miz3 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 However we do not have to partake in her lukewarmness! As long as the Church remains lukewarm she cannot belong to God's Team! When she is cured of her lukewarmness then God will welcome her back as He did in the Prodigal Son parable! God never says that we are to partake of Laodicea's sins and lukewarmness. In fact God counsels us to buy from Him eye salve, white clothes to cover her nakedness, and refined gold! SDA Laodicea has not done that yet! Some individual SDA may have done it but it is clear the Church at large has not done this yet. Thus, one could be in the SDA Laodicean Church but not be a partaker in her sins! As human SDA we don't need a Lukewarm Laodician SDA Church, we need God! As long as the Church is Laodiciean it cannot help anyone! Lukewarm never ever helps make water hot or cold. It can only help water become lukewarm. So until the Church changes it cannot help anyone!
Musicman1228 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 Of course the SDA church calls the 10 Commandments the Covenant, because it is (Deut. 4:13). Can you find any place in any book published by the SDA church which says the 10 Commandments are the Covenant? The agreement that God made is about the Ten Commandments but it is not the Ten Commandments themselves. See Ex. 19: 3-8; 24: 8. The Ten Commandments are the "the words of the covenant." Ex. 34: 28. God wrote on the stone tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words. God said: "If you will indeed obey my voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treatsure to Me above all people... And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Moses told the people these words of God, and then "all the people answered together and said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do.'" The people promised to obey the commandments of God. So Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord. Ex. 19: 5-9. At this point an agreement existed between God and the people of Isreal. This agreement was confirmed (or ratified) at Exodus 24: 7 in the blood of an oxen. I just can't BELIEVE you and your obfuscation on this issue. The SDA church states clearly in the 28 Fundamentals that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant 'word of God' from cover to cover. And inside those covers is contained these words: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. Deut. 4:13. God cannot be any clearer than He is right here in this verse that the Covenant IS the 10 Commandments. Yet you will not believe even the very words of God in the Old Testament, so why would I expect you to believe the very words of God through Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Yes, I agree with everything you said after your first two sentences. But to try to wiggle out of the FACT that the Covenant is the 10 Commandments by saying the 10 C's are the WORDS of the Covenant is childish and not worthy of you. It is apparent that you feel the need to pick and choose what you believe to satisfy your own image of the truth established by God Himself.
Moderators John317 Posted July 31, 2011 Moderators Posted July 31, 2011 I just can't BELIEVE you and your obfuscation on this issue. The SDA church states clearly in the 28 Fundamentals that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant 'word of God' from cover to cover. Please check for the word "inerrant". It is certainly the inspired word of God and it is infallible, but our church has never believed that the Bible is "inerrant." "Inerrant" means free of all error, and the SDA church doesn't believe the Bible that we have today is completely free of all error. It is infallible in that it teaches the truth. It contains no error in doctrine. 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.
wayfinder Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 I just can't BELIEVE you and your obfuscation on this issue. The SDA church states clearly in the 28 Fundamentals that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant 'word of God' from cover to cover. Please check for the word "inerrant". It is certainly the inspired word of God and it is infallible, but our church has never believed that the Bible is "inerrant." "Inerrant" means free of all error, and the SDA church doesn't believe the Bible that we have today is completely free of all error. It is infallible in that it teaches the truth. It contains no error in doctrine. Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary infallible: 1: Incapable of error: unerring. 2: Not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint: Certain 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals. inerrant: free from error: Infallible. Just thought I would look it up.
