Sweet in the mouth, bitter in the belly...Rev 10:8-10

[wicklunds]

How are SDA preachers and teachers understanding this text?

Rev 10:8 Then the voice which I heard from heaven, I heard again speaking with me, and saying, "Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land."

Rev 10:9 So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he *said to me, "Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey."

Rev 10:10 I took the little book out of the angel's hand and ate it, and in my mouth it was sweet as honey; and when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter.

I have heard in many of my history and theology classes that Matthew 24:36 is a trump card against time-setting. The only problem is that the same ones speak against proof-texting. Really bad form people. It causes you to wonder about other things many complain about. Like, for instance, that the great disappointment was a great mistake due to an incorrect interpretation of time. The problem is that it was not an incorrect interpretation of time but an incorrect interpretation of event. Now there is a cry of peace and safety because of that hour no man knoweth. But what does inspired counsel say?

Thus it was shown that Scripture gives no warrant for men to remain in ignorance concerning the nearness of Christ's coming. But those who desired only an excuse to reject the truth closed their ears to this explanation, and the words "No man knoweth the day nor the hour" continued to be echoed by the bold scoffer and even by the professed minister of Christ. As the people were roused, and began to inquire the way of salvation, religious teachers stepped in between them and the truth, seeking to quiet their fears by falsely interpreting the word of God. Unfaithful watchmen united in the work of the great deceiver, crying, Peace, peace, when God had not spoken peace. Like the Pharisees in Christ's day, many refused to enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, and those who were entering in they hindered. The blood of these souls will be required at their hand. {GC 372.1

Something to think about as we guard against time setting.

Dennis

[benherndon]

Dennis, I think you have an 'agenda'!

And that's OK with me but I think you should examine your 'agenda'---I say this with a smile because you have accused me of having an 'agenda' and I have admitted that I have one, which is----that we should use the Bible ALONE for all 'doctrines and reproofs'--just like our founder said. Now I know she said other things that tend to conflict with that. But I accept that some of what she says is correct and some is not. Nevertheless, I believe she was always honest at heart when she wrote whatever she wrote or is printed over her name.

However, not only is Matt 24:36 evidence that the Bible speaks loudly against time setting, there are a number of other texts and references that, to me at least, clearly wonder why in the world, IF EGW knew her Bible well, she would have believed "the day and the hour" was given 'the little flock'.

I find the excuse to be that its obvious she did NOT understand the teachings of the New Testament and instead, accepted the spurious calculations of other people.

Now that sounds very BAD for me to say such a thing. However, I can read the Bible about as well as most,and, I trust the translators and I do not accept ANY source over the scriptures no matter what the claim of that person might be. The evidence for me and for many others 'without' an 'agenda' is that EGW was sincere but sometimes, though well intended, made statements that are not consistent with scripture.

If I thought she was a 'fraud' I would openly resign with disgust any relationship with Adventism. However, I do not believe she was a 'fraud' though I admit that she was a human lady with human lady characteristics which were beyond her control because 'human-ness' is built into all of our personalities and characters JUST BECAUSE we are human imperfect people--by our very birth natures. I do not mean to be critical of ladies. I highly respect womanhood!!!!!

So, I find no credibility in 'some things' that were published over her name whether written by her or by her assitant writers and bookeditors. I find her an 'honest at heart' person. Other Christian writers are, in my opinion, likewise positioned.

So, yes, there is no excuse for setting a date, day and hour for the Lord to come based on Biblical evidence, at least. Many people 'think' they know the Bible well but they may not. We SDAs consider ourselves to be 'people of the Book'---I find 'most' of them are fairly uninformed about the Bible AND the writings of EGW, OR, that they cannot contain their prejudices that overly inflate EGW's authority over Biblical interpretation.

Ben

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

I find the excuse to be that its obvious she did NOT understand the teachings of the New Testament and instead, accepted the spurious calculations of other people.

