Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[John317]

Now if you want to claim Ellen White as an Authority then say so!

But don't in the same breathe disavow her as being less than the Bible while claiming that she is just as "inspired" as Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, etc. And then you use her to settle Bible disputes among yourselves. And you use her to as the Foundation of your Doctrine while at the same time claiming you are a Bible and Bible only church.

The Truth is you are a Bible and Ellen White church. Say so and be proud of it instead of skulking around and making word plays that hide your true self.

It is far too transparent that such a stand is duplicitous and not honest.

Yes, Ellen White is certainly an authority, but she is not THE authority. THE authority is the Bible. All prophets who come after the close of the canon (100 AD) must be judged by the canon, that is, the protestant Bible.

Why are you talking about being "proud" of Ellen White? We are not "proud" of the church or of Ellen White. We are proud of God and of Christ, but not of any human being. At the same time I'm certainly not ashamed of Ellen White or of the SDA church. I love both of them.

The foundation of our church's doctrines is the Bible, not Ellen White, although there is no question that we would not be the church we are today without God's leading through Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

Have you studied what occurred at the Sabbath Bible Conferences in 1849-50?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What's interesting to me is your seeming ability to get everything confused and mixed up. None of us-- no SDA-- believes that every communication from Ellen White was and is "inspried."

OK, I am now not confused anymore. We all agree that not every word she spoke or every word she wrote was inspired!

Let's build on that agreement.

Please tell me which parts of her communications are inspired and which are not inspired.

You go first, miz3.

Have you yet read 1 SM 25-45?

:-)

[CoAspen]

>OK, I am now not confused anymore. We all agree that not every word she spoke or every word she wrote was inspired!

Let's build on that agreement.

Please tell me which parts of her communications are inspired and which are not inspired.

If you cannot give me a detailed list, then at least give me "Principle" so that I can be guided when reading her work and to be able to "easily" know which part of her work is "inspired" and which part of her work is "uninspired".

That ought not be to hard for those expert in her work. In fact all SDA should be able to do this so that they can easily explain to the "general public" how her work should be handled.

An explanation shouldn't take 20 pages to explain<

It seems to me if the above poster were really interested, they should be able to do a minimal of research for them self and come to a decision....or was the post just sarcasm...hmmmm.

[John317]

Gerry

....Unfortunately, in you I see additions to God's Word, wild interpretations that cannot be concluded from a clear reading of the Scripture, ignoring parts of the Scripture that don't fit your template. That's what I see, Gerry.

Name some of the "wild interpretations," miz3. Let's take a close look at them and at your views of them.

What is your own template?

If you tell us yours, I will tell you mine. :-)

[miz3]

It seems to me if the above poster were really interested, they should be able to do a minimal of research for them self and come to a decision....or was the post just sarcasm...hmmmm.

You SDA claim to be "witnesses". I am giving you a chance to witness. After all in your minds I am the "heathen".

I am giving you a chance to witness to me about your inspired prophet and how her inspiration actually works when:

1. She is just as inspired as Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, etc.

2. Yet she is not on the same Authority level with the Bible.

Those two statements seem contradictory. However, I am willing to hear you out so that I can understand how such an inspiration works.

Do you tell all your potential converts to go and read and figure it out for themselves? Hmmm!

[miz3]

John317,

You can read the posts between Gerry and I. I clearly point out in this back and forth between us all the things you are asking for.

[John317]

I am giving you a chance to witness to me about your inspired prophet and how her inspiration actually works when:

1. She is just as inspired as Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, etc.

2. Yet she is not on the same Authority level with the Bible.

Those two statements seem contradictory. However, I am willing to hear you out so that I can understand how such an inspiration works.

I answered these questions before, and Ellen White also answers them in 1 SM 25-50.

God doesn't inspire prophets in different degrees. Either a prophet is inspired or not. There's no half-inspired prophet. It's like a pregnancy that way: either one is pregnant or not pregnant but there's no partly being pregnant.

The fact that a prophet is inspired does not mean he or she has the same authority as every other prophet. The prophets who have the greatest authority are those who wrote books in the Bible. Their books are called "canon." That means they are the measuring-stick of truth. All prophets who come after the canon must be judged by the canon. They cannot "correct" the canon. God does not send a prophet to correct the canon. Why? Because God does not send prophets with a message that contradicts the messages of previous prophets. For instance, Joshua did not contradict Moses, and David did not contraditct Joshua or Moses.

This is for the protection of God's people.

It's a principle that is found applied in Acts 17: 11--

Acts 17:11

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things [that Paul preached]were so.

Notice that Paul's messages were judged or measured by the Scriptures (previous prophets).

