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

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Is there a Scripture that says Ellen White is the Spirit of Prophecy?

You don't have a Scripture to disprove that Woody, miz3 are both not the SOP. If you have such a Scripture then show us the Scripture that says Woody and miz3 are NOT the SOP.

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy.Most SDA's are convinced that EGW had the testimony of Jesus. We're not sure of you and Woody.

I am not interested in what humans are convinced of. Where in Scripture does it say that Ellen White is the SOP?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

So what you are telling us is that you dont actually have any scripture to disprove the spirit of prophecy. Miz3 is not scripture either.

Is there a Scripture that says Ellen White is the Spirit of Prophecy?

That is the question that is relevant.

You don't have a Scripture to disprove that Woody, miz3 are both not the SOP. If you have such a Scripture then show us the Scripture that says Woody and miz3 are NOT the SOP.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Now that you have reduced your replies to just parroting back whatever you hear; we can see that you do not have any scripture to prove that the spirit of prophecy is something that we should ignore. This is the key question since you are the one who went into attack mode against the church's well-established and Biblical belief regarding the spirit of prophecy.

No one has made the claim that "Ellen White is the spirit of prophecy;" so you raise a beautiful red herring here.

You SDA and the SDA Church .org claims that the Bible does indeed speak of Ellen White as a future prophet.

So show me your Scripture that tells us that Ellen White will exist as a prophet.

I did not attack Ellen White. I attacked SDA and SDA Church .org usage of Ellen White as being ABOVE THE BIBLE.

Get your accusations of me correct.

Are you saying that Ellen White is NOT THE SOP?

LOL; my all this fire and brimstone you send, but you are the one who needs to get the accusations straight. Read again, my last post. Did I say you "attacked Ellen White?" No. I did not. I said you "attacked the church's well established belief regarding the spirit of prophecy."

I think what needs to be understood here is that while a person can have the gift of the spirit of prophecy, no; they cannot themselves be that gift, and this is why the Church believes Ellen White had the gift; but was not that gift. No one anywhere has ever said "Ellen White is the spirit of prophecy;" but yes, we do claim she had that gift.

I think I will stop discussing this here in this topic though - it is miles away from the OP, and I apologize to the OP for derailing it a bit...Just let me know if you want to continue this somewhere else miz3.

[Guest]

I think what needs to be understood here is that while a person can have the gift of the spirit of prophecy, no; they cannot themselves be that gift, and this is why the Church believes Ellen White had the gift; but was not that gift. No one anywhere has ever said "Ellen White is the spirit of prophecy;" but yes, we do claim she had that gift.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

[miz3]

So basically it is just an SDA belief and not a FACT. According to overaged.

That is not authoritative.

She cannot be a prophet (SOP) because Ellen White writes things that are not Biblical:

The Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment/1844. None of this is in the Bible. SDA only "infer" that it is there simply because Ellen White says that it is there.

Ellen White says that the United States rose up "peacefully as a nation" which is NOT TRUE. The United States rose up with a very violent and hateful Revolution. There were very hard feelings on both sides and many "atrocities" were committed in that War.

Ellen White gave what she claimed to be "divine council" on diet then promptly for decades later did not head her own words which she claimed came from God.

She copied voluminous passages from other pagan authors and gave them no credit for their words. She at the same time claimed these were "inspired words". Many claim that the Bible does the same thing. Well the copying the Bible did is NOT VOLUMINOUS LIKE ELLEN WHITE. Very little of Bible is copied from other sources.

A truly "inspired" One would never ever commit such errors.

She actually committed these errors because she was merely expressing her own personal opinion.

SDA and the SDA Church .org have painted for more than a century a different picture (which is not true) of Ellen White and now that these things are getting out into the general public the SDA Church .org is struggling to maintain a straight face about her "inspiration".

All those decades of deceit have/are coming home to roost and the odor is not pleasant.