---

Well Ben I cannot fault you for being honest with yourself here, but I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

[Guest]

Dennis these bible texts you have provided could be easily explained in we were sitting across from one another with our bibles open, knowing that Revelation different message are written in ORDER as heaven place them. And Revelation 10 is NO EXCEPTION.

There are a few examples given in the bible of dual application where certain portions of scripture I believe the authors themselves little understood. "The prophecies that received a partial fulfillment [THAT’S "partial fulfillment"] in the overthrown of Jerusalem have a more direct application to the last days. We are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. A crisis is before us, such as the world has never witnessed." Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing 120-121 Can not bible students see that Joel 2 is an example of that chapter being only partially fulfilled in New Testament times?? "Past history will be repeated." Testimonies to Ministers 116.

In Matthew 24 where Jesus is telling of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and the end of the world. He intermingled some of those events on purpose, others He answered specifically. "This entire discourse was given not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history." Desire of Ages 628. That means our generation, we are the ones that can make use of this heavenly instruction. Yes, much instruction is found in Revelation 10 and 11 that truly apply to the future that those with their cap & gown will never be able to see due to the preconceived ideas placed in their minds by college professors that were only teaching & memorizing from spurious books themselves.

[Guest]

Ben you have been eating at to many 4 star hotel salad bars where you can pick & choose what to place on your plate, this has spilled over into you doing the same with heavens instruction. I was reading from the following this morning that you can again decide to pick & choose.

"Just as soon as a man separates from God so that his heart is not under the subduing power of the Holy Spirit, the attributes of Satan will be revealed, and he will begin to oppress his fellowmen. An influence goes forth from him that is contrary to truth and justice and righteousness. This disposition is manifested in our institutions, not only in the relation of workers one to another, but the desire shown by one institution to control all others. Men who are entrusted with weighty responsibilities, but who have no living connection with God, have been and are doing despite to the Holy Spirit. They are indulging the very same spirit as did Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and as did the Jews in the days of Christ. (See Matt. 12:22-29; 31:37.) Warnings have come from God again and again for these men, but they have cast them aside and ventured on in the same course. {1888 1324.2}

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Dennis these bible texts you have provided could be easily explained in we were sitting across from one another with our bibles open, knowing that Revelation different message are written in ORDER as heaven place them. And Revelation 10 is NO EXCEPTION.

There are a few examples given in the bible of dual application where certain portions of scripture I believe the authors themselves little understood. "The prophecies that received a partial fulfillment [THAT’S "partial fulfillment"] in the overthrown of Jerusalem have a more direct application to the last days. We are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. A crisis is before us, such as the world has never witnessed." Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing 120-121 Can not bible students see that Joel 2 is an example of that chapter being only partially fulfilled in New Testament times?? "Past history will be repeated." Testimonies to Ministers 116.

In Matthew 24 where Jesus is telling of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and the end of the world. He intermingled some of those events on purpose, others He answered specifically. "This entire discourse was given not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history." Desire of Ages 628. That means our generation, we are the ones that can make use of this heavenly instruction. Yes, much instruction is found in Revelation 10 and 11 that truly apply to the future that those with their cap & gown will never be able to see due to the preconceived ideas placed in their minds by college professors that were only teaching & memorizing from spurious books themselves.

---

Ed,

I have read your comments about students coming from the colleges and Andrews before and I think we ought to take care not to disqualify everyone with sweeping generalizations. There will be individuals, such as myself, that will see through the obvious veneer of "truth" that ones in positions of authority will be urging. But I think your categorizations of the course our institutions of higher learning are taking are accurate. Lets pray that it will not be too late for the young ones who find it sporting to cut against established truth thinking they are only spurious tradition. This is the dynamic I see at work here at WWC that is blaringly evident. The students are constantly attempting to pigeon-hole all the sacred truths so well established through the scriptures and the SOP. And if you think that Ellen White will have any power over thier thinking, you will be fighting an uphill battle. This is not to blame the children themselves, but the ones in positions of teaching and preaching responsibility.

