Prophetic Inspiration

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I always thought the "lesser light" referred to a reflection of the "greater light" — somewhat like an analogy of the moon reflecting the sun.  The moon doesn't create any light of its own; it only reflects the light that happens to hit it from the sun.... and not all of the light from the sun hits the moon.  In like manner (to my way of thinking), Mrs. White reflects a part of the Biblical "light," but by no means, did she reflect it all.  

Other planets also reflect the sun's light, though not as brightly to our eyes as the moon.  Possibly, in addition to Mrs. White, there are other "lesser lights" out there that can give us even further spiritual insights...

[Unchained]

28 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I always thought the "lesser light" referred to a reflection of the "greater light" — somewhat like an analogy of the moon reflecting the sun.  The moon doesn't create any light of its own; it only reflects the light that happens to hit it from the sun.... and not all of the light from the sun hits the moon.  In like manner (to my way of thinking), Mrs. White reflects a part of the Biblical "light," but by no means, did she reflect it all.  

Other planets also reflect the sun's light, though not as brightly to our eyes as the moon.  Possibly, in addition to Mrs. White, there are other "lesser lights" out there that can give us even further spiritual insights...

Very true!

Another thing to keep in mind is that God sent us this "lesser light" because people weren't heeding the Bible as they should. Ellen White herself said that the purpose of her ministry was to make us pay more attention to the Scriptures:

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."

If we had lived by the principles found in the Bible, her ministry wouldn't have been necessary... Here is another important statement about the relationship between the "lesser light" and the "greater light":

"Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it. The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it.

But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow. The word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles.

I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept."

source: CCh page 92.

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I always thought the "lesser light" referred to a reflection of the "greater light" — somewhat like an analogy of the moon reflecting the sun.  The moon doesn't create any light of its own; it only reflects the light that happens to hit it from the sun.... and not all of the light from the sun hits the moon.  In like manner (to my way of thinking), Mrs. White reflects a part of the Biblical "light," but by no means, did she reflect it all.  

Other planets also reflect the sun's light, though not as brightly to our eyes as the moon.  Possibly, in addition to Mrs. White, there are other "lesser lights" out there that can give us even further spiritual insights...

Pam, you're very close in your understanding here.  In fact, the Bible itself uses the sun/moon greater/lesser light analogy.  However, Revelation 22:16 tells us Who the sun represents.  Jesus is the greater light.  Jesus is the Greater Light of the Bible, the light to which the scriptures point and of Whom they are a reflection.  Ellen White reflects the light of Jesus, not of the Bible.  The Bible itself is but a reflection--Ellen White at times spoke with Jesus face to face in vision.  She saw far more than a mere textual reflection of Christ via the Bible.  As a prophetess, she saw the Man Himself.  The moon represents the spirit of prophecy--and the spirit of prophecy is the same spirit which the Bible authors had.  See 2 Peter 1:19-21.

None of the planets reflects to us the light reflected to it by another planet.  They only reflect the light they receive directly from the Sun.  The same is true of Ellen White.  She gives us messages directly from the throne.

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Unchained said:

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."

The fact is, this statement cannot be forced to say what most people make it say.  Please consider that it could just as well be saying, as I believe it is, the following:

 

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible [the lesser light], and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light [Christ]."

The fact is, Ellen White makes clear reference in her writings to Christ as the greater light.  If we allow her own writings to be used to interpret herself, we must acknowledge that she may very well be referring to Christ in the above statement.  The Bible is lesser to Him.

[debbym]

5 hours ago, Unchained said:

Very true!

Another thing to keep in mind is that God sent us this "lesser light" because people weren't heeding the Bible as they should. Ellen White herself said that the purpose of her ministry was to make us pay more attention to the Scriptures:

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."

If we had lived by the principles found in the Bible, her ministry wouldn't have been necessary... Here is another important statement about the relationship between the "lesser light" and the "greater light":

source: CCh page 92.

 

in the same way, if mankind had kept close to God and kept himself in the will of God, knowing the principles of God's own character.... the ten commandments would have never needed to be given.  It is our distance from God that leaves us blind to sin and all it's forms and degrees.  Ellen white made clear application of the principles of God case by case in the testimonies and her writings in general.  It was to reveal the Character of our creator and redeemer and dearest friend that She labored.

[Kevin H]

16 hours ago, Rossw said:

Just to add though, this discussion is interesting even if just a red herring.

But no, this is NOT a red herring. Too many base their faith on Fundamentalism. In the last days as the problems with fundamentalism come more to the forefront too many are going to give up the Bible like how people gave up Mrs. White under the Rea issue. And they will have the additional temptation of Satan impersonating Jesus.

