What does this mean?

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

I just got home from singing an Evensong with a choral group to which I belong. I'm sorry for the delay in replying. I have read the statement I referred to several times in a compilation of statements by EGW that was done on Daniel and Revelation. I will find it for you. If I am mistaken then I will be the first to say I am sorry, but I won't do this just yet. I will look for it tomorrow and let you know.

You have not yet addressed the issue of placing the writings of EGW as equal or greater than that of Scripture. How say you?

[Musicman1228]

The 'Five foolish bridesmaids went to sleep and the 5 Wise just got drowsy' quote that I remember seeing WAS from the Clear Word 'bible' not from EGW. My mistake. I'm sorry for the error.

[Dr. Rich]

For those who trust EGW's words:

"What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right when they are ALL wrong...[they] are in a sad deception, yet honest in their deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message by the true witness [Matthew 17:11] breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true condition of spiritual blindness, poverty and wretchedness. The Testimony is so cutting and severe that it cannot be a mistake, for it is the true witness [Matthew 24:43-47] who speaks, and his testimony must be correct." 1TT, pages 327-328 (EGW) (parentheses mine)

Ok, I can go along with this. This is about the ten virgins at the shaking.

[Guest]

Wrong again Rich. It did not come from 1T 327-328. I know because I looked there first. And it is not talking about the ten virgins either. It came from {RH, September 16, 1873 par. 5} and the article is entitled "The Laodicean Church". There is no mention of the parable of the ten virgins in connection with this.

[Guest]

You have not yet addressed the issue of placing the writings of EGW as equal or greater than that of Scripture. How say you?

How is asking you for a reference for your claim, putting EGW equal with Scripture?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You have not yet addressed the issue of placing the writings of EGW as equal or greater than that of Scripture. How say you?

How is asking you for a reference for your claim, putting EGW equal with Scripture?

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Continuing from what? and by who's authority?

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

My wonderful father-in-law (now dead) was an SDA pastor for 58 years. I loved him dearly. He believed that the King James Version of the bible was the only bible anyone should use because it was 'authorized'. At one point I asked him who he believed authorized the KJV, and he said 'God'. When I pointed out that it was King james the King of England in 1610 AD that authorized this version for the Church of England as a counter to the Catholic bible then in common usage he made a statement that I have heard countless times from lots of people when I either ask a pointed question or point out a (to them) not so obvious fact. He said, "I never saw that before."

Is there ANYTHING that you have not seen before? Or are you SO sure of what you believe you need no further instruction?

[Guest]

All doctrine must come from Scripture. Only.

[John317]

Quote:

Musicman1228: When I pointed out that it was King james the King of England in 1610 AD that authorized this version for the Church of England as a counter to the Catholic bible then in common usage...

The Bibles the KJV replaced were the very popular Geneva Bible, which is the one our Pilgram Fathers brought over, and the Bishops Bible. The Pilgrams viewed the KJV as "that new-fangled Bible," and refused to use it. Most of England at that time used the Bishops Bible. This is what the wikipedia says about the reason for the KJV:

"In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England."

[John317]

Quote:

Musicman1228: 18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Continuing from what? and by who's authority?

Yes, I do believe in that doctrine of our church.

If you believe Ellen White, the authority is Christ. 1 SM 32. If not, not.

It is continuing from the Bible.

Let everyone study and pray and make up his own mind, but if one is a member of the church, he shouldn't go around inside the church trying to convince other members that she's of the devil or a false prophet. That would be like my trying to persuade SDAs that Jesus isn't going to return, that the Sabbath is all wrong, or that the dead are in heaven and that there's no Investigative Judgment.

[John317]

thanks for that, MM

[Musicman1228]

If EGW is a continuing and authoritative source of truth extending from the Bible does that not give rise to the idea that she might supplant the bible and make it the lesser of the two? Before EGW came on the scene as the 'prophetess of the church' Adventists gathered in small groups in homes and wrangled over text after text trying to rightly divide the word of God. Much of the early doctrines of the Advent movement, including the Sabbath, came out of these small gatherings. After EGW became prominent these 'study groups' became less and less important, until bible study became a function of finding out what Ellen said about a particular subject and then studying to confirm her understanding. This goes on today within our church. If you are in seminary and you decide that you disagree with anything EGW said you had best keep it to yourself if you want to actually graduate and get a job with the church. This is doctrine by intimidation.