[benherndon]

Dennis, have you read Prof Alden Thompson's new book, ESCAPE FROM THE FLAMES--"How Ellen White grew frmo fear to joy---and helped me do it too." ? I have just read it and I don't usually spend time reading what other people think about what the Bible says and teaches. However, Alden's uncle is a very close personal and social friend of ours and he gave me the book to read.

Dan Smith, Senior Pastor at LaSierra College church, and sometime prof at the college I'm sure, has written a similar book dealing with alleged problems of Sr. White and the Bible. It is titles, "Lord, I Have a Question". Here are both of these legitimately highly regarded preacher/professor Adventists who write long about their relationship to 'the writings'.

This could be so easily 'handled' by following her advice to 'stop' quoting her and just 'quote' the Bible getting all your education and 'meat' from the Bible and NOT from any extraBiblical source---not even 'the writings'.

If there is anything to Christianity the message MUST COME EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE BIBLE!! No person since the Canon is closed has the right to take exception to the Bible's teachings or distort them in the interest of 'new light' or anything else. The Bible presents the complete story and there is nothing lacking to be made more 'complete' in 1844!!!!

If Jesus didn't tell us, plus having His chosen writers tell us what the Gospel is, then we have reason to forget it all and just assume we do not have an after life to look forward to. I would frankly put it all aside and become the classic total agnostic IF it were not for the statement, "He is risen!"

Certainly none of it, even if we accept it, is reason to condemn anybody else as being evil and unacceptable to God for salvation purposes when they have not been committing those 'detestable sins' so frequently referred to in the Bible and which make common sense amongst peole whether or not they accept Christ as their Savior and look forward to His promise He will return for His own someday.

Decent living, respecting that we are not 'gods' and yet living with respect for each other just makes common human sense. I believe in Him and what He says and did and what His chosen immediate followers wrote about Him and what He did on behalf of us sinners. Others may not---but treating each other with respect and consideration and love is Real Christianity in action, in good deed!

Though I think you and Ed are way off base and way too critical of others who don't believe in 'the writings' like you do, I am sure you are at heart good compassionate people who wouldn't really 'hurt a flea'. So God Bless you both---and since you are true 'believers' who call on His name, you are assured of His salvation it seems to me.

Ben

Ben

[Guest]

Dennis said this. "I have read your comments about students coming from the colleges and Andrews before and I think we ought to take care not to disqualify everyone with sweeping generalizations."

================

Yes I am guilty of this very thing, I always allowed for the "7000 that hasn't bowed their knee" of which I know nothing, but there may be even more.

I attended a graduation this past week end on a campus not with any strings attached to anyone, this tells me that there are many pebbles on many beachs way beyond my view. I was encouraged that someday the honest in heart will be seen giving a present truth message as there are many truths contained in the word of God, but it is PRESENT TRUTH that end time people need to hear now. What do they need to hear??? They need to hear Revelation 10 & 11, studied with Daniel 12 that will unlock the mystery many are stumbling over in these 3 chapters studied in a future setting.

[wicklunds]

Ben,

Judging from your other post in the "Adventists think they"... thread, I would say that you are confused as to what you really believe about Ed and myself. I have a personally autographed copy of AT's new book. I have read the first several pages and have come to the same conclusion as I did after reading his other work "Inspiration". These are nothing more than an attempt to redirect our faith in the direction of their own choosing and subverting the true "thus saith the Lord" as it has been given through the Inspired writ.

