skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 "Wherever there is sin, there is the Saviour." Educ.113. There is the Saviour, through the Spirit, bearing it. If Christ wasn't there, we would be immediately crushed, all of us, believer or unbeliever. "The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this, it would crush us." D.A.328. Who understands this? sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 Mrs. White wrote, "Your turning things upside down is known of the Lord." T.M.97. The above statement is in the context of what happened at the General Conference in 1888, not about Kellogg. It was in defense of A. T. Jones and Waggoner's message. If the above quote were posted in the full context, it would be plain that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Kellogg. John, again, no offense, but you are showing a lack of spiritual discernment. That statement is dated 1896. Yes it refers to 1888 but not only 1888 but the years thereafter since there was no change after that. By 1901 Mrs. White said we would have to remain in this world many more years because of insubordination, especially on the part of the G.C. leaders. At the 1903 General Conference the leaders put God aside and accepted the devisings of men and that very year Mrs. White declared that we had become so much like the world that no difference could be seen. In 1902 A.G. Daniells assumed the presidency without the Constitution and in 1903 he was officially voted in General Conference as the president against the reformatory steps taken at the 1901 Constitution. Are you suggesting that the brethren after 1888 stopped turning things upside down, that they were no longer inclined to bring the individuals to their own terms, that "rule or ruin" was no longer their course of action? This order of things is still in place today. We would have to be very naive to think otherwise or be very blind spiritually, to say the very least of it. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Does she mean that Christ is literally and personally within all believers? No. Christ cannot be in all believers, because Christ is a man, no longer in the form of God. But He lives within us through His personal representative, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. He is able to be with all believers at the same time. Originally Posted By: skyblue888 Yes and He is not only with all believers at the same time but He is also the life of everything that lives. "All creatures live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." 1 S.M.301. "Not only is He the Originator of all, but He is the life of everything that lives." Educ.197. But the point is that God is not personally and actually in all nature or in all men. No one is denying the statements made by Ellen White, but those are different from what Dr. Kellogg taught. God Himself is not in nature, but nature manifests God's power. It is an expression of God's thought. Yet God does not dwell personally in the things of nature. See 8 T 293, 295. See the quotes of Ellen White on posts#461742 & #461809. Have you not noticed her statements that some people will be unable to see the difference between Kellogg's teachings and those of Ellen White? It is as if you cannot understand what Ellen White wrote or as if you are totally ignoring her statements on this subject. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 This is not about the GC and all the things that you object to about the church's organization. This is about whether Ellen White was right about the Living Temple and J. H. Kellogg's beliefs. It is about whether Kellogg taught things that are contrary to both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. It is about whether you are going to accept the statements of Ellen White in regard to the Living Temple. That is really all that this discussion is about. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 "Wherever there is sin, there is the Saviour." Educ.113. "The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this, it would crush us." D.A.328. Who understands this? Those statements aren't saying that God personally dwells in the things of nature or in all men. If you think so, you are taking them completely out of context. You can't reasonably take such statements to mean exactly the opposite of what she herself clearly teaches in many other places. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 ...Are you suggesting that the brethren after 1888 stopped turning things upside down, that they were no longer inclined to bring the individuals to their own terms, that "rule or ruin" was no longer their course of action? How can you think it is right to jump to the concludion that those things prove Ellen White's testimonies and other writings were forged? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 John, when I read your answers, I may as well listen to the men whom God wanted removed in 1901. You have learned nothing from history. The enemy has blinded your mind that you may not be able to discern the precious truth and yet you sit here on this forum as a champion for truth. You are not in a position to quote Mrs. White regarding Kellogg since you do not hold the correct position as to what truth is as far as the relation between nature and nature's God is concerned. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 "One God the Father who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph.4:6. You do not accept this statement and therefore you cannot discern the precious truth. Through the Spirit God is above all and through all and in all, working in and through all. But like the Pharisees we believe that God is with us but not with this publican over there. No God is above all, and through all, and in all. He is bearing the curse in each and every one. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Were the following messages written by Ellen White? If you don't believe so, tell us who wrote them and give your evidence of this. What do these messages say? Quote: I am given a message to bear to you and the rest of our physicians who are connected with the Medical Missionary Association. Separate from the influence exerted by the book Living Temple; [A 568-PAGE BOOK ISSUED IN 1903 BY DR. J. H. KELLOGG IN WHICH PANTHEISTIC PHILOSOPHIES WERE PROMULGATED.--COMPILERS.] for it contains specious sentiments. There are in it sentiments that are entirely true, but these are mingled with error. Scriptures are taken out of their connection, and are used to uphold erroneous theories. {1SM 199.1} The thought of the errors contained in this book has given me great distress, and the experience that I have passed through in connection with the matter has nearly cost me my life. {1SM 199.2} It will be said that Living Temple has been revised. But the Lord has shown me that the writer has not changed, and that there can be no unity between him and the ministers of the gospel while he continues to cherish his present sentiments. I am bidden to lift my voice in warning to our people, saying, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7). {1SM 199.3} You have had access to Testimonies for the Church, volumes 7 and 8. In these Testimonies the danger signal is raised. But the light so clear and plain to minds that have not been influenced by deceptive theories, has not been discerned by some. While the misleading theories of this book are entertained by our physicians, there cannot be union between them and the ministers who are bearing the gospel message. There should be no union until there is a change. {1SM 199.4} When medical missionaries make their practice and example harmonize with the name they bear, when they feel their need of uniting firmly with the ministers of the gospel, then there can be harmonious action. But we must 200 firmly refuse to be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood the test. {1SM 199.5} Alpha Presented in "Living Temple" I am instructed to speak plainly. "Meet it," is the word spoken to me. "Meet it firmly, and without delay." But it is not to be met by our taking our working forces from the field to investigate doctrines and points of difference. We have no such investigation to make. In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. {1SM 200.1} Our physicians, upon whom important responsibilities rest, should have clear spiritual discernment. They are to stand constantly on guard. Dangers that we do not now discern will soon break upon us, and I greatly desire that they shall not be deceived. I have an intense longing to see them standing free in the Lord. I pray that they may have courage to stand firm for the truth as it is in Jesus, holding fast the beginning of their confidence unto the end.--Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 49, 50. {1SM 200.2} Chap. 25 - The Foundation of Our Faith [THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN SPECIAL TESTIMONIES, SERIES B, NO. 2, PAGES 51-59, PUBLISHED IN 1904.] - The Lord will put new, vital force into His work as human agencies obey the command to go forth and proclaim the truth. He who declared that His truth would shine forever will proclaim this truth through faithful messengers, who will give the trumpet a certain sound. The truth will be criticized, scorned, and derided; but the closer it is examined and tested, the brighter it will shine. {1SM 201.1} As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value. It is the constant effort of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, and to put in their place spurious theories. He will bring in everything that he possibly can to carry out his deceptive designs. But the Lord will raise up men of keen perception, who will give these truths their proper place in the plan of God. {1SM 201.2} I have been instructed by the heavenly messenger that some of the reasoning in the book Living Temple is 202 unsound, and that this reasoning would lead astray the minds of those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of present truth. It introduces that which is nought but speculation in regard to the personality of God and where His presence is. No one on this earth has a right to speculate on this question. The more fanciful theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul. {1SM 201.3} One and another come to me, asking me to explain the positions taken in Living Temple. I reply, "They are unexplainable." The sentiments expressed do not give a true knowledge of God. All through the book are passages of Scripture. These scriptures are brought in in such a way that error is made to appear as truth. Erroneous theories are presented in so pleasing a way that unless care is taken, many will be misled. {1SM 202.1} We need not the mysticism that is in this book. Those who entertain these sophistries will soon find themselves in a position where the enemy can talk with them, and lead them away from God. It is represented to me that the writer of this book is on a false track. He has lost sight of the distinguishing truths for this time. He knows not whither his steps are tending. The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. {1SM 202.2} A View of Approaching Danger About the time that Living Temple was published, there passed before me in the night season, representations indicating that some danger was approaching, and that I must prepare for it by writing out the things God had revealed to me regarding the foundation principles of our faith. A copy of Living Temple was sent me, but it remained in my library, unread. From the light given me by the Lord, I knew that some of the sentiments advocated in the book did not bear the endorsement of God, and that they were a snare that the enemy had prepared for the last 203 days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. {1SM 202.3} In the controversy that arose among our brethren regarding the teachings of this book, those in favor of giving it a wide circulation declared: "It contains the very sentiments that Sister White has been teaching." This assertion struck right to my heart. I felt heartbroken; for I knew that this representation of the matter was not true. {1SM 203.1} Finally my son said to me, "Mother, you ought to read at least some parts of the book, that you may see whether they are in harmony with the light that God has given you." He sat down beside me, and together we read the preface, and most of the first chapter, and also paragraphs in other chapters. As we read, I recognized the very sentiments against which I had been bidden to speak in warning during the early days of my public labors. When I first left the State of Maine, it was to go through Vermont and Massachusetts, to bear a testimony against these sentiments. Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God. The statements made in Living Temple in regard to this point are incorrect. The scripture used to substantiate the doctrine there set forth, is scripture misapplied. {1SM 203.2} I am compelled to speak in denial of the claim that the teachings of Living Temple can be sustained by statements from my writings. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of Living Temple, would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in Living Temple are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this sentiment should prevail. {1SM 203.3} Few can discern the result of entertaining the sophistries 204 advocated by some at this time. But the Lord has lifted the curtain, and has shown me the result that would follow. The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give John to give to His people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science. {1SM 203.4} In a vision of the night I was shown distinctly that these sentiments have been looked upon by some as the grand truths that are to be brought in and made prominent at the present time. I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers--the truths of the Word of God. Someone high in responsibility in the medical work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting this platform. Then I heard a voice saying, "Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker, and will stand storm and tempest. Will they permit this man to present doctrines that deny the past experience of the people of God? The time has come to take decided action." {1SM 204.1} John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 "One God the Father who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph.4:6. In relation to the Living Temple and Kellogg's teachings, Ellen White said: Quote: Scriptures are taken out of their connection, and are used to uphold erroneous theories. {1SM 199.1} The verse you quoted doesn't teach that God personally dwells in nature or in all men. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Who wrote "One God the Father who is above all, and through all, and in you all?" Eph.4:6. Is that true or not? Are these statements allegedly from Mrs. White in harmony with that declaration of Scripture? Are they in harmony with this declaration of Scripture? "Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." Jer.23;23. Or with this declaration of Holy Writ: "In God we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28. Or this one: "In God all things hold together." Don't try to tell me what these passages mean. They mean what they say and they say what they mean and if there are statements from the pen of Mrs. White contradicting these passages, take the Word of God and let the others go. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
ClubV12 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Sky, The enemy has blinded your mind that you may not be able to discern the precious truth and yet you post on this forum as a champion for truth. You have clearly stated you believe some of Ellen Whites writings have been forged, or she was influenced by evil men to write what she did. You reject large portions of her writings as such, particularly after 1903. Especially any counsel that concerns Kellogg. You claim the leadership of the church is in apostasy, tear down, weaken and separate the flock and yet you offer no positive suggestions for action. It's little more than rumor mongering. I consider your postings as dangerous as Kelloggs book because of it's subtle nature, apparently sincere and Godly, but it is truth mixed with serious error. As difficult to discern the error's as it is to discern the errors of Kelloggs work. In this, it is impossible for you to see the light.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Who wrote "One God the Father who is above all, and through all, and in you all?" Is that true or not? It is not true that this verse teaches that God is personally dwelling in the things of nature and in all men. Are you now saying that you believe the Father is in all people and in all nature? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Indeed. What I see on this Forum is getting more and more frightening. The things some people are now teaching and saying I never would have thought I'd see being said by Seventh-day Adventists, at least not this soon. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Club, you can say whatever you want or make any claim you want about me but you have not proved anything. Anybody can make any claim they want about others. Show from my posts where I have erred. I have quoted the very words of Mrs. White to show the difference between pantheism and the true relation between nature and nature's God and I have stated the very words of Mrs. White about the apostasy of the leading men but because these statements do not harmonize with your personal view of things, that does not mean they are not true. You are acting the part of the Jews at the time of the first advent of Christ. I pray and hope that not only you but John317 as well and others will wake up before it is too late. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 You have clearly stated you believe some of Ellen Whites writings have been forged, or she was influenced by evil men to write what she did. You reject large portions of her writings as such, particularly after 1903. Especially any counsel that concerns Kellogg. I wonder how anyone can think this and not believe that Ellen White was guilty in some way. Does anyone really imagine that these things were written by other people in her name and she did not have any idea? Impossible! Many of those letters and statements are in Ellen White's own handwriting. How could this happen if Ellen White did not write them? Can anyone explain this? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 Who wrote "One God the Father who is above all, and through all, and in you all?" Is that true or not? It is not true that this verse teaches that God is personally dwelling in the things of nature and in all men. Are you now saying that you believe the Father is in all people and in all nature? If we refuse to receive and believe this scriptural declaration with the simple faith of a little child we cannot see the Kingdom of God. Yes I believe the Father and Christ through the Agency of the Holy Spirit are above all, and through all, and in all, working in and through all, moving in all things according to their will. Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.'" John 5:17. In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, p.114, Mrs. White quotes John 5:17 and says, "Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active energy, that works in and through her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Christ says, 'My Father worketh hiehter to, and I work.' Joh 5:17. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Anybody can make any claim they want about others. Apply this to W.C.White and to Ellen White's writings. All you have made here on this thread are mere claims, which, as you say, anyone can make. You have yet to produce any valid evidence to support your idea. All you have so far are a lot of conjectures and "maybes". You need much more than this if you are going to claim what you are claiming. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 Yes I believe the Father and Christ through the Agency of the Holy Spirit are above all, and through all, and in all. I believe this too, but the Bible statement doesn't mean what you claim it does. It is not saying that either the Holy Spirit or the Father or Christ are personally dwelling in the things of nature or in all men. God is not personally in the flowers, trees, water, food, etc. That is what Kellogg taught and it is wrong. His statements in that regard contradict the writings of Ellen White as well as the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible says such things as that "when we eat food, we are tasting God," or "when we smell a flower, we are smelling God." When I smell a rose, I am not smelling God; I am smelling a beautiful rose that God made. It is a manifestation of God's power and love, but God Himself is not in the rose. It is a manifestation or expression of God Himself, but God is not Himself in the rose. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, p.114, Mrs. White quotes John 5:17 and says, "Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active energy, that works in and through her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Christ says, 'My Father worketh hiehter to, and I work.' Joh 5:17. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 John, please stop acting like you know it all. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 Anybody can make any claim they want about others. Apply this to W.C.White and to Ellen White's writings. All you have made here on this thread are mere claims, which, as you say, anyone can make. You have yet to produce any valid evidence to support your idea. All you have so far are a lot of conjectures and "maybes". You need much more than this if you are going to claim what you are claiming. Is that word "conjectures" a favorite of yours? It is not exactly like lots of "maybes" and you know it. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, p.114, Mrs. White quotes John 5:17 and says, "Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active energy, that works in and through her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Christ says, 'My Father worketh hiehter to, and I work.' Joh 5:17. That statement is also true, but again it is not saying what Kellogg taught. Remember that Ellen White wrote that many people, especially those who have accepted Kellogg's teachings, are unable to see the difference between Kellogg's statements and hers. A continual working by the Father and by Christ does not mean that God and Christ are personally dwelling in nature or in all men. Notice "an active energy." This is not God's actually being in nature. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Indeed. What I see on this Forum is getting more and more frightening. The things some people are now teaching and saying I never would have thought I'd see being said by Seventh-day Adventists, at least not this soon. There is nothing new under the sun. We are merely studying the things that concern the past so that we may know what is to take place in the near future for "The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work." 2 S.M.390. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted July 19, 2011 Moderators Posted July 19, 2011 It is not exactly like lots of "maybes" and you know it. No, I don't know it, and I don't think anyone else does, either. At least they have not shown it. If you have them, then please show the certainties and facts that you can prove which show a direct connection between your allegations and Ellen White's writings. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts