What do you call yourself . . .

[teresaq]

Help me out here, CV, please. Can you show me the post where I said we shouldn't quote EGW in SS?

While you're at it, could you take this post of mine at the bottom here sentence by sentence and show me how you understand each sentence? It would be most helpful to me to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. Thank you.

I don't understand this "theme" you have going teresaq.... Or that we should not quote Sister White in Sabbath school....

[miz3]

I understand that YOU don't get it miz3, YOU have little understanding of any concept of the SDA church.

As for others, it's simple, Ellen White is not a test of faith. And boy do I get tired of professed SDA's telling me I have to keep quiet about her work. Grow a backbone you guys, shout it from the roof top. Who are these uncircumcised Philistines that demean the Lords chosen messenger? And where did I put my sling...

miz3, your not a Seventh-day Adventist on SO many levels, EGW is the tip of the ice berg.

Thank you for your "SDA (Christian?) warmth and understanding!

[miz3]

I understand that YOU don't get it miz3, YOU have little understanding of any concept of the SDA church.

As for others, it's simple, Ellen White is not a test of faith. And boy do I get tired of professed SDA's telling me I have to keep quiet about her work. Grow a backbone you guys, shout it from the roof top. Who are these uncircumcised Philistines that demean the Lords chosen messenger? And where did I put my sling...

miz3, your not a Seventh-day Adventist on SO many levels, EGW is the tip of the ice berg.

By the way could you specifically name those "levels" that demonstrate that I am NOT SDA?

Or are making up things?

[ClubV12]

Day for a year, 2,300 prophecy, just for openers. While Ellen White is not a test of faith, the Sanctuary doctrines are the very heart of SDA, fundamental. Without a belief in that, you got nothing.

teresaq, the tone of your posts "suggests" to others the SDA church should be ashamed of ourselves, that we should apologize to "victims" for something, not sure what. Frankly, as John317 said the other day, your posts are hard to follow. I'm not sure what you mean to say half the time. You certainly leave the impression we shouldn't quote Ellen White in Sabbath school class. For fear we might offend someone like Shelly. Fact is, Shelly a big girl, she can't take of herself, been a member 20 years. No need to apologize or minimize Ellen White on her behalf, or anybody else for that matter. If you believe, fine. If you don't, show a little courtesy and don't make an issue of it church, it's rude.

[Truth Files]

"If you don't, show a little courtesy and don't make an issue of it church, it's rude."

>Who is rude?

>I will show the forum who is "rude" shortly .... hang on

[ClubV12]

TF, would you walk into a Mormon church on Sunday, during the lesson study and start complaining about their supposed prophet being false?

Well, if you did, that would be "rude", just to spell it out for you.

Would it be OK if you WERE a Mormon, or would it be even MORE rude?

[teresaq]

That is why I am asking for some help here. How can I see how you read your accusations into my posts if you don't show me? I just might be saying something you completely agree with. Such as, when I say we should know the scripture(s) Ellen White bases her statements on. You would agree with that wouldn't you?

Day for a year, 2,300 prophecy, just for openers. While Ellen White is not a test of faith, the Sanctuary doctrines are the very heart of SDA, fundamental. Without a belief in that, you got nothing.

teresaq, the tone of your posts "suggests" to others the SDA church should be ashamed of ourselves, that we should apologize to "victims" for something, not sure what. Frankly, as John317 said the other day, your posts are hard to follow. I'm not sure what you mean to say half the time. You certainly leave the impression we shouldn't quote Ellen White in Sabbath school class. For fear we might offend someone like Shelly. Fact is, Shelly a big girl, she can't take of herself, been a member 20 years. No need to apologize or minimize Ellen White on her behalf, or anybody else for that matter. If you believe, fine. If you don't, show a little courtesy and don't make an issue of it church, it's rude.

[ClubV12]

My posts are not complicated teresaq, yours are, they go around in circles. Here we are now circling back to what was posted on this subject numerous times, yesterday.

"Time and place" for Sister White quotes. That concept should be well understood now. Sabbath school class, but I repeat myself, again, is the correct time and place to quote Ellen White, within context of course. Are you suggesting it is not? Because YOUR posts seem to suggest that very idea!

In addition, as was mentioned yesterday, are you aware, do you understand the difference between an "insight" of Sister White and an expansion on a bible verse? Not everything Sister White reports or writes on can be found directly in the bible, and I'm OK with that. I will STILL use those quotes to give meaningful insight to bible study, dependant on "Time and Place".

[teresaq]

So you are saying that, if I say I believe everything Ellen White says is based on scriptures

then I am saying she should not be quoted in SS class?

