Ellen G. White

1. That the church will not mature and grow and reach the full measure of the stature that belongs to Christ until they are glorified in the resurrection of the righteous?

True.

2. That we will not "KNOW" even as we are "KNOWN" by those in heaven - until we actually GO to heaven and "see clearly"?

True

3. That there is NO text of scripture saying "Spiritual Gifts have NOW ENDED" or that "After one more letter - spiritual gifts will be ended"?

True - no such text.

Yes that IS foolishness - where did you get it??

There is only ONE person in this discussion insisting that a prophet MUST write scripture or that they CAN't WRITE ANYTHING unless it is in the Bible - EVEN though Paul flatly contradicts that teaching. [/quote]

Good news - I get to BELIEVE the Bible that Phillip's daughter's were prophets - Period.

Why talk to me about this if you are only going to listen to "you as YOU insist that they had to write scripture to be prophets OR that I have to know their message for them to BE prophets" you are the "source" of that convoluted teaching.

You fail to respond to that point - continuously.

There is NO Spiritual "need" identified in the OT as "NEEDING more scripture".

According to 2Time 3:16-17 there was NO "NEED" that Timothy had "AS A CHILD" when taught from the OT by his Jewish mother and grandmother.

Timothy was raised as a Jew by a Jewish mother and grandmother WHO read the SCRIPTURES to him as a CHILD. And PAUL says that WHEN HE WAS A CHILD the scriptures that were AT THAT TIME read to him WERE SUFFICIENT.

What part of that do you not understand?

In Acts 16:1-3 we find Timothy as an adult being taken with Paul on his second missionary journey.

Long before that Timothy was AS A CHILD being taught by his Jewish Mother and Grandmother.

How hard can this be? IF this was the scriptures of his CHILDHOOD - your case is dead.

You "invent" the idea that all propohets must ALSO have the gift of signs and wonders..
There is no such statement in all of scripture, so you "make it up".

Is that supposed to be "compelling"?

There is NO record of ANY prophet "having nothing to say" in all of scripture there is NO such "principle" as "Prophets that proclaim nothing". But you seem to "need" such a text.

The second coming is CLEARLY the case being referenced in Eph 4 AND in 1Cor 13 as has been "shown".

Frank, why not pay attention to texts given in this discussion - read them and believe them. Accept that God gives to "EACH ONE" as "HE WILLS" and that 1Cor 12 does NOT SAY "THOSE who have the gift of prophecy ALSO MUST HAVE the gift of miracles"?? Why not drop your imaginations and accept the Word of God as it reads?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:
It is obvious you have forgotten the topic of the thread. Please pay attention to the discussion at hand.

Here it is:
What are the WRITINGS of Ellen G. White considered to be by your church or denomination?

Note the question is about WRITINGS.( GRAPHE). Therefore, unless Ellen had hands laid on her by an apostle she has NO INSPIRED ability to write scripture. The Bible says so. John 14:26;15:26:16:13, Luke 24:44-51,Acts 2:1-4,17;8:17,18.

She cannot prophesy as the miraculous gifts have ceased. The Bible says so. I Cor. 9-11, Eph. 4:12-18. The whole counsel God has been declared. Acts 20:27. The Faith has been once delivered. Jude 3. And, it is not SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM of which you CANNOT READ IN the new testament of Jesus Christ.

Your idea that the old testament alone is in view in II Tim. 3:16,17 is an absoulute absurdity. Paul called Timothy his OWN SON in the Faith. I Tim. 1:2. Paul was a Christian. Acts 26:28,29.Christians are made by the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the old law. Romans 1:16. Therefore, that would make Timothy a Christian as per the new testament of Jesus Christ, your unsubstantiated assertion not withstanding.

The old law NEVER REMITTED SINS. SEE Hebrews 9:15-17.¶And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The blood of the cross purchases Christians, not adventists. Acts 11:26, Isaiah 62:2, I Cor. 6:20, I Pet. 4:16.

Jesus died for the new Testament, not the old. Mat. 26:28. His death ended the authority of the old law. Col. 2:14,Eph. 2;17.

