Real Bible Study

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

No opinions? Think not. We all have opinions and so did she.

Here's what EGW said concerning children & God in 1892:

“Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….” [bible Echo and Signs of the Times, 02-01-1892]

But 32 years before she made the above statement she said the following to her own child:

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there…. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." [AY 63, 1860]

Not only did EGW teach her son that God didn't love him when he did wrong, but she also "terrified" him:

"when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you...."

So please do not insist that EGW's theology didn't mirror her interpretations of things. Face it, until her dying day she still preached a form of subtle legalism. She grew...she changed, as we all do, but nevertheless it effected her theology.

So you go ahead and make her writings the end all, be all of truth. Not me....I'll take the good and abandoned the bad....

[Woody]

Quote:

Bingo!

Hey ... it's good to have Bingo back in play. :)

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Here's what EGW said concerning children & God in 1892:

“Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….” [bible Echo and Signs of the Times, 02-01-1892]

But 32 years before she made the above statement she said the following to her own child:

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there…. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." [AY 63, 1860]

Not only did EGW teach her son that God did love him when he did wrong, but she also "terrified" him:

"when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you...."

So please do not insist that EGW's theology didn't mirror her interpretations of things. Face it, until her dying day she still preached a form of subtle legalism. She grew...she changed, as we all do, but nevertheless it effected her theology.

So you go ahead and make her writings the end all, be all of truth. Not me....I'll take the good and abandoned the bad....

Well ... our prophet grew in her walk with God ... just like all of us. This is why I prefer reading her latest works.

[Kevin H]

Buddy Hoteling (spelling) has a song titled "Somebody elses armor." too many of us want to put everyone in our armor. The Historic Adventists see the truths that there are insights from John Wesley that goes far beyond Luther and that the evangelicals are stopping with Luther. Desmond Ford is a brillian scholar, but a student of the Reformaton and the New Testament as understood at the time of his study. Both have aspects of the truth and shortfallings. If I had Ford's education, I'd be a Fordite too. (hopefully I'd be wise enought to instead of attack ing the Investiagative Judgment, to only say I I don't see how it fits in but that it's outside of my scope of study" instead of forcing what he knows on what he does not know). However I cannot be a Fordite because I had studied ancient near eastern history, I'm familiar with Franfort's "before Philosophy" I'm familiar with the Baal myth and that they use day year principles and had investigative judgments, and I have a different understanding of Hell fire which gives me a different perspective of substitutionary substitution than his penal substitution. Ford's views don't fit what I know of the ancient world and is based on a very different view of hell, and I've been exposed to the new discoveries in the works of Paul, these are 3 perspectives that Ford does not have.

I'd agree with Pippim if I thought that the traditons were the only conservative interpetation of the Bible and that the attacks on the traditons are only from liberals who are trying to say why we don't need to follow the Bible. The problem is that there are very conservative studies that indicate that our traditons may be wrong, and passages that do not support his presupositions.

We, all of us have learned different things. We need to be willing to listen and dissagree, to try to understand and to see if things are mutually exclusive, or if they are to be made into a oness of opposits.

The problem with going into deep Bible study is that there are those who either want to force their knowlege on others, not just share information. There are those who only want their knowlege reaffirmed and massaged; they don't want to listen to evidence that does not defend these ideasd. And there are those who are willing to misrepresent the views they dissagree with. They want to make everyone who does not believe that the end of the wicked is a barbecue and believing liberal ideas such as the Moral Influence Theory and God does not kill, and picture this view of hell as no more than God tucking them in and giving a good night kiss. There are those who want to misquote Ellen White to make make it sound like she is saying something else than she is really saying. There are too many who have a pet point like "There is no year day Theory" who refused to listen to Henri Frankfort and other studies of the year - day principle.

We need to be able to listen and evaluate and respect, and to try to present views we dissagree with in a way that is fair to them.

[Ron Amnsn]

Well ... our prophet grew in her walk with God ... just like all of us. This is why I prefer reading her latest works.

It's too bad Ellen White died in 1915, because that ended within the SDA church the on-going process of sifting out the traditions of men from the truth of God that had been going on since the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation.

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good." (1 Thes 5:19-21)

[pnattmbtc]

Well ... our prophet grew in her walk with God ... just like all of us. This is why I prefer reading her latest works.

I doubt this is true. I think you'll find the works you most like to read were written around the years 1888 through 1900.

[pnattmbtc]

I have a different understanding of Hell fire which gives me a different perspective of substitutionary substitution than his penal substitution.

I'd be very interested in your explaining this.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Well ... our prophet grew in her walk with God ... just like all of us. This is why I prefer reading her latest works.

It's too bad Ellen White died in 1915, because that ended within the SDA church the on-going process of sifting out the traditions of men from the truth of God that had been going on since the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation.

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good." (1 Thes 5:19-21)

Huh? May I respectfully ask you by what authority you make such judgment? I for one read the Scriptures daily and study it almost 7/7 days.