...when I say we should know the scripture(s) Ellen White bases her statements on. You would agree with that wouldn't you?

[ClubV12]

You know, I have no idea what your saying, I only know what your inferring. I do wish you would state it clearly, whatever it is your trying to say.

You seem confused on the "time and place" aspect of Sister Whites work and particularly so when it comes to Sabbath School. One cannot list every conceivable instance of when, where, what to use. A combination of inspired modern day writings with the bible, the bible alone or even Sister White, alone, no biblical referrence required at all.

Her many counsels on health, for instance, are not biblical referrences directly. You can either accept them or reject them. The "Testimonies" contain many letters to individuals, the PRINCIPLES of which apply to us today. The PRINCIPLES are bible based, not the exact counsel.

I wouldn't hesitate to use ANY of Sister Whites work in Sabbath School class if it was applicable.

[John317]

I have to agree with you Musicman. A true bible only church would not require its members to affirm their belief in a extra-biblical source. No matter how much EGW "agrees" with the bible it is misleading to advertise ourselves as a bible only church.....

Originally Posted By: miz3

ONCE AGAIN, MEGA DITTOS, SHELLY!

Very interesting.

[ClubV12]

I stated in a different thread what I THINK has happened to many long term SDA's.

They've been hurt by people using Ellen White in a "abusive" manner, like a dictator. Rumor has it "legalism" was a big problem within the church in the 70's or so, maybe 80's. Some say that continues today, I haven't seen it, so I can't say thats true. If it DOES exist today, apparently not at the level it was in the 70 or so.

Now some of this "attitude" about legalism and misuse of Ellen White has to be placed on the people feeling the abuse, NOT the one quoting Ellen White. I have seen clearly where she talks about the dangers of dancing and card playing. Now here we go, somebody is going to be offended and start crying about misusing Ellen White. Well you know what? THATS the counsel, so stop crying about it. Go dance if you like, play cards if you like, but don't ABUSE me for citing the counsel! I have just as much right to tell like it is as you have to reject it.

It's time to move forward on Ellen White, no more apologies. She writes it, I read it IN CONTEXT, adapt it within a reasonable and common sense time frame and manner and make no apologies for it. Whatever happened in the past,,, let it go. We need to draw closer together, in spite of what I'm doing that you may or may not agree with. My lifestyle choices are based solely on what I read and understand now, I quit looking at the church people to figure out what to eat, how much, when, what to wear, what to drive, how to live my life. The BALANCED details are readily available to any SDA who will take the time to READ what Ellen White has to say on any given subject.

No fear, no intimidation, if the issue calls for cutting to the bone quote I might just lay it out there. Roll your eyes, be shocked, reject it, call me a legalist, it's OK, the quote stands. Lets move on, quoting it doesn't mean I expect YOU to do anything with it, but it reaffirms MY faith. Don't take that away from me.

[John317]

....You are actually mistaken when you say our church would not exist without Ellen White. The Advent movement existed LONG before EGW showed up, and would have continued to grow even had she not been there later.

Of course the Advent Movement existed prior to Ellen White's first vision in December of 1844, but you forget that it was Ellen White's visions that kept together the Advent people who eventually organized the SDA church. In fact it was Ellen White's visions that gave the early SDAs confidence in organizing in the first place. Without her, it is likely they wouldn't have chosen to become a denomination.

You have made a claim here and reached a conclusion, but you have shown no valid, convincing evidence to support it.

Can you show that any SDA scholars and historians agree with you?

There is, in fact, no evidence that the SDA church would have existed without her. Quite the contrary, history shows that the SDA church would have been no more successful than other groups that came out of the Millerite Movement had it not been for the Spirit of prophecy. Look at the Seventh-day Baptist Church, which also taught the Sabbath, yet it has not grown much over the last 100+ years. Why not?

James and Ellen White were the main leaders of the church during its formative years, and Ellen White kept the church from falling off the straight and narrow path that would surely have meant the demise of the church.

Consider the aspect of the Sabbath Bible Conferences during which the early Adventists hammered out our primary doctrines. Ellen White was critical, even indepensible, in those conferences. God gave her visions that confirmed the brethren in their studies of the Bible.

There is also the the medical and health work that Ellen White started following the visions of about 1865.

Without Ellen White, our church certainly would not have had the educational system that we have today.

Finally, there was the crisis that our church went through-- and almost did not make it successfully through-- during the early 1900s, from about 1901 to 1907. Many people do not realize how close we came to splitting up and probably disintegrating.

This is not even to mention the move of our church from being semiarian to becoming Trinitarian.

