on hyperbole in poetry... purposeful exaggeration to achieve a strong emphasis? So EGW exaggerated? Hyperbole. A term used in literary analysis. One such hyperbole is "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Another useful term or concept is the "unreliable narrator" which you may have heard of already. If the narrator is "unreliable," it changes the entire narration, or story. Some famous unreliable narrators are Twain's Huckleberry Finn and the teen-age narrator Holden Caulfield of Catcher In the Rye. This has importance for our understanding the book of Job. If the narrator of Job is unreliable, it changes the entire story. That would mean we cannot trust the narrator's viewpoint of Job or God, and if that's the case, the reader must look for contradictions in the story that explain its REAL meaning, because we would know that the narrator's explanations are untrue. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Redwood, do you believe the FB statement that Ellen White is "an authoritative source of truth"? [/quote'] Quote: You know I do ... so why ask .... Then why do you write that guibox is correct when he says that the FB statement is not true? He calls it "a dichotomous statement." I would have thought you would defend the FB statement that you say you believe. Instead you call his response "the meat of the issue." A false analysis by guibox is part of the "meat of the issue"? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.