shelly Posted July 31, 2011 Author Posted July 31, 2011 Originally Posted By: shelly I am still not convicted about where Sister White fits into this, however, I refrain from discouraging others with my own disbelief. Hope you're reading her books and reading biographies of her life. Especially see Arthur White's multi-volumn biography. It is well-documented and gives you an accurate portrait of her. Actually, I have not read more than a chapter or two of Ms. Whites writings in years. I believe that she truley loved the Lord and her words have helped point many to Christ. However I have never felt the connection to her writtings that many have expressed. I have become a different type of SDA because I have grown without her interpretation of the bible. I am not trying to discourage others from using her as a source, but for me it is the bible alone. I have also found that their are some doctrines that are derived specifically from EGW's interpretation of the bible. Take her out of the equation and read the same text and the conclusion is completely different. This is the heart of my problem. EGW is to SDA as peanut butter is to a PB and J sandwhich. According to our church you can't have one without the other. Yet I stand here wishing that my belief in EGW's gift was not a condition of church membership. I am forced into dishonesty because to speak my true feelings could land me out of a church that I have been a baptised member of for 20 yrs. Even worse, I cannot be rebaptised because I cannot agree to the 28 fundamental beliefs. I am trapped in an uncomfortable position.
ClubV12 Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 When I was new and questiong the gift of prophecy, the consistent counsel I got was simple. READ one of her books. I did, it was enough to convince me of her gift. But in this case, Shelly, it sounds like your questioning of doctrine goes much deeper than Sister Whites prophetic gift. I do believe all the doctrines, the 28, can be sustained by the bible and the bible alone, as they were when the church was founded. Sister White had surprisingly little to do with establishing those early doctrinal points. That was done through hard work of the brethren studying the bible, taking each point and meeting, counseling, praying over it, coming to one accord on it. The Holy Spirit does NOT reveal doctrine to one person, not even to Sister White. Sister White herself was an extraordinary bible student, she didn't "wait" for a vision or a dream to explain all things, she studied Gods word just like the other pioneers did. There are many that state all they need is the bible and the bible alone, I'm afraid that is misleading. When you study by yourself, and yourself alone, you WILL come to error on interpretation. It has ALWAYS been through the counsel of the brethren that doctrine has been established. It was that way in Pauls time as it is today.
Lysimachus Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 When I was new and questiong the gift of prophecy, the consistent counsel I got was simple. READ one of her books. I did, it was enough to convince me of her gift. But in this case, Shelly, it sounds like your questioning of doctrine goes much deeper than Sister Whites prophetic gift. I do believe all the doctrines, the 28, can be sustained by the bible and the bible alone, as they were when the church was founded. Sister White had surprisingly little to do with establishing those early doctrinal points. That was done through hard work of the brethren studying the bible, taking each point and meeting, counseling, praying over it, coming to one accord on it. The Holy Spirit does NOT reveal doctrine to one person, not even to Sister White. Sister White herself was an extraordinary bible student, she didn't "wait" for a vision or a dream to explain all things, she studied Gods word just like the other pioneers did. There are many that state all they need is the bible and the bible alone, I'm afraid that is misleading. When you study by yourself, and yourself alone, you WILL come to error on interpretation. It has ALWAYS been through the counsel of the brethren that doctrine has been established. It was that way in Pauls time as it is today. Amen!!! ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
shelly Posted August 1, 2011 Author Posted August 1, 2011 When I was new and questiong the gift of prophecy, the consistent counsel I got was simple. READ one of her books. I did, it was enough to convince me of her gift. There are many that state all they need is the bible and the bible alone, I'm afraid that is misleading. When you study by yourself, and yourself alone, you WILL come to error on interpretation. It has ALWAYS been through the counsel of the brethren that doctrine has been established. It was that way in Pauls time as it is today. I'm afraid both the bible and I disagree with you. The bible states that we will no longer need to go to our neighbor and ask them to teach us of the Lord. If that is true, why do we need someone else to reveal God's word to us? Besides, I never study the bible by myself. I always ask for Gods blessing and guidence before I study. Are you suggesting that that prayer is unable to be answered unless I use extrabiblical sources? As far as the doctrinal beliefs I have found several that cannot be supported without EGW's interpretation of what the verse means. Sure, the verse is in the bible but when reading the full context I cannot come to the same conclusion she has. I have tried several times to read EGW's writings and I find her writting style difficult. Even when I was quite open to learning about her writings I found it impossible to get through more than a few pages at a time. My decision to not read EGW was not intentional. I just couldn't get through her writtings. I was sure that even without her writings I could safely arrive at many of the same conclusions the church had based on biblical principals alone. Sadly this is not true. When I question individuals they turn to EGW and telll me what she said about the scripture. I can't ignore that fact. I agree with most of the 28, but I can no longer say I agree with all of them. That does not bother me as much as having to pretend I do agree for the sake of membership.