Without Ellen White, this change by itself would either not have taken place, or if it had, it could easily have resulted in a broken church. As it was, her writings convinced SDAs to study the topic of the Godhead and to reach the conclusion that the Bible supports the concept of one God in three Persons, or, as Ellen White said, "the three living persons of the heavenly trio." Ev. 615-617.

Please present your strongest case for the belief that the SDA church would have been at an advantage, or have grown the same as it has, even without Ellen White.

[John317]

....Do you know what other churches say about the SDA church today because of Ellen White? I have a close friend that is an Episcopal and he just laughs about me staying in a church that is so blind it can't see a false prophet right in front of it's face. I tell him that I am not a member of the SDA church because of EGW but in spite of her. And this opinion by no means represents a minority view point among the other churches. It's actually embarrassing, or should be.

Why should we care what some people in other church say about the SDA church because of Ellen White?

Do they know the truth about Ellen White? No. So that would be like caring what non-believers say about Christians because of Christ or because of the Bible.

Do your friends know that you teach Paul and about 2/3 of the NT is of Satan? What do they think of this?

I am sure you are embarrassed by Ellen White, but then you are also embarrassed by St. Paul and Luke and Hebrews and Mark, etc.

I hope and pray for the day when you will not be embarrassed but will be joyful as I am that God loved us enough to give the Spirit of prophecy to the end-time church. As it is, you are embarrassed that God raised up a prophet in these last days. You should be embarrassed because of your embarrassment. I pray God will someday open your eyes to what you are doing.

[John317]

....Then pony up SDA, and say Ellen White is a "test of faith"!

Stop trying to say she is not a "test of faith" when in your heart she is a "test of faith"!

But it would be a lie to say that Ellen White is a test of faith.

Ellen White herself was opposed to making her writings a test. The gifts of the Spirit are never to be a test.

Why? Partly because the SDA church does not want people claiming to believe in Ellen White's prophetic ministry when they do not sincerely believe it.

Another reason is that the Bible doesn't teach that Christians must accept all manifestions of the spiritual gifts in order to be a member of the body of Christ. God judges us by our light and our experiences, and some do not know enough about Ellen White or her writings to accept her as a genuine prophet of God. This comes with experience and growth in knowledge of God's will and of the Testimonies of the Spirit.

Having said that, it is perfectly true that when a person fights against the visions and opposes the study of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God, we may know for sure that that person is not right.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

....You are actually mistaken when you say our church would not exist without Ellen White. The Advent movement existed LONG before EGW showed up, and would have continued to grow even had she not been there later.

Of course the Advent Movement existed prior to Ellen White's first vision in December of 1844, but you forget that it was Ellen White's visions that kept together the Advent people who eventually organized the SDA church. In fact it was Ellen White's visions that gave the early SDAs confidence in organizing in the first place. Without her, it is likely they wouldn't have chosen to become a denomination.

You have made a claim here and reached a conclusion, but you have shown no valid, convincing evidence to support it.

Can you show that any SDA scholars and historians agree with you?

There is, in fact, no evidence that the SDA church would have existed without her. Quite the contrary, history shows that the SDA church would have been no more successful than other groups that came out of the Millerite Movement had it not been for the Spirit of prophecy. Look at the Seventh-day Baptist Church, which also taught the Sabbath, yet it has not grown much over the last 100+ years. Why not?

James and Ellen White were the main leaders of the church during its formative years, and Ellen White kept the church from falling off the straight and narrow path that would surely have meant the demise of the church.

Consider the aspect of the Sabbath Bible Conferences during which the early Adventists hammered out our primary doctrines. Ellen White was critical, even indepensible, in those conferences. God gave her visions that confirmed the brethren in their studies of the Bible.

There is also the the medical and health work that Ellen White started following the visions of about 1865.

Without Ellen White, our church certainly would not have had the educational system that we have today.

Finally, there was the crisis that our church went through-- and almost did not make it successfully through-- during the early 1900s, from about 1901 to 1907. Many people do not realize how close we came to splitting up and probably disintegrating.

This is not even to mention the move of our church from being semiarian to becoming Trinitarian.

Without Ellen White, this change by itself would either not have taken place, or if it had, it could easily have resulted in a broken church. As it was, her writings convinced SDAs to study the topic of the Godhead and to reach the conclusion that the Bible supports the concept of one God in three Persons, or, as Ellen White said, "the three living persons of the heavenly trio." Ev. 615-617.

Please present your strongest case for the belief that the SDA church would have been at an advantage, or have grown the same as it has, even without Ellen White.

