SOP and the bible - do they fit together?

[Twilight]

I have yet to find an example of a teaching in the SOP that is not in harmony with scripture.

When I find something in the SOP that seems difficult, a little study and I will find its counterpart in scripture.

I do not find that SOP contradicts scripture.

I hear many people claiming this, but a little research often shows it is a claim without validation.

My concern though, is that when we share a truth, we should establish it from scripture.

Your thoughts?

[Twilight]

Let me share an example.

Many say that "vegetarianism" is additional light.

But is it?

In Eden God gave us a fruit diet.

At the fall, we were given a vegetarian diet.

At the flood, meat was added to the diet.

-------------

But only certain meats.

Unclean meat was never permitted.

But can "clean meat" become unclean?

Biblically?

Yes.

Clean meat that was not drained of blood and had not had the fat removed was unclean.

Clean meat that was diseased was unclean.

Clean meat that had died in an unclean manner was unclean.

Now bearing all this in mind.

Consider the modern food industry.

Which of the "clean meats" that are factory produced these days is actually "clean" according to the scripture?

Hmmmm....

----------------

So Ellen White said meat would not be safe to eat in the end times.

And people reject her.

The bible tells us not to eat "unclean" clean meat.

Same message.

-----------------

So when people reject the testimony of Ellen White, they also reject the biblical principle it is founded on...

We need to learn to present our great truths from scripture, if you find it in the SOP, you will also find it in the bible is my view.

Present it from the bible and peoples prejudice is now against biblical truth and not against Ellen White...

[Robert]

Quote:

I do not find that SOP contradicts scripture.

Then the writings of EGW are infallible.....

[Robert]

I do not find that SOP contradicts scripture.

Paul: Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will by them live."

6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: ...9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is LORD," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Paul states that under the law Moses stated that the man who kept the law would live because of that obedience. Opposite this is "the righteousness that is by faith", which states that those who believe are saved.

So you have two choices:

1] "Obey and live"

or

2] accept the righteousness of Christ.

Now EGW does teach # 2, but in places it seems she reverted back to old covenant principles. What, then, do you do with the following?

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-01

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

Note the phrase, “This do, and thou shalt live.” That's the same thing Moses taught under the old covenant. See Romans 10:5. Why does EGW teach such?

Rob

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I do not find that SOP contradicts scripture.

Paul: Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will by them live."

6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: ...9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is LORD," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Paul states that under the law Moses stated that the man who kept the law would live because of that obedience. Opposite this is "the righteousness that is by faith", which states that those who believe are saved.

So you have two choices:

1] "Obey and live"

or

2] accept the righteousness of Christ.

Now EGW does teach # 2, but in places it seems she reverted back to old covenant principles. What, then, do you do with the following?

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-01

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

Note the phrase, “This do, and thou shalt live.” That's the same thing Moses taught under the old covenant. See Romans 10:5. Why does EGW teach such?

Rob

[Robert]

The issue here is not that Ellen White contradicts the bible.

It is that you are at variance with it Robert.

Telling me that I am wrong without proof is meaningless. Prove me wrong using the context I quoted.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The issue here is not that Ellen White contradicts the bible.

It is that you are at variance with it Robert.

Telling me that I am wrong without proof is meaningless. Prove me wrong using the context I quoted.

That has been done time and time again Robert.

But if one has a reliance on JS as the arbiter of truth, then one could not see anything clearly...

[Robert]

Robert: Telling me that I am wrong without proof is meaningless. Prove me wrong using the context I quoted.

That has been done time and time again Robert.

But if one has a reliance on JS as the arbiter of truth, then one could not see anything clearly...

Robert: Quit stalling....

In fact, I'll make it harder on you. Looking at Ellen White's quote again, I find another problem:

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come.

That part in red is also a contradiction....She contradicts Paul, who uses that same phrase to denounce legalism.

Here's Paul:

Gal 3:10 All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The just by faith will live." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will by them live." [i.e., “This do, and thou shalt live.]

[Kevin H]

The Bible and Mrs. White indeed fit together. How ever Mrs. White had written much about how they should fit together. She wrote to people telling them that they were misusing her writings. She and Elder Haskel had two different ways on how they saw her and the Bible fitting together. She and Willie and Haskell had much discussion and Haskell was unable to convince Mrs. White or Willie, and Mrs. White and Willie could not change Haskell.

Most Adventists have accepted Haskell's view. From what I've seen a lot carrying on of the ideas that Mrs. White wrote to complaining that they are misusing her writings.

Be careful that you are trying to fit the Bible and Mrs. White together according to her guidelines, rather than according to Haskell's or those who she wrote to complaining that they were misusing her writings. Sadly her views are rejected and Haskell's views are the most popular, with a large following of carrying on the school of thought by those Mrs. White complained to.