My wife is a distant relative of the Thompson clan. This does not make life easy as I am constantly split over whether my extended family is a believer of his philosophy or not. I hate the second guessing. But as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord. And that means rejecting anything that draws our hearts away from the one true God and His inspired prophets, special revelation in the Bible, and whatever way He wants to reveal Himself to us. Why reject a portion of Inspiration as spurious or pastoral when clearly it was more than that? AT seems to miss out on a lot because he mischaracterizes anyone who places more spiritual emphasis and authority on the EW writings than he does, as if he were the final say in such matters. He calls those who take a firmer stand on Inspiration, "inerrantists" or "conservatives" or "fundamentalists" or "extremists" when these characterizations carry negative connotations and automatically cast a shadow of doubt as to their credibility. When such say these things they call down the judgment of God on both our schools and our denomination at large. They are nothing more than atheists taking refuge in Adventist subculture. My advice to yourself and anyone who adopts AT's view of Inspiration is to get as far away from it as your mind can take you in a grand hurry.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Then as soon as you start quoting the Bible, they start quoting Descartes, or Diogenes, or Socrates. The Liberal mind must think of every venue to thwart what they deem as authoritarian or dogmatic. Always on the shifting sands... The only problem with this is that truth is fallen in the street and equity cannot enter. So carry on and I will make good and sure that inspiration remains a part of our discussion.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .they start quoting Descartes, or Diogenes, or Socrates."

No one in this thread has quoted from any of the above. Further, those people have not been commonly referenced anyplace in CA, let alone as a standard of truth. I am not saying that no mention has ever been made of them. I do not know. But, they have not been held as a general standard of truth by anyone.

You will note that Dennis often responds in a manner that appears to be a specific response to someone here but his respose is deeply drawn from experiences that he may have had outside of Club Adventist. That may be what he has done here.

But, it is that aspect that makes it hard to deal with him. How do we respond to one who goes off the issue presented here, and brings something up that is outside of our experience, and is limited to his?

You can't. You can't have a viable conversattion on such a basis.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Re: " . . .they start quoting Descartes, or Diogenes, or Socrates."

No one in this thread has quoted from any of the above. Further, those people have not been commonly referenced anyplace in CA, let alone as a standard of truth. I am not saying that no mention has ever been made of them. I do not know. But, they have not been held as a general standard of truth by anyone.

You will note that Dennis often responds in a manner that appears to be a specific response to someone here but his respose is deeply drawn from experiences that he may have had outside of Club Adventist. That may be what he has done here.

But, it is that aspect that makes it hard to deal with him. How do we respond to one who goes off the issue presented here, and brings something up that is outside of our experience, and is limited to his?

You can't. You can't have a viable conversattion on such a basis.

---

Have you ever considered that it might be your types that find me difficult because I will not be swayed to their understanding through slow compromise? I will be the first to admit I have trouble dealing with issues on C/A without remembering what I have gone through in other areas of life. I am sorry you feel I am so hard to converse with Greg, but the only reason I feel predisposed to reacting the way I do is because people, whether they know it or not, tend to use the same old reasoning wherever you go. It might seem new on the surface to some, but when you get right down to it, it is yesterday's opinion covered in the pc wrapping of "modern sophistication".

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .the only reason I feel predisposed to reacting the way I do is because people, whether they know it or not, tend to use the same old reasoning wherever you go. It might seem new on the surface to some, but when you get right down to it, it is yesterday's opinion covered in the pc wrapping of "modern sophistication""

Fine. Then react to the person, and what is being said. People can converse on that level. You evade the person (sometimes, but not always), and interject issues that are so far outside of the dynamic that takes place here that people cannot deal with you.

You, as far as I know, have never accused me of partaking of the philosophy of Spinzoa. But, if you were to do so, come at me directly with quotes from what I have said, and then show how it is Spinzoa's philosophy. When you deal in generalizations, people simply do not have anything concrete enough to continue the discussion with you.

[Guest]

Greg I have noticed after reading scores & scores of your postings that you have never used one word of censer to Ben, even when he has been so far off base even draging Adventist standards in the mud. How do you justify this? Yet some of us can be an offender for a word and then get the dictionary throw at them. I personally am not offended as I know it goes with the territory since truth is involved in my posts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed, I have been asked many times why I allow you to post much of what I allow you to post. A number of people have taken deep issue with me for allowing you to post what I allow.