Let me know if this is clear or if you would like me to explain further.

Originally Posted By: miz3

Do you tell all your potential converts to go and read and figure it out for themselves? Hmmm!

No. However, it is good for people to study on their own and find out the answers that way. Often they remember the answers better when they do that.

[miz3]

God doesn't inspire prophets in different degrees. Either a prophet is inspired or not. There's no half-inspired prophet. It's like a pregnancy that way: either one is pregnant or not pregnant but there's no being partly pregnant.

The fact that a prophet is inspired does not mean he or she has the same authority as every other prophet. The prophets who have the greatest authority are those who wrote books in the Bible. Their books are called "canon." That means they are the measuring-stick of truth. All prophets who come after the canon must be judged by the canon. They cannot "correct" the canon. God does not send a prophet to correct the canon. Why? Because God does not send prophets with a message that contradicts the messages of previous prophets. For instance, Joshua did not contradict Moses, and David did not contraditct Joshua or Moses.

Let me know if this is clear or if you would like me to explain further.

1. They all have the same Authority except the Authority to contradict each other.

2. They cannot correct each other.

3. I notice above you say God does not inspire in different degrees but in the very next paragraph you say that some prophets have greater Authority. Isn't the a contradiction on your part? It appears to me that being granted greater authority makes the inspired to a greater degree.

[John317]

3. I notice above you say God does not inspire in different degrees but in the very next paragraph you say that some prophets have greater Authority. Isn't the a contradiction on your part? It appears to me that being granted greater authority makes the inspired to a greater degree.

Paul was equally as inspired as the writers of the Old Testament, yet his messages were judged by the Old Testament writers.

Even Jesus Christ-- God in human flesh-- had to meet certain tests of the Old Testament Scriptures. See Luke 23: 25, 26, 46.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I don't see anything in this text that tells us the way to know the Truth is to use the "historic method". It says that only way to know the Truth is for the Holy Spirit to teach you!

Sounds to me like you are using the wrong method, Gerry!

I wonder what others think of someone who thinks that the Holy Spirit speaks only to him?

Risperdal comes to mind...

[miz3]

As you doubtless realize, this is a statement made by Ellen G. White. While it is not in the bible, yet it also does not contradict the Bible. The Bible simply does not go into details on that matter. But you should be OK with it, I think, since you support Ellen White's other statement (which is also not found in the Bible) that there will be children in heaven without their parents. I believe both statements because I have learned that Ellen White can be trusted. For the same reason I trust the Bible even when I have no proof that it is correct.

If Ellen White made such statements and the principle you are stating above holds, then why would anyone ever go to the Bible when they can pull down Desire of Ages and read everything found in the Gospels and more besides.

Why bother to read Revelation when we can pull down Great Controversy and read everything found in Revelation and more besides.

This pattern seems to hold for just about the whole (there be some parts Ellen White missed) Bible.

Why would I go to the Bible, except on rare occasions, in order to know something? After all Ellen White covers everyone of our Doctrines in her writings. She has basically (not fully) almost replaced the Bible.

[Sonny]

that there will be children in heaven without their parents.

The Bible teaches this.....Rom 5:18 and other verses

[ClubV12]

"Why bother to read Revelation when we can pull down Great Controversy and read everything found in Revelation and more besides."

Is that a serious question? Seriously! Is the concept of reading the bible that hard for you to grasp?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: GerryCabalo

I wonder what others think of someone who thinks that the Holy Spirit speaks only to him?

I never claimed that!

Here is what you said in post #441727 in the other thread:

miz3: pkrause,

You are free to believe what you like.

You are free to ignore the Truth.

I am not your judge, God is your judge as to whether you are honestly evaluating the facts.

I can only tell the facts as God gives them to me, I am not responsible for who does or does not accept them.

What is that saying to PK or to anyone who reads it?

[

Quote:

You are the one who said that you and other SDA use the "historic method of interpretation".

I merely stated that the Bible states a different method is to be used.

There you go again. You do not read carefully and thus you jump to conclusions and make accusations that were never ever even remotely stated.

You need to careful in how you speak and how you understand.

And you automatically jump to the conclusion that because we use the historical method of prophetic interpretation that we don't ask the Holy Spirit for illumination?

I smell Bob Sands!

[CoAspen]

[miz3]

Quote:

miz3: pkrause,

You are free to believe what you like.

You are free to ignore the Truth.

I am not your judge, God is your judge as to whether you are honestly evaluating the facts.

I can only tell the facts as God gives them to me, I am not responsible for who does or does not accept them.

I wonder what others think of someone who thinks that the Holy Spirit speaks only to him?