[Kevin H]

(Note: I'm ignoring Robert's discussion)

A second issue but related is that Mrs. White tries to point us in a direction to lead us to deeper Bible truth. However we tend to take her not as a direction sign but as a final destination. We do what she complains of Lutherans doing, stoping where Luther fell. Only we are worst, we don't stop where Mrs. White fell asleep, we stop where her followers fell. She is usually far a head of our traditions, but we stop and set up camp and build defensive forts around where our favorites of her followers fell asleep.

[Twilight]

The Bible and Mrs. White indeed fit together. How ever Mrs. White had written much about how they should fit together. She wrote to people telling them that they were misusing her writings. She and Elder Haskel had two different ways on how they saw her and the Bible fitting together. She and Willie and Haskell had much discussion and Haskell was unable to convince Mrs. White or Willie, and Mrs. White and Willie could not change Haskell.

Most Adventists have accepted Haskell's view. From what I've seen a lot carrying on of the ideas that Mrs. White wrote to complaining that they are misusing her writings.

Be careful that you are trying to fit the Bible and Mrs. White together according to her guidelines, rather than according to Haskell's or those who she wrote to complaining that they were misusing her writings. Sadly her views are rejected and Haskell's views are the most popular, with a large following of carrying on the school of thought by those Mrs. White complained to.

Can you give an example Kevin?

[wayfinder]

There are conflicts between the endtime prophecies and EGW writtings, one is the account of the two witnesses. Following is from GC.

The periods here mentioned--"forty and two months," and "a thousand two hundred and threescore days"--are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to suffer oppression from Rome. The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French army entered Rome, and made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed. {GC88 266.2}

The persecution of the church did not continue throughout the entire period of the 1260 years. God in mercy to his people cut short the time of their fiery trial. In foretelling the "great tribulation" to befall the church, the Saviour said, "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." [MATT. 24:22.] Through the influence of the Reformation, the persecution was brought to an end prior to 1798. {GC88 266.3}

EGW is combining the prophecies of Revelation 11 and 12 together which is the first problem, although not the one I am addressing. There is a problem with the start date of 538. Nothing happened of note. She says the time ended before it had completed the given number of years. She solves this problem with Matt. 24:22; which she cuts off the part of the context of the verse that would show that it is not applicable here. The statement by Christ starts in Verse 21 and states "for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall". So are we to believe that the 1260 years was the worst tribulation the world has ever experienced and never experience such again?

I will let you respond to this, because there is much more in this and other prophecies.

[Robert]

(Note: I'm ignoring Robert's discussion)

But of course....

[Twilight]

There are conflicts between the endtime prophecies and EGW writtings, one is the account of the two witnesses. Following is from GC.

The periods here mentioned--"forty and two months," and "a thousand two hundred and threescore days"--are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to suffer oppression from Rome. The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French army entered Rome, and made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed. {GC88 266.2}

The persecution of the church did not continue throughout the entire period of the 1260 years. God in mercy to his people cut short the time of their fiery trial. In foretelling the "great tribulation" to befall the church, the Saviour said, "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." [MATT. 24:22.] Through the influence of the Reformation, the persecution was brought to an end prior to 1798. {GC88 266.3}

EGW is combining the prophecies of Revelation 11 and 12 together which is the first problem, although not the one I am addressing. There is a problem with the start date of 538. Nothing happened of note. She says the time ended before it had completed the given number of years. She solves this problem with Matt. 24:22; which she cuts off the part of the context of the verse that would show that it is not applicable here. The statement by Christ starts in Verse 21 and states "for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall". So are we to believe that the 1260 years was the worst tribulation the world has ever experienced and never experience such again?

I will let you respond to this, because there is much more in this and other prophecies.

I do not see any contradiction here.

Also the Adventist position on the historical events of 538 have been pretty consistent.

Let me guess?

You have another interpretation of the 1260 days perhaps? :-)

[wayfinder]

I do have a different understanding of the 1260 days, but that is not the subject of this thread.

Think for yourself, not what has been understood for 160+ years. Could you honestly say that the period from 538-1798 was the a time of distress, such as has never been since there was a nation, and never will be again. If true, then the "great tribulation" with the armies, famines, plagues, death and distruction, will be a walk in the park compared to those 1260 years. The reason it was important for EGW to make this application, is that the event ended early. She said the two witnesses were killed by France (the beast from the abyss, this event is the fifth trumpet) in 1793 the French government outlawed Christianity and in 1796 they were rescinded.

The question is, why would God say 1260 days, but mean 1257 and a half? Like I promised, There is alot more to this prophecy, which shows that either EGW is right or God is right, but they both can't be right, because their statements contradict each other.

Another contradiction between her writings and the prophecy is this one.

This one has to do with the "opening of a book and books. GC 480, EGW clearly states that this event took place in 1844. Then she goes on to say that the revelator, describing the same scene and the book of life was opened. She is saying that Revelation 20 11-15 happened in 1844, this is impossible. Then on page 666 she says that this event happens at the end of all things, the white throne judgment.

[Twilight]

I do have a different understanding of the 1260 days, but that is not the subject of this thread.

That is exactly the subject of this thread.

