SDA Evangelism

[BlessedMan]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

it would be a good idea to re-think how the church reaches out to other people of different faiths in an attempt to attract them to the SDA Church. This doesn't seem to be a bad idea.

I have been trying to ask you about RCC "distinctive" doctrines; however, thanks for this.  While one could agree, in principle with this part of your statement, it is attached to a well-known adhominem.

TBC

[Gustave]

46 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I have been trying to ask you about RCC "distinctive" doctrines; however, thanks for this.  While one could agree, in principle with this part of your statement, it is attached to a well-known adhominem.

TBC

I don't think the author of the article we're discussing was setting up for an ad hominem attack. Look at the 1st paragraph of the article. 

"Adventism was born out of the experience often called the Great Disappointment – an October 22, 1844 non-event when followers of William Miller waited in vain for Jesus to come. In part as reaction, early Adventists immersed themselves in trying to understand biblical prophecy and eschatology. This extended into attempting to more clearly determine what the Bible did and did not say on many other topics. From this came an Adventist understanding of the Sabbath, the state of the dead, non-eternal hellfire and more. In 1863 the church incorporated, and the chosen name – Seventh-day Adventism – was a declaration of the fledgling organization’s focus on two major doctrines: the 7th day as the still-valid Sabbath for Christians, and the Second Coming. Thus it is completely understandable that early Adventist evangelism focused on these things, and more broadly on what correct Bible doctrine was. They typically contrasted Adventism with the alternate surrounding denominations, as well as, unfortunately, disparaging Catholicism and “apostate Protestantism”.

 

In 1863 the SDA Church incorporated and started to "focus" on what correct Bible doctrine was and by 1878 Ellen White was able to get behind the following understanding:

"And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father,God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming
but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not"at all misrepresent them in the following statements". Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878

I think the author is simply saying it's time to rejig what's really important. I'm only agreeing with him.

[Gustave]

46 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I have been trying to ask you about RCC "distinctive" doctrines; however, thanks for this.  While one could agree, in principle with this part of your statement, it is attached to a well-known adhominem.

TBC

ALL Christians were part of the Catholic Church for the 1st 1000 years. What the Church affirmed is easy to confirm by reading the Councils of the Catholic Church. In Approximately 1054 there was a split between the east and west - the east became known as the Orthodox Church and the wast retained the name Catholic. 

The Orthodox Church claims that the Catholic Church departed from the One True Faith - the Catholic Church basically says the Orthodox Church departed. Below is a link to a scathing letter sent to Pope Francis. You could subtract the beefs the Orthodox Church has with Catholic and where east and west agree start drawing up a list of Doctrines that are distinctive to Catholics. 

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

[BlessedMan]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yes. 

The reason I asked is because I have had the most of it memorized for some time now, and as soon as I saw your post; I recognized something was missing from it. It would seem that this is a consistent event with your posts when you "quote," and bold with colorful letters. Your post supposedly containing The NICENE Creed is not complete my friend.

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

You could subtract the beefs the Orthodox Church has with Catholic and where east and west agree start drawing up a list of Doctrines that are distinctive to Catholics. 

I will read the document in that post. It would appear that for Roman Catholics, there are  252 MUST HAVE "Infallible" Dogmas that ARE SALVIFIC."

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

The reason I asked is because I have had the most of it memorized for some time now, and as soon as I saw your post; I recognized something was missing from it. It would seem that this is a consistent event with your posts when you "quote," and bold with colorful letters. Your post supposedly containing The NICENE Creed is not complete my friend.

That was a copy and paste and even a Prot version so I'm curious as to what you don't think is right about it. If you a thinking of a particular form here ya go. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/nicene-and-niceno-constantinopolitan-creed

The "colorful letters" I also bolded say;

 

"in fulfillment of the Scriptures"

Which if I'm not mistaken is present in all forms of the Creed.

What you find the Creed affirming in clear and exact language is that God became man, was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died and was burried AND three days later rose again and that all this was IN FULFILLMENT of the Scriptures which clearly said it was all going down this way and there was no doubt about any of it. 

Jesus: And he said unto them, THESE are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Luke 24,44 

Daniel 2, 44: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Arius didn't believe this and taught that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation. 

The early SDA's and Ellen White built their foundation on what Arius said and like Arius they categorically rejected the Creed because of what it affirmed about Christ. 

Here is Ellen's thoughts on this matter.

"Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that WE [SDA's at that time] do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements: #10  Jesus is very God and very man"

&

#29 Divinity and humanity were united, never to be divided (so say the creeds), yet the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross.

"For a period of time Christ was on probation. He took humanity on Himself, to stand the test and trial which the first Adam failed to endure. HAD HE FAILED IN HIS TEST AND TRIAL, he would have been disobedient to the voice of God, and the world would have been lost." Ellen White, Signs of the Times 10 May 1899 Christ glorified.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA's and Christadelphians don't accept the Nicene Creed, they claim their Cr eed is the Bible. Pretty much every Protestant Church accepts the Nicene Creed because they believe it systematizes Scripture. 

It's clearly apparent that within the SDA Church are those that accept and welcome the Nicene Creed as truth such as can be seen below.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+substance+of+God+Boonstra&&view=detail&mid=F4FD4107C76F4C1484BFF4FD4107C76F4C1484BF&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bsubstance%2Bof%2BGod%2BBoonstra%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I will read the document in that post. It would appear that for Roman Catholics, there are  252 MUST HAVE "Infallible" Dogmas that ARE SALVIFIC."

The average Catholic is unaware of many of those definitions. Most of these statements were defined because of heretical positions taken by heretics which claimed the direct opposite. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Nicene Creed:  The official teachings of the SDA Church agree with what is popularly known as the Nicene Creed.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to Arius:

*  The majority of the evidence as to what Arius believed and taught has come from those who were opposed to his teachings.  I  will agree that  there is sufficient evidence to correctly charge him with major heretical teachings.  However,, I will suggest that there is also some ignorance related to his teachings.

*  It is known that several of the early leaders in the SDA Church have come from what is called the Christian Connection, by SDA Scholars today.  Those who came from this background did not have what today is called an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.  From this respect, they have been called Arian and/or Semi-Arian.  I do not challenge this.  I simply point out that there is a difference between the Arian and the Semi-Arian  positions.  IOW, one whom we have called Arian, may actually be a Semi-Arian.

*  Current SDA scholarship, posits that some of those early SDA leaders rejected an orthodox understanding of the Trinity due to a failure to correctly understand what the orthodox position really was.  As, I have posted on this in the past, I will not repeat what I have said in this post.

*  My major point:  We are still learning about the history of our denomination.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A question was asked earlier related to separating Christ from His teachings.  Of course, we do not make that separation.  Of course, all of the teachings of Christ have value.  One of their points of value, is that teachings can inform us about God and the character of God.

But, the fact that a teaching is  of value, and reveals an important understanding of God's character, does not ipso facto make  that teaching salvific. As I am using the term, it does not always mean that a correct understanding of that teaching is required for salvation.

To illustrate:  The Bible seems to present a teaching of Christ related to marriage in heaven (Luke 20:34ff & Mark 12:24ff).  This is a teaching of Jesus.  It has value and it provides information.  But, scholars, to include SDA's do not agree on exactly what it says.  I will suggest that this teaching, whatever it says, is not salvific.  My salvation does not depend upon my correct understanding of that passage.

  Within the context as to how I am using the term "salvific," there are other teachings of both Christ and the Bible that have both information and value, but are not salvific.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I consider all Christian and Biblical doctrines to be able to be placed on of a figure of a target, with a central circle, surrounded by outer tings.

*  In the central circle, I only place doctrines related to Christ,  the Cross, and that Sunday morning resurrection.  I do not place any other doctrine in that central circle.

*  I place the doctrine of the Sabbath in a ring that is out from that central circle.  Yes, it has information and value.  But, it lies beyond the centrality of the cross.

* Further beyond the doctrine of the Sabbath, I place the doctrine of Soul Sleep.  Yes, it also as both information and value.  but, in my thinking, it is not as central as is other doctrines.

* At some point in this, are doctrines that are not salvific.  They have both value and information.  but, my salvation does not depend upon my having a correct view of them.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  You have outdone yourself.  To post an 87 page letter sent to the  Pope in Rome from the Greek Orthodox Church is more than interesting.

 

NOTE:  I have not yet had the time to read the entire 87 pages.  But, it is an interesting letter.   

[BlessedMan]

12 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

The reason I asked is because I have had the most of it memorized for some time now, and as soon as I saw your post; I recognized something was missing from it. It would seem that this is a consistent event with your posts when you "quote," and bold with colorful letters. Your post supposedly containing The NICENE Creed is not complete my friend.

As it turns out; I have my "Creeds" mixed up. The Nicene Creed is correctly stated above. What I was thinking of was a portion of The Apostle's Creed, a slightly different animal.

Here is the portion of The Apostle's Creed that I thought was missing:

Quote

14. He Was Crucified Under Pontius Pilate and Was Buried: He Descended into Hell. The Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought to have “the eyes of our understandp. 549 ing enlightened” 3283 “that we may understand what is the height and breadth and depth.” 3284 “The height and breadth and depth” is a description of the Cross, of which that part which is fixed in the earth he calls the depth, the height that which is erected upon the earth and reaches upward, the breadth that which is spread out to the right hand and to the left. Since, therefore, there are so many kinds of death by which it is given to men to depart this life, why does the Apostle wish us to have our understanding enlightened so as to know the reason why, of all of them, the Cross was chosen in preference for the death of the Saviour. We must know, then, that that Cross was a triumph. It was a signal trophy. A triumph is a token of victory over an enemy. Since then Christ, when He came, brought three kingdoms at once into subjection under His sway (for this He signifies when he says, “That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth”), 3285 and conquered all of these by His death, a death was sought answerable to the mystery, so that being lifted up in the air, and subduing the powers of the air, He might make a display of His victory over these supernatural and celestial powers. Moreover the holy Prophet says that “all the day long He stretched out His hands” 3286 to the people on the earth, that He might both make protestation to unbelievers and invite believers: finally, by that part which is sunk under the earth, He signified His bringing into subjection to Himself the kingdoms of the nether world.

This is NOT something most Adventists would ever accept.

I will comment on The Nicene Creed in another post. It is definitely not something I would pass on to others for any reason. Of course, there are some "in common" points therein, but it really isn't a very important document to most people I know. TBC

[Gregory Matthews]

Apostles Creed:

1)  The quote that Blessed Man has supplied above goes beyond tha actual Apostles Creed, and includes commentary.

2)  While there are several historic versions of the Apostles Creed, all are short.   The following is a version accepted by the Roman Catholic Church:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

A you can see, it is much shorter than what Blessed Man has provided.

3) A correct understanding of the Apostles Creed, as I have quoted it above, shows a  phrase: "the communion of saints,"  that is in disagreement with official teachings of the SDA Church.

4)  As the SDA Church teaches that the Biblical hell is simply the grave, we would agree with that phrase in the above creed. 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

As it turns out; I have my "Creeds" mixed up. The Nicene Creed is correctly stated above. What I was thinking of was a portion of The Apostle's Creed, a slightly different animal.

Here is the portion of The Apostle's Creed that I thought was missing:

This is NOT something most Adventists would ever accept.

I will comment on The Nicene Creed in another post. It is definitely not something I would pass on to others for any reason. Of course, there are some "in common" points therein, but it really isn't a very important document to most people I know. TBC

It's all good, I get my wires crossed enough times I'm not going to sweat anyone for being human. 

That part of the Creed that speaks of descending to hell: Yes, all Adventists (not just Seventh-day) would reject that part of the Creed. All I'll say in response to that is that Jesus rebuked the Sadducee's for believing as all Adventist groups believe on this point. Personally I don't think its a big deal or even a matter of salvation. 

 

  

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  You have outdone yourself.  To post an 87 page letter sent to the  Pope in Rome from the Greek Orthodox Church is more than interesting.

 

NOTE:  I have not yet had the time to read the entire 87 pages.  But, it is an interesting letter.   

Thanks Gregory, the most substantive (in my view) arguments against Roman Catholic Distinctive's all come out of the Eastern Orthodox camp. I don't want to be the type of apologist that sticks their head in the sand and pretends that there are no good arguments against my position - there are indeed many arguments. As I believe the Orthodox have the most powerful I'm offering several of those arguments up for consideration. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I can understand your perspective of the Orthodox view.

 

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

we would agree with that phrase in the above creed. 

I think that this is/can be quite misleading. "We" do not "agree" on this point. Might be more accurate to just say you do. Id have to side with Gustave on that point. Most people are-aware that there is more to it than what you have stated.

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yes, all Adventists (not just Seventh-day) would reject that part of the Creed.

I guess l could have formatted the actual creed part from the commentary portion; but I did underline in red what most Adventists would not agree with. The implication here being that Jesus supposedly not only "descended to hell" but also preached to people there is a lost cause in the dialogue of attempted ecumenism, as far as I can see.

None such "creeds" are needed for someone to be "saved." IMO, doctrines dont have a lot to do with it unless they are incorrectly used as a club. As much as I have barked about some issues and questions; it is never my intention to say someone is not saved because they dont see it the way I do. IMO there is nothing wrong with adopting most creeds. Unless we intend to turn it into a check-list or "test" for people. Neither doctrines or creeds are/should be used in such ways. If we cannot explain "Christ and Him crucified" better with a given doctrine; then its not a Christian doctrine, regardless of how many Bible verses we "quote."

Same goes for the EGWs Gustave keeps dredging up. IF they were all we go by; he MIGHT have a small point of some kind. Above, I have shown the context of her writings on this "Ellen White says" idea. I have very little respect for ideas that are used to disparage someone's beliefs based on one very small partial point that is only quoted to serve confusion or "I got you."  Saying it over & over does not make it true.

Edited February 5, 2020 by BlessedMan

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I think that this is/can be quite misleading. "We" do not "agree" on this point. Might be more accurate to just say you do. Id have to side with Gustave on that point. Most people are-aware that there is more to it than what you have stated.

I guess l could have formatted the actual creed part from the commentary portion; but I did underline in red what most Adventists would not agree with. The implication here being that Jesus supposedly not only "descended to hell" but also preached to people there is a lost cause in the dialogue of attempted ecumenism, as far as I can see.

None such "creeds" are needed for someone to be "saved." IMO, doctrines dont have a lot to do with it unless they are incorrectly used as a club. As much as I have barked about some issues and questions; it is never my intention to say someone is not saved because they dont see it the way I do. IMO there is nothing wrong with adopting most creeds. Unless we intend to turn it into a check-list or "test" for people. Neither doctrines or creeds are/should be used in such ways. If we cannot explain "Christ and Him crucified" better with a given doctrine; then its not a Christian doctrine, regardless of how many Bible verses we "quote."

Same goes for the EGWs Gustave keeps dredging up. IF they were all we go by; he MIGHT have a small point of some kind. Above, I have shown the context of her writings on this "Ellen White says" idea. I have very little respect for ideas that are used to disparage someone's beliefs based on one very small partial point that is only quoted to serve confusion or "I got you."  Saying it over & over does not make it true.

Creeds are Marker Buoys that let folks know what they can't go past. 

The SDA Church at the time Ellen White was alive was a Anti-Trinitarian sect - there can be as many reasons someone doesn't agree with the Trinity as there are stars in heaven - the point being whatever the reason you are either within Orthodox belief OR you are outside of it. Here is the way I look at it. There is no way out of the following "context".

Ellen White was born in 1824.

By 1844 she was 20 years old.  

Add 11 years to this and the rabid anti-Trinitarian articles start showing up in Adventist Papers. Ellen by this time has extensive carnal knowledge & is now 31 years old - has already churned out scores of visions / prophecies. 

 

1855,  Ellen is 31 years old at this point.

Adventist Sabbath Herald: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18550306-V06-24.pdf

 

1864, Ellen is now 40 year old and her husband James White blames "Tertullian & perhaps other Church Fathers" for the Trinity claiming that every culture used to understand that the god's had human bodies of flesh. 

Adventist Sabbath Herald: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18641229-V24-05.pdf

 

Add 7 years & Ellen White is now 47 years of age and her husband writes that Ellen's inspired teachings condemn the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

1871, Herald of the Sabbath: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18710613-V37-26.pdf

 

We now jump ahead to 1878 and find an explicit anti-Trinitarian article in the Herald of the Sabbath that Ellen White actually revised prior to publication . Ellen White is now 54 years of age. 

Anti-Trinitarian Article: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780829-V52-10.pdf

Where it's admitted Ellen edited Canright's article so it would read the way it did: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780822-V52-09.pdf

 

I could chase these types of articles all the way to and past the death of Ellen White but shouldn't need to. The point I'm making is that acceptance of the Creed would have prevented this "heretical error" from even getting started in the 1st place. Within Catholicism and even Eastern Orthodoxy [ marker buoys AKA Creeds ]there is a huge area of free thinking and belief allowed. We just stay inside the defined parameters. 

Joseph Smith formally wrote in the Mormon Articles of Faith that Mormon's "believe in God the Eternal Father, & in His Son Jesus Christ, & in the Holy Ghost". Thus, if by merely saying Father, Son & Holy Ghost than Latter Day Saints can say they believe in the Trinity. Do you believe that LDS folks believe in the Trinity? 

The articles I've read recently by some of these SDA sites like Spectrum and AT appear to be acknowledging that some of the "sacred rocks" in theological bags some SDA's pack around really aren't that sacred, they can be left behind. Because SDA's didn't have an official creed its logical that some (as one article called it) sacred rocks got dumped into the bag and weigh the Church down and don't provide anything of value anyway. I think the article is just suggesting that for SDA's to better evangelize they should rejig their template and perhaps drop the dragons and other razzle-dazzle stuff and focus more on the core essentials of the Christian Faith. This seems to be a positive idea worthy of exploring. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

We should not hold Ellen  White  responsible for what her husband, James believed and wrote.

[BlessedMan]

On 2/3/2020 at 10:49 PM, Gustave said:

ALL Christians were part of the Catholic Church for the 1st 1000 years.

I would have to disagree with this.

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

The articles I've read recently by some of these SDA sites like Spectrum and AT appear to be acknowledging

they don't speak for the Church

On 2/4/2020 at 7:53 AM, Gustave said:

The average Catholic is unaware of many of those definitions. Most of these statements were defined because of heretical positions taken by heretics which claimed the direct opposite. 

well they should be! ALL of those things appear to be "salvific in the eyes of the RCC..."

Back to the actual topic: SDA evangelism may sometimes include something written by EGW but that is never intended to say our beliefs are co-dependent with her writings.

Here is actual context for the sentence you keep "quoting"

Quote

Christ on Probation.--For a period of time Christ was on probation. He took humanity on Himself, to stand the test and trial which the first Adam failed to endure. Had He failed in His test and trial, He would have been disobedient to the voice of God, and the world would have been lost (ST May 10, 1899).  {5BC 1082.6}  

She only says "IF Jesus had chosen to..."  (but we all know He didn't make that choice so that we could make our choice.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life. Ellen White teaches the same thing. Trying to take one sentence from the thousands of pages of EGW writings and making that one sentence to mean "Ellen White says..." is simply promoting a lie. Adventist don't teach that; and you cant make it mean thats what "Ellen White says..." or "what the church teaches; with just one sentence! How would you like it if I did that with the Pope's writings? You'd be the first one to holler "that's not right. We don't teach that."

If you knew Ellen White's writings and were actually familiar with her ministry, and understood what she does teach re salvation; all you would have is a solid message of "Christ and Him crucified."

Here is a little more context about what EGW was referring to in the sentence you keep quoting:

Christ a Free Moral Agent.--The temptations to which Christ was subjected were a terrible reality. As a free agent, He was placed on probation, with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at cross-purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is tempted.  {5BC 1082.5}

IF Jesus was a free moral agent; and if Jesus was "tempted on ALL points AS WE ARE," then why is it "wrong" to say Jesus could have made the choice to NOT depend on God? He was Incarnate; and subject to everything we are. Saying Jesus could have chosen either way is not wrong because its in the Bible. What would be the sense in God allowing Jesus to be tempted; if there was no chance He could choose to yield or not yield to the temptation? We dont even need EGW to figure this out. Its in the Bible that Jesus was TEMPTED LIKE WE ARE and there is no sensible reason to suppose Jesus did not have a choice there. Thats all EGW is pointing out.

Another major clue that you have no idea what you are talking about here, when it comes to what "Ellen White says..." is simply that you have chosen to not reply to any of the references that I supplied which give that one sentence it's intended context. Continually trying to redirect things to just that one sentence; or trying to digress even more into trinity stuff won't make your false charges re Ellen White any more true; it is not fair to keep digging on that; nor does it help anyone to understand even what the RCC teaches, let alone what Adventists actually teach. So the first question is what on earth is your point?

Let us remember that Ellen White's supposed, or, even real faults, and defects are very poor food by which to learn "truth." Christ said, "If ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood," ye shall have eternal life. Offical Adventist teachings don't rely on Ellen G White. So there's no sense in continuing to make it look otherwise by constant repetition of just one sentence she wrote.  

For an accurate look at what Adventists officially teach; its time to stop looking at Ellen White, or any other human being. Is there something wrong with using the Bible here? What about the official teachings of The Adventist Church? Wouldn't that be the place to see what we "really believe?" Why wouldnt the Bible be the thing to check and verify what we officially do believe?

Ellen White often pointed people to Christ in her writings; and she always made it clear that "Jesus was enough:"

Quote

"In Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and we are to be complete in him. With all our defects of character, we are to come to him in whom all fulness dwells.  {BEcho, May 15, 1892 par. 7}  

Second, your continual insistance of only using that one sentence to pretend that's "what Ellen White says" shows the complete lack of understanding of her writings. That's NOT "what Ellen White says" if you refuse to quote past that one, cherry-picked sentence, isolated from all the thousands of pages she wrote; as if that one sentence even half-represented the whole of her writing or teaching on a subject. If you even partially understood what you are posting, you would know that she has always told people her writings are never to be used the way you are doing. She has asked people quite a few times to stop doing that to her writings when she was alive:

1/ Wrong Use of the “Testimonies”
The first number of the Testimonies ever published contains a warning against the injudicious use of the light which is thus given to God's people. I stated that some had taken an unwise course; when they had talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof had been asked for, they had read from my writings instead of going to the Bible for proof. It was shown me that this course was inconsistent and would prejudice unbelievers against the truth. The Testimonies can have no weight with those who know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases. {CCh 95.2}

2/ This is the way my writings are treated by those who wish to misunderstand and pervert them. They turn the truth of God into a lie. In the very same way that they treat the writings in my published articles and in my books, so do skeptics and infidels treat the Bible. They read it according to their desire to pervert, to misapply, to willfully wrest the utterances from their true meaning. They declare that the Bible can prove anything and everything, that every sect proves their doctrines right, and that the most diverse doctrines are proved from the Bible.  {1SM 19.2}  

3/ The first number of the Testimonies ever published contains a warning against the injudicious use of the light which is thus given to God's people. [VOL. 1, 119.]  I stated that some had taken an unwise course; when they had talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof had been asked for, they had read from my writings instead of going to the Bible for proof. It was shown me that this course was inconsistent and would prejudice unbelievers against the truth. The Testimonies can have no weight with those who know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases.  {5T 669.2}

4/ Our eternal well-being has not been left in uncertainty. We need not depend upon the writings of "the Fathers," or upon commentators, for explanations regarding the law of God. When these men have told us all that they in their human intelligence can, we find that they do not agree. We see such a diversity of opinions that were we to follow them in deciding what is truth, we should be left in confusion and uncertainty. The Lord has told us not to follow these human guides, but to take everything claiming to be Bible doctrine to the Scriptures.  {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 3}  

5/ "Ellen White says" that she was well-aware of how people were misusing her writings; just like they misuse the Bible:

"Dr. Paulson and others have thought that the strange sentiments to be found in the book, "Living Temple" are sustained by my writings. Some expressions, taken independent of their proper connection have been used to sustain this idea, even as many take statements from the Bible from their setting, and use them to testify to error. This is a scheme of Satan to deceive. I have written to Elder Jones and to Elder Tenney that they are in danger of being influenced by the sentiments found in "Living Temple".  {BCL 102.4}

In Luke 4:5-8 we are told how Satan asked Jesus "to bow to his authority, promising that if He would do so, the kingdoms of the world would be His. He pointed Christ to his success in the world, enumerating the principalities and powers that were subject to him. He declared that what the law of Jehovah could not do, he had done. {5BC 1083.4}  

Jesus had a clear CHOICE to make here:
     
"But Jesus said, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." This was to Christ just what the Bible declares it to be--a temptation. Before His sight the tempter held the kingdoms of the world. As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur. But Christ saw them in a different aspect, just as they were--earthly dominions under the power of a tyrant. He saw humanity full of woe, suffering under the oppressive power of Satan. He saw the earth defiled by hatred, revenge, malice, lust, and murder. He saw fiends in the possession of the bodies and souls of men (MS 33, 1911). {5BC 1083.5}

IF Jesus did not make a choice there while being TEMPTED by Satan; then we would have no choice to make today in accepting Jesus as BOTH Lord & Savior. The chicken-scratch salvation of only having Jesus for savior, and not Lord, has been the CHOICE of many who chose to not heed a Bible principle that "Ellen White says:"

" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8. {FLB 50.1}

There is one great central truth to be kept ever before the mind in the searching of the Scriptures--Christ and Him crucified. Every other truth is invested with influence and power corresponding to its relation to this theme. . . . The soul palsied by sin can be endowed with life only through the work wrought out upon the cross by the Author of our salvation.  {FLB 50.2}  
When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan.  {FLB 50.3}  
Christ submitted to crucifixion, although the heavenly host could have delivered Him. The angels suffered with Christ. God Himself was crucified with Christ; for Christ was one with the Father. Those who reject Christ, those who will not have this man to rule over them, choose to place themselves under the rule of Satan, to do his work as his bondslaves. Yet for them Christ yielded up His life on Calvary.  {FLB 50.4}

Jesus made His choice, that we might make our choice. Jesus made a CHOICE to die on Calvary, taking what we deserved, by His own free will, that we might make our choice; and accept what Jesus deserved; by our own free-will.

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13)

Quote

 

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Ephesians 2:13, 14.  {RC 27.1}  

Christ recognized no distinction of nationality or rank or creed. The scribes and Pharisees desired to make a local and a national benefit of the gifts of heaven, and to exclude the rest of God's family in the world. But Christ came to break down every wall of partition. He came to show that His gift of mercy and love is as unconfined as the air, the light, or the showers of rain that refresh the earth.  {RC 27.2}  
The life of Christ established a religion in which there is no caste, a religion by which Jew and Gentile, free and bond, are linked in a common brotherhood, equal before God. No question of policy influenced His movements. He made no difference between neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies. That which appealed to His heart was a soul thirsting for the waters of life.  {RC 27.3}  
He passed by no human being as worthless, but sought to apply the healing remedy to every soul. In whatever company He found Himself, He presented a lesson appropriate to the time and the circumstances. Every neglect or insult shown by men to their fellow men only made Him more conscious of their need of His divine-human sympathy. He sought to inspire with hope the roughest and most unpromising, setting before them the assurance that they might become blameless and harmless, attaining such a character as would make them manifest as the children of God.  {RC 27.4}  
Often He met those who had drifted under Satan's control, and who had no power to break from his snare. To such a one, discouraged, sick, tempted, fallen, Jesus would speak words of tenderest pity, words that were needed and could be understood. Others He met who were fighting a hand-to-hand battle with the adversary of souls. These He encouraged to persevere, assuring them that they would win; for angels of God were on their side, and would give them the victory.  {RC 27.5}  
At the table of the publicans He sat as an honored guest, by His sympathy and social kindliness showing that He recognized the dignity of humanity; and men longed to become worthy of His confidence. Upon their thirsty hearts His words fell with blessed, life-giving power. New impulses were awakened, and to these outcasts of society there opened the possibility of a new life.  {RC 27.6}  
Though He was a Jew, Jesus mingled freely with the Samaritans. . . . And while He drew their hearts to Him by the tie of human sympathy, His divine grace brought to them the salvation which the Jews rejected.--The Ministry of Healing, pp. 25, 26.  {RC 27.7}" 

 

"Ellen White also says" that

1/ Satan Failed:
Well did Satan know who Christ was, for when the Saviour went to Gadara, the evil spirits in the two madmen there cried out, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” As Christ passed through the test of the second Adam, His beauty of character shone out through His disguise. Satan could see through His humanity the glory and purity of the Holy One with whom he had been associated in the heavenly courts. As he looked upon Christ, there rose before his mind a picture of what he himself was then. At the time he had beauty and holiness. Self-exaltation led him to strive for a place above Christ. But he had failed. Could he now carry out his design upon the enfeebled humanity of Christ? He knew that if he could induce Christ to yield one jot in His allegiance to His Father, he would have the world entirely in his power, and would be able to rule as only he in his changed spiritual nature could rule. But the One Satan was trying to overcome was the Lord of heaven, and all the efforts of the tempter were without avail. As Satan saw that he could not obtain the victory, he was aroused to malignant hatred. . . . {CTr 191.3}

2/ Peter Failed:
When trouble comes upon us, how often we are like Peter! We look upon the waves, instead of keeping our eyes fixed upon the Saviour. Our footsteps slide, and the proud waters go over our souls. Jesus did not bid Peter come to Him that he should perish; He does not call us to follow Him, and then forsake us. . . .  {CC 310.4}  
In this incident on the sea He desired to reveal to Peter his own weakness,--to show that his safety was in constant dependence upon divine power. Amid the storms of temptation he could walk safely only as in utter self-distrust he should rely upon the Saviour. It was on the point where he thought himself strong that Peter was weak; and not until he discerned his weakness could he realize his need of dependence upon Christ. Had he learned the lesson that Jesus sought to teach him in that experience on the sea, he would not have failed when the great test came upon him.  {CC 310.5}

3/  Abraham Failed:
Abraham had accepted without question the promise of a son, but he did not wait for God to fulfill His word in His own time and way. A delay was permitted, to test his faith in the power of God; but he failed to endure the trial. Thinking it impossible that a child should be given her in her old age, Sarah suggested, as a plan by which the divine purpose might be fulfilled, that one of her handmaidens should be taken by Abraham as a secondary wife. Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation. . . . {CTr 82.2}

4/ Christ NEVER Failed One Believer:
Strength for Every Trial.--Our heavenly Father measures and weighs every trial before He permits it to come upon the believer. He considers the circumstances and the strength of the one who is to stand under the proving and test of God, and He never permits the temptations to be greater than the capacity of resistance. If the soul is overborne, the person overpowered, this can never be charged to God, as failing to give strength in grace, but the one tempted was not vigilant and prayerful and did not appropriate by faith the provisions God had abundantly in store for him. Christ never failed a believer in his hour of combat. The believer must claim the promise and meet the foe in the name of the Lord, and he will not know anything like failure.--MS 6, 1889.  {2MCP 473.2}  

The Bible tells us that Jesus alone "is the way, the Truth, and the Life..." John 14:6.

The RCC tries to tell people that they need Mary, along with Jesus to be fully "saved" and have the "fulness" of truth.

According to my understanding, Mary is projected by The RCC as a competitor to Jesus, directly competing for our attention, our filial devotions; and for our souls. The only thing worse than not having any hope in Christ, is to have a false hope in Christ. Mary is NOT needed for salvation; any more than EGW is, yet, the RCC tells us differently.

Quote

 

From the book called "The Glories Of Mary":

"“I endeavored to collect, from as many authors as I could lay my hands on, the choicest passages, extracted from Fathers and theologians, and those which seemed to me to be the most to the point, and have put them together in this book, in order that the devout may with little trouble and expense be able to inflame themselves with the love of Mary, and more particularly to furnish the priests with matter for their sermons, wherewith to excite others to devotion towards this divine Mother.” (The Glories of Mary, p. 30.")

 

This book consists of several chapters. In each, Lioguori seeks to prove a certain point about Mary. At the end of each chapter, he gives an illustration of the point and ends with a prayer to Mary based on the content of the chapter.
The edition I am using here was published by the Redemptorist Fathers in 1931 and bears the imprimatur by Patrick (Cardinal) Hayes on April 16, 1931.

The  statements about "Mary" in Liguori’s quotations come from all of the "church fathers," over all of the years; and most of the quotations rightly apply to wisdom personified (Jesus) or to Solomon’s bride (the church). BUT they are applied to Mary because the RCC has said so. In writing about Mary; many BIBLE texts are persistently torn out of their contexts. Just as your posts do with that one sentence from EGW.

In this book "The Glories Of Mary" texts from the Old Testament are used without any New Testament corroboration. They originally apply to Jesus and they are widely applied to Mary:

Liguori, p. 101:

Quote

If Mary is for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:31)

Im pretty sure that EGW is not the woman we should be looking at here.

What The Bible says About Mary:

Mary was a sinner who needed a Savior.

There is no record IN THE BIBLE of her being conceived immaculately or living without sin.
 
She was a virgin before Jesus was born but there is no evidence that she was perpetually a virgin after he was born

In one sense Mary was the mother of the God/Man because she brought the God/Man into the world but she was not the mother of God in SUBSTANCE, as in the strictest sense of the word because Jesus was her Creator!

Your posts seem to favor a pointed attack on EGW, but I would suggest that we are looking at the wrong woman here.

Maybe it's time for us to examine the Immaculate Deception? Adventist Evangelism will always oppose the RCC teachings of Mary because the RCC teaching on Mary takes away the need for a Savior; its like the RCC is trying to get us to believe that Jesus did fail; and that Jesus needed a little help with/through Mary. THAT is the very thing here that would definitely say to the world:

Quote

"...without Mary; Jesus would have failed; and so would we..."

Apparently, the RCC teaches that no salvation exists for anyone who refuses to "obey the Bishops and Priests:" about this:

Quote

 

Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 61

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword , but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

 

Adventists don't even say this kind of stuff. I think you likely have much more explaining to do before you can start attacking EGW, and an entire denomination over just one sentence.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by BlessedMan

[Gregory Matthews]

To say that the Roman Catholic Church teaches X, is not to say that it teaches that X is either salvific, or that it is a required belief in order to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

The title of the magazine has slipped my mind. But, as a VA Chaplain, I often read a RC Magazine that was provided for distribution to patients and others.  In that magazine, each issue had a question and answer on RC faith.  Sometimes a person would write in with a comment to the effect that the person could not believe X, that was taught by the RC Church.  The responding priest would begin an answer with a statement as to how X had become RC teaching.  Then the priest would comment as to whether X was, or was note, considered to be salvific and/or a required belief for membership. 

On occasion, I would be surprised to read that X was neither a required belief, nor was it considered to be salvific.

This is probably true for most denominations in the Christian religion.  It is certainly true for the SDA denomination.  

As an example of such for the SDA Church, a membership requirement (Not a salvific issue.) is that one believe that the Bible does teach that there is a valid gift of prophecy.   However, the official teaching does not require that one believe that Ellen  white is an example of the Biblical gift of prophecy.

NOTE:   I am aware that there are some SDA members who disagree with the above.  But, their view is not the official teaching.

As to the historical record:  There are multiple examples of Ellen White growing in her Christian faith and doctrinal beliefs.  There are multiple examples of her changing, in some manner, her understandings from that of a teen to a mature person at the time of her death.  God did not instantly provide her with total perfection in doctrinal understanding any more than God does that for us.  God's will for us is that we give continued study to the Biblical teachings, as well as seeking the help of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal understanding.  As such, we will both grow and change.  My current beliefs are not exactly the same as they were the day I graduated from college. 

So, how did God use Ellen White, if is was not to provide us with a true understanding of Biblical beliefs?    First, I believe that Ellen White was a gift from God to us as a developing denomination.  Second, I believe that she gave us guidance in education, publishing and in medical ministry that guided us into the denomination that we are today.  In addition, along with others, she helped us to grow into an international missionary presence.  As a third point, she gave us administrative guidance that has be of value in our formative years.

The above are  areas in which I believe God used EGW during the formative, developmental, years of our denomination.

Correctly understood, the salvific and official teaching of the SDA denomination must be considered to be taught in the Bible.  After this, as with other denominations, there can be  non-salvific teachings that stem from outside of the Bible.  SDAs, as well as the Roman Catholic Church has such teachings.  

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I would have to disagree with this.

they don't speak for the Church

well they should be! ALL of those things appear to be "salvific in the eyes of the RCC..."

Back to the actual topic: SDA evangelism may sometimes include something written by EGW but that is never intended to say our beliefs are co-dependent with her writings.

Here is actual context for the sentence you keep "quoting"

She only says "IF Jesus had chosen to..."  (but we all know He didn't make that choice so that we could make our choice.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life. Ellen White teaches the same thing. Trying to take one sentence from the thousands of pages of EGW writings and making that one sentence to mean "Ellen White says..." is simply promoting a lie. Adventist don't teach that; and you cant make it mean thats what "Ellen White says..." or "what the church teaches; with just one sentence! How would you like it if I did that with the Pope's writings? You'd be the first one to holler "that's not right. We don't teach that."

If you knew Ellen White's writings and were actually familiar with her ministry, and understood what she does teach re salvation; all you would have is a solid message of "Christ and Him crucified."

Here is a little more context about what EGW was referring to in the sentence you keep quoting:

Christ a Free Moral Agent.--The temptations to which Christ was subjected were a terrible reality. As a free agent, He was placed on probation, with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at cross-purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is tempted.  {5BC 1082.5}

IF Jesus was a free moral agent; and if Jesus was "tempted on ALL points AS WE ARE," then why is it "wrong" to say Jesus could have made the choice to NOT depend on God? He was Incarnate; and subject to everything we are. Saying Jesus could have chosen either way is not wrong because its in the Bible. What would be the sense in God allowing Jesus to be tempted; if there was no chance He could choose to yield or not yield to the temptation? We dont even need EGW to figure this out. Its in the Bible that Jesus was TEMPTED LIKE WE ARE and there is no sensible reason to suppose Jesus did not have a choice there. Thats all EGW is pointing out.

Another major clue that you have no idea what you are talking about here, when it comes to what "Ellen White says..." is simply that you have chosen to not reply to any of the references that I supplied which give that one sentence it's intended context. Continually trying to redirect things to just that one sentence; or trying to digress even more into trinity stuff won't make your false charges re Ellen White any more true; it is not fair to keep digging on that; nor does it help anyone to understand even what the RCC teaches, let alone what Adventists actually teach. So the first question is what on earth is your point?