Well, I do not make decisions on the basis of my agreement/disagreement with the post. I make it on the content, and the spirit of the post. Personal attacks get my attention. Yet, some feel that I should be more strict in this area. Well, I attempt to allow robust discussion, especially when I think the people engaged in it can take it.

You will note that I challenge you and Dennis quite a bit. But, when I do so, I allow the post to stand.

No, I do not challenge Dr. Ben much, in part because there are others who respond to him as well as I would, and I do not feel that I have to respond to every comment that one makes. I let others slide for the same reason.

Am I perfect? No. But, you already knew that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazyjacky_seilchensmiley1.gif" alt="" />

By the way, I have challenged Dr. Ben, at times. Your ". . .never one word. . ." in not accurate.

[wicklunds]

Greg,

Maybe you should point out where these "generalizations" are. Must I answer every nitpicking thing you have a question about? When does it ever end? Would you be convinced even if I re-marked every jot and tittle ten times over? I doubt it. Therefore it is good to measure whether a response is worth my time or not. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But can I be in control of making that determination please? I don't complain when someone else shun's my request for return service.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

... SNIP AT seems to miss out on a lot because he mischaracterizes anyone who places more spiritual emphasis and authority on the EW writings than he does, as if he were the final say in such matters. ... SNIP Dennis

---

Yet, Dennis, you do the very same thing... except in your case it is a judgement against any who do not place the SAME... whether it be more or less authority on the EW writings than you do.... as if you were the final say on such matters.

Is not the same fault of which you accuse then found in you?

Surely, if we each keep our focus on Jesus, listening for His Voice, and praying earnestly for one another, these disputes will melt away under the guidance and tutelage of the Holy Spirit and our Beloved Jesus.

What purpose the dispute over authority when it all comes from Jesus anyway? Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All come to the Father through Him and no other. Abba Father is perfectly capable of convicting those who seek Him of any truth which they need to understand. Even if they don't want to be convicted.

For myself, I know I have been convicted of truth much against my desire to be... and when I finally surrendered and said, "Yea Lord," it was sweet indeed for the conflict to be settled. Holy Spirit heart-convicted truth is the kind of truth that when your back is against the wall, you know that you know that you know it's truth.

You can't force it. Jesus has to place it in your knowing place. It's experiential faith.

Clio

[wicklunds]

Yet we are using this argument of tolerance to make the truth of God and his prophet merely an issue of relevance and relativism. The attitude blowing in the wind seems to be: It isnt relevant for my life and my wishes, therefore I will not have this Jesus to rule over me. There is an absolute truth to be heard for our time, and we ought to find out what it is, yesterday.

That is my main concern. We have this attitude that whatever is right for you may not be right for me. When will two walk together in agreement with this philosophy as a guide? The Spirit of Prophecy was given for a specific purpose and to a specific group of believers. Are we upholding this gift or neglecting it? Since we are so smitten with this neither here nor there message, it will be as though God never lead a people to come of Babylon in the not so distant future if some people have their way.

[Clio]

Then you will continue to drive away those who exalt Jesus above all, and cling to the Bible as the primary source of the plan of Salvation.

It would seem to me, these would be the very ones you would most want to cultivate as being like-minded.

Clio

[wicklunds]

No, the ones who are driven away are the ones offended because of the use of the SOP friend. If there is a controversy over this issue, it is not because Jesus is being witheld, but rather that a saith the Lord has been issued from His throne, and it is going unheeded by His people. Let Jesus be lifted up, but not at the expense of His own messenger and message.

[benherndon]

Dennis and Ed, Gregory has disagreed with me several times. He does NOT agree with my posts in many ways and has told me so. I consider him a friend even though he doesn't agree/like some things at least that I post. He's told me so much more than once.