This includes as Nehemiah says in 9:13,14,  Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14  And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Therefore, your appeal to the old testament for the authority for the gift of prophesy is simply an error by biblical standards. You cannot provide any inspired evidence for your claim as it pertains to the topic at hand.

Anyone with the ability to proclaim the truth of the new testament did so by the performance of miracles. The Bible says so. II Cor. 12:12, Mark 16:17-20, Acts 3: 6-12; 20: 9-11, and a host of other passages. Some, like the subject at hand, attempt to place themselves in the role of one who could proclaim divine truth as did the apostles, the Bible says in Rev. 2:2, they were tried and found to be LIARS.

[ May 04, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

You simply continue to make the same error and ignore the scriptures that show you to be in error.

There is NO CLAIM that Ellen White wrote scripture. ONLY YOU make that claim. And it does not hold water.

There is no CLAIM in scripture that IF ONE is a Prophet their writings MUST be included in SCRIPTURE. As pointed out EVEN PAUL shows that HIS OWN writings were at times NOT included in scripture and we have MANY other prophets mentioned WITHOUT writings included in scripture.

Here again - you simply fail to make your case.

AS was already pointed out - your OTHER assumption that God is wrong in 1Cor 12 when He says that "The Holy Spirit gives gifts to EACH one as HE WILLS" - and you argue "OH NO - the only way you can get a spiritual gift is IF a first century APOSTLE gives it to you" - EVEN though we see clearly in Acts 11 and in 1Cor 12 that NO such "binding of the Holy Spirit" is possible and in fact people received Gifts APART from the laying on of Hands by one of the 12.

Here again - you simply fail to make your case.

But then you go on - with nothing to sustain you and "assume the points of your own argument" as if you HAD found supports for such nonesense.

There is NO text supporting your claim here. No text says "Spiritaul gifts have ceased".

No text says "After the writing of THIS one last letter Spiritual Gifts cease".

No text says "AFter the last Apostle dies, Spiritual gifts will cease".

You simply make it up.

But Ephesians 4 DOES say that the Spiritual Gifts ARE given "UNTIL we ALL reach to the FULLNESS of the measure of the Stature of Christ".

And John adds "We do not know what we shall be - but we DO KNOW that we shall be LIKE HIM for we shall SEE HIM as He IS" 1John 4.

We ALL attain to the FULLNESS of the measure of the stature which belongs to CHRIST - only THEN.

Ephesians 4 then - shows Spiritual Gifts BUILDING up the body of Christ - until that 1John 4 event.

Why not respond to the scriptural points raised?

Why do you keep repeating yourself without carrying your argument forward and answering the points of scripture that so directly refute your position?

Is that supposed to be a "compelling form of debate"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:
I have proven by the totality of the harmonious evidence that Ellen G. White did not prophesy or write by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That, is the topic of this thread. I have proven it to the rational person. However, just as in the days of Jesus, some simply reject the divine word and irrationally hold to the false hope of the way of men.

Proverbs 14:12. ¶There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

And, God will also let you have it, too. II Thes. 2:10-12 says, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

You have failed again - to respond to the Bible points shown to refute your assumption in 2Tim 3. Specifically that "FROM CHILDHOOD" Timothy was raised by Jewish Mother and Grandmother - on the "Scriptures" and by the time of the Acts 15 assembly - He MET Paul and was an adult.

The EARLIER Childhood was PRIOR to Acts 15 - PRIOR to the missionary journey of Paul - in fact - PRIOR to the completion of the NT at ALL.

The ONLY "scriptures" that were AVAILABLE in Timothy's CHILDHOOD was the OT.

Timothy LATER became a Christian - and Paul takes him as a father would "in the faith" in Acts 16 - as an adult. by the time of the letters written to Timothy - he is already a PASTOR of a church.

Actually "New Covenant".

And BTW - Enoch was in Heaven before the Cross.

Elijah was in Heaven before the Cross.

In Matt 17 we see BOTH Moses and Elijah BEFORE the Cross - glorified.