I understand how difficult this is for those of you SDA who have been "indoctrinated" in the Ellen White Culture. It is very difficult for you.

Your Church, the SDA Church .org, is responsible for putting you in this horrendous position by all these decades painting a false picture of Ellen White. The lies and deceit are unimaginable, and then such ones have the temerity to claim they are the "chosen remnant" of the "last days".

If you aim that high you better be sure your claim is rock solid. Or I should say, "Rock (Jesus Christ) Solid".

Overaged, I can understand your anger toward me. You hate the FACT that I am right and this puts you in an awkward position as a staunch SDA Church .org person. The Truth has a way of doing this.

However, I am not the problem. Your Church leaders are the problem. You anger should directed toward them. You should demand a full airing and you should demand that Truth(God/Jesus Christ) be the Rock on which the SDA Church .org stands instead of the SDA Church .org standing on Ellen White and her writings.

It is only going to get worse. It will never ever be same for the SDA Church .org ever again.

[Guest]

Dennis' stuff is usually real good.

Yep

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

He didn't need to. The point of criticism by men such as Dale Ratzlaff was "Ellen White's logic". They quoted her to argue with her logic, but did not use scripture themselves. His point was to show how their own logic falls flat on itself when one takes it to its furthest conclusion.

You never ever do what Priebes did and that is to refute error with more error.

The Bible and the Bible only is the only source able to make the claim of having TRUTH.

This is also error...The bible itself never claims to "have truth"....it also point to One who IS the truth....

And that makes both of you wrong, miz3 and Lysimachus.

I've taken classes from Priebe. 2 of them. Spent more than 6 month listening to him. I understand his version of theology. I agree that he is very logical....but I feel that he also makes the same mistakes that many other do as well. But I will agree, that from his position/assumptions, he reasons out well...and comes to a perfectly theological viewpoint that is well reasoned out....as far as he has gone.

His interest is the dealing with sin and justification...but never the end result. Can you tell me what the reason for man's redemption? Why does the bible deal so deeply as to the how sin is removed from man? Why is it necessary that we know just how far the sin is remove? What is the purpose of that?

If you were to say that it is so man can stand before a sinless God...I would ask you again, Why ? What is the purpose in standing before a sinless God? Priebe doesn't answer this, or if he does, he doesn't asnwer it very well.

[Neil D]

My friend 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 the SDA Church .org.

miz3,

With all due respect, you have errored and misunderstand where Dennis Priebe comes from. His audiance is from Weimar, a place where the writtings of EGW is used and closely followed. It is one of several "self-supporting schools" that is set up and ran INDEPENDANTLY from the confrerence run schools. If Dennis were to give the same speach, he would have given biblical support to his preaching...but because there were some already assumptions made, and some understandings already used between understanding individuals, YOU, Miz3 are outside that understanding. And your criticism is without foundation and unfair. You judge to harshly the preaching of a man who would put your knowledge of the Gospels to shame.....trust me on that...

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

He didn't need to. The point of criticism by men such as Dale Ratzlaff was "Ellen White's logic". They quoted her to argue with her logic, but did not use scripture themselves. His point was to show how their own logic falls flat on itself when one takes it to its furthest conclusion.

You never ever do what Priebes did and that is to refute error with more error.

The Bible and the Bible only is the only source able to make the claim of having TRUTH.

[Neil D]

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.

[Lysimachus]

This is also error...The bible itself never claims to "have truth"....it also point to One who IS the truth....

And that makes both of you wrong, miz3 and Lysimachus.

I've taken classes from Priebe. 2 of them. Spent more than 6 month listening to him. I understand his version of theology. I agree that he is very logical....but I feel that he also makes the same mistakes that many other do as well. But I will agree, that from his position/assumptions, he reasons out well...and comes to a perfectly theological viewpoint that is well reasoned out....as far as he has gone.

