Dennis Priebe - The Judgment - (powerful refutation against critics)

[ClubV12]

Actually, I have yet to meet a single Adventist that says Ellen White holds a position higher than the bible. Typically, quite the opposite, her work is more often relegated to the dust bin of history and made of little impact all to often.

Even among the most devoted of Ellen White "fans", and I consider myself to be among that group (without apology), even then it is clearly understood her work is a lesser light leading to a greater light.

I've considered carefully how the prophets of old looked upon their work as well. I can see them taking the SAME POSITION as Ellen White took in many cases. Always pointing people BACK to the cannon, insisting that THEIR work was a lesser light leading to a greater light! Imagine Paul placing his work above scripture!!! No way! He himself would have pointed people back to the Old Testament, from which HE preached. He would use Isaiah, for instance, the accepted cannon of his day, to make his case for Jesus as the Messiah. He would not be quoting, Mark or John or Luke. But Daniel and Moses and David, he was a lesser light pointing to a greater light. Such is the work of Ellen White, a modern day prophet, no less, no more, than the prophets of old.

There is no doubt many questioned the work of Mark, Luke, Paul, Timothy and many others of their day. Wondering and speculating of what parts were "personal opinion" and "popular belief" and trying to determine what was and what wasn't inspired. There is nothing new under the sun....

[Patrick Lawrence]

I will watch this when I get a chance I think I will like it.

[miz3]

Just because someone like Dennis Priebe has done this - does not mean that the rest of us faithful SDAs fall for it miz3.

I never said "all SDA".

I did however, say "most".

I did not not include you Woody in the "most".

[miz3]

My dear friends, like I said before and I now repeat:

"We judge not by what the SDA Church .org "says", but we judge the the SDA Church .org by what it "practices".

Such as the video of Dennis Priebe which is extremely typical of what most SDA in the SDA Church .org practice.

So I am NOT TOTALLY FALSE. In FACT I AM TOTALLY CORRECT IN THAT THE BIBLE HAS BECOME THE "SECONDARY" SOURCE AND ELLEN WHITE THE PRIMARY SOURCE of MOST the SDA Church .org.

[Lysimachus]

While it would have been preferrable had Dennis brought in some scriptures in his sermon, I feel that Miz3 is rejoicing in this because it makes him feel better and gives him a hook to hang is doubt on.

1. Dennis Priebe was giving a historical analysis, not so much a theological sermon.

2. Dennis Priebe was speaking to other Adventists.

3. The sermon revolved on the accusations against Ellen White's statements. In order to prove what she really believes on the matter, one must quote her.

And no, you are wrong miz3. Doctrines are not judged by the actions of those adhering to them. Doctrines are determined on their own merits, regardless of how those who adhere to them behave.

If you need scripture for the Investigative Judgment, have you tried reading these scriptures?

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

ONLY Scripture!

Also, try this:

1. The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical? Part 1

2. The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical? Part 2

3. The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical? Part 3

Try refuting these, I challenge you.

[miz3]

2. Dennis Priebe was speaking to other Adventists.

It does not matter, it is still WRONG whenever you elevate Ellen White over the Bible and the Bible only:

1. To an all SDA audience.

2. To an all nonSDA audience.

3. To a mixed audience.

4. When you study by yourself.

No matter the audience/situation it is WRONG to elevate Ellen White and her writings over the Bible and the Bible only.

[miz3]

And no, you are wrong miz3. Doctrines are not judged by the actions of those adhering to them. Doctrines are determined on their own merits, regardless of how those who adhere to them behave.

I never ever said that "DOCTRINES" WERE JUDGED BY ACTIONS.

Let me correct you:

I said that SDA and the SDA Church .org were to be judged by their ACTIONS in regard to their use of Ellen White and her writings by placing Ellen White/writings over the Bible and the Bible only.

That is far different than your erroneous accusation.

[miz3]

1. Dennis Priebe was giving a historical analysis, not so much a theological sermon.

Anyone who listened to the presentation would know that your statement above:

IS NOT TRUE.

Dennis Priebe, himself, stated several times that it was exactly his intent to set the "theological record straight".

This was most definitely not a historical lesson.

This is just a "tactic" you are using to cover the FACT that SDA and the SDA Church .org PUT ELLEN WHITE/WRITINGS ABOVE THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ONLY.

For you to try and cover up the true context of Dennis Priebe and his all Ellen White/writings speech is not being honest. Does it require a person to be dishonest in order to defend the usage of Ellen White/writings?

If so, then count me out.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

It does not matter, it is still WRONG whenever you elevate Ellen White over the Bible and the Bible only:

1. To an all SDA audience.

2. To an all nonSDA audience.

3. To a mixed audience.hat impression

4. When you study by yourself.

This I totally agree with. Even those that say they don't but by their conversations/postings give do leave one with that impression. Often times people in their 'disclaimer' still try to make her at least equal. She was adamantly opposed to such use and her words to that effect are easy to find.

[ClubV12]

She also adamantly said the Testimonies were from God for the edification of the church and reproved those who would take them lightly.

It is of no concern of mine what miz3 says, thinks or posts in regard to the Spirit of Prophecy and the Adventist church. It is very clear where he stands on these issues, anti-Adventist, and there is no point in attempting to show him the balanced truth on any issues.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

1. Dennis Priebe was giving a historical analysis, not so much a theological sermon.

Anyone who listened to the presentation would know that your statement above:

IS NOT TRUE.

Dennis Priebe, himself, stated several times that it was exactly his intent to set the "theological record straight".

This was most definitely not a historical lesson.

This is just a "tactic" you are using to cover the FACT that SDA and the SDA Church .org PUT ELLEN WHITE/WRITINGS ABOVE THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ONLY.

For you to try and cover up the true context of Dennis Priebe and his all Ellen White/writings speech is not being honest. Does it require a person to be dishonest in order to defend the usage of Ellen White/writings?

If so, then count me out.

You have not persuaded me. You must enjoy repeating yourself like a broken record. You are a scoffer and a skeptic to everything that is said and true. The things of God appear as foolishness to you. I'm done arguing with you.

[miz3]

The True things of God, like the Bible and the Bible only, are extremely precious to me.

[Gail]

The True things of God, like the Bible and the Bible only, are extremely precious to me.

miz3, why not do a complete study on the sanctuary and its rituals (Ex and Lev)? Seeing Jesus as the Lamb of God is an obvious type/anti-type picture given by John the Baptist, but when you study it out, you will see Jesus in the sanctuary in more ways that just that. Bread of life, water of life, blood being applied, Way, Truth and Life, the Door, etc

As well, the sanctuary language used in LOTS of places in the Old and New Testament takes on new life after you do that.

I won't ask you to use other historical references for help, but material on rabbinical customs will prove helpful if you do.

Your sentiment of preciousness (and rightly so!) will grow as it did for me. :)

[doug yowell]

SDA and the SDA Church .org were to be judged by their ACTIONS in regard to their use of Ellen White and her writings by placing Ellen White/writings over the Bible and the Bible only.

Miz,for clarification's sake,SDA's have historically taught that EGW's writings are about the Bible not an addition to the Bible (like Joesph Smith).They also believe that she had been given a prophetic gift (which you have positively affirmed in other threads)that she exercised in the guidance and direction of the church. If SDA's use the Scripture only in their understanding of God and they, like all human beings, come up with many different,sometimes conflicting, interpretations of that Word,then what proper place do you think should be given to EGW's writings in that debate since all groups claim the Bible as their source?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

If SDA's use the Scripture only in their understanding of God and they, like all human beings, come up with many different,sometimes conflicting, interpretations of that Word......

Then let the Holy Spirit, as should be done in the very beginning, guide that person. The use of the 3rd person of the Godhead, promised to the earth by Christ, seems to quite often get left behind in many conversations on this issue, EGW usage. She, herself, encouraged the same method of study that is still lacking. We should not suddenly leap to EGW for Biblical clarification or answers to life pressing problems when the H*S is so close and waiting. Me thinks EGW is too often used as short cut to 'understanding'. The Bible writers were in communion with God for their understanding, why not us? That does not negate EGW, but simply gets us closer to Gods original design for communication with us. If The Spirit leads us to EGW or some other source is not the issue, but rather what is our first source.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

If SDA's use the Scripture only in their understanding of God and they, like all human beings, come up with many different,sometimes conflicting, interpretations of that Word......