In Hebrews 11 we find the saints of the OT - the giants of faith "approved" forgiven and some of them in heaven already (as is pointed out about Enoch and Elijah).

In Hebrews 4:1 "The GOSPEL was preached to US just as to THEM also".

Devastating to your point that the OT scriptures are worthless.

Truly an absurd speculation on your part Frank. That the Bible is not the Bible "by biblical standards"??? You are crawled out on a limb there my friend.

Peter affirms it as scripture.

Paul affirms it as scripture.

Christ affirms it as scripture.

Your own NT authors contradict your views here.

In fact - 2 Cor 12 flatly contradicts your assertion that "IF you have the gift of Prophecy you MUST ALSO have the gift of miracles".

And you simply ignore NOT ONLY the OT text - but in this case the NT as well.

Is there no end to that Frank?

Who teaches you to ignore scripture like that?

Why not simply respond to the points made that show scripture to be directly refuting your speculative views?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:

In reference to addressing scriptural points, I have done so by three methods: 1. Declarative statement, 2. Approved example, 3. Implication.

Bob, the IMPLICATIONS of I Cor. 13:8-11, Eph. 4:12-18, Jude 3, Acts 20:27 teach us that all of the will of God was proclaimed and that the spirutal gifts were temporary unitl it was written down for permanence. Rev. 22:18,19. SEE I Thes. 5:26,27, Col. 4;16, Rev. 1:11.

The Bible does not say one cannot take hasish at the Lord's Supper. Does this permit it? If so, how do we know?

I know it is not permitted because of implication of the works of the flesh and what is prescribed specifically to be done at the Lord's Supper. You simply do not understand IMPLICATION.

If one says, " The golf clubs are in the golf bag, and the golf bag is in the trunk. Where are the clubs? And, how do you know?

 

Sorry to butt in like this but you two have been going around and around like two boxers in a match. You keep jabbing at each other with what you each see as truth but neither side will yield on his position.

Since Ellen White is considered a prophet by the SDA, what prophecies did she make and have they come true? If any of her prophecies have proven to be false, then she is not a true prophet.

I mean, to say that if God revealed something to her which wasn't true then either God is a liar or she is. It can't be both ways.

I believe that anyone can be a prophet if God so chooses. However, the proof is in the pudding. Are her prophecies true or not?

 

some related info....

Ellen G. White

 

Bob:

The Bible says that Timothy became a Christian. This would be the only way he would be the Son of Paul in the faith. Timothy had to hear the gospel to be saved, just as Paul did. Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16. He had to obey it. Romans 6:17,18.


Again, no one is questioning the fact Timothy was taught the old law or that II Tim. 3:16,17 includes it. It does. However, ALL means All and the new testament is apart of the all. And, Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. II Pet. 3:16.

There were a number of the leters written prior to II Timothy, your accusation not withstanding. In fact, II Tim. was the last of Paul's letters to be written. Furthermore, there were written letters of the word of God in circulation during the time of Timothy and Paul. SEE I Thes. 5:26,27, Col. 4:16.


Timothy was told to preach the word in II Tim. 4: 1-4. He was told to continue in the things he had learned for in so doing he would save himself and them that HEAR thee. What message did he preach? Animal sacrifices of the old law? NO. Those could never save. Hebrews 10: 1-4. Again, your interpretation is not consistent with the evidence.

By the way, new covenant and new testament are mutually inclusive terms.

[ May 05, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Glen

#1. The differences between Frank and I are far more basic than issues about Ellen White - when it comes to Spiritual Gifts and Prophecy. Frank's position is that NOBODY has ANY spiritual gifts - let alone prophecy and let alone Ellen White possibly having it.

A correct prediction on her part would not change his POV. He believes he can turn the Bible to the point where he can get it to say "after this last letter is written there will be no more spiritual gifts at all". And I have been saying to Frank "Good luck finding such a text".

#2. You are correct that "a true prediction" is ONE of many tests of a prophet. However - ALL the tests must be met for someone to be a true prophet. That means that they must not only be accurate in their predictions but they must ALSO be correct doctrinally.

