Prophets: True/False, how can we tell?

[miz3]

That is your opinion. I'll accept the Bible testimony and the words of Ellen White over your own opinion any day.

WRONG!

This is not my opinion at all. It is the Bible's stated fact!

[John317]

Whether a prophet is true or false depends on your bias going into the decision. If you already believe that a person is a true prophet it will be impossible for you to be unbiased as you look for evidence that might be to the contrary. This is how it is with LDS and Joseph Smith. This is how it is with Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddie. It is also the same with SDA and EGW. If you are a dyed in the wool card carrying SDA it will be impossible for you to look at evidence proving that she was a false prophet without applying your personal bias which overrides the evidence that proves it.

One could say the same thing about people who reject Ellen White as a prophet.

Millions of SDAs have arrived at the conclusion that Ellen White is a prophet after studying and carefully weighing the evidence.

I am defintely biased in favor of the Bible and Ellen White now, but that is because of long years of study, reflection and experience.

[John317]

It is the Bible's stated fact!

Show your "fact."

Not Hebrews 9: 12, I hope. It is mistranslated in the NKJV and the NIV. The Greek word there is ta hagia, and it is properly translated by the RSV, NRSV, NASV, & ESV, NEB, etc., as "sanctuary". (Carefully compare the original language at Heb. 9: 3.)

[John317]

...

Applying the seven principles to Joseph Smith, he clearly comes up short. The big reason is his writings specifically REPLACE the bible in many important areas. Unlike Ellen White, his writings are given priority as a "greater light" than the bible. Ellen White always consider her writings as a "lesser light" in that regard. An important test.

Indeed. Joseph Smith even "corrected" the Bible in his "inspired version." He also claimed that God told him that He transferred the sanctity of the seventh day to the first day, something that the Bible clearly contradicts.

Joseph Smith sent his followers into a printing office in order to destroy a printing press which had been used to publish the truth about his adulterous relations with women. He was murdered in 1844 by a mob while in jail for this crime. This is hardly the fruits of a genuine prophet of God.

[John317]

... if you,... were an ordained minister in the SDA church and preached a sermon denouncing Ellen Whites prophetic gift you may well be "fired" from your job. I would certainly vote to remove you from office! It is one thing to have your doubts, it is another thing to "fight against" a core belief of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. By doing so, you make it clear you don't want to be part of the church, you dont support the church and therefore should be removed from membership of the church.

Very true. It is one thing for someone outside the church to speak or write against the church's doctrines, but it is completely different for those within the church to fight against core beliefs of the church.

[John317]

Ah, blind faith at work. It is true that facts don't matter to someone of great faith.

Jesus Christ Himself often spoke of the importance of faith.

See Matt. 6: 30; 8: 26; 9: 22, 29; 14: 31; 15: 28, etc.

"... Your faith has made you well [saved you]"; "... according to your faith let it be to you"; "O woman, great is your faith!"

[miz3]

Show your "fact."

I did show you before but you rejected the clear word of God because of your Ellen White bias.

[ClubV12]

In my opinion,,,,

You've misinterpreted the bible, miz3, on this critical point. The reason the Lord gave us a prophetess, more than a prophet, a messenger, was to guide us in an understanding of scripture. Once we correctly interpret scripture we can indeed stand on the bible and the bible alone. If one rejects the messengers counsel on these matters, your foundation is built on sand. The Seventh-day Adventist foundation is built on rock, the doctrinal points are solid, bible based and will stand the test of time.

Desmond Ford, and many others, also reached their own conclusions, their own interpretation, going against the counsel of Ellen White. Those who have done this in the past have left the church, in due time.

[miz3]

In my opinion,,,,

You've misinterpreted the bible, miz3, on this critical point. The reason the Lord gave us a prophetess, more than a prophet, a messenger, was to guide us in an understanding of scripture. Once we correctly interpret scripture we can indeed stand on the bible and the bible alone. If one rejects the messengers counsel on these matters, your foundation is built on sand. The Seventh-day Adventist foundation is built on rock, the doctrinal points are solid, bible based and will stand the test of time.

Desmond Ford, and many others, also reached their own conclusions, their own interpretation, going against the counsel of Ellen White. Those who have done this in the past have left the church, in due time.