wayfinder Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 My dad was a Seventh-day Adventist minister. I was educated in Seventh-day Adventist schools. I graduated from a Seventh-day Adventist university. I was instructed in the way of the church, and that way was Ellen White. Because I learned, as far back as I can remember, that Ellen White was a prophet of God I believed that with all my heart and soul. Then I looked closely at the facts.
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 As far as the doctrinal beliefs I have found several that cannot be supported without EGW's interpretation of what the verse means. Sure, the verse is in the bible but when reading the full context I cannot come to the same conclusion she has. Which doctrines are you thinking of? Do you mean some of the Fundamental Beliefs? There are some things that she says that are not in the Bible, but none of those things contradict the Bible. In other words, Ellen White gives us details that are not in the Bible. For instance, her discription of the Fall of Lucifer and of the Adam and Eve contain details that are not found in the Bible, but they are in harmony with what the Bible says. 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.
miz3 Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Actually, I have not read more than a chapter or two of Ms. Whites writings in years. I believe that she truley loved the Lord and her words have helped point many to Christ. However I have never felt the connection to her writtings that many have expressed. I have become a different type of SDA because I have grown without her interpretation of the bible. I am not trying to discourage others from using her as a source, but for me it is the bible alone. I have also found that their are some doctrines that are derived specifically from EGW's interpretation of the bible. Take her out of the equation and read the same text and the conclusion is completely different. This is the heart of my problem. EGW is to SDA as peanut butter is to a PB and J sandwhich. According to our church you can't have one without the other. Yet I stand here wishing that my belief in EGW's gift was not a condition of church membership. I am forced into dishonesty because to speak my true feelings could land me out of a church that I have been a baptised member of for 20 yrs. Even worse, I cannot be rebaptised because I cannot agree to the 28 fundamental beliefs. I am trapped in an uncomfortable position. ONCE AGAIN I SAY, MEGA DITTOS! The SDA Church has played fancy pancy with Ellen White and her role in Doctrinal formation. The fact is plain out dishonest!
miz3 Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 I'm afraid both the bible and I disagree with you. The bible states that we will no longer need to go to our neighbor and ask them to teach us of the Lord. If that is true, why do we need someone else to reveal God's word to us? Besides, I never study the bible by myself. I always ask for Gods blessing and guidence before I study. Are you suggesting that that prayer is unable to be answered unless I use extrabiblical sources? As far as the doctrinal beliefs I have found several that cannot be supported without EGW's interpretation of what the verse means. Sure, the verse is in the bible but when reading the full context I cannot come to the same conclusion she has. I have tried several times to read EGW's writings and I find her writting style difficult. Even when I was quite open to learning about her writings I found it impossible to get through more than a few pages at a time. My decision to not read EGW was not intentional. I just couldn't get through her writtings. I was sure that even without her writings I could safely arrive at many of the same conclusions the church had based on biblical principals alone. Sadly this is not true. When I question individuals they turn to EGW and telll me what she said about the scripture. I can't ignore that fact. I agree with most of the 28, but I can no longer say I agree with all of them. That does not bother me as much as having to pretend I do agree for the sake of membership. My sentiments EXACTLY! Thank you Shelly your testimony is very encouraging to me!