It also raises questions on how we treat each other and what is proper study and application of inspired writings. Remember there were some Adventist leaders a century ago who's followers are still around who have Ellen White quotes for what they believe despite the fact that Mrs. White wrote to them telling them that they have her words but not her message.

[Kevin H]

16 hours ago, JoeMo said:

To me, this is an example of some of her writings which were meant for 1 person (Elder B.), not for the consumption of the entire church

But we can still learn from these. Mrs. White's ministry often reflects a "Oneness of Opposites" on topics or at least a balance between the extremes. But there is a tendency to take Mrs. White's quotes without looking for different things. one of these are what some have called "Balancing quotes"

Another is did Mrs. White's life and practice show a consistency of a line or does her actions, and the actions of those working with her reflect that she sees the quote as one aspect but a more balanced view. An example here is in her time "Educated" people knew the classical languages, the ancient myths and Shakespeare.  That is what advanced education focused on. She supported an education on life skills and to get a job, more practical matters. So she was of course horrified by how everyone to be "educated" in reading pagan mythology. And she down played the others. She had comments about Shakespeare. One was critical of how someone who died in a drunken orgy should not be honored by being on the cover of one of our journals (as one of our journals did). The others in the context of the education of the day. Because of this there are members with their Mrs. White quotes demanding that Shakespeare not be used in our English classes and that Seventh-day Adventists are to be ignorant of Shakespeare. However what we find was done in the reform schools, those who were working with Mrs. White to institute her reforms (at least at the South Lancaster school) was that Shakespeare was moved out of being major study in the education to his plays becoming the Saturday night programs. To me this indicates that she was not for us to become ignorant of Shakespeare but to not have our time monopolized by him. And in literature in general we take her quotes about fiction but not realize that she was part of a movement lead by the more serious novelists dealing with poorly written junk reading that only tantalized the imagination (which we still have with us, they have especially developed into many of the romance novels, adventure novels and soap operas.) Now if any of that cheep stuff is written about a "true" story we tend to accept it, and reject reading things by say Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorn, and others, even though they say the same thing about the "Novel" that Mrs. White said.  As well as historical things about say the Circus.

Unfortunately we approach these and other topics not dealing with a balanced understanding but either a blind rejection, or using the balancing statements and historical events to make us say that anything goes. Either we don't see movies or anything with acting at all, or we go and see anything and allow entertainment to monopolize our time. Either we have members horrified that the guides at Elmsheaven pointing to the fireplace with the tiles of the stories of King Arthur and telling us that Mrs. White loved to tell children the stories behind those tiles and say that must be wrong she must have just ignored them, or we have people saying "ok, go a head and read anything."  Mrs. White tried to make us think, to be critical. To ask questions "Is this literature completely dangerous to spend time on, or is it something that I need not be ignorant about but not have it consume all my time." Mrs. White tried to make us critical thinkers, but we ignore this lesson and instead we tend to use Mrs. White as someone to turn to her for simple answers either on the conservative or liberal side. This is not fair to her.

Yes, we need to know about Brother B. It is good that Green pointed him out. Green doing this was appropriate. Sadly, at least in my understanding or misunderstanding of what he was trying to say was using this criticism of Brother B's liberal views. as an excuse to push the traditional Fundamentalist view, forgetting that Mrs. White was critical of that view as well.

[Kevin H]

Just read this on facebook and decided to share it here. No I have not had the chance to check the quote and don't have the information in the 3 dots, but thought this is a good point for discussion:

Quote

Quote

Selected Messages, 215, 217—Ellen White writes: “God desires us to deal with . . . problems sensibly.” She continues: “My mind has been greatly stirred with the idea [expressed by some as follows], ‘Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.’” [To this she responds:] “God wants us all to have common sense, and he wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relations of things.”

 

 

[Rossw]

Kevin, 

That portion came from the White Estate and is commentary on her writings in the chapter "use common sense" http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/herm-pri.html#sense.

The issue was at what age should children go to school.

[Unchained]

14 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The fact is, this statement cannot be forced to say what most people make it say.  Please consider that it could just as well be saying, as I believe it is, the following:

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible [the lesser light], and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light [Christ]."

The fact is, Ellen White makes clear reference in her writings to Christ as the greater light.  If we allow her own writings to be used to interpret herself, we must acknowledge that she may very well be referring to Christ in the above statement.  The Bible is lesser to Him.