Let us remember that Ellen White's supposed, or, even real faults, and defects are very poor food by which to learn "truth." Christ said, "If ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood," ye shall have eternal life. Offical Adventist teachings don't rely on Ellen G White. So there's no sense in continuing to make it look otherwise by constant repetition of just one sentence she wrote.  

For an accurate look at what Adventists officially teach; its time to stop looking at Ellen White, or any other human being. Is there something wrong with using the Bible here? What about the official teachings of The Adventist Church? Wouldn't that be the place to see what we "really believe?" Why wouldnt the Bible be the thing to check and verify what we officially do believe?

Ellen White often pointed people to Christ in her writings; and she always made it clear that "Jesus was enough:"

Second, your continual insistance of only using that one sentence to pretend that's "what Ellen White says" shows the complete lack of understanding of her writings. That's NOT "what Ellen White says" if you refuse to quote past that one, cherry-picked sentence, isolated from all the thousands of pages she wrote; as if that one sentence even half-represented the whole of her writing or teaching on a subject. If you even partially understood what you are posting, you would know that she has always told people her writings are never to be used the way you are doing. She has asked people quite a few times to stop doing that to her writings when she was alive:

1/ Wrong Use of the “Testimonies”
The first number of the Testimonies ever published contains a warning against the injudicious use of the light which is thus given to God's people. I stated that some had taken an unwise course; when they had talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof had been asked for, they had read from my writings instead of going to the Bible for proof. It was shown me that this course was inconsistent and would prejudice unbelievers against the truth. The Testimonies can have no weight with those who know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases. {CCh 95.2}

2/ This is the way my writings are treated by those who wish to misunderstand and pervert them. They turn the truth of God into a lie. In the very same way that they treat the writings in my published articles and in my books, so do skeptics and infidels treat the Bible. They read it according to their desire to pervert, to misapply, to willfully wrest the utterances from their true meaning. They declare that the Bible can prove anything and everything, that every sect proves their doctrines right, and that the most diverse doctrines are proved from the Bible.  {1SM 19.2}  

3/ The first number of the Testimonies ever published contains a warning against the injudicious use of the light which is thus given to God's people. [VOL. 1, 119.]  I stated that some had taken an unwise course; when they had talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof had been asked for, they had read from my writings instead of going to the Bible for proof. It was shown me that this course was inconsistent and would prejudice unbelievers against the truth. The Testimonies can have no weight with those who know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases.  {5T 669.2}

4/ Our eternal well-being has not been left in uncertainty. We need not depend upon the writings of "the Fathers," or upon commentators, for explanations regarding the law of God. When these men have told us all that they in their human intelligence can, we find that they do not agree. We see such a diversity of opinions that were we to follow them in deciding what is truth, we should be left in confusion and uncertainty. The Lord has told us not to follow these human guides, but to take everything claiming to be Bible doctrine to the Scriptures.  {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 3}  

5/ "Ellen White says" that she was well-aware of how people were misusing her writings; just like they misuse the Bible:

"Dr. Paulson and others have thought that the strange sentiments to be found in the book, "Living Temple" are sustained by my writings. Some expressions, taken independent of their proper connection have been used to sustain this idea, even as many take statements from the Bible from their setting, and use them to testify to error. This is a scheme of Satan to deceive. I have written to Elder Jones and to Elder Tenney that they are in danger of being influenced by the sentiments found in "Living Temple".  {BCL 102.4}

In Luke 4:5-8 we are told how Satan asked Jesus "to bow to his authority, promising that if He would do so, the kingdoms of the world would be His. He pointed Christ to his success in the world, enumerating the principalities and powers that were subject to him. He declared that what the law of Jehovah could not do, he had done. {5BC 1083.4}  

Jesus had a clear CHOICE to make here:
     
"But Jesus said, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." This was to Christ just what the Bible declares it to be--a temptation. Before His sight the tempter held the kingdoms of the world. As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur. But Christ saw them in a different aspect, just as they were--earthly dominions under the power of a tyrant. He saw humanity full of woe, suffering under the oppressive power of Satan. He saw the earth defiled by hatred, revenge, malice, lust, and murder. He saw fiends in the possession of the bodies and souls of men (MS 33, 1911). {5BC 1083.5}

IF Jesus did not make a choice there while being TEMPTED by Satan; then we would have no choice to make today in accepting Jesus as BOTH Lord & Savior. The chicken-scratch salvation of only having Jesus for savior, and not Lord, has been the CHOICE of many who chose to not heed a Bible principle that "Ellen White says:"

" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8. {FLB 50.1}

There is one great central truth to be kept ever before the mind in the searching of the Scriptures--Christ and Him crucified. Every other truth is invested with influence and power corresponding to its relation to this theme. . . . The soul palsied by sin can be endowed with life only through the work wrought out upon the cross by the Author of our salvation.  {FLB 50.2}  
When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan.  {FLB 50.3}  
Christ submitted to crucifixion, although the heavenly host could have delivered Him. The angels suffered with Christ. God Himself was crucified with Christ; for Christ was one with the Father. Those who reject Christ, those who will not have this man to rule over them, choose to place themselves under the rule of Satan, to do his work as his bondslaves. Yet for them Christ yielded up His life on Calvary.  {FLB 50.4}

Jesus made His choice, that we might make our choice. Jesus made a CHOICE to die on Calvary, taking what we deserved, by His own free will, that we might make our choice; and accept what Jesus deserved; by our own free-will.

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13)

"Ellen White also says" that

1/ Satan Failed:
Well did Satan know who Christ was, for when the Saviour went to Gadara, the evil spirits in the two madmen there cried out, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” As Christ passed through the test of the second Adam, His beauty of character shone out through His disguise. Satan could see through His humanity the glory and purity of the Holy One with whom he had been associated in the heavenly courts. As he looked upon Christ, there rose before his mind a picture of what he himself was then. At the time he had beauty and holiness. Self-exaltation led him to strive for a place above Christ. But he had failed. Could he now carry out his design upon the enfeebled humanity of Christ? He knew that if he could induce Christ to yield one jot in His allegiance to His Father, he would have the world entirely in his power, and would be able to rule as only he in his changed spiritual nature could rule. But the One Satan was trying to overcome was the Lord of heaven, and all the efforts of the tempter were without avail. As Satan saw that he could not obtain the victory, he was aroused to malignant hatred. . . . {CTr 191.3}