You are wrong in what you say above.

The SDA Church according to ones such as yourself is actually built on: Ellen G. White!

You are also wrong in the purpose God sent Ellen White to be a prophet. She was NOT SENT TO "GUIDE" AS YOU PUT IT, US TO THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE!

Ellen White did not replace the Holy Spirit in that job!

I don't know if the SDA of your views will or will not stand the test of time. However, the test of time is not the test of Truth. After all sin has stood the test of time. Its been around since Adam's fall. You are mixed up in this regard because the "test of time" is nothing more than the shifting of sands.

The True test is the test of God and His Word. On the Rock of Jesus Christ and His Word is where I stand!

[ClubV12]

As long as you choose to "stand alone" and against the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs you will be on a broad and smooth path with many followers who agree with and encourage your interpretations. In my opinion....

Paul and the other early church founders submitted themselves to the counsel of the brethren that they would be in one accord in establishing early doctrine. They understood the danger of "going it alone".

These are not "my views", miz3, they are the views of the counsel of the brethren, of which, Ellen White was also included. She did not rule the process, she was part of the process.

[miz3]

Paul and the other early church founders submitted themselves to the counsel of the brethren that they would be in one accord in establishing early doctrine. They understood the danger of "going it alone".

I am sorry my friend but you have this wrong.

Paul indeed went to Jerusalem from Antioch to set the "brethren" straight. He did not go to submit to their current view.

In fact (see Acts chapter 15) the council of brethren actually reversed themselves because of the testimony of Paul and also that of Peter. Fortunately for Paul the "brethren" of his day were honest and true and so when confronted with the Truth they submitted themselves and changed their position.

Such "brethren" have rarely acted in the same truthful and honest integrity as did the Acts Council. Most of time throughout history such "brethren" have actually acted in human self-interest, in pride, and in power grabbing. Such is the SDA Church since its inception.

[ClubV12]

Since I've been on this forum I've never heard you actually say your a Seventh-day Adventist. I'm not asking you to, I'm just thankful you don't openly make that claim. I say this most sincerely. Just an observation....

[Dr. Rich]

As long as you choose to "stand alone" and against the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs you will be on a broad and smooth path with many followers who agree with and encourage your interpretations. In my opinion....

Paul and the other early church founders submitted themselves to the counsel of the brethren that they would be in one accord in establishing early doctrine. They understood the danger of "going it alone".

These are not "my views", miz3, they are the views of the counsel of the brethren, of which, Ellen White was also included. She did not rule the process, she was part of the process.

Huh? I don't understand your math. Let's see now, hmmmm?? The majority of Adventists stick with the fundamental beliefs and the few who don't are on the broad and smooth road to destruction? Huh?

And as for Paul, didn't he say he never learned anything from the disciples? Didn't he preach a different gospel than what they preached?

Perhaps you might want to read about the few found in Rev. 3 who ARE on that narrow road to eternal life?

[ClubV12]

The advice applies to all Dr. Rich, even yourself. Those who chose to "go it alone" and have no need of the counsel of their brethren, whatever brethren that may be, are on a broad and smooth path. It's just not how the Holy Spirit works. No man is an island unto himself.

Paul didn't "straighten out the coucil", nor did Peter, on the matters of doctrinal points. It was a group effort led by the Holy Spirit, who always has led that way.

At any rate, you can bet none of us can be compared to Paul! :)

[skyblue888]

History repeats itself. Why did not Paul go to the Sanhedrin for counsel? Because the men who composed the Sanhedrin were opposing Christ. Paul met with the brethren in Jerusalem, those who had already accepted the Gospel of Christ. It is clear that here we have a church within a church. It is the same today. The leaders in General Conference have resisted the light sent them from Christ. We have been told that they have put God aside and accepted the devisings of men. Those who accept the true 1888 message will not counsel with those who resist the light of precious truth but, like the disciples of old, they will counsel with those who have already received the light. As they counsel together "The Bible is the man of their counsel" not the brethren per se. The Bible and the Testimonies of God's Spirit are to be the men of their counsel.

sky

[miz3]

The advice applies to all Dr. Rich, even yourself. Those who chose to "go it alone" and have no need of the counsel of their brethren, whatever brethren that may be, are on a broad and smooth path. It's just not how the Holy Spirit works. No man is an island unto himself.