I pointed this out at the start. That means that you can not "hope to discuss a prophet" that is in another denomination on the basis of "true prediction ALONE". The tests have to ALSO include harmony with scripture - a test of "sola scriptura" used as the rule and standard of doctrine.

Suppose a prophet CLAIMS that God said "there is no trinity" or "Christ is not God". You could easily check in scripture and see that in fact God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit ARE identified in scripture and you would KNOW that such a prophet can not be "a true prophet". (Accurate predictions not withstanding).

These points are simple and obvious - but with Frank the problem is - he is flatly denying the scriptures that state that "God the Holy Spirit GIVES spiritual Gifts to EACH ONE as HE WILLS".

Frank turns that into "the 12 disciples ALONE Give spiritual Gifts to EACH one as THEY WILL. Once they die - or once they write their last letter - spiritual gifts END".

That is the doctrinal position that I have been showing to be false. It achieves falsehood long before getting to the subject of Ellen White.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Frank, you appear to be a master at dodging the obvious until the last possible moment.

The argument is NOT "Timothy NEVER became a Christian" as you erroneously pretend to believe I have said. (I think you like it because it makes for a good straw man - in that game you are playing).

Obviously Frank. And Obviously I have not said anything about Timothy NOT ever converting to Christianity.

RATHER I have REPEATEDLY made the Point that Paul makes in 2Tim 3 that FROM CHILDHOOD Timothy was raised by his Jewish Mother and Grandmother - reading the SCRIPTURES.

In Acts 16 as an ADULT Timothy meets Paul and is taken on Paul's second missionary journey.

AS A CHILD - Timothy ALREADY had the SCRIPTUREs (no letters from Paul at that time - were in EXISTENCE) - and from his CHILDHOOD those OT Scriptures read to him by his Jewish Mother and Grandmother "WERE SUFFICIENT" as Paul stated in 2Tim 3.

Frank, you are unwittingly telling the truth here.

I applaud you for getting there one way or the other.

Paul says of Abraham "THE Gospel was PREACHED beforehand to ABRAHAM" Gal 3:7-8.

Paul says of Israel in the desert for 40 years "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:1

Paul says OF HIS OWN teaching "I taught NOTHING but what is taught in the LAW and in the PROPHETS"

Peter ALSO states that this is what was taught by the OT prophets.

And Paul argues that in all of time there has been only ONE Gospel Gal 1:6-9.

So you are finally right about one thing. That Gospel had to be preached to "Timothy JUST as to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:1 who wandered in the wilderness - and who drank from the spiritual Rock - Jesus Christ (1Cor 10:1-4).

Well I am sorry to have to tell you that the NT letters were not available to Timothy as a child.

Obviously 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were not available to him as a child. NOR were any other NT letters.

Your argument from 2 Timothy 3 - would mean that the entire NT was "VOID" since "ALL MEANS ALL" and it was complete while Timothy was a small child - scripture was then "SUFFICIENT" as Paul stated.

By bending that text to "END" Spiritual Gifts - you are foolishly truncating EVEN the NT.

I do not doubt that NT writings are scripture. But I DO DOUBT that has a small child Timothy was reading the letter of 2Timothy, or 1 Timothy, or Acts, or Revelation, or the Gospel letters.

AND YET scripture was THEN - "SUFFICIENT" as 2Timothy 3 points out.

You simply can not use that text to END Spiritual Gifts without truncating the NT.

You are simply wandering about. John wrote AFTER Paul - and you seek to use 2 Timothy 3 as "ENDING spiritual gifts" but IT references THE CHILDHOOD of Timothy as the "completion point".

At TIME BEFORE the book of acts.

A time BEFORE the book of 1 Timothy.

A time BEFORE the book of 2 Timothy.

A time BEFORE the book of John.

A time BEFORE the book of Revelation.

A time BEFORE the Gospel accounts.