This is a forum! Forums are places where differing ideas are discussed! Forums are not places where everybody believes the same way. Forums are where people test their ideas against those with different ideas. Isn't that what is going on here?

Have I used anger or personal attacks against those who disagree with me? You see, I am also a bit unique on this forum. I have an 83 yr history of being SDA about as deeply as anybody here. There are some things about Adventism and its application to our Christian lives that I think should be changed---very carefully! By 'some things' I don't mean by any means that Adventism is 'wrong' in every way and should be replaced! I am not against going to church on Sabbath and spending the day with folks who love and worship God in this communion and combining our efforts to spread the message of Christ's salvational Gift. But I am opposed to Christians being critical of each other to the point of calling them 'fallen churchs' just because they didn't accept all the ideas of our founder or us today, they will lose out in the 'end'. Do you accept all the ideas of Luther? Zwingli? Miller? Calvin? Wesley? Joseph Bates? Ellen White?----oh, perhaps you say you do regarding EGW, but will your claim really stand careful examination against ALL and every one of her writings?

Relax. I've not said you were in danger of losing your salvation like some of you have said about me!! Where do you get the idea that you are always right and will be saved and those who don't agree with your ideas are from the 'abyss' or Satanic and will burn in Hades. Yes, go back and read your scores and scores of posts and you will see that some of you have said or intimated just such!! Where do you get that authority? From EGW? I'm sorry but you don't share her authority with her---even if you think you do!

So, once again, relax. Open your own 'cloak of piety' and look at it from a distance. You might find you're not a whole lot better off than the rest of us sinners that are assured of His salvation by Him!

Let's not get personal----let's fight it out over beliefs and ideas that make life interesting, challenging, and keeps us pretty honest. The Bible is our basis and EGW has said so many times. I can't believe you won't accept it whoever you are. EGW certainly accepted it--the Bible! One of the last things her normally intelligent mind did was to stand before the General Conference as it was convened and, weak as she was, she held up the Bible and said, "Brethren and sisters, I commend to you this book!" Do you think that wasn't a watershed moment after 60+ yrs of her ministry and having 25 millions words of her own published!! Ponder that for a few minutes. If anybody gets to heaven it certainly will be her!! While I say that from my heart it doesn't mean that she IS MY TRANSLATOR/INTERPRETER OF THE BIBLE. She is not. I do that for myself while being open to being in error and needing to change. Furthermore, nobody is being told by me they are salvation-ally in danger if they don't accept my understanding of the Bible---like some of you have said to and about me.

The reason you are so frustrated and perhaps a little put out over what I say is that you seem to be having trouble using the Bible ALONE to refute it! That may sound 'cocky'--but it isn't. You seldom take my posts apart and try to refute them from the Bible. Like, David McQueen, he challenges the way I used Mark 7. What's wrong with that? We exchange challenges! We aren't angry or frustrated. We are examining each other's minds. Its very enlightening and interesting!

Some of you may not like to read this quote from EGW which I have as much right to quote from as any of you have the right to quote her!--Here 'tis!---

"Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now."---

And BTW this is not exactly what she said, if you want to know! This is Maggie Hare's subsequent editing of what she said! It still represents her attitude and thought at the time she said it and under the circumstances. But she said essentially that. Pretty meaninful!--- it is, to me, at least.

Well, this concludes my 'penny' or 'mil' for today.

Cheers!

Ben

Ben

[wicklunds]

The message received is:

Dont you dare think of quoting sister White because she herself told us not to.

Don't use generalizations in your argumentation.

You are cultic in your use of Ellen White.

You never quote the bible as much as you do sister White.

You, by using Ellen White, are pushing faithful Adventists out of the faith.

You are exalting yourselves because you quote Ellen White.

You are leaving Jesus out because you are quoting Ellen White.

You are exalting Ellen White as a pope because whe is the final authority in your faith. etc....