Paul didn't "straighten out the coucil", nor did Peter, on the matters of doctrinal points. It was a group effort led by the Holy Spirit, who always has led that way.

You have a mistaken view of how the Holy Spirit works.

Read Acts chapter 15 carefully and you will see that Paul and Peter both did straighten out the Council at Jerusalem.

Peter's testimony especially demonstrated that the Holy Spirit did work through the Council but on the Holy Spirit's own prerogative poured Itself out on Cornelius and his gentiles. The Council had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Cornelius was a part of the New Church. It was the Holy Spirit that verified whether the gentiles were part of the New Church. Read it in Acts chapter 15.

The Council at Jerusalem simply obeyed the Work of the Holy Spirit who worked through "Individual instruments" in Peter and in Paul.

Thus, the Holy Spirit decided that "circumcision" was not a test of Faith!

Now you know how the Holy Spirit works through "individuals" to determine what is and what is not Doctrine.

[ClubV12]

In matters of doctrine, I'll go with the founders prayerfully considered and Holy Spirit led conclusions, rather your interpretation miz3. Just a personal opinion on that, I think they got it right, I'm not convinced you have. Or Dr. Rich or any number of others contesting for the prize of accurate doctrinal points. Maybe the Baptists got it right? Or the Jehovah Witness'? Or maybe miz3?

Whew, sure glad we have a prophet to help us make sense of the babylon all around us. :)

[miz3]

ClubV12,

You are entitled to your personal opinion.

You are also entitled to follow whomever you want as well.

I will follow the Holy Spirit and the Word of God just as those who God cites as His loyal followers did in the Bible.

[ClubV12]

Dr. Rich feels the same way, and yet, has drawn substantially different conclusions than most. As have all the other churches in the world with differing interpretations and doctrines. They too are very sincere in their beliefs and feel the Holy Spirit has led them to their doctrinal points of fundamental beliefs. Catholics are in the same boat.

So, how is one to determine who is or isn't led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of doctrine?

Which brings us back to the question this thread asks. How do we know who to believe? How do we know a true prophet from a false one? Who are His "loyal followers"? Creation 7th Day Adventists are convinced they comprise that group!

For Seventh-day Adventists they have an inspired messenger of God to help reaffirm and establish those fundamental beliefs. If you accept the prophet, then it follows you would accept the 28 fundamental beliefs. If you reject one or more those established beliefs, you effectively reject the prophet as being inspired. On doctrinal points there is no middle ground, you believe, or you don't. Opinion on the fundamental beliefs is not an option, it's a yes or no question. That is your choice. You cannot be a Seventh-day Adventist and reject the Investigative Judgment, or the Sabbath. You car debate the details, not the fundamental doctrine itself, or your simply not a Seventh-day Adventist. I don't know what you are at that point?

Without the prophet your foundation is no different than any other church group declaring themselves to be led of God.

[skyblue888]

Club, read Acts 10:34,35 and you will see who compose the church of Christ. (nation or denomination)

sky :)

[phkrause]

Club, read Acts 10:34,35 and you will see who compose the church of Christ. (nation or denomination)

sky

That's a great passage Sky.

34 Then Kefa addressed them: "I now understand that God does not play favorites, 35 but that whoever fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him, no matter what people he belongs to.

From the Complete Jewish Bible

[Dr. Rich]

The advice applies to all Dr. Rich, even yourself. Those who chose to "go it alone" and have no need of the counsel of their brethren, whatever brethren that may be, are on a broad and smooth path. It's just not how the Holy Spirit works. No man is an island unto himself.

Paul didn't "straighten out the coucil", nor did Peter, on the matters of doctrinal points. It was a group effort led by the Holy Spirit, who always has led that way.

At any rate, you can bet none of us can be compared to Paul!

I would agree and this is why over 17 years a group of us from our Adventist Church formed a study group to search for the real truth. We first had to agree to leave the doctrine at the door and go with what we learned. It was a slow process and we have discovered many things that would not agree with the present SDA church policies BUT do agree with what Jesus said and taught. It is interesting that all of us changed and no one stepped out on their own. I am sure if you were with us that you too would now see the things that we do, but then you did not go through that learning period so I can't much blame anyone for not knowing the things that we have learned.