All these "letters" you would "truncate" by using 2 Timothy 3 speaking of the SCRIPTURES read to Timothy as a CHILD - as being "SUFFICIENT".

Sadly - the argument FROM 2Timothy 3:16 is that the SCRIPTURES completed AT the time of Timothy's CHILDHOOD "were SUFFICIENT".

Wrong - Hebrews 8 shows that the New Covenant is NOT the New Testament letters but RATHER the "Agreement" between God and man - ALREADY established in the book of Jeremiah - whereby the LAW was to be written on the heart and sins forgiven.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:
Perhaps, you should look up the definiton of inclusive. I did not say they were synonymous. There is a diference. However, you seem to have a penchant for making words mean what you want. By the way, Graphe= write, a document. Prophetou= proclaim, to reveal.

 

In the Bible, Paul condemns the use of other names in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. Let us look at his reason:

Firstly, he asks in 1 Cor 1:13 "Is Christ divided?" Today, most people would answer "yes," but Paul sees it as unthinkable: Christ is not divided, but rather those who have taken to themselves new names have left Christ - Christ is united and they who have assumed these names are outside of that united Christ and are on their own as heretics and schismatics.

If men were forbidden by God in the New Testament to call themselves by the names of inspired apostles in 1 Corinthians 1, why do men today think they can call themselves by error-prone theologians and not be condemned?

If I may not be called a Paulite, how could I be called a Lutheran? Paul was doubtless greater than Luther! Yet, God does not allow me to be called by Paul's name. Why? Because Christ is not divided. If, therefore, I call myself by Paul's name, I am the one who is divided (that is that I have divided myself from Christ) yet Christ remains united.

Furthermore, Paul aksed those who were calling themselves by his name "was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:13) Obviously then, I cannot be called a Paulite because Paul was not the one crucified for me. Luther also was not crucified for me, nor John the Baptist. Who was crucified for men? Christ, and Christ alone! Was the Advent of the Seventh Day crucified for me? Certainly not! Was a Method crucified for me? If it were, I read nothing about it in Scripture! Was the Episcopacy crucified for me? No, but that great Bishop of my soul, Jesus Christ, was! Were the Presbyters crucified for me? Nay, but Christ, the Ancient of Days was! Was the universe crucified for me? No, but the Creator of it, Jesus Christ, was! Was Pentecost crucified for me? No, but that great Law Giver, Jesus Christ, was!

Lastly, "were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:13) Obviously, then, Paul is hinting at the fact that only the baptized may be called by Christ's name - it is only through baptism that a person may be called a Christian. Now then, when someone calls themself a Paulite, he logically asks "were you baptized in my name?" Today, Paul would ask the Lutheran "were you baptized into the name of Luther" and the Catholic "were you baptized into the name of the universe?" and the Baptist "were you baptized into the name of the baptist?" and the Seventh-Day Adventist "were you baptized into the name of the Seventh Day?", etc.

[ May 08, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world are you talking about???

Do you think that Baptists " are not Christian" because the church name is "Baptist"???

Do you think Americans are not human because they call themselves Americans??

Where do you get that strange line of reasoning??

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong Sola. How is it that you have the screen name "Sola scriptura" and yet seem to have so much trouble "sola scriptura"?? I find that amazing.

In the Bible (Acts 11) we are told that the opposers of Christ FIRST started refering to the followers of Christ as "Christians".

This name was not used in the Gospels. It is in fact only used 3 times in the NT.

But you ignored the point above - Americans are not "Human OR American but not BOTH since they CALL themselves American". Your half-baked idea that you can't "Call yourself an American and STILL be Human" is silly and would not convince anyone EVEN in your own camp.

Try to be convincing.

Your idea that Baptists are not "Christian" because they call themselves "Baptists" AS WELL as Christian, is as silly as saying the same thing about Methodists, or Adventists, or Lutherans or even the denomination - Church of Christ.

You claim that Paul says that CHRISTIANS can not have such church names in 1Cor 1. But in fact the word "Christian" is not found in the entire letter to the Corinthians. In fact it is not in EITHER ONE of the letters Paul has recorded to the Corinthians.

