Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: GerryCabalo

I have no doubt that God loves me. However, there are things that happened in my life that SEEMS contrary to that belief. Someday I want to know the hows and wherefors. Again, if you don't want to know, that's your business. If I want to know it's none of your business. If that stuns you, that's your problem!

OK, OK, Gerry! Don't get your big boy pants all in a wad.

If what you say above is true, then when do your questions get answered?

Is it before the 2nd Coming, or is it after the 2nd Coming?

Obviously, I don't have access to them books now, so the earliest that I could look at them is during the 1000 yrs that begin after the second coming - book learning time as Woody pointed out.

[miz3]

Obviously, I don't have access to them books now, so the earliest that I could look at them is during the 1000 yrs that begin after the second coming - book learning time as Woody pointed out.

I see! Since you or any other human being for that matter won't get to investigate (see the evidence) before the 2nd Coming what actually goes on during this 1844 to 2nd Coming the pre-advent investigative judgment?

[ClubV12]

"...what actually goes on during this 1844 to 2nd Coming the pre-advent investigative judgment?"

miz3, What? That hasn't been spelled out enough already?

The time between 1844 and the 2nd coming IS the Judgement, but you knew that! I don't know if you accept it, but you are certainly aware that is the bulk of the opinions on this thread. So, I wonder why you would ask this question, again?

EDIT:

Well it appears your question is asking to review the SPECIFIC details involved in this Judgement. Ellen White had something to say about that, but it looks like she has been banned from this thread. Pity,,, that. :)

[miz3]

ClubV12,

In the spirit of your other statement in the thread that talks about the IJ you will notice that Ellen White is NOT BAND.

I only state that SDA claim to get this Doctrine and its details from the Bible and Bible only.

However, you are now telling me that if I want to know about the IJ I should consult Ellen White.

Well my friend, you are correct that without Ellen White and her references concerning the IJ SDA would not have a Doctrine of the IJ. Unless they were to rely on the supposition of Hiram Edson and his cornfield experience. Such a reliance on Mr. Edson would be dubious and flimsy to the say the least.

Thus, when Ellen White uses her inspired status then SDA can claim legitimacy for this Doctrine.

ClubV12, you have stated the point that I have been making all along. That without Ellen White as an inspired Prophet this Doctrine has no legitimate basis. The Doctrine would only be a flimsy imagination of the human brain. Thus, as you so eloquently point out that it is Ellen White's words that are the words that interpret this Doctrine in the Scripture. In addition, you state that she is also a vital interpreter of Scripture at all times.

Therefore you may quote Ellen White in regard to this Doctrine any time you please.

[Overaged]

According to SDA theology which they get from Ellen White

Who is wearing the "big boy pants" here. This part of your post is quite incorrect.

[miz3]

Overaged,

Who is wearing the "big boy pants" here.

Its not you that's for sure!

Why are you ashamed of your Prophet?

I am not ashamed of Ellen White. Why are you?

[Overaged]

Overaged,

Originally Posted By: overaged

Who is wearing the "big boy pants" here.

Its not you that's for sure!

Why are you ashamed of your Prophet?

I am not ashamed of Ellen White. Why are you?

OK now; where did I say I was ashamed? I pointed out a statement you made that was wrong. Your lack of knowledge regarding doctrinal development in the Adventist Church is showing through loud and clear here. I am very happy with my Adventist heritage; and not ashamed to talk about it with anyone; not even the Pope.

It is simply not correct to say that our church is dependent on Ellen G White for our doctrines. History alone can show this.

I agree; you are correct. I am not the one wearing the "big boy pants."

[ClubV12]

Seems to me the question is about specific details on the IJ, not the IJ itself.

The bible doesn't give a lot of details on many many subjects and issues. So we turn to scholars, historians, learned men and women, geologists, anthropologists, Google and the guy sitting in the pew next to us to fill in the blanks. One additional source I like to consult when filling in the blanks is Ellen White. But the best approach is to consult a variety of sources when researching a subject for the details. Good luck with that.

[Overaged]

Yikes! Don't go to Google!!

[miz3]

Overaged,

Its nice to know that SDA get their views and Doctrines from various sources.

It is also nice to know that where SDA are concerned that the Bible and the Bible only is NOT ENOUGH to know the Truth. In order to get the whole Truth you have to go so many other UNINSPIRED SOURCES!

That speaks volumes!

I see now where I made my mistake. My mistake was in assuming that SDA believed in the Bible and the Bible only for their beliefs. Boy was I wrong! As far as the SDA are concerned the Bible is just one among many sources of Truth.