And no, disagreeing with and criticizing EGW is not like saying to an Adventist that Jesus is not going to come or that the Sabbath is wrong; when you say that you are putting EGW on an equal basis with those issues and with the Bible from where they are found, which is exactly what Fundamental #17 says to do. When you do this you are placing EGW as equal (and for some) or greater than the Bible. Is this really what we should be telling the world? From

[Overaged]

If EGW is a continuing and authoritative source of truth extending from the Bible does that not give rise to the idea that she might supplant the bible and make it the lesser of the two? Before EGW came on the scene as the 'prophetess of the church' Adventists gathered in small groups in homes and wrangled over text after text trying to rightly divide the word of God. Much of the early doctrines of the Advent movement, including the Sabbath, came out of these small gatherings. After EGW became prominent these 'study groups' became less and less important, until bible study became a function of finding out what Ellen said about a particular subject and then studying to confirm her understanding. This goes on today within our church. If you are in seminary and you decide that you disagree with anything EGW said you had best keep it to yourself if you want to actually graduate and get a job with the church. This is doctrine by intimidation.

And no, disagreeing with and criticizing EGW is not like saying to an Adventist that Jesus is not going to come or that the Sabbath is wrong; when you say that you are putting EGW on an equal basis with those issues and with the Bible from where they are found, which is exactly what Fundamental #17 says to do. When you do this you are placing EGW as equal (and for some) or greater than the Bible. Is this really what we should be telling the world? From

Are you sure you are an Adventist? You are talking exactly like the Catholic apologists that I have studied this issue with.

At any rate; you have no justification for going on this bender against Ellen White this way; for it was me to whome YOU first mentioned her in this thread. When I replied to you, asking you to provide proof for what you were trying to say "Ellen White says,,," you simply started accusing myself and others here of "making Ellen White out to supersede the Bible." You aren't even close to making sense, or to the OP of this topic.

The only reason I asked you to provide that reference of book and page number for the things you alleged that Ellen White said was because I know her writings well enough to know that you were saying something that was not true. I did not in any way suggest anything about what I thought of her writings - in comparison to the Bible - I was challenging you to back up what you keep saying with specific references. After all, IF you do have so much truth for the Church; I find it hard to understand why you don't just automatically reference all these things you are saying.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard I wrote 1TT not 1T. It was 1 Testimony Treasures pp 327,328 and in an article about the ten virgins. I got this from the Internet and I did not check to see if it was fact. Sorry about that. I hope John doesn't pull this reply like the others I have written here. Oh well??? If he doesn't want to be defend myself then I understand.

[Overaged]

If he doesn't want to be defend myself then I understand.

Oh PSHAW!!

[Dr. Rich]

Typo--the 'be' should have been a 'me'. And just what you you mean overaged? How would you like it when a court of law refused to let the jury hear your defense and/or offensive reply to someone who slammed you? Removing a post will do that. So PSHAW yourself!

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich; And just what you you mean overaged? How would you like it when a court of law refused to let the jury hear your defense and/or offensive reply to someone who slammed you? Removing a post will do that. So PSHAW yourself!

I don't remove a post like that, Dr. Rich. When I've removed your posts, it's always been because of not following the rules with regard to our agreement about Paul and Ellen White. And that's almost always been because certain kinds of remarks tend to hijack the discussions. It's not in order to avoid certain issues, but it's in order to avoid making every discussion about the same issue. I'm sure you understand that by now.

So you don't need to fear that your "defense reply" will be deleted.

I notice you mention your "offensive reply" that juries hear. Is that what lawyers call it now-- "offinsive replies"?

Just kidding you, Doc. lol

[Dr. Rich]

thanks John, ya, I guess so.

[John317]

Quote:

Musicman1228: If EGW is a continuing and authoritative source of truth extending from the Bible does that not give rise to the idea that she might supplant the bible and make it the lesser of the two?

It might do that in some people's minds, but that would be false, at least as far as the church as a whole is concerned. There's no doubt that some individuals misunderstand it and perhaps even pervert the teaching into something it was never intended to be.

But neither Ellen White nor the church have ever tried to have the SOP supplant the Bible and make the Scriptures into the lesser of the two. (I wouldn't deny that individuals may have tried to do this or that their practice and attitude tended in that direction.)

