Dialoge with non-SDAs

[BobRyan]

On a recent post a non-SDA brings up the question of using Ellen White quotes when speaking with non-SDAs.

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbth...html#Post494103

Most SDAs I meet here do not raise the issue of Ellen White with non-SDAs.

Yet a great many non-SDAs raise that issue with SDAs.

Then a few of them ask why Ellen White is being quoted.

I will give a possible answer. Many times non-SDAs want to make a claim about what SDAs believed in the 1800's. In some cases they are simply wrong. Ellen White is a good 1800's source to quote if you are looking to find evidence for things SDAs were saying in the 1800's.

That is pretty much the only use of Ellen White with non-SDAs.

Having said that I think it is fare to use her writings as example of SDA commentaries with SDAs and non-SDAs - not has being authoritative for non-SDAs of course - merely as an example of SDA endorsed commentary on some Bible topic.

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

I think there should be an understanding within SDA community that SDA does not merely practice their faith solely on what Bible teaches. E.G. White provides quite a bit of extra-Biblical content and context, without which SDA faith can't be derived from the Bible authoritatively. Anotherwords, a normal person reading the Bible will not come to the conclusion that Bible teaches end of the days Sunday laws, unless that extra context is added through her writings.

SDA should be more clear about it. It was never a Sola Scriptura organization. It's a religious organization that believes Sola Scriptura + Extra context and information of the traditional interpretation by the founders. Denying SDAs E.G. White usage is as fair as trying to have Mormons explain their faith without the Book of Mormon.

While I certainly think that there's a vast difference between SDA church and Mormonism, both claim understanding of God-given extra-Biblical context that explains and clarifies the Bible.

[phkrause]

The difference I see between what EGW writes and what JS writes about the Bible, is EGW points people to the Bible and explains those texts that some find difficult to understand. Whereas JS says here read this book and where my book and the Bible don't agree, please know that my book is more up to date than the Bible. And that goes for many other so called prophets who claim there word above the Bible.

[fccool]

I would agree to a certain extend. E.G.White did write quite a bit of statements that called people to take the Bible as the first source. Yet, as I've pointed out, without that extra context and clarification, it's not possible for ordinary reader to connect and derive SDA doctrine from the Bible. Without E.G.White's writings, the Bible does not speak anything on topic of Sunday laws explicitly, in a way that ordinary person would pick it up and interpret it that way.

In that way, it is an extra-Biblical context. It's an interpretation that forces that context and then says... look, we got it from the Bible. Here are all of the verses, and here's what they really mean. Basically, that's what is meant by pointing to the Bible.

Yet, I think it's important to make it clear that SDAs are not Bible and Bible alone organization. They bring in the traditional interpretation in form of inspired commentary, and that essentially becomes the doctrine of the church. Yes, it is the Bible, but it's the Bible through understanding of E.G.White who claimed to receive that understanding or validation of certain understanding from God.

[John317]

Joseph Smith actually wrote an "Inspired Version" of the Bible, and claimed that he had "corrected" the Scriptures. That is just the opposite of Ellen White's view of the Bible.

[John317]

.... a normal person reading the Bible will not come to the conclusion that Bible teaches end of the days Sunday laws, unless that extra context is added through her writings.

Yet it wasn't Ellen White who first mentioned the Sabbath as the seal of God and Sunday as the mark of the beast. Her visions merely verified it but it was something that students of the Bible saw in the Scriptures.

While the Bible doesn't mention "Sunday laws" by name, the concept is certainly found there. The Bible also doesn't mention "Trinity" or "Incarnation" by name, yet the concepts are clearly taught.

[John317]

...I think it's important to make it clear that SDAs are not Bible and Bible alone organization. They bring in the traditional interpretation in form of inspired commentary, and that essentially becomes the doctrine of the church.

I think you misunderstand what "Bible and Bible alone" means. It simply means that everything must be tested by the Bible, and anything that is not in harmony with the Bible must be rejected.

It doesn't mean we reject everything not found in the Bible.

Our position is actually founded on the Bible itself:

1 Thes. 5:19-21

Do not quench the Spirit. [20] Do not despise prophecies, [21] but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Ephes. 4:11-15

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

NOTICE 4 things:

1) Christ gave the gift of prophecy to the church.

2) The gift was given to the church in order to keep it from being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, etc.

3) The gift would continue in the church until "we all attain to the unity fo the faith... to mature manhood..."

4) The book of Revelation shows that commandment-keeping people just before the time of Christ's return will have the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of prophecy. Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12; 19: 10.