Then let the Holy Spirit, as should be done in the very beginning, guide that person. The use of the 3rd person of the Godhead, promised to the earth by Christ, seems to quite often get left behind in many conversations on this issue, EGW usage. She, herself, encouraged the same method of study that is still lacking. We should not suddenly leap to EGW for Biblical clarification or answers to life pressing problems when the H*S is so close and waiting. Me thinks EGW is too often used as short cut to 'understanding'. The Bible writers were in communion with God for their understanding, why not us? That does not negate EGW, but simply gets us closer to Gods original design for communication with us. If The Spirit leads us to EGW or some other source is not the issue, but rather what is our first source.

I agree completely.It's been my experience that many an SDA Bible discussion has been ended with the words "Well, Ellen White says..." But my question was directed to that time when the "Holy Spirit" was leading SDA's to different conclusions. SDA's that accept EGW's writings as Inspired by the Holy Spirit (SOP)are often accused of putting her writings above the Bible if they they appeal to her support for their position. It seems a catch 22 for SDA's who accept her prophetic gift but are also well grounded in the authority of the Bible.

[Patrick Lawrence]

It is very interesting I find she agrees exactly with the Bible. Oh and I liked the video thanks for posting it.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

The True things of God, like the Bible and the Bible only, are extremely precious to me.

miz3, why not do a complete study on the sanctuary and its rituals (Ex and Lev)? Seeing Jesus as the Lamb of God is an obvious type/anti-type picture given by John the Baptist, but when you study it out, you will see Jesus in the sanctuary in more ways that just that. Bread of life, water of life, blood being applied, Way, Truth and Life, the Door, etc

As well, the sanctuary language used in LOTS of places in the Old and New Testament takes on new life after you do that.

I won't ask you to use other historical references for help, but material on rabbinical customs will prove helpful if you do.

Your sentiment of preciousness (and rightly so!) will grow as it did for me.

Thank you Gail.

I don't know about the Rabbinical stuff. But I do agree that a complete study in the Bible of the Sanctuary both in the Old Testament and the New Testament would be greatly beneficial.

It is not that I have NOT DONE much study on this already but I have never done a comprehensive, systematic study from the Bible and the Bible only and then put that study down on paper.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

SDA and the SDA Church .org were to be judged by their ACTIONS in regard to their use of Ellen White and her writings by placing Ellen White/writings over the Bible and the Bible only.

Miz,for clarification's sake,SDA's have historically taught that EGW's writings are about the Bible not an addition to the Bible (like Joesph Smith).They also believe that she had been given a prophetic gift (which you have positively affirmed in other threads)that she exercised in the guidance and direction of the church. If SDA's use the Scripture only in their understanding of God and they, like all human beings, come up with many different,sometimes conflicting, interpretations of that Word,then what proper place do you think should be given to EGW's writings in that debate since all groups claim the Bible as their source?

[miz3]

Quote:

If SDA's use the Scripture only in their understanding of God and they, like all human beings, come up with many different,sometimes conflicting, interpretations of that Word......

Then let the Holy Spirit, as should be done in the very beginning, guide that person. The use of the 3rd person of the Godhead, promised to the earth by Christ, seems to quite often get left behind in many conversations on this issue, EGW usage. She, herself, encouraged the same method of study that is still lacking. We should not suddenly leap to EGW for Biblical clarification or answers to life pressing problems when the H*S is so close and waiting. Me thinks EGW is too often used as short cut to 'understanding'. The Bible writers were in communion with God for their understanding, why not us? That does not negate EGW, but simply gets us closer to Gods original design for communication with us. If The Spirit leads us to EGW or some other source is not the issue, but rather what is our first source.

Perfectly stated!

[ClubV12]

miz3 says,

"However, SDA believe that the voluminous and pervasive writings (that would mean every word she published/wrote) was directly given to her by God."

That is not true at all. Not by the general membership of the church, certainly not in any official capacity. "Every word" is NOT how inspiration works, that idea suggests that an angel guided Ellen White's hand, or that "every word" was a direct quote. Like the words of Jesus are in red in many bibles, when Ellen White is quoting a direct divine source, she notes that. By saying, "The angel said...", or "the messenger said...", a direct quote. Other times she would state specifically, "I was shown..." or "I was told..." and then would proceed to descibe, in her own words, what she saw or heard. There are other times when she specifically says she has an opinion on some topic. There are times when she had to correct her original view point when it was divinely revealed to her "new light". The question of when to keep the Sabbath, for instance, comes to mind. She was shocked when it was revealed to her that Adventists had been wrong in their assumption that Sabbath observance was from 6 pm to 6 pm.