Glad we got that cleared up!

[Overaged]

Overaged,

Its nice to know that SDA get their views and Doctrines from various sources.

It is also nice to know that where SDA are concerned that the Bible and the Bible only is NOT ENOUGH to know the Truth. In order to get the whole Truth you have to go so many other UNINSPIRED SOURCES!

That speaks volumes!

I see now where I made my mistake. My mistake was in assuming that SDA believed in the Bible and the Bible only for their beliefs. Boy was I wrong! As far as the SDA are concerned the Bible is just one among many sources of Truth.

Glad we got that cleared up!

Hmmm, one strawman didn't work, so now you just drum up another one; and then you say we "got that cleared up?" That's pretty weird math.

You are making a lot of mistakes re Adventist beliefs. Adventists believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of right or wrong, truth or error. But even the Bible tells us that we can see God's truths in a number of other ways and sources. But you have to always go back to scripture to verify.

[epaminondas]

The "Sanctuary Doctrine" will not save you; the "Investigative Judgment Doctrine" will not save you, the "2300 days Doctrine" will not save you, the Doctrine of the "Sabbath" will not save you, etc.!

Amen to that. By dying on the cross Jesus paid the price for sin. That's it. He didn't need to mediate in heaven or anything else to save us. If he did, paying the price for sin was incomplete.

And Christ dying on the cross is also not the be all and end all. If there were no creation there would have been no sin or need for a saviour. So, as far as we are concerned, creation set the ball rolling.

Things are generally simpler and cleaner than theologians tend to make them.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Adventists believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of right or wrong, truth or error.

Oh yeah? Where did they get the trinitarian belief from, then? It's not in the Bible. From Tertullian who said we should base our faith on feelings and not be too concerned with facts. Of course, the Catholics had it first, we got it from them.

One Bible passage is enough to destroy it: John 17:3: "And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here we have Jesus talking to the Father. If the Father is the "only true God" and Trinitarianism is true, what about Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit? The statement is clear and unambiguous. It does not need to be "understood" or "interpreted". No matter how much spin anyone puts on this, it's clear, simple and straightforward. It's worth more than a thousand vague passages. Logic says that a vague passage cannot overturn a clear passage.

[Gerr]

<quote>The "Sanctuary Doctrine" will not save you; the "Investigative Judgment Doctrine" will not save you, the "2300 days Doctrine" will not save you, the Doctrine of the "Sabbath" will not save you, etc.!</quote>

<p>Amen to that. By dying on the cross Jesus paid the price for sin. That's it. He didn't need to mediate in heaven or anything else to save us. If he did, paying the price for sin was incomplete.</p>

So why do we need an advocate/mediator/priest in the heavenly sanctuary? And if Jesus had nothing more to do after His resurrection, does that mean ALL will be saved? (At least all those that came after His resurrection.)

Quote:

<p>And Christ dying on the cross is also not the be all and end all. If there were no creation there would have been no sin or need for a saviour. So, as far as we are concerned, creation set the ball rolling.

Huh?

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

[ClubV12]

Other sources.

You know this isn't that complicated. We use many different sources to understand, verify and compare any given bible text all the time. Like Greek and Hebrew translations for openers. Historical data for another. What happened in 1798? We can get the date from the bible, but the SPECIFICS are found in history books. Many of the SDA foundational doctrines are a result of scholars bringing new understanding to bible texts. Often they do little more than point the direction, offer some insights, then that foundation can be put in place by supporting bible texts.

Like state of the dead. Many people come away with many different concepts of it. What is unigue about the SDA church is the Lords messenger pointing the way to a foundation then built on bible truth. But it's not always her that does the pointing. There are others that have led the way even before Ellen White did. Investigative Judgement? Hiram Edson pointed the way first, but he didn't have all the truth in that regard. It took some digging on the behalf of bible scholars to put the pieces together.

Virtually all SDA foundation doctrines have been carefully constructed by the leading of the Holy Spirit using various sources to deliver or point the way. Again, like the Sabbath issue and when it begins and ends. We were pointed in the right direction but it took careful study to build a biblical foundation.

In the end, this "point and go" method of revelation is why the SDA foundation is so well built. Not "just" because of Ellen White, there were many who were led of the Spirit and will be led of the Spirit in pointing the way to biblical truth.