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 ... The bible states that we will no longer need to go to our neighbor and ask them to teach us of the Lord. If that is true, why do we need someone else to reveal God's word to us? God raised up Ellen White as His last-day prophet because people weren't studying their Bibles and obeying it like they should have. Ellen White was raised up for the purpose of pointing people to the Bible. The verses you refer to don't signify that God would never again use a prophet. If you look at the gifts of the Holy Spirit as found in Eph. 4: 11-15 and 1 Cor. 12: 10, you will find that the gift of prophecy is found among them. And the passage says that these gifts were given to the church until we all come to "the unity of the faith" and unto a perfect man." There is still a need for the Spirit of prophecy, and Rev. 12: 17 predicted that God would once again use prophecy just before Christ returns. The gift of prophecy is one of the marks of identity of God's last-day people who give the Three Angels Messages of Rev. 14: 6-11. Notice the instruction of the Holy Spirit in the following verses: 1 Thess. 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. 5:20 Despise not prophesyings. 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 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 August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 The SDA Church has played fancy pancy with Ellen White and her role in Doctrinal formation. The fact is plain out dishonest! Support what you claim here with evidence, and give quotes and references. 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 August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 Then I looked closely at the facts. What "facts"? Do you mean your "interpretation" and your view of the facts, or do you mean "the facts"? 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 August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionaryinfallible: 1: Incapable of error: unerring. 2: Not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint: Certain 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals. inerrant: free from error: Infallible. Just thought I would look it up. If you read what SDAs and other Christians have written on this topic in regard to the authority of Scripture, you will find that they make a difference between "inerrant" and "infallible." Even the Catholic Church makes a difference between those words. You will hear them claim that when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, his pronouncements are "infallible" but the RCC will never say that the Pope is "inerrent." 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.
miz3 Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 The SDA Church has played fancy pancy with Ellen White and her role in Doctrinal formation. The fact is plain out dishonest! Support what you claim here with evidence, and give quotes and references. I was commenting on Shelly's post! In that light I was agreeing with her analysis of how SDA Doctrines don't line up! It appeared to me that the process over the years has been dishonest. That is my opinion! I am entitled to my opinion. Just because it does not line up with your opinion is nothing new! If you have a different opinion then you are entitled to have such an opinion!
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. Deut. 4:13. God cannot be any clearer than He is right here in this verse that the Covenant IS the 10 Commandments. Yet you will not believe even the very words of God in the Old Testament,... The SDA Church believes and teaches that the Ten Commandments are the basis of God's covenant, not the covenant itself. See the chapter on the law of God in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. "It [the law of God] is the basis of God's covenant. Moses wrote the Ten Commandments, with other explanatory laws, in a book called the book of the covenant (Exodus 20: 1-24: 8). Later he called the Ten Commandments 'the tablets of the covenant,' indicating their importance as the basis of the everlasting covenant (Deut. 9: 9; cf 4: 13)." (Ibid., page 237) (1988) If you examine the texts closely, you will find that the children of Israel made an agreement with God about the Ten Commandments. They promised to obey them. That was the covenant. In the New Covenant, or everlasting covenant, God promises to write those same Ten Commandments on our heart and mind. Christ ratified that covenant at the cross. 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 August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 The SDA Church has played fancy pancy with Ellen White and her role in Doctrinal formation. The fact is plain out dishonest! Originally Posted By: miz3 It appeared to me that the process over the years has been dishonest. That is my opinion! I am entitled to my opinion. Just because it does not line up with your opinion is nothing new! If you have a different opinion then you are entitled to have such an opinion! Opinion is one thing, but you are claiming it is "the fact." Or do you want to change "the fact" to "the opinion"? 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.
wayfinder Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Deuteronomy 4:13 NAS "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments ; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. The Ten Commandments were kept in the "Ark of the Covenant", why would it be called the Ark of the Covenant if it did not contain the covenant. I agree that there were more covenants that concerned different things and that is understandable; but God made a covenant with His kingdom and it consisted of ten commands and these ten commands were written on stone and placed in the ark of the covenant, which was in the Most Holy Place (the heart of the Sanctuary). God made it clear, by example that His covenant was to be written on the heart and in the mind of everyone who wished to be in His kingdom.