John,

I must compliment you, you did a wonderful job of presenting the church that EGW built. Everything you have said is true, no question. I did not mean for you to get the impression from my remarks that I do not realize the contribution to the SDA church that EGW has made. Far from it, what I said is that without EGW the church would not be in the condition in which it finds itself today. Without a doubt God knew what EGW would accomplish in our church and took that into consideration when He established the prophecies that I previously cited which prove beyond doubt that the SDA church of today IS the Kingdom of Heaven.

In your enthusiasm for showing what EGW has done FOR our church you have also proven my point in proving what she has done TO our church. The condition of our church today is shown clearly in the prophecy in Matt. 25:1-13 where ALL 10 bridesmaids are sound asleep out on the road waiting for the Bridegroom that didn't come. In the other parable/prophecies of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus taught shows clearly the deficiencies of the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of the end.

The messages to the seven assemblies in Rev. 2 and 3 (except for Sardis which is a message to the 144,000 against which God finds no fault) reflect a church and a people in which God does find fault in not accomplishing what He needed them to do, and unprepared for the service for which He designed them in the first place (in 1844). All this because they have listened to an apostle (Ephesus) who was tested and found wanting, and to a prophetess who was feeding the Bondservants of God food that had been sacrificed to idols (lies). The key is that she was feeding this food to the bondservants that are in the Kingdom of Heaven which is the SDA church; and the SDA church has only ONE prophetess that was part of establishing the church at the beginning. This is beyond coincidence, because this is in prophecy.

So John, thank you for helping me establish that it was EGW that was instrumental not so much in the founding of the church but in the development of the church into the Kingdom about which God has found so much at fault. The reason that our church IS the Leodican church is that we say that we are RICH, and we have PROSPERED, and have NEED OF NOTHING, yet we are indeed wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. And all of this can be laid squarely at the feet of the woman prophet that was so instrumental in directing the growth of the SDA church to this point in time. Thankfully, and according to God's plan for His Kingdom, there are those of us that are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor in showing the church the truth of this, even in the face of vehement opposition and constant abuse from supporters of the status quo.

Jesus did not come to earth to defend the status quo, which is why the Pharisees and Saducees hated Him so much they plotted to murder Him. The same is true today for the Bondservants of Jesus Christ who are pointing out the folly of the status quo to those who 'have need of nothing', only to be placed in the same position as was Jesus when He was here on earth. The Kingdom of Heaven (Israel) hated Him then, and the Kingdom of Heaven today hates His Bondservants now, because they are reminding the Kingdom of Heaven, the SDA church, of the failed obligation that the Kingdom has in presenting truth to the world.

[John317]

"It is false" in theory but not in practice in very many churches. Shelly may be referring more to individual reactions from too many members who do make it a "test of faith" as some of the posts here, as I read them, also indicate.

I'm sure you know enough about Ellen White to realize what she taught about this topic. Individual SDAs may feel that she is a test of faith, but they would be wrong, and of course individual members of any church are often wrong about their church's stance on any number of doctrines. We cannot blame the church because of what some of its members say or believe, especially if the church itself teaches against what those members say.

You might conclude that I am among those who make Ellen White a "test" but that would definitely be wrong. I am opposed to making her and her writings a test for the simple reason that belief in her must be based on personal conviction and not on the requirement of other people.

Yet that doesn't mean that I believe Ellen White is insignificant. Quite the contrary. But belief in her and acceptance of her writings as an authority must be founded on study and knowledge of what she wrote, not on the basis of what others believe. The same principle applies to the Bible and belief in Jesus Christ: no one should believe merely because they are told to believe. In fact, such a "belief" is not true belief.

[teresaq]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me ClubV12. And may God bless you richly with everything that I wish for myself. :)

[shelly]

I never said that accepting EGW was a test of faith. I stated that in order to be baptised into the SDA church, we must affirm our belief in EGW as a prophet and her writings as an authoritive source. It is one of our fundamental beliefs. I did not make this up. If I have to affirm my belief in extra-biblical sources as a condition of baptism how are we a bible only church?

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

[shelly]

Originally Posted By: shelly

... A true bible only church would not require its members to affirm their belief in a extra-biblical source. No matter how much EGW "agrees" with the bible it is misleading to advertise ourselves as a bible only church.

But it is false to say that the members of the SDA church are required to affirm their belief in Ellen G. White's prophetic gift. We have no such requirement. She is not a test for membership in the SDA church.

Fundamental Belief Number 18-we afirm this in our baptismal vows.