All the same thing as I said in response to Gregory. All the tired out arguments against the use of SOP. Satan IS angry indeed!!!

It ceases to amaze me that God's professed people could be so indifferent to what is happening around them.

I never hear Ellen White quoted in school, if someone mentions her name in passing, they are looked upon as some sort of nineteenth century Millerite looney. Young people will not touch her books because of the influence of not a few who seek to suppress the light from heaven.

Sister White said that we should quote the Bible in matters where the Bible can be quoted. She wasnt saying we should never quote her AT ALL. Note!!

"GOD HAS TOLD ME THAT MY TESTIMONY MUST BE BORNE TO THIS CONFERENCE, AND THAT I MUST NOT TRY TO MAKE MEN BELIEVE IT. MY WORK IS TO LEAVE THE TRUTH WITH THE PEOPLE, AND THOSE WHO APPRECIATE THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN WILL ACCEPT THE TRUTH."-- MANUSCRIPT 43, 1901.

[COUNSEL WOULD COME THROUGH HER AS THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD AND THIS COUNSEL SHOULD BE HEEDED, BUT WORK IN DEPTH MUST BE DONE, WORK BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN GOD'S WORD. --COMPILERS.] When you make the Bible your food, your meat, and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious Word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that." Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.--Manuscript 43, 1901. (From an address to church leaders the night before the opening of the General Conference session of 1901.) {3SM 33.1}

But she also says:

To Correct Error and Specify Truth.--I have much written in the diary [WHILE MRS. WHITE KEPT FROM TIME TO TIME A DAILY DIARY OF HER EXPERIENCE, YET THIS IS NOT WHAT SHE REFERRED TO PRIMARILY IN USING THE TERM "DIARY." HER WRITING WAS OFTEN DONE IN RULED BLANK BOOKS, MORE THAN A SCORE OF WHICH ARE NOW IN THE WHITE ESTATE VAULT, AND MANY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS THAT APPEAR IN THE FILE ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN FIRST IN THESE BOOKS. SOME MANUSCRIPTS ON FILE BEAR THE GENERAL HEADING "DIARY," USED IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE. IT WILL BE REMEMBERED THAT THIS TERM IS USED BY HER IN THE TESTIMONIES IN REFERRING TO HER WRITINGS IN MANUSCRIPT FORM. (SEE TESTIMONIES, VOL. 8, P. 206, WHERE SHE SAYS, "IN MY DIARY I FIND THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN ONE YEAR AGO," AND IT IS PLAIN FROM WHAT FOLLOWS THAT SHE IS REFERRING TO TESTIMONY MATTER.)]

I have kept in all my journeys that should come before the people if essential, even if I did not write another line. I want that which is deemed worthy to appear, for the Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors and to specify what is truth. The Lord has revealed many things pointing out the truth, thus saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it."--Letter 127, 1910. {3SM 32.2}

Thanks for your time people,

Dennis

[wicklunds]

It makes no sense at all for God to give a message to someone and for it to be kept a secret. This is ungodly. Surely the Lord shall do nothing except He first reveals it to His servants the prophets. Right?

And then there is this...!!!

Mat 10:25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

Mat 10:26 "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

Mat 10:27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.

So there should be no more arguments about sister White and her use at any time, if we are going to consider the Bible.

Thank you for reading along...

Dennis

[Clio]

Quote:

---

...SNIP Let Jesus be lifted up, but not at the expense of His own messenger and message....SNIP

---

So to your mind... there are times when Jesus should not be lifted up, but His messenger should be? Or Jesus should only be lifted up if someone deemed by a select few as His messenger is also lifted up?

*shakes head*

I'm really trying to follow your reasoning on why someone who is definitely human, should be granted the same place as Jesus, Who is both human and Divine.

clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Must I answer every nitpicking thing you have a question about?"

No. Of course not. I do not respond to everything that you post, and I do not expect you to do so either.