It is not that you disagree with Ellen White, you disagree with the established SDA Biblical position.

It is your interpretation of the 1260 days that is to be held up to examination, not Ellen Whites position, as you differ from the church position, which is the biblical position.

[Dr. Rich]

Well, try reading what she wrote in PP about Noah preaching and then show me where Noah actually preached.

[Twilight]

Well, try reading what she wrote in PP about Noah preaching and then show me where Noah actually preached.

Can you show me in the bible where Noah "did not" preach?

You are not presenting a contradiction here at all.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Well, try reading what she wrote in PP about Noah preaching and then show me where Noah actually preached.

Can you show me in the bible where Noah "did not" preach?

You are not presenting a contradiction here at all.

Why should Rich show you anything....I showed you something and you never disproved it....You just ranted about how I was wrong without proof.

[John317]

Well, try reading what she wrote in PP about Noah preaching and then show me where Noah actually preached.

The Bible does show that he preached but you don't accept everything that is in the Bible. Most students of the Bible believe that Noah preached, and their conclusion is based on the Bible, not on Ellen White's writings.

2 Peter 2:5

"[God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly."

The test is not whether everything Ellen White said or wrote is in the Bible--- the test, rather, is whether she contradicts the plain teachings of the Bible. In this instance at least, she obviously did not contradict the Scripture since 2 Peter 2: 8 plainly calls Noah a preacher. I think it is self-evidedent that Noah preached before the Flood, when there were people to preach to, and not afterwards when the world was empty for a long time.

The Bible shows that God always give people a warning before He brings judgment upon them. God wasn't interested in surprising those people.

We've already discussed this many times before. If you give someone a warning but they reject the warning, it is the same as not knowing what's going to happen. They didn't know about the Flood until it came and swept them all away, because they rejected the preaching of Noah.

[wayfinder]

As I have said before and will say again, having a different position than the SDA church, historically and presently, does not prove that I am in error. Jesus had a different message than the established offical Jewish theological belief and it caused great problems amoung the people and some uneasiness among His disciples.

As for the 1260 days that the two witnesses prophesy, I know for a fact it is in the future. I expect it to start in April of 2016, I agree that that does not mean it will.

[Dr. Rich]

You are right John, the unknown writer of 2Peter must have read PP too! If Noah did preach he sure was not good at it! Like Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39, they didn't know a thing about the flood until it came. Hmmm?

Ok, I will allow my brain to work here a bit: Let's see, God told Noah, as found in Gen. 6, that He was going to destroy all flesh, that everything that is on the earth shall perish. That is, except Noah, his wife and 2 sons and their wives. Oooookay-- So I suppose God commanded Noah to preach to everyone and tell them "Na Na--Na,na na--Just me and my familly and the rest of you must learn to swim really good." Well I am sure that made him popular!

Question: Why preach when Noah was told that just him and his family (and the animals of course) would be saved? After all didn't God tell Noah to build the ark a certain size? What IF some repented, like about a thousand or so---?

God did not tell Noah to preach! God told him to build it to fit Noah and his family and the animals and that was it! If God said all the rest would parish, well, then please tell me why would Noah tease them? What was there to warn them about?

So John my man, you and I have been round and round about 2nd Peter and this is just one more reason why I know that the disciple Peter could not have written it. But hey, what do I know anyway???

[Lutz13]

You are right John, the unknown writer of 2Peter must have read PP too! If Noah did preach he sure was not good at it! Like Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39, they didn't know a thing about the flood until it came. Hmmm?

Ok, I will allow my brain to work here a bit: Let's see, God told Noah, as found in Gen. 6, that He was going to destroy all flesh, that everything that is on the earth shall perish. That is, except Noah, his wife and 2 sons and their wives. Oooookay-- So I suppose God commanded Noah to preach to everyone and tell them "Na Na--Na,na na--Just me and my familly and the rest of you must learn to swim really good." Well I am sure that made him popular!

Question: Why preach when Noah was told that just him and his family (and the animals of course) would be saved? After all didn't God tell Noah to build the ark a certain size? What IF some repented, like about a thousand or so---?

God did not tell Noah to preach! God told him to build it to fit Noah and his family and the animals and that was it! If God said all the rest would parish, well, then please tell me why would Noah tease them? What was there to warn them about?

So John my man, you and I have been round and round about 2nd Peter and this is just one more reason why I know that the disciple Peter could not have written it. But hey, what do I know anyway???

God always sends a warning to those who are about to perish. Even if He already knows they won't listen to it. You can see this throughout scripture. The flood isn't any different.

[wayfinder]

Tell that to the populace of Sodom, Gomorah, and the cities of the plain. The only one who was warned was "righteous" Lot and he left town and was spared along with his daughters. And the peoples of Caanan who were anhialated by Israel when they enter the promised land. God warns the righteous and those who have not become completly evil. God tells us that in the days of Noah, the heart of mankind had become perfectly evil and He would destroy them with a flood, but Noah was not in this condition and that is why God told him to build a boat for himself and his family.