[fccool]

Yes, he did. But you have to agree that E.G.White corrects the context which has to be there for people to "properly understand". Without her writings being validated from above, there's no bases to consider Sunday Law interpretation of the scripture. It would merely be among many of the 666 theories out there.

While E.G.White does not claim to correct the Bible, without her take on the Bible the average reader would never arrive at the idea that Sunday will be the future test, Sunday following is the Mark of the beast. Thus the traditional interpretation and context that she provides in a way "corrects the Bible" by adding that inspired context, without which there's little way to know what the prophecies are talking about in terms of 666.

I should not say 666 in this case either, because Vicarius Filei Dei does not equals 666. V is not a U in Roman numerals. It should have no number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

[ClubV12]

My neighbor mentioned she really enjoyed the Signs of the Times I gave her the other day. She know's I'm Adventist and has only very brief idea of Ellen White as it relates to the church. I mentioned the Desire of Ages to her and told her it was widely considered one of the best books ever on the life of Christ. I'll get her a copy tommorow. Regardless of how folks view Ellen White, that IS one great book! :)

[John317]

While E.G.White does not claim to correct the Bible, without her take on the Bible the average reader would never arrive at the idea that Sunday will be the future test, Sunday following is the Mark of the beast. Thus the traditional interpretation and context that she provides in a way "corrects the Bible" by adding that inspired context, without which there's little way to know what the prophecies are talking about in terms of 666.

Many people have accepted the teaching regarding Sunday being the mark of the Beast without an awareness of Ellen White's writings.

Are you saying you have never seen or heard anyone give this study without referring to Ellen White?

It is done all the time. Many SDA evangelistic meetings present the study without referring to Ellen White and millions have accepted it in this way.

The 666 in relation to the papacy was taught long before Ellen White's day.

[John317]

That's wonderful, Club. I'll be praying for this lady.

Back in the 1970s, I had a good friend who was reading The Desire of Ages. I wasn't even a Christian myself at the time but I knew about Desire of Ages, and I was surprised my friend was reading it. I asked him what he thought of it, and he told me "it's as if the writer saw the events she was describing." I didn't tell him that it was because the writer really had seen them.

[fccool]

Many people have accepted the teaching regarding Sunday being the mark of the Beast without an awareness of Ellen White's writings.

Are you saying you have never seen or heard anyone give this study without referring to Ellen White?

It is done all the time. Many SDA evangelistic meetings present the study without referring to Ellen White and millions have accepted it in this way.

The 666 in relation to the papacy was taught long before Ellen White's day.

I think I've addressed the role of E.G.White in SGA church as divinely-inspired validator of doctrine. My point is merely that average person who is unfamiliar with Christian dogma, but perhaps has some familiarity with history, would not be able to connect Sunday Law and 666 without SDA commentary. If that was the case, then there would be a lot more than 16 million SDAs worldwide.

As far as connecting Papacy to 666, the Church went through many 666 stages and ascribed it to the strongest current contemporary persecution, and not merely Papacy.

I think I've made my point that 666 is somewhat illusive in that context, since it's just a clasp to align the perception to numerology. V is not the same as U in roman numerals, but most SDA prophecy meetings that I've attended still push the idea that Vicarius Filei Dei = 666.

[ClubV12]

The earliest paper I've seen on the "beast" was linked in a thread Stan started some months ago. To a publication in the 1400's Identifying the Pope as the Beast of Revelation! Man, that was a shocker.

I photo copied the first page of what was a really long "tract" I guess you could call it. More like a "book" in the 1400's I suspect. Anyway I took that copy to church and did a "show and tell" at the common meal afterward. It was quite the talk of the tables, caught everyone by surprise.

Through out the Evangelistic series I attended it was the bible and the bible only. I was thoroughly impressed with the Evangelists extensive use of bible verses, not only during the series but when we had a couple of meetings one and one. He could spit out verses like a machine gun and I was grilling him pretty hard. :)

[Gibs]

I dialoge with non SDA's all the time and it is best to stay away from anyones teaching or theologies. Use only the Word of God and make sure you are teaching the truth of it as it is a very greivous thing to teach error.

If you don't teach the absolute truth of that Word I assure you Satan will quicken someone to put you down and you are out.

Whenever you use someones writings, like EGW's you will always have some among them who don't like that one and won't listen even if the writing is true.

Use the Bible only and You need to know it very, very well.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[phkrause]

Wasn't the RCC the first to figure out that they where the Beast power? And wasn't it them that hired the Jesuits or set up that order to figure out how to made it go away? And they came up with splitting the 70 week prophecy, by putting the 70th week in the future? I could really be off here but for some reason that kind of rings a bell. I guess I'm gonna check into it to make sure I'm correct.