[John317]

.... thank you for helping me establish that it was EGW that was instrumental not so much in the founding of the church but in the development of the church into the Kingdom about which God has found so much at fault. The reason that our church IS the Leodican church is that we say that we are RICH, and we have PROSPERED, and have NEED OF NOTHING, yet we are indeed wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. And all of this can be laid squarely at the feet of the woman prophet that was so instrumental in directing the growth of the SDA church to this point in time.

Please support your claim with evidence.

Can you show how Ellen White is at fault for the Laodicean condition of the SDA church? Be as specific as possible in quoting anything she said that you feel is at fault or anything she did to contribute clearly to this spiritual condition.

[John317]

Fundamental Belief Number 18-we afirm this in our baptismal vows.

It's true of course that FB 18 is part of our church's official beliefs. But my point is that if you were to say that you are still studying Ellen White's writings and that you are not sure yet whether you believe in her as a prophet of God, you would still be able to be baptized and become a member of the church. My children were recently baptized and they were never required to state that they believe in Ellen White as God's last day prophet. When I was baptized (1973) along with a friend of mine, neither of us were asked whether we believed in Ellen White's prophetic gift as a condition of baptism.

Some pastors or elders may ask the question, but as long as a candidate is willing to study Ellen White and make up their mind as they learn, they will be able to be baptized.

On the other hand, it is true that if a candidate is firmly or vocally opposed to Ellen White and her writings, they almost certainly will not be accepted as a member of the church-- and for very good reasons. To baptize such a person would be a sure cause of strife and disunity.

[John317]

...The messages to the seven assemblies in Rev. 2 and 3 (except for Sardis which is a message to the 144,000 against which God finds no fault) reflect a church and a people in which God does find fault in not accomplishing what He needed them to do, and unprepared for the service for which He designed them in the first place (in 1844). All this because they have listened to an apostle (Ephesus) who was tested and found wanting, and to a prophetess who was feeding the Bondservants of God food that had been sacrificed to idols (lies). The key is that she was feeding this food to the bondservants that are in the Kingdom of Heaven which is the SDA church; and the SDA church has only ONE prophetess that was part of establishing the church at the beginning. This is beyond coincidence, because this is in prophecy.

There is no evidence that the letters in Rev. 1-3 refer to either Paul or Ellen White. That is an assumption on your part.

I'd like to know if you believe Ellen White was aware she was teaching what you refer to as "lies".

And give us some examples of what you believe constituted her "lies."

[shelly]

Originally Posted By: shelly

Fundamental Belief Number 18-we afirm this in our baptismal vows.

It's true of course that FB 18 is part of our church's official beliefs. But my point is that if you were to say that you are still studying Ellen White's writings and that you are not sure yet whether you believe in her as a prophet of God, you would still be able to be baptized and become a member of the church. My children were recently baptized and they were never required to state that they believe in Ellen White as God's last day prophet. When I was baptized (1973) along with a friend of mine, neither of us were asked whether we believed in Ellen White's prophetic gift as a condition of baptism.

Some pastors or elders may ask the question, but as long as a candidate is willing to study Ellen White and make up their mind as they learn, they will be able to be baptized.

On the other hand, it is true that if a candidate is firmly or vocally opposed to Ellen White and her writings, they almost certainly will not be accepted as a member of the church-- and for very good reasons. To baptize such a person would be a sure cause of strife and disunity.

I have never heard of that happening before. It must be up to the individual pastor. In my conference we must state we agree with the 28 Fundamentals before being baptised. I have never heard of someone being unsure of our beliefs and still being baptised into the church. But in the same breath, you are proving my point. If a baptismal canadate is opposed to EGW they are not allowed to be baptised-therefore belief in EGW is a condition for membership. Actions speak louder than words. Openly rejecting EGW means that you cannot be an SDA. You can be disallowed membership or have your current memebership revoked. But we still say that beleif in EGW is not a test of faith. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the term test of faith. What is considered a test of faith?

[shelly]

From our church manual:

Thorough Instruction and Public Examination Before Baptism—Candidates individually or in a baptismal class should be instructed from the Scriptures regarding the Church‟s Fundamental Beliefs and practices and the responsibilities of membership. A pastor should satisfy the church by a public examination that candidates are well instructed, are committed to taking this important step, and by practice and conduct demonstrate a willing acceptance of Church doctrines and the principles of conduct which are the outward expression of those doctrines, for “by their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:20).

From Baptismal Vows

11. Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?

Alternate Vows

2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God‟s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?

When baptised you state that you agree with our Fundamental beliefs. Whether the pastor of the church decides to let those with questions be baptised anyway the vows approved by our church requires that the individual answer in the affirmative that they agree with all 28 beliefs.