The problem here, however, is that there are those who think any study of the SOP is bad and that it would be best if the church threw all of her books in a bonfire. (By the way, I'm not saying you believe this, because I don't know if you do or not. I'm thinking of others who have actually said this.)

Quote:

Musicman1228: Before EGW came on the scene as the 'prophetess of the church' Adventists gathered in small groups in homes and wrangled over text after text trying to rightly divide the word of God. Much of the early doctrines of the Advent movement, including the Sabbath, came out of these small gatherings.

Have you studied about the Sabbath Bible Conferences in 1849, 1950? What was Ellen White's role in those Conferences, if any?

Quote:

Musicman1228: After EGW became prominent these 'study groups' became less and less important, until bible study became a function of finding out what Ellen said about a particular subject and then studying to confirm her understanding. This goes on today within our church.

This is not really true, Musicman. The church does need to study Ellen White's writings in order to know what she taught-- obviously-- but it isn't true that our pioneers based their writings on Ellen White. Our pioneers were deep Bible students, although of course they made mistakes. But in general they were right. I've read many of the old books. My own gradfather was an SDA pastor and evangelist in the late 1890s up to 1915. He was a great Bible student and wrote many pamplets on Bible doctrines. He didn't use Ellen White, although he studied her and believed in her as God's prophet. (He wrote some important articles and pamphlet's during the 1920s and 30s on Armageddon that contradicted Uriah Smith's views, and you can get his articles in the Ellen White Estate. The GC requested him to do research and writing on this and other prophetic topics.)

So I would say it is not true that the Adventists of that era were not studying their Bibles deeply and were just studying Ellen White's writings. But I do agree with you that many people got lazy and didn't study the Bible enough, and they probably did rely on Ellen White too much. Ellen White herself had some strong words for people doing that. She said they shouldn't talk about what Ellen White said until they had thoroughly studied the Bible. No doubt she would say the same thing to us today.

Quote:

Musicman1228: If you are in seminary and you decide that you disagree with anything EGW said you had best keep it to yourself if you want to actually graduate and get a job with the church. This is doctrine by intimidation.

I don't think this is accurate, MM, although I've never been there myself. But I've had close friends who studied for the ministry there. I would want to ask people who have been to the Seminary in the last 10 or 20 years, and of course there may be a difference of opinion on this.

But apparently students and even teachers are not afraid to contradict Ellen White. But it is true that if they conclude that Ellen White is a false prophet, and they begin to teach this, they will probably have great trouble being assigned a church. I think that's as it should be. I don't think SDAs are too interested in paying a pastor or teacher to teach or preach what is contrary to the church's teachings. If they want to teach against SDA doctrines, they are free to do so, but why should the church pay for them to tear down what the church is trying to build up? For instance, I want to build up and spread the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment and the Gift of Prophecy, so why would I pay money for someone to preach against them?

I wouldn't expect the Catholic Church to pay a priest or bishop to teach that the papacy is the Antichrist or that the saints are dead in their graves.

Quote:

Musicman: And no, disagreeing with and criticizing EGW is not like saying to an Adventist that Jesus is not going to come or that the Sabbath is wrong; when you say that you are putting EGW on an equal basis with those issues and with the Bible from where they are found, which is exactly what Fundamental #17 says to do. When you do this you are placing EGW as equal (and for some) or greater than the Bible. Is this really what we should be telling the world? From

What I'm saying is that if SDAs have a disagreement with a Fundamental Belief, such as the Gift of prophecy, they shouldn't stay in the church and try to persuade other SDAs to disbelieve a church doctrine. It causes division within the church instead of encouraging people to be united and speak with the same voice.

[Musicman1228]

Overaged,

I don't understand your reply, and I have read it several times. I am not on a 'bender' against EGW with my question. All I did was point out what Fundamental #17 says and ask if this is something that we as Adventists should be saying to the world. The legitimacy of EGW is not at question here, it is perception that is in question. So I will ask the question again; do you believe in Fundamental #17 of the SDA church - that EGW as the 'Spirit of Prophecy' is a continuing and authoritative source for truth that is equal or more important to Adventism than is the bible? This is a yes or no question.