Gerry,

Yes, I said the above quote. I have to keep reminding you to read things carefully.

What I said above does not in any way, shape, or form say that the Holy Spirit speaks ONLY through me.

Your post accused me of saying that the Holy Spirit spoke ONLY through me. Gerry, Gerry, you are bearing a false witness.

If you look at the two posts above you have what I said and then you have your response. It is clear to all that you are indeed bearing false witness against me.

Why this hatred on your part? Is it from frustration because my arguments are cogent and Biblical, and yours are lacking?

[miz3]

And you automatically jump to the conclusion that because we use the historical method of prophetic interpretation that we don't ask the Holy Spirit for illumination?

Gerry,

Who told you that the "historical method" of prophetic interpretation was the correct method of interpretation. Did God tell you, Gerry?

How do you know that this method of interpretation is the method God wants you to use?

[miz3]

CoAspen,

I guess helping people to know the Truth is not one of your specialties.

[ClubV12]

I wonder if Paul or any of the other authors of the bible also felt they were not worthy to be included in the "book"?

I've also wondered what specific articles, books, pamphlets or words might qualify for inclusion in the "book" should time continue long enough to warrant such consideration? I doubt it that would ever come to pass, but the point illustrates the value I give to her writings.

I believe she was and remains inspired. And yet, like ALL the authors of the bible is human. With like passions as all humans have. Subject to error in some cases, directly inspired and the very mouth piece of God in others, like I believe all the authors were.

Not all of what the original authors wrote are in the book. Paul wrote extensively, it is hard to imagine all of it went in. That same principle holds true for all the authors. Giving counsel to specific individuals on specific issues for example.

In the writings of EGW she encloses in quotes specific word's, sentences, paragraphs where she is directly quoting a heavenly being. In other sections she specifically states she was "shown", or "I saw". In still other passages she expresses her personal opinion and notes it as such. As did Paul, and yet, Pauls personal opinion is still in the book. Is Pauls personal opinion inspired? By their fruits and careful comparison to other truths in the bible one could reach his own conclusion on the matter.

I take Pauls advice seriously, it may apply to me, or not, depending on my circumstances and position in life at the time. As I do the writings of EGW. I try to find the principle(s) involved in the message and not get hung up on the minor details of the message to the point where I have missed it altogether.

[Woody]

CoAspen,

I guess helping people to know the Truth is not one of your specialties.

I think his Truth is just as good as yours. I think he is sharing Truth and inspiring us to think with his good questions and thoughts.

So many times we are blind because we go on believing things and saying things that we have not thought through. Questions are good. Keep them coming. We need to know why we believe what we believe.

[Gerr]

My sincere apologies that I misunderstood your intent, but that's how it came across to me.

[miz3]

Evreryone,

I need to clear things up a bit.

You and others keep defending Ellen White.

Maybe I need to do a better job of explaining. I am not after Ellen White. You are free to believe in her inspiration to the full extent of your desire and belief.

My point is that SDA get there Doctrines of the Investigative Judgment, the Sanctuary, the 2300 Days, the "little horn", Babylon, the Nature of Christ (mainly His humanity), and a large part of their other beliefs:

FROM ELLEN G. WHITE!

Is that a bad?

If you are asking me, I would say that it is not necessarily bad.

SDA should be free to get their Doctrines from any source they please. The same is true for all individual humans.

The problem is not that SDA get their Doctrines from Ellen White! That is perfectly legitimate.

THE PROBLEM IS: USING ELLEN G. WHITE TO GET YOUR DOCTRINES AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT BY SAYING SDA ARE A BIBLE AND BIBLE ONLY PEOPLE.

Such a statement is patently false!

Your denials notwithstanding SDA are stating a pure out and out falsehood by asserting they are a Bible and Bible only Church.

Why cannot SDA be honest with themselves and with the rest of the World about this specific point?

ELLEN G. WHITE is not the issue with me, SDA and the way they conduct their business is the issue!

[miz3]

My sincere apologies that I misunderstood your intent, but that's how it came across to me.

We are now cool on that point! Thanks.

[miz3]

ClubV12,

Enjoy spending as much time as you want in Ellen White. I have no quarrel with that at all.

She does indeed have much good in her communications and I would much rather you be engrossed in her communications than in other some other human works.

My opinion is, that next to the Bible, Ellen White is the best there is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (repeated for emphasis, not shouting loud).

[Woody]

The church does not get their doctrine from Ellen White.

She did not participate in the establishment of doctrine.

The church established all their doctrine from scripture.

If you check out the 28 Fundamentals ... each one has scriptures along with it.