 

Ellen White does elsewhere call John the Baptist a “lesser light” that was to prepare the world for the Messiah, but it is clear from the context that Ellen White in this passage is referring to her own scriptures as a “lesser light”. This quote is from an article in the Review about the importance of circulating her own books.

Another quote:

“Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour.”

Thus, the “lesser light – greater light” metaphor is therefore without a shadow of doubt one that originated in her own writings. The context of the passage makes it clear that Ellen White indeed is calling her own scriptures a lesser light, just pay attention to the sentence that followed my original quote.

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books [she mentions 4 of her own books by name earlier in the article] containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain!"
source: RH January 20, 1903

[Green Cochoa]

14 minutes ago, Unchained said:

 

Ellen White does elsewhere call John the Baptist a “lesser light” that was to prepare the world for the Messiah, but it is clear from the context that Ellen White in this passage is referring to her own scriptures as a “lesser light”. This quote is from an article in the Review about the importance of circulating her own books.

Another quote:

“Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour.”

Thus, the “lesser light – greater light” metaphor is therefore without a shadow of doubt one that originated in her own writings. The context of the passage makes it clear that Ellen White indeed is calling her own scriptures a lesser light, just pay attention to the sentence that followed my original quote.

"The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books [she mentions 4 of her own books by name earlier in the article] containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain!"
source: RH January 20, 1903

1) When you mention the four books that she had named earlier in her article, did you overlook the Bible that she had just mentioned in the prior sentence?

2) The lesser-greater light metaphor did not originate with Ellen White.  It originated in the very first chapter of the Bible, and is elucidated in the Book of Revelation.  Incidentally, Revelation and/or the Bible is the Book originally referred to as the "Spirit of Prophecy."

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.  (Revelation 19:10)

Notice that John's "brethren that have the testimony of Jesus" are equated with having "the spirit of prophecy."  In other words, Adventists have gotten on the wrong track from the beginning with making a distinction between "the spirit of prophecy" and "the Bible."  No such distinction exists.

John explicitly tells us, in Revelation 1:2, that he "bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw."  Therefore, his writings are part of "the spirit of prophecy."  He, like Ellen White, reflected the light God gave him.

[Rossw]

13 hours ago, Kevin H said:

But no, this is NOT a red herring. Too many base their faith on Fundamentalism. In the last days as the problems with fundamentalism come more to the forefront too many are going to give up the Bible like how people gave up Mrs. White under the Rea issue. And they will have the additional temptation of Satan impersonating Jesus.

It also raises questions on how we treat each other and what is proper study and application of inspired writings. Remember there were some Adventist leaders a century ago who's followers are still around who have Ellen White quotes for what they believe despite the fact that Mrs. White wrote to them telling them that they have her words but not her message.

Is this a confusion between a conservative view of the Bible and a "fundamentalist" agenda? There will always be those who will twist EGW into promoting their beliefs but that is because they don't love objective truth and only love themselves. Does this mean all Biblical conservatives are automatically fundamentalists? EGW can be used improperly for either a liberal or conservative view.

If a person is a fundamentalist because of the way they use EGW to promote their own ideas then I think the pro-WO are just as guilty. The solution to the debate on WO should then go back to what Scripture says.

Unfortunately there will be those who are deceived in these last days but it will only be a result of a lack of love for truth.

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

 EGW can be used improperly for either a liberal or conservative view.

If a person is a fundamentalist because of the way they use EGW to promote their own ideas then I think the pro-WO are just as guilty. The solution to the debate on WO should then go back to what Scripture says.

Unfortunately there will be those who are deceived in these last days but it will only be a result of a lack of love for truth.

The topic is about 'inspiration'. Anyone can misuse the Bible or EGW, that has never been denied or suggested that only 'one' group does so.

The way you included 'WO' in your post and the last sentence of the post could suggest that those for 'WO' have a '....lack of love for the truth.'

Is that your intention?

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

The topic is about 'inspiration'. Anyone can misuse the Bible or EGW, that has never been denied or suggested that only 'one' group does so.

The way you included 'WO' in your post and the last sentence of the post could suggest that those for 'WO' have a '....lack of love for the truth.'

Is that your intention?

I was going to qualify my post with 'some' but it didn't happen. 

Really, my post was to show fundamentalism should not be confused with a conservative hermeneutic. The hypocrisy is to accuse conservatives of fundamentalism when many in the liberal camp use EGW in the same incorrect manner of cutting and pasting their own beliefs into her writings.

 

[Rossw]

39 minutes ago, jackson said:

Fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note:Fundamentalistsoften argue against the theory of evolution. (See Scopes trial.) 

 

 

I hope the terms "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" are not attached to those who believe that all scripture is inspired  and should be understood as read with one verse amplifying and explaining another. 

What should we call a Christian who believes all scripture is inspired by God  and therefore one should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.?  Fundamentalist, if not co-opted  by a radical movement would be the proper word. Conservative ijust doesn't seem descriptive enough?

 

The term "fundamentalist" has taken on different definitions, which, in my opinion, the Pro-WO camp has used to discredit and confuse the message of the anti-WO camp. 

I've always thought SDAism is/was a fundamentalist Christian group and was proud of that.

But, within our SDA group are the subset group who have a fundamentalist view of EGW and then the Bible.

The lines between the 2 fundamentalist definitions are blurred here. 

Is a person who quotes EGW automatically a hard line fundamentalist? Well, that depends on context doesn't it.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The term "fundamentalist," in Christian, religious, aspects, has generally been understood to apply to one who agreed with a set of "fundamental" statements of belief that were published in the early 1900s.

NOTE:  I am going completely by memory.  So, my date may be slightly off.  And, I do not remember exactly the list of fundamentals that were published, or who wrote them.

As SDA doctrine generally disagreed with several of those doctrinal statements,  Adventists generally rejected the idea that they were fundamentalist.

On this basis, we should use caution is describing us as fundamentalist as doing so may confuse people as to what we actually believe.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For more on this subject and the material that I referenced above, see:  http://www.oocities.org/athens/parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm

There is stuff there with which we as SDAs would agree.

But, many would say that we as a denomination do not agree with aspects of the inspiration of the Bible.  The fundamentalists often believe that in the original autographs the Bible was dictated word by word.  We reject that as a denomination.

In addition, fundamentalism is often associated with Darby and his works.  This is another  reason why we should be cautious about saying we are fundamentalist.

 

[Green Cochoa]

15 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The term "fundamentalist," in Christian, religious, aspects, has generally been understood to apply to one who agreed with a set of "fundamental" statements of belief that were published in the early 1900s.

NOTE:  I am going completely by memory.  So, my date may be slightly off.  And, I do not remember exactly the list of fundamentals that were published, or who wrote them.

As SDA doctrine generally disagreed with several of those doctrinal statements,  Adventists generally rejected the idea that they were fundamentalist.

On this basis, we should use caution is describing us as fundamentalist as doing so may confuse people as to what we actually believe.

 

1) The word "fundamentalist" has roots going back before that time when a certain group of them developed such a set of statements.

2) Which of the statements did Adventists reject?  From what I can tell, the "fundamentals" list included the following:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
• The virgin birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

I happen to agree with all of the above.  That would make me a fundamentalist, per its definition in the early 1900s.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:

As to your statement # 1, your are correct.  You will note that I said:  " . . . has generally been understood to apply to one who agreed with a set of "fundamental" statements of belief that were published in the early 1900s. "  So, I qualified it.

As to your statement # 2:  I made the following comments:  1) We have some agreement.  2)  We do not agree with a word for word dictation of the autographs by God.  You may agree with that, but if you do you are out of harmony with both EGW and the official doctrine of the SDA Church.  The fact remains that such is the understanding of many of the Fundamentalists today.  3)  In the minds of many, Fundamentalism has taken on the be beliefs of Darby.  I know you well enough to know that you would soundly, and correctly, reject those teachings.

I do not intend to get into a specific discussion of the list of beliefs that I referenced.  But, I stand by my comment:  "On this basis, we should use caution is describing us as fundamentalist as doing so may confuse people as to what we actually believe."

You  may call yourself a Fundamentalist, if you chose.  But, in come circles that will confuse people as to what you actually believe.

 

 

[JoeMo]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 2:00 PM, Rossw said:

EGW can be used improperly for either a liberal or conservative view.

AMEN!  But admittedly, so can the Bible.  One of the reasons I don't reference her is that she is so easily misused - even by the denomination.

[Kevin H]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

1) The word "fundamentalist" has roots going back before that time when a certain group of them developed such a set of statements.

2) Which of the statements did Adventists reject?  From what I can tell, the "fundamentals" list included the following:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
• The virgin birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

I happen to agree with all of the above.  That would make me a fundamentalist, per its definition in the early 1900s.

 

These ideas were developed over the second half of the 1800s in reaction to the rise of evolution and modernism, these discussions were printed in books and the views finally were published in a series of pamphlets during the first decade of the 20th century and lead to a large Bible Conference in the summer of 1919 in Philadelphia. These pamphlets and the movements around them have had a huge effect on Seventh-day Adventism, some of us agreeing with all of them, others agreeing with numbers 3 and 4, and in principle but maybe not the exact same way as the authors of the pamphlets numbers 2 and 5. Number 1 is the one that has caused the most controversy in Seventh-day Adventism. 