I am not saying that we know it all because the more you learn the more you understand that you don't know. I first got on this blog to see if I could learn anything NEW from anyone and I have, but not much. It seems that almost everyone here thinks they do know it all and refuse to accept that they may actually be practicing and believing in lies. Because of this, it is my policy that IF anyone can show me where I am wrong by using the words of Jesus, then I will gladly repent and follow after the truth.

I might add that a few people have done just that for me as one of them was John317 and another was RLH (I think TomW helped me out once too). Sure, we still don't see eye with each other but this you can bet on, is that all of us sincerely do want to know the truth and practice it.

As for being like Paul, you might want to note that Paul said he never learned anything from the disciples. What he learned was from 'revelations' much the same as Mohummad, Joseph Smith and EGW. And we all know that to be deceived one must first mistakenly believe that they are hearing and getting their information from God. This is why a real test is necessary to make sure we don't get fooled either. That test is found in John 14:26 and 17-17-20. If it does not FULLY agree with what Jesus said and taught, then it is NOT of God.

So please, someone tell me what the difference is/was between the "Wheat" and a "Tare" that Jesus said would happen? If you can honestly figure that out then show me, just don't tell me!

[miz3]

So, how is one to determine who is or isn't led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of doctrine?

You might have something if it was absolutely lock cinch sure that Ellen White is ONE AVENUE TO TRUTH.

1. The Bible does not say this.

2. Other people like the CSDA think they have a pure prophet.

3. Other entities think just like you that their "authority" is the lock cinch standard.

So your solution is not a solution any more than mine is.

That is why it is an individual responsibility. God and God alone will be our Judge as to whether we followed His Holy Spirit or whether we followed a false spirit.

What ever Light God has sent your way that is what you, ClubV12, are responsible for. The same is true for me and for every other human that will ever exist.

This is why it is so vital to be honest and truthful all the time while seeking to know God and God's Truth.

It is not going to be a matter of whether our theology was right or wrong. It is ONLY a matter of did we spurn the Light of God when it came or did we embrace the Light of God when it came.

[miz3]

ClubV12,

There is no lock cinch test to know if something is True other than the Holy Spirit.

As you have pointed out there are many claims. The same is true of prophets as well so making Ellen White the Test is no better than all those who make Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Edy, pastorchick, and on and on.

So your "test" is actually no lock cinch test either.

As I said in the above post, the only way to know the Truth is that it must come from God who is the Source of Truth. In fact God is the Truth. God the Holy Spirit is the teacher of all Truth (according to the Bible).

We are all on our own. It is a life and death situation and not as some view it as just a game. However, like everyone else in the world, and on this website, I am sharing what Light I have from God. You, ClubV12 claim the same thing, as do countless others.

If God convicts you then follow and you live. If God convicts you and you do not follow then you will die.

Only God knows whether or not you have been convicted or not. I don't know and neither does anyone else know what Light God has convicted you of. That is why only God will be your Judge.

Such is the way for each and everyone of us!

[ClubV12]

Thank God He sent us a messenger, a prophet for our time, so we don't have to wonder. We don't have to worry, we don't have to guess. We CAN lock cinch the truth! He has provided for our every need, He has shone great light on our path. His church on earth, the Seventh-day Adventist church. Warts, problems, disputes and all, it remains the object of His supreme love. I will not abandon it, I will not seek another home, I AM home! I praise His name for such a great reward to have found the truth.

Whoa unto those who have had a chance to see the light, rejected it and now fight against God's people and His church on earth, the Seventh-day Adventists. So many voices crying out, "Here is the truth", "I have the truth", "Follow me". We CAN know, for certain, where God's people are, where His church is. Praise His name!

The widow dropped her meager offering and Jesus praised her for it, it came from the heart and was offered freely to God's church of that time. His church, His people, the very church preparing to put Him to death! But He still loved them, they were still His people. Today, no matter how dark it may look for the Adventist church, it remains, His chosen people, His method to shed light on the world. I will not abandon it, I am sure of whom I have believed.