There are problems with either answer. If you answer 'yes' then you are admitting that to you EGW is equal to or more important than the Bible in establishing truth. Most Christians would find this quite off-putting. EGW spoke directly against this sort of thing. This would confirm the SDA church as a cult and not a main stream Christian religion, which would put us at a distinct disadvantage in dealing with other Christian denominations. If you answer 'No' (which I feel is the correct answer) then you are saying that you disagree with at least one of the Fundamentals of the SDA church, and if there is one with which you disagree then maybe there are others, which should cause you to question your own relationship with the SDA church. Can a 'good' Adventist say 'no' to any of the Fundamentals and still remain a 'good' Adventist?

The fact that you have called into question my 'Adventism' is merely a smoke screen by which you are attempting to cloud the issue and deflect answering a direct question. Whether I am (according to you) a good Adventist or not is immaterial and not germane to the subject brought up by my question. If you don't want to answer the question that is OK with me. Just don't go accusing me of being a 'bad' person for merely asking a difficult question, the answers to which make you uncomfortable.

[pnattmbtc]

If you are in seminary and you decide that you disagree with anything EGW said you had best keep it to yourself if you want to actually graduate and get a job with the church.

This isn't even close to true. At least not if you have Andrews in mind.

[John317]

Quote:

MusicMan1228: If you are in seminary and you decide that you disagree with anything EGW said you had best keep it to yourself if you want to actually graduate and get a job with the church.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This isn't even close to true. At least not if you have Andrews in mind.

Since you've been there, I would like your opinion of the following paragraph that I wrote earlier, as to whether it is true:

Quote:

I don't think this is accurate, MM, although I've never been there myself. But I've had close friends who studied for the ministry there. I would want to ask people who have been to the Seminary in the last 10 or 20 years, and of course there may be a difference of opinion on this.

But apparently students and even teachers are not afraid to contradict Ellen White. But it is true that if they conclude that Ellen White is a false prophet, and they begin to teach this, they will probably have great trouble being assigned to a church.

[Musicman1228]

If you are getting paid or are going to get paid by the church how easy is it to speak your mind and heart and conscience and risk having that pay check and benefits stop? There are very few people who will risk their futures with the church by going against dogma, even if it means suppressing their true feelings and understanding of Scripture. I hate to be so pessimistic but this is just reality.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't think this is accurate, MM, although I've never been there myself. But I've had close friends who studied for the ministry there. I would want to ask people who have been to the Seminary in the last 10 or 20 years, and of course there may be a difference of opinion on this.

But apparently students and even teachers are not afraid to contradict Ellen White. But it is true that if they conclude that Ellen White is a false prophet, and they begin to teach this, they will probably have great trouble being assigned to a church.

The general idea at the seminary is that Ellen G. White was not a theologian. Her opinion on Bible subjects was in general not considered. Many of the professors, if not most, had areas of disagreement with her, major areas. Some are a matter of opinion, but others are very clear. I'll give a couple of examples.

Very professors believe that Christ took our fallen nature. Among these are those who believes that Ellen White taught that Christ took our fallen nature, but they disagree with her. There are others who believe she did not teach that Christ took our fallen nature, so they agree with her (according to their understanding) on this point.

There is a statement in the SOP that says that Christ, by his death, restored the entire human race to favor with God (1SM 343, I think; possibly 353). This, of course, would have to include babies. I presented this idea in a class, and was scoffed at by the professor and students. I don't know if the students were intentionally disagreeing with Ellen White on this point, or just thought I was misinterpreting her, but I know for a fact that the professor simply didn't agree with Ellen White.

Another example is where Ellen White says that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for any who would wish to be saved. This professor disagreed with this, believing that Christ's death only had value for the elect.

Most professors don't believe the law in Galatians is primarily the moral law, as Jones and Waggoner taught, and EGW endorsed. I pointed this out in a class on Galatians, and the professor said that Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner were wrong, and Butler and Smith were right.

I'm just giving these as a few examples, not wanting to dwell on the examples themselves, but the attitudes that they bring out on the part of the professors. Now if the professors are not afraid to contradict Ellen White, they surely couldn't take issue if their students did.

Having said this, I found no professors that insisted that their students agree with what they taught. They would expect you to know what they taught, but they were happy for you to have a different opinion, expecting that you would present it and defend it articulately.

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying I agree with you.

I'll add that Brazil is much more along the lines of what had been suggested. There's much more pressure towards conformity there. In the U.S., however, there is a great deal of differences allowed, as is evident by how different SDA congregations are, from everything to music to theology.

[Guest]

Are they teaching that God does not destroy? Never has never will?