Ellen White herself spent much time reviewing historical books to understand the time lines and events. Not all was revealed to her in visions or dreams. She, like all other scholars and authors, had personal work and effort that was required to put the pieces together.

The end result? A foundation based on the bible, and the bible alone! There is no mystery here.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Adventists believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of right or wrong, truth or error.

<p>Oh yeah? Where did they get the trinitarian belief from, then? It's not in the Bible. From Tertullian who said we should base our faith on feelings and not be too concerned with facts. Of course, the Catholics had it first, we got it from them.</p>

<p>One Bible passage is enough to destroy it: John 17:3: "And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here we have Jesus talking to the Father. If the Father is the "only true God" and Trinitarianism is true, what about Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit? The statement is clear and unambiguous. It does not need to be "understood" or "interpreted". No matter how much spin anyone puts on this, it's clear, simple and straightforward. It's worth more than a thousand vague passages. Logic says that a vague passage cannot overturn a clear passage.

ESV | Ge 1:1 In the beginning, God [Elohim -plural] created the heavens and the earth. 2 ...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

ESV | Ge 1:26 Then God [Elohim - plural] said, “Let us [plural] make man in our [plural] image, after our likeness.

ESV | Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

"The statement is clear and unambiguous. It does not need to be "understood" or "interpreted". No matter how much spin anyone puts on this, it's clear, simple and straightforward. It's worth more than a thousand vague passages. Logic says that a vague passage cannot overturn a clear passage."

[Overaged]

quote]Adventists believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of right or wrong, truth or error./quote]

<p>Oh yeah? Where did they get the trinitarian belief from, then? It's not in the Bible. From Tertullian who said we should base our faith on feelings and not be too concerned with facts. Of course, the Catholics had it first, we got it from them.</p>

<p>One Bible passage is enough to destroy it: John 17:3: "And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here we have Jesus talking to the Father. If the Father is the "only true God" and Trinitarianism is true, what about Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit? The statement is clear and unambiguous. It does not need to be "understood" or "interpreted". No matter how much spin anyone puts on this, it's clear, simple and straightforward. It's worth more than a thousand vague passages. Logic says that a vague passage cannot overturn a clear passage.

Yes; the statement is "clear" depending on what you mean by "clear?"

Unfortunately, your idea does not hold up to scripture examination; meaning what do other scripture passages suggest about the same subject?

Because we share something in common with our Roman Catholic brethren; it does not follow that "we got it from them" or that we are automatically "wrong;" just because they are Roman Catholic. (in history this kind of hate-mongering has led to things no Christian can support).

"baptized in the name of The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit," is also pretty clear, and needs no "interpretation." But taken and isolated from other texts, the Bible verse you quoted, or the one I quoted, is simply a pretext, not a proof text.

[Gerr]

My friend, don't you worry any about that - I'll get around to it...

...My purpose now is to have discussions as to why the Bible 100% teaches that a doctrine.

...Which affirms a mutation capable "Christ".

...Is 100% AGAINST the Bible and can ONLY be supported by gross error OR explicit statements of Ellen White.

Not the least bit worried. I have found the SDA doctrines to be the most logical and Biblically coherent teachings of any church. Show me ANY church with their teachings, and I will show you at least two or more illogical or unbiblical doctrines. You have already inadvertently let one of those errors out of the bag when you said a believer cannot lose his salvation.

[miz3]

The end result? A foundation based on the bible, and the bible alone! There is no mystery here.

[Gustave]

I can see you are firmly entrenched in your understanding...but I'm not sure that your understanding and the SDA position are that different.

[phkrause]

ClubV12,

In the spirit of your other statement in the thread that talks about the IJ you will notice that Ellen White is NOT BAND.

I only state that SDA claim to get this Doctrine and its details from the Bible and Bible only.

However, you are now telling me that if I want to know about the IJ I should consult Ellen White.

Well my friend, you are correct that without Ellen White and her references concerning the IJ SDA would not have a Doctrine of the IJ. Unless they were to rely on the supposition of Hiram Edson and his cornfield experience. Such a reliance on Mr. Edson would be dubious and flimsy to the say the least.

Thus, when Ellen White uses her inspired status then SDA can claim legitimacy for this Doctrine.

ClubV12, you have stated the point that I have been making all along. That without Ellen White as an inspired Prophet this Doctrine has no legitimate basis. The Doctrine would only be a flimsy imagination of the human brain. Thus, as you so eloquently point out that it is Ellen White's words that are the words that interpret this Doctrine in the Scripture. In addition, you state that she is also a vital interpreter of Scripture at all times.