2/ Peter Failed:
When trouble comes upon us, how often we are like Peter! We look upon the waves, instead of keeping our eyes fixed upon the Saviour. Our footsteps slide, and the proud waters go over our souls. Jesus did not bid Peter come to Him that he should perish; He does not call us to follow Him, and then forsake us. . . .  {CC 310.4}  
In this incident on the sea He desired to reveal to Peter his own weakness,--to show that his safety was in constant dependence upon divine power. Amid the storms of temptation he could walk safely only as in utter self-distrust he should rely upon the Saviour. It was on the point where he thought himself strong that Peter was weak; and not until he discerned his weakness could he realize his need of dependence upon Christ. Had he learned the lesson that Jesus sought to teach him in that experience on the sea, he would not have failed when the great test came upon him.  {CC 310.5}

3/  Abraham Failed:
Abraham had accepted without question the promise of a son, but he did not wait for God to fulfill His word in His own time and way. A delay was permitted, to test his faith in the power of God; but he failed to endure the trial. Thinking it impossible that a child should be given her in her old age, Sarah suggested, as a plan by which the divine purpose might be fulfilled, that one of her handmaidens should be taken by Abraham as a secondary wife. Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation. . . . {CTr 82.2}

4/ Christ NEVER Failed One Believer:
Strength for Every Trial.--Our heavenly Father measures and weighs every trial before He permits it to come upon the believer. He considers the circumstances and the strength of the one who is to stand under the proving and test of God, and He never permits the temptations to be greater than the capacity of resistance. If the soul is overborne, the person overpowered, this can never be charged to God, as failing to give strength in grace, but the one tempted was not vigilant and prayerful and did not appropriate by faith the provisions God had abundantly in store for him. Christ never failed a believer in his hour of combat. The believer must claim the promise and meet the foe in the name of the Lord, and he will not know anything like failure.--MS 6, 1889.  {2MCP 473.2}  

The Bible tells us that Jesus alone "is the way, the Truth, and the Life..." John 14:6.

The RCC tries to tell people that they need Mary, along with Jesus to be fully "saved" and have the "fulness" of truth.

According to my understanding, Mary is projected by The RCC as a competitor to Jesus, directly competing for our attention, our filial devotions; and for our souls. The only thing worse than not having any hope in Christ, is to have a false hope in Christ. Mary is NOT needed for salvation; any more than EGW is, yet, the RCC tells us differently.

This book consists of several chapters. In each, Lioguori seeks to prove a certain point about Mary. At the end of each chapter, he gives an illustration of the point and ends with a prayer to Mary based on the content of the chapter.
The edition I am using here was published by the Redemptorist Fathers in 1931 and bears the imprimatur by Patrick (Cardinal) Hayes on April 16, 1931.

The  statements about "Mary" in Liguori’s quotations come from all of the "church fathers," over all of the years; and most of the quotations rightly apply to wisdom personified (Jesus) or to Solomon’s bride (the church). BUT they are applied to Mary because the RCC has said so. In writing about Mary; many BIBLE texts are persistently torn out of their contexts. Just as your posts do with that one sentence from EGW.

In this book "The Glories Of Mary" texts from the Old Testament are used without any New Testament corroboration. They originally apply to Jesus and they are widely applied to Mary:

Liguori, p. 101:

Im pretty sure that EGW is not the woman we should be looking at here.

What The Bible says About Mary:

Mary was a sinner who needed a Savior.

There is no record IN THE BIBLE of her being conceived immaculately or living without sin.
 
She was a virgin before Jesus was born but there is no evidence that she was perpetually a virgin after he was born

In one sense Mary was the mother of the God/Man because she brought the God/Man into the world but she was not the mother of God in SUBSTANCE, as in the strictest sense of the word because Jesus was her Creator!

Your posts seem to favor a pointed attack on EGW, but I would suggest that we are looking at the wrong woman here.

Maybe it's time for us to examine the Immaculate Deception? Adventist Evangelism will always oppose the RCC teachings of Mary because the RCC teaching on Mary takes away the need for a Savior; its like the RCC is trying to get us to believe that Jesus did fail; and that Jesus needed a little help with/through Mary. THAT is the very thing here that would definitely say to the world:

Apparently, the RCC teaches that no salvation exists for anyone who refuses to "obey the Bishops and Priests:" about this:

Adventists don't even say this kind of stuff. I think you likely have much more explaining to do before you can start attacking EGW, and an entire denomination over just one sentence.

 

 

You disagree that all Christians prior to 1000 A.D. were part of the Catholic Church. Do you assert that the Gnostics were Christians and we must not forgot about the Judaizers in Acts Chapter 15. If these groups and similar types can ignore those who have command over them & remain Christian by extension a Baha'i is just as  much a Christian as a Seventh-day Adventist who would be just as much a Christian as a Mormon. 

Could you identify what Christian Church existed prior to 1000 A.D. that folks belonged to aside from the Catholic Church? 

 

Yes, Ellen's context was "IF" - she was giving her flock "WHAT IF'S" for a matter God said was only going to end one way. In other words Ellen was saying WHAT IF GOD WAS WRONG. 

This is like saying WHAT IF when Jesus walked on water He sank and drowned!

What if Jesus' parents were caught at a road check point and soldiers executed the Baby Jesus before they got to Egypt ?

What if Jesus wouldn't have risen from the dead on the 3rd day? 

This is odd logic. 

21 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

We should not hold Ellen  White  responsible for what her husband, James believed and wrote.

 

[B/W Photodude]

After the victory of Elijah at Mt Carmel, he fled from the wrath of Jezebel to Mt Horeb. There he claimed to God that he only was still true to God. God then informed him that he had 7000 in Israel that had never bent the knee to Baal.

While there may not have been a church for many centuries other than the Roman church (wonder why that was?!), it did not mean there were not followers of God alone and who had not bent the knee to Rome. Given the centuries of persecution of those who followed God and not Rome, even if Rome claimed to be following God, and even the millions who were martyred and slaughtered by the Roman church during the time of it's apparent supremacy in Europe and during the inquisitions to follow.

There were groups of people known as the Waldensees and the Albigensees who covertly for centuries went about the work of God in spreading Scripture to people all thru Europe even as they were being hounded and persecuted by the Roman church.

So, the fact that there was no open church for people to belong to does not mean anything other than the people of God were under severe persecution for their faith. 

[BlessedMan]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yes, Ellen's context was "IF" - she was giving her flock "WHAT IF'S" for a matter God said was only going to end one way. In other words Ellen was saying WHAT IF GOD WAS WRONG. 

Like I said; I think we are talking about the wrong woman here. When I see what the RCC is claiming re Mary, there is no comparison.