W. W. Prescott appears to have been the first (at least among our leadership) to read one of the early books that shared these ideas. He accepted them and began teaching them, including sharing them with Stephen Haskell. Elder A. G. Daniels also around this time learned this as well as D. M. Canright. When Mrs. White learned that Prescott, Daniels and Canright were starting to teach Fundamentalism, Mrs. White asked them to come and work for her. All three were horrified at the assignments that she gave them to do as they all went against what they were starting to learn and teach. The big problem with Canright was that he could not reconcile what Mrs. White was making him to do with what he was learning from Fundamentalism. Prescott and Daniels was in the same predicament, but they gave up "Fundamentalism" (more or less) instead.

Stephen Haskell and Mrs. White were good friends, however they did disagree on this point. Haskell kept pushing what these pamphlets (and the earlier books) trying to get Mrs. White to accept these views. She kept telling him that inspiration does not work this way and that if we were to accept the views of those pamphlets it would misrepresent how she wanted to be used and could be used to cause all kinds of trouble in the church. Mrs. White and Willie White had similar but less cordial letters with different people the names that I remember the most are Elders Washburn and Wilkinson.   Prescott, Daniels and Willie White believed that if the ideas presented in these pamphlets were to be accepted by the church that it would destroy the church.  People like Haskell, Washburn and Wilkinson believed that the church needed to embrace the views in these publications. They were baffled by Mrs. White opposing them on this topic. While I did not see any first hand documents connecting this, among the followers of Washburn and Wilkinson there were documents claiming that Mrs. White had apostatized, that she was claiming that she was not inspired after all, and blaming her apostasy on the influence of Willie and Daniels and Prescott  some even suggested that they were actually Jesuits. They warned people not to listen to Mrs. White's new writings but to have the people such as Elder Washburn and others offer what Mrs. White wrote that came back in the days prior to her apostasy. Mrs.  White accused them of taking the popular views of inspiration to edit her writings to teach their ideas.  

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, said below:

In my post, I listed some 90 published statements of belief/  One can not determine exactly what each taught without reading the individual documents, as going strictly by their titles, there can be a variety of belief and doctrine.

So, it just might be dangerous to state that one agrees with all of them, unless one had actually read each individual document.

Green prior to making your statement of belief, did you actually read all of them?  If you did not, your statement of agreement just may be confusing as to what you actually believe.

 

I happen to agree with all of the above.  That would make me a fundamentalist, per its definition in the early 1900s.

[Green Cochoa]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As to your statement # 2:  I made the following comments:  1) We have some agreement.  2)  We do not agree with a word for word dictation of the autographs by God.  You may agree with that, but if you do you are out of harmony with both EGW and the official doctrine of the SDA Church.  The fact remains that such is the understanding of many of the Fundamentalists today.  3)  In the minds of many, Fundamentalism has taken on the be beliefs of Darby.  I know you well enough to know that you would soundly, and correctly, reject those teachings.

Gregory,

There is nothing in those statements that says anything about Darby (a name I've heard but with whom I have little knowledge and no association), nor anything about a "word for word dictation of the autographs by God."  Perhaps this is a classic "straw man" argument.  Such an argument attempts to argue against something that is not stated nor believed to begin with.

I do not believe in a word for word dictation.  But neither do those "fundamentals" dictate such.  They simply support a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.  Do you believe the scriptures to be in error?

As I have no clear idea of Darby, more than that I've seen his name associated with a Bible version and/or commentary, please address the beliefs of the man instead to which you object.

13 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

You  may call yourself a Fundamentalist, if you chose.  But, in come circles that will confuse people as to what you actually believe.

You may choose to be confused by this if you wish, but I do not accept our 28FB as a valid expression of what I, or the church, should believe.  I believe the Bible and Ellen White.  Our church has taken some missteps, and this development of a formal expression of our creed was but the first step toward an apostasy even now ripening in our church.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not recall the 28 FB being mentioned, I did not reference them.  As you  would say:  A classic red herring.

 

[Green Cochoa]

6 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I do not recall the 28 FB being mentioned, I did not reference them.  As you  would say:  A classic red herring.

 

Ah…that's true, you did not.  But do you believe in the 28 "Fundamentals"?  Are you, then, a "fundamentalist" in "some circles"?  My comment was intended to provoke some thought, not merely a knee-jerk reaction.