His interest is the dealing with sin and justification...but never the end result. Can you tell me what the reason for man's redemption? Why does the bible deal so deeply as to the how sin is removed from man? Why is it necessary that we know just how far the sin is remove? What is the purpose of that?

If you were to say that it is so man can stand before a sinless God...I would ask you again, Why ? What is the purpose in standing before a sinless God? Priebe doesn't answer this, or if he does, he doesn't asnwer it very well.

Thank you for sharing this Hamilton.

With that said, however, I wanted to ask you to clarify for me where you feel I am wrong. I'm always up for correction from another Adventist brother or sister who is passionate for our faith. Your words impress me. So please do share with me where you feel I err in what I said. My goal is to sharpen the truth, as I desire nothing but the full truth!

Time is too short, let us unite and move forward! God is sifting His people, and may we leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ and go unto perfection!

[Lysimachus]

We are not being dishonest in saying that it is ok to use EGW WHEN THE AUDIENCE IS SDA AND WHEN WE ARE LECTURING OVER SDA DOCTRINE USING SDA SOURCES...Because we believe EGW and the bible are in harmony with each other and because EGW does give greater detail, it is right and proper for us to use her to bring forth our arguement. Now, if we were to bring out the same arguements before a NON-Adventist audience, then yeah, you are spot on. But this audience is Weimar, an Adventist audience, that is NOT supported by the conference. And you are overstating your position.

Precisely. These are Weimar students. I have looked up Priebe's articles online, and many of his papers and articles are laden with Scriptures. Although it would have been preferable in my estimation for Priebe to pull some scriptures from his arsenal in this sermon, we must understand that he was specifically addressing other Adventists who USE Ellen White's writings to teach their false theologies! So he was rightly quoting Ellen White to counter those who misuse her writings to say that Ellen White believed Christ came in a Pre-Adamic flesh.

THIS is what miz3 refuses to understand.

He rejoices over this fact simply because it gives him a hook to hang his doubt on.

He does not realize he's fighting a losing battle.

In the end, true Adventism will come through with shining colors. And after the dust is all settled, everyone sooner or later will be forced to recognize that Ellen White was a true prophet of God.

[Neil D]

"Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’"

Matthew 4:4.

The Bible is God's Word. That Word created everything (Genesis chapter one). That Word became flesh (John chapter one). That Word said, "I am the the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John chapter fourteen).

The Bible is the Truth because it is God's Word. Thus, it writes about itself.

Again, you make a mistake and encourage the atheistic argument that Christians worship a bible. The bible is a record of God's acts...Jesus is the Word of God and became the embodiment of that Word. Thus, Jesus is the Truth...Again, the bible is a record of God's acts and, many times, man's response to God. And the bible records some acts done in the name of God, but clearly are not God's acts...That, while recorded correctly, is NOT truth....

[Neil D]

Thank you for sharing this Hamilton.

With that said, however, I wanted to ask you to clarify for me where you feel I am wrong. I'm always up for correction from another Adventist brother or sister who is passionate for our faith. Your words impress me. So please do share with me where you feel I err in what I said. My goal is to sharpen the truth, as I desire nothing but the full truth!

Time is too short, let us unite and move forward! God is sifting His people, and may we leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ and go unto perfection!

Let me first state that our growth as Christians is NOT in the dealing with Sin...exclusively. That perview is for God. He deals with Sin. We are born in it, we can not do anything about it. The honest truth is that Sin is dealt with outside ourselves. That is God's relm....Saving us.

In our relm, we can, with God's grace, and with prayer and choosing, improve ourselves. We choose not to get mad/lie/murder/steal, we choose not to blame others for our mistakes. We choose to make improvements in our character with grace, honesty, charity, hope,and love. Please note, I am speaking from a human experience.

But again, with all this doing, what is the profit? What is the reward of improving who we are to the best of our ability?