So you simply make it up. Humorous though your argument may be at times - it is not compelling.

IN FACT it says "WERE you Baptized in the NAME of Paul"?

The text is SPECIFIC. And as it turns out, Baptists, Methodists and even Adventists are "Baptized" in the name of Christ as follows "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" as Matt 28 instructs.

And so ALL of them call themselves "Christian" but also identify their own church within the larger body of Christians.

Perhaps this is an argument that works well in the Church of Christ denomination - but aside from the Lutheran church - I know of no church that calls itself by the NAME of the reformer that started the church - and NONE that "Baptize in the NAME" of that person.

So again - you simply make it up.

#1. You are not following the text - your inserting your doctrine into it.

#2. John's name was not "the Baptist". That is not why Baptists call themselves by that name.

#3. In 1Cor 1 and 3 the point is NOT that DIFFERENT doctrinal groups IDENTIFY themselves by a name - rather it is that within the SAME doctrinal group they divide by which EVANGELIST they follow. This is an ENTIRELY different problem and one that you have NOT addressed. Like Franciscan vs Dominican.

Here again - you show you don't know what the name means AS WELL as being unnable to SHOW that "An American can not ALSO be a Human" - or that a Baptist can not ALSO be a Christian OR that the word "Christian" is EVER used in the letter to the Corinthians.

Your point dies before it gets started.

Repeating a failed argument that has not support from scripture is only hurting your case. Why not form a compelling statement? Why not argue from scripture with reason and sound logic?

As I said - Please make a believable argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank --
There were a number of the leters written prior to II Timothy, your accusation not withstanding. In fact, II Tim. was the last of Paul's letters to be written.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all - John was the last NT author to write - not Paul. If Paul's writing of 2Timothy ENDED the NT scriptures we would have to toss out John's writings. Your argument fails of its own accord.

You seek to use 2 Timothy 3 as "ENDING spiritual gifts" but IT references THE CHILDHOOD of Timothy as the "completion point".

At TIME BEFORE the book of acts.

A time BEFORE the book of 1 Timothy.

A time BEFORE the book of 2 Timothy.

A time BEFORE the book of John.

A time BEFORE the book of Revelation.

A time BEFORE the Gospel accounts.

All these "letters" you would "truncate" by using 2 Timothy 3 speaking of the SCRIPTURES read to Timothy as a CHILD - as being "SUFFICIENT".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank --
Furthermore, there were written letters of the word of God in circulation during the time of Timothy and Paul. SEE I Thes. 5:26,27, Col. 4:16.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly - the argument FROM 2Timothy 3:16 is that the SCRIPTURES completed AT the time of Timothy's CHILDHOOD "were SUFFICIENT".

 

Bob:
This quote and my rebuttal serves as the major obstacle in you knowing the truth. You simply have no concept of the implication of language.

AS was already pointed out - your OTHER assumption that God is wrong in 1Cor 12 when He says that "The Holy Spirit gives gifts to EACH one as HE WILLS" - and you argue "OH NO - the only way you can get a spiritual gift is IF a first century APOSTLE gives it to you" - EVEN though we see clearly in Acts 11 and in 1Cor 12 that NO such "binding of the Holy Spirit" is possible and in fact people received Gifts APART from the laying on of Hands by one of the 12.

The Bible teaches in Acts 8:12-18 that the power of the Holy Spirit in granting gifts took place when the apostles laid hands on Christians. The IMPLICATION OF ALL the EVIDENCE proves my position. Furthermore, by IMPLICATION when the method was removed ( the death of the apostles) then, obvioulsy the gifts did not continue.

 

I have shown "repeatedly" that the 2Timothy 3 statement refers NOT to Timothys ADULT life but to his CHILDHOOD "from a Child".

I have shown that by claiming that scripture was ALREADY "sufficient" in the days of Timothys childhood - your entire case against continuation of Spiritual Gifts IN Timothy's ADULT life (fails) and your case against God's Word in the OT claiming it was "INSUFFICIENT" during Timothy's "childhood" - collapses.