Therefore you may quote Ellen White in regard to this Doctrine any time you please.

I do agree with the fact that we do get our best info about the IJ from EGW. My question than is, were does she get her info from? Its the Bible. If you read her writings you will see Bible quotes all over the place. She is explaining certain passages that we are arguing about. Where some think it says this and others think it says that. So she is explaining to us what it is actually telling us. I have no problem going to her writings to find certain info out that I can't discern from my reading of the Bible.

[miz3]

pkrause,

Thank you.

It is good to see SDA admit that Ellen White is the "interpreter" of Scripture for the SDA Church.

I don't agree that should be her role but there is nothing inconsistent in that position. Again, that is what I have been driving at all along. If this could have been admitted earlier we could have saved a whole lot of time.

[phkrause]

pkrause,

Thank you.

It is good to see SDA admit that Ellen White is the "interpreter" of Scripture for the SDA Church.

I don't agree that should be her role but there is nothing inconsistent in that position. Again, that is what I have been driving at all along. If this could have been admitted earlier we could have saved a whole lot of time.

But miz3 there are a few posters, or at least one, that have come up with the same interpretation as EGW did and had never read her till after coming to the same conclusion. I agree we should not be ashamed to admit where we have gotten our info from.

[ClubV12]

miz3, your STILL twisting and giving folks the wrong impression about the work of Ellen White.

She is not the only source for information on bible subjects. She is simply ONE of many such sources. So, anytime ANYBODY for ANY REASON quotes EGW, your right there to poke them in the eye and once again make your accusations.

Like your accusations concerning Hiram Edson being delusional. In other words you disrespect any and all other sources as unreliable until you are left with only ONE, EGW. And then claim the SDA brethren are liars and fools for not "admitting" she is their singular source of information. While EGW is a valuable source, she acknowledges many other sources herself. SHE was the one who sought out Hiram Edson to speak to him, not him to her! SHE acknowledges the work of A.T. Jones and Waggoner in the 1888 presentation of Righteousness by Faith. THEY taught HER much about the subject! SHE held Uriah Smith in high regard. When the GC speaks, not her, but the General Conference, it is the highest authority on earth. And she listens and follows THEIR direction, not the other way around.

Don't you get it? No man is an island! Or woman in this case.

[Gustave]

I do agree with the fact that we do get our best info about the IJ from EGW. My question than is, were does she get her info from? Its the Bible. If you read her writings you will see Bible quotes all over the place. She is explaining certain passages that we are arguing about. Where some think it says this and others think it says that. So she is explaining to us what it is actually telling us. I have no problem going to her writings to find certain info out that I can't discern from my reading of the Bible.

From my study into the magisterium of the Seventh-day Adventist Church...

...The distinctives came from the prophetic utterances of Ellen White.

...Therefore the information is understood within the SDA denomination.

...As coming from "super-natural" means and NOT Sola Scriptura.

Examples

Ellen White

The Lord will certainly do great things for us if we will hunger and thirst after righteousness. We are the purchased property of Jesus Christ. We must not lose our devotion, our consecration. We are in conflict with the errors and delusions that have to be swept away from the minds of those who have not acted upon the light they already have. Bible truth is our only safety. I know and understand that we are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays. All these truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His word. Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in in these last days. {8MR 320.2}

What is initially described above is a typical Sola Scriptura doctrine vetting...

...With "learned ministers and doctors" bringing in new teachings.

...Which of course they believe are supported by the Bible.

All night is spent in study of the Bible and at a certain point in the process....

...The power of God comes into Ellen White and she is enabled.

...To clearly define truth from error.

...And THAT, right there, is how the points of SDA faith were established.

As I understand what is going on with this "other people" actually came up with the teachings...

...And Ellen White confirmed which interpretation were the right and wrong ones.

...And once she rendered prophetic utterance.

...The teaching or Bible text was forced to mean what she said.

This is not "Bible Only" or Sola Scriptura - it is something else totally...

...Therefore if Ellen said a particular Bible text means such and such.

...It has to mean that or the validity of the prophetic utterance is called into question.

Therefore the I.J. teaching must be established from the prophetic utterances of Ellen White...

...Because it is Ellen White which is the "best" source of teaching on this schema.

...Best means better than the Bible.

"The best presentation of the investigative judgement in current SDA literature is the chapter entitled "The Investigative Judgement," in The Great Controversy, by Ellen White, from which the following summarising sentences are taken:" SDA Encyclopedia