The answer is that WE become better people, for the purpose of being friendly...we are made for friendship. To be known and to know is truely our highest reward. It is not, as some adventist would insist upon, being righteous before a Holy God. So, the race [As Paul refers to} or the goal for us is to be the friendliest, loyal, kindest, most honest friends that we can be....

So, what does this have to do with Dennis Preibe? He argues from a very legalistic point of view...he argues the process of salvation, without the end result of friendship...friendship with God/Jesus.

I was once told that "Truth is progressive." Well, the fault in that statement is that Legalism is also progressive. "I gave up on eating dairy products this year, I am practicing being honest, in fact, I didn't cheat on my IRS records this year..." Yes, legalism can be percieved as being "progressive". And it conciders knowing Jesus outside the plan of salvation as near useless knowledge.

And the whole plan of salvation is to provide friendship with an eternal God, one who would sacrifice all of the treasures of heaven just to know you and allow God to be known to you...

Having said that, I will also make a disclaimer. I do not know when he made this presentation at Weimar. But, he was arguing this 30 years ago when he was PUC as a professor. He may have changed.

Anyway, that is my take on all of this...

[Neil D]

Precisely. These are Weimar students. I have looked up Priebe's articles online, and many of his papers and articles are laden with Scriptures. Although it would have been preferable in my estimation for Priebe to pull some scriptures from his arsenal in this sermon, we must understand that he was specifically addressing other Adventists who USE Ellen White's writings to teach their false theologies! So he was rightly quoting Ellen White to counter those who misuse her writings to say that Ellen White believed Christ came in a Pre-Adamic flesh.

THIS is what miz3 refuses to understand.

Please realize, Lysimachus, that we are all in a growth mode while on this earth. And there are many parts to the person...some are rather humorous...and some are just plain obnoxious. Let us strive not to be obnoxious, but also to strive gently with our brothers....

Of course, if your brother uses a stick to correct you, you have my permission to take the stick out of his hand. LoL

I have listened to nearly half of Preibe's sermon. He is one of the clearest deep thinkers that I have heard from Adventist preachers. I have heard him make several references to biblical quotes, ones that deal with Sin. For example, Preibe explains/references the bible verse that "Jesus will save His people FROM thier sins". I believe that this quote of the bible is taken from the Angel Gabrial when he was talking to Mary about her pregnancy.

So, I was wrong when I said that Preibe was using exclusively EGW. And Miz3 has overstated her position...But he is right in that Priebe uses EGW very extensively. And I do want to acknowledge that observation is correct.

[Gibs]

The problem is a man or woman must do something to be saved, "Born Again".

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

Repent! Is the resolve to be dead of the old man of sin Born Again of His Spirit, filled with His indwelling Power to overcome all past things we did in sinning.

Priebie is no legalist, nor am I a legalist. He preaches Salvation rightly.

It amounts to the Faith that Works, and it is Christ you the Hope of Glory that does the works.

The Messianic Jew knew this and Paul revealed it to the Gentiles,

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

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.

[miz3]

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

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: miz3

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.

We are not being dishonest in saying that it is ok to use EGW WHEN THE AUDIENCE IS SDA AND WHEN WE ARE LECTURING OVER SDA DOCTRINE USING SDA SOURCES...Because we believe EGW and the bible are in harmony with each other and because EGW does give greater detail, it is right and proper for us to use her to bring forth our arguement. Now, if we were to bring out the same arguements before a NON-Adventist audience, then yeah, you are spot on. But this audience is Weimar, an Adventist audience, that is NOT supported by the conference. And you are overstating your position.

Here is the problem. The source from which this video was posted was YouTube. That it is uploaded to a site that is predominantly NON-Adventist tends to undermine your point. The audience now is NON-Adventist.

[Tom Wetmore]

MODERATOR NOTE:

This topic has been locked unlocked. A review of the discussion reveals that certain individuals have yet to understand that making one another the topic of argument is not appropriate. Once again, stick to the topic, not to each other.

Please stick to the topic. Show respect for each other by not making each the topic.