Like the bible, a casual reader of Ellen White will be more confused than when they started if they are not sincerely seeking truth.

CoAspen says,

"The Bible writers were in communion with God for their understanding, why not us?"

Why not? Because we are not prophets! To think we can "go it alone", ignoring the counsel of the brethren, the Spirit of Prophecy is the sin of presumption. Understanding HOW the Holy Spirit works is an important issue, it is clear that few have the correct concept in this regard.

[Patrick Lawrence]

"2. Ellen White's "Godly inspiration" was like the Prophets of the Bible very limited in scope and very limited in quantity." Except we do not know the full extent of what prophets at the time wrote or more importantly imparted by word of mouth but did not right down. The Bible is not every word or writing ever written down or said by a true prophet. But it is what God deemed important to make it to us.

Also she is not used as above the Bible. If you want an example of when that happens look at Islam and the Quran. At some point after the Quran was written they figured out it was impossible to mesh with the Bible. At this point the HAD to start saying the Bible was corrupt. You do not have this problem with Ellen Whites writings. But you do have this problem with many of her critics. That is at some point they see their view is contradictory to Ellen White. Their interpritation must be correct. So there for she must be wrong. But on every instance I have researched I have found it was not Ellen White that was wrong in her view of the Bible subject. It was always the people putting her down. And this might change but I have so far not found an example that caused me to change my view.

[Lysimachus]

It is very interesting I find she agrees exactly with the Bible. Oh and I liked the video thanks for posting it.

You're very welcome Patrick!!

Too bad Miz3 refuses to like the video. He thinks he goes by the Scriptures, but he really doesn't. People like Miz3 go by the Bible alone "selectively". True Adventists go by the Bible alone "comprehensively". So even though true Adventists may use Ellen White, they are still "more Bible alone" than those who reject Ellen White.

[skyblue888]

I have known about Dennis Pribe for years. His message is still the same. Though he sticks to the basic truth of the investigative judgment, the foundation and central pillar of the advent movement, which I commend him for, and to the theory of righteousness by faith, victory over sin, etc etc, there is, however, in all of his presentations, a lack of understanding of righteousness by faith from the writings of Mrs. White as far as the 1888 message is concerned.

As usual there is no emphasis on what constitutes the heart and essence of that message which is that "The merits of Christ's sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf," in order to receive the gift that cannot be excelled, the gift that brings all other blessings in its train, the gift that brings into the life the righteousness of Christ which accomplishes everything. This gift is rich, full, and abundant. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead coming with no modified energy but in the fullness of divine light and love and power to subdue all our inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil and to impress Christ's character upon the receiver. See A.A.50; D.A.671.

"Looking unto Jesus and trusting in His merits we appropriate the blessings of light and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Testimonies, Vol.5,744.

In Faith & Works, p.27, Mrs. White speaks of the law of the divine and the human action which makes the receiver a laborer together with God bringing man where he can, united with divinity, work the works of God. In other words, when divinity and humanity are combined the work will be a complete success, for Christ's righteousness accomplishes everyhing for it is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. See Testimonies to Ministers,92.

In Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.410, she declares that unless divinity and humanity are combined, she would not give a straw for all that the greatest man could do.

"The merits of Jesus blot out transgressions and clothe us with the robe of righteousenss woven in the loom of Heaven." Evangelism.186, bottom of page.

In Faith and Works, p.65, bottom of page, she speaks of "the faith that lays right hold upon the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour to bring Christ's righteousness into the life. Clothed with the righteousness of Christ and not your own righteousness you will not depend upon what you can do or what you will do," for "Christ's righteousness accomplishes everything." F.W.27.

It is clear that only a message like this and its acceptance can prepare us for the investigative judgment either of the dead or of the living.

Brother Priebe, any more than the 1888 Message Study Committee, makes no emphasis whatsoever upon the Bible truth on this subject that is so necessary to our present and eternal welfare.

"We shall come in repentance and contrition with a despairing sense of our finite weakness and learn that we must daily apply to the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour that we may become vessels fit for the Master's use." Faith & Works,86.

sky

[Lysimachus]

I have known about him for years. <snip>

I was of the understanding that Priebe was once part of the 1888 committee, and that he still holds to the 1888 message. Am I correct?

We also have to remember that he was speaking to students, how of course, are a little more green behind the ears. And he had to pack a lot of information in one hour.