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 The Ten Commandments are commands, not an agreement. A covenant is an agreement. There is no agreement in the commandments themselves. The agreement was that God would make the children of Israel His people. The people of Israel then promised that they would obey everything God said. That was the agreement they had with God. The problem was that they almost immediately broke that agreement, and so God had to renew the covenant. (See Ex. 34) The Ten Commandments were put inside the ark of the covenant, under the mercy seat, because they are the foundation of God's government, the government of His Kingdom. Again, the children of Israel covenanted to obey them. See Exodus 19: 8, 9. 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.
Musicman1228 Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. Deut. 4:13. God cannot be any clearer than He is right here in this verse that the Covenant IS the 10 Commandments. Yet you will not believe even the very words of God in the Old Testament,... The SDA Church believes and teaches that the Ten Commandments are the basis of God's covenant, not the covenant itself. See the chapter on the law of God in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. "It [the law of God] is the basis of God's covenant. Moses wrote the Ten Commandments, with other explanatory laws, in a book called the book of the covenant (Exodus 20: 1-24: 8). Later he called the Ten Commandments 'the tablets of the covenant,' indicating their importance as the basis of the everlasting covenant (Deut. 9: 9; cf 4: 13)." (Ibid., page 237) (1988) If you examine the texts closely, you will find that the children of Israel made an agreement with God about the Ten Commandments. They promised to obey them. That was the covenant. In the New Covenant, or everlasting covenant, God promises to write those same Ten Commandments on our heart and mind. Christ ratified that covenant at the cross. John, What you have just said is that what the SDA church teaches is more important to you that what the Bible teaches. God in Deut. 4:13 could not be more clear, yet you still maintain that what the SDA church teaches on this supercedes Scripture, at least that is how it appears.
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 What you have just said is that what the SDA church teaches is more important to you that what the Bible teaches. God in Deut. 4:13 could not be more clear, yet you still maintain that what the SDA church teaches on this supercedes Scripture, at least that is how it appears. That is not true. I am telling you what the SDA church teaches because I believe it is what the Bible teaches. Otherwise I wouldn't believe it. The Bible is plain that the children of Israel made an agreement with God to obey the Ten Commandments. We've been over this many times during the last 2 years. You said that the SDA church teaches that the Ten Commandments are the covenant. I asked you where you've read such a statement. You won't find it because the SDA church doesn't teach it. The Ten Commandments are the basis of the agreement God made with Israel. 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.
miz3 Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 The SDA Church has played fancy pancy with Ellen White and her role in Doctrinal formation. The fact is plain out dishonest! Originally Posted By: miz3 It appeared to me that the process over the years has been dishonest. That is my opinion! I am entitled to my opinion. Just because it does not line up with your opinion is nothing new! If you have a different opinion then you are entitled to have such an opinion! Opinion is one thing, but you are claiming it is "the fact." Or do you want to change "the fact" to "the opinion"? I was expressing my opinion that it is a fact! I am allowed to express my opinion about what is fact or not fact! If you don't want to believe that what I stated is true then you are entitled to express and have your own opinion as to what is fact and what is not fact! You don't like my opinion. That is OK! No one is forcing you or anyone else to agree with my statement. I am allowed to believe and express my belief that it is fact! Again, you disagree. What else is new?
Moderators John317 Posted August 1, 2011 Moderators Posted August 1, 2011 I was expressing my opinion that it is a fact! I am allowed to express my opinion about what is fact or not fact! Anyone can express an opinion, but an opinion is only as good as the evidence and the reasoning that support it. On the Adventist Forum, when people express those kinds of opinions, they should expect to be asked for evidence. What is your evidence that it is a fact? 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