Paul says the scriptures OF Timothy's CHILDHOOD were "sufficient" - but you say "no they were not - scripture was not SUFFICIENT until Paul was finished writing AND John was finished writing letters of scripture". You directly contradict Paul to "make your case".

Heb 11 "shows" the saints of the OT to have found salvation "but you claim NO not possible for the scriptures they had were NOT sufficient".

Heb 4:1 says "WE have had the GOSPEL preached to use JUST as they also" - but you say "no they could not have had the Gospel ONLY we have it - toss out their OT scripture as INSUFFICIENT".

Your claim is that "IF the scripture of Timothy's CHILDHOOD HAD been SUFFICIENT then NO more Prophets no more Spiritual gifts NO more prophecy would be ALLOWED" - and "yet" - you are so obviously mistaken in that argument that it collapses before you get it out.

Surely - with some honesty and integrity as a Christian you can see that your attempts to appeal to Timothy's CHILDHOOD as the time when all Spiritual gifts ceased and Scripture ceased - is flawed beyond acceptance by any reasonable Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As has already been pointed out -- the Bible says in Acts 11 that Spiritual gifts were given out DIRECTLY by God the Holy Spirit TO the as yet UNBAPTIZED gentiles who had NO laying on of hands by Peter.

As has already been pointed out - the Bible says in 1Cor 12 that it was NOT the "Disciples giving out Spiritual gifts to each one as THEY chose" NEITHER were the disciples the "Source" of Spiritual Gifts - so that when they died - the source died. RATHER it was God Himself giving to EACH one as HE willed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Guys,

I must say that I have enjoyed reading your postings. I find it very helpful to listen to other points of view – challenges to my beliefs are not unwelcome, they provide me an opportunity to review my own position – however, I believe that all such discussions should be carried out in the spirit of truth.

Like Bob, I am a Seventh-day Adventist (I trust those who aren’t don’t immediately write me off!). Indeed, one of the main reasons I felt the need to post was because of a link provided by ME2, which among other things discusses Ellen G. White. Certainly, after looking over the page, I had to agree with the conclusion – “leave the SDA Church”! If half of what was presented were true, I would have no desire whatsoever in continuing in such a movement!

Though there are many issues that could be discussed, given this is a thread that deals specifically with Ellen G. White, I would like to address a few misunderstandings that in most cases could be resolved with simple due process.

Ellen G. White was not the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She was a co-founder, along with several other individuals including: Joseph Bates, Charles Fitch, Hiram Edson and her husband James White, to name a few.

None of the doctrinal positions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are based in any way shape or form on the revelations of Ellen G. White - our sole creed is the Bible and the Bible only (this may come as a surprise to some).

As far as her writings are concerned – I can do no less than use her own words – she wrote that her works are “a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light”, being the Bible. Now I recognise that some could argue that this is not needed – and to a point I agree, but for me, I am happy for any light that will lead me to the greater light given there is so much darkness in the world today.

If there were any interest, I’d be happy to deal with some of the challenges that have been levelled against Ellen G. White, but at this stage I’ll leave it.

I trust this will be beneficial to the discussion.

Your brother in Christ,

Randall

P.S. Sola – love your call name!!!

 

Randall -

One of the points of "difference" identified on this thread (with Frank for instance) is that before getting to the subject of Ellen White - many stop at 1Cor 12 and declare that the Spiritual Gifts listed in 1Cor 12 - END in 1Cor 13 with the close of the NT.

In that case - any claim to HAVE a spiritual gift - (whatever that Gift may be) - is to be "guilty" of error by virtue of that claim alone. Regardless of church or doctrine.

That is in fact one of the largest complaints.

The other one - is one that even Adventists endorse. Which is that IF you could agree with scripture that Spiritual Gifts continue - then you also must hold a prophet accountable to scripture. That means that anyone who is not of the same denomination as a given prophet - must declare "that prophet" to be in error IF they publish a message from God that endorses their doctrines.


In Christ,

Bob