[John317]

... I think I've addressed the role of E.G.White in SGA church as divinely-inspired validator of doctrine. My point is merely that average person who is unfamiliar with Christian dogma, but perhaps has some familiarity with history, would not be able to connect Sunday Law and 666 without SDA commentary.

You're no doubt right that the average person who's unfamiliar with the Bible and with Christian doctrine would not connect the Sunday Law and the 666. But why would anyone expect otherwise? Why would the knowledge of the average person who knows nothing of Bible doctrines be an example of what the Bible teaches?

What's important is that a good Bible student, who knows the Bible well and is led by the Holy Spirit, would be able to make the connection-- and without the SDA Bible Commentary.

However, there's nothing wrong with the SDA Bible Commentary. When I compare the Bible commentaries, I find the SDA Bible Commentary to be among the best.

Originally Posted By: fccool

If that was the case, then there would be a lot more than 16 million SDAs worldwide.

Truth is not determined by the number of people who believe it.

But considering the fact that in the 1860s, there were only a few thousand SDAs, who were limited to the USA, I would say that the current number of about 16 million is not a bad rate of growth over the last 140 years.

However, be that as it may, SDAs are not the only people who believe in the connection between 666 and the Roman Catholic Church or the papacy.

[John317]

Wasn't the RCC the first to figure out that they where the Beast power? And wasn't it them that hired the Jesuits or set up that order to figure out how to made it go away? And they came up with splitting the 70 week prophecy, by putting the 70th week in the future?

Yes, there have been Catholic priests and scholars who've come to the same conclusion.

Most of the Protestants who understood this were former Catholics, and in fact, were still Catholics when their study of the prophecies led them to the conviction that the papal system was the anti-Christ. Many of them wrote tracts or books showing the evidence of this teaching, and as a result the Catholic Church began to lose millions of converts. Therefore, the Catholic Church assigned two priests the task of writing commentaries on Revelation which they hoped would take "the heat" off the papacy. One of the priests invented "futurism" and the other came up with "preterism." "Futurism" teaches that the anti-Christ is a future power and therefore not in existence at the present time, and "preterism" teaches that the verses in Revelation dealing with the anti-Christ were all fulfilled in the first century. Except for the SDA church, almost all churches accept either "futurism" or "preterism."

[BobRyan]

I think there should be an understanding within SDA community that SDA does not merely practice their faith solely on what Bible teaches. E.G. White provides quite a bit of extra-Biblical content and context, without which SDA faith can't be derived from the Bible authoritatively.

That level of story telling cannot be passed off as truth.

All of our doctrines are derived sola scriptura.

All of our doctrines are discussed and proved with non-SDAs "sola scriptura".

There is "well first you have to be SDA and accept Ellen White as a prophet to accept this particular doctrine" in our entire exchange with non-SDAs.

Are you non-SDA?

Can we have that level of sola-scriptura discussion with you?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I would agree to a certain extend. E.G.White did write quite a bit of statements that called people to take the Bible as the first source. Yet, as I've pointed out, without that extra context and clarification, it's not possible for ordinary reader to connect and derive SDA doctrine from the Bible.

Try it first and then tells us where you failed-- if in fact you fail in that regard.

We are always happy to help with someone genuinely interested in a sola-scriptura walk through doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Yes, he did. But you have to agree that E.G.White corrects the context which has to be there for people to "properly understand". Without her writings being validated from above, there's no bases to consider Sunday Law interpretation of the scripture.

Hint: Start with the actual 28 Fundamental belief statements themselves.

No smoke and mirrors - just the facts please.

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

"Are you non-SDA?"

More and more I'm finding if you have to ask the question.... whats wrong with the picture.

[12tribes]

Ellen White is a great source for helping us understanding the Bible better but, when talking to non SDA's we should be able to show our doctrine from the Bible. Ellen White is the lesser light to the greater light

[BobRyan]

Agreed.

So where are the non-SDAs and former-SDAs who would like to make the claim that the 28 FB only come from Ellen White on this thread?

[fccool]

Without E.G.White, the 28 belief statements would not have solidified into official church doctrine. Many of these would be mere speculations. Many of her visions served as divine validations for the concepts that were brought into the failed Millerite movement, which then solidified as official doctrines, since these have been validated in a vision from God.

Thus there simply can't be any other way for SDA church. There absolutely has to be the Sunday MOB doctrine. Not because it's evident in the Biblical text (it's not, without divine commentary of E.G. White). There absolutely has Investigative judgement doctrine, and literal interpretation of heavenly sanctuary, with Jesus sitting there for hundreds of years, and cleansing it from defilement of sins... and etc.