Witnessing to 7th day adventist

Ok - I will agree to that. So go ahead now - do some exegesis on Gen 1-2:3 and "SHOW" that Christ the Creator was TRYING to point Adam to his totally depraved state and his need of salvation. I am fully open to watching the way a faithful exegetical review of that text would SHOW God the Son - the CREATOR of John 1:1-3 - to be making that case to Adam.

Is that something you would like to see inserted into the text of Genesis some place? How about Exodus 20:8-11?

How about inserting it into the Words of Christ in Mark 2:27? 28?

Just where would you insert it so that we can see that at its origin Christ the Creator gave the day for the purpose you state?

If there is no exegetical way to make that case for its origin - then how in the world can you argue against the origin today?

Notice that in Rev 14:6-7 God makes the SAME argument for worship - that He makes in the ORIGIN for HIS Holy day. Surely He would have forgotten about that point by then.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

What am I missing here? I am trying to understand why you and others believe that Ellen's "writings" are from our Lord Jesus Christ and are to be honored and obeyed by Christians.

You began with the "first" step which was to compare the writings against Scripture. Would this not then mean that the writings state the same things that the Scriptures state but maybe with differing words?

I asked if Ellen gives us "new revelation" which would indeed be equal to Scripture if it is so that it was written down for the church to obey.

Here is the bottom line of my question. I am simply trying to have a conversation here so I can understand why SDA's feel that EGW's writings are authoritive for Christians.

What personally has proved to "you" her authority?

and

What message from the Lord did she write that cannot be found in my King James Bible?

Just to reitterate, we have only gotten as far as step one, which you said was comparing what she wrote to Scripture. I conceded, but also know that this step alone does not prove that anyone has authorative writings. Many authors write books which agree with Scripture. What's next?

God Bless!

 

Nope. Take Agabus in the NT for example or Nathan to David or any of a number of NT/OT prophets that have no canonical writings.

It is not simply a test of "does your message paraphrase scripture".

Obviously the guys that wrote the Living Bible were "paraphrasing scripture" but that does not make them prophets.

In Numbers 12 God did not say "IF there is a prophet among you I will give him a dream of a nice way to paraphrase scripture".

It is true that the message will hammer some Bible point home (as you see with Isaiah or Revelation) but like Agabus' message it is not limited to that.

Certainly the message Agabus gave was not "scripture" nor was it "new scripture" written out by him and inserted into the Bible after Malachi.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of non-canonical prophets mentioned in the Bible and your questions are all pretty much the basic stuff of "What exactly IS a non-canonical prophet" regardless if one accepts Ellen White or not.

I propose that we look at that first since all your questions keep coming back to that some topic.

Otherwise we are just going to come back to "What does the Bible show about the message and function of non-canonical prophets".

AGreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

1. No - nothing she wrote is "equal to scripture".

2. But by defintion ALL prophecy is given by inspiriation of God so BOTH canonical AND NON canonical prophets (both those in Corinth AND Paul who is writing to Corinth) are inspired in the message they give that is from God.

If your question is - "Can we ignore some messages from God" -- the answer is "no".

But you still have to test the message and the messenger to see if this is really from God. And one of the Key tests is by the Bible - they can not give a message with doctrine that opposes scripture and claim that that message came from God.

For example - Peter was wrong and Paul rebuked him for it - but Peter did not claim that his actions were at the direction/dictate of inspiration from God. So he REMAINS as a valid inspired authorotative source.

1. SDAs do not claim that Ellen White is authorotative for anyone but SDAS - because by definition she CAN NOT be accepted as a valid prophet by anyone with doctrinal views that are different than the ones contained in messages that she "claims" to have come from God.

Since there are so many of those - you would pretty much have to already BE an SDA to THEN conclude "yep all of these doctrinal positions line up" and THEN to have to deal with "So now what does that mean"?

Part 1 is the claim -- she has given messages that she claims to be of God. Those messages clearly contain information that would NEED to have been inspired IF they are to be taken seriously. (1Thess 4 -- if Paul is just MAKING that up - then it is almost worthless - but IF he is inspired then it is highly valuable).

Part 2 - is the message she CLAIMS to have come from God must be validated from a doctrinal POV against the Bible "sola scriptura" as it were.

So that is like saying "What message did Agabus give that could NOT have been found in the OT - the scripture of his day". Clearly he did give one that was of that very kind as you would expect - and so did Ellen White. I listed the topics in my earlier post.

However - one could also ask - what message came from John in Revelation that did not come from Daniel and Isaiah and Ezekiel. Clearly there are a lot of areas of overlap - but John also gives new information.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Those authors typically don't claim to be inspired and don't give out information that would "need inspiration" to be valid or taken seriously. I say again - take 1Thess 4 or 2Thess 2 or 1Tim 4 -- as prime examples of texts that REQUIRE inspiration to be taken seriously. They are not simply "nice religious sayings" but rather they are descriptions of specific details that can not be "known" in general - they would have needed revelation or else someone is just making up stories.

Having said that - the problem with "step one" is that once you say " I don't agree with what I am finding when I apply the test of step 1 -- there is pretty much no use in going to step 2."

I heard a pastor say one time that when some atheist asked him "can God make a rock so big that He can not lift it" he would always respond "if I tell you the answer will you convert"?

The point is - that if a Mormon comes to my house to talk about Joseph Smith - the first thing they like to do is prove that 1Cor 12 is a valid chapter to read and believe. I already accept that point. The point I press with them is that Joseph Smith must be TESTED in what he wrote to SEE IF it agrees with Bible doctrine.

Since I don't believe he wrote the Book of Mormon - and since most Mormons don't actually know much about the content of the BoM -- we go to the Pearl of Great Price and one by one point out that J-Smith is proclaiming doctrines in messages he claims to have come from God - that are simply not in agreement with what I find in the Bible.

The discussion really can not go much beyond that kind of dialoge since that is the first test of a prophet according to Isaiah 8:20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
I'm bewailing the fact Sabbath-keepers won't acknowledge the Sabbath its origin in Christ in resurrection from the dead. That's what i'm 'inserting'.
I'm inserting, and wish I could insert it into your convictions, that the Beginning - which is Christ Jesus Himself, and He in resurrection from the dead - is the creation or the making of the Seventh day Sabbath of the LORD your God.
You require after that in Genesis 2? Wel it's there in every (human) word of it, that describes every act of God there, as an act not of physically creating anything, but of finishing everything God had created : His blessing, His Sanctification: His finishing; His reviving, His resting - THESE are the WORKS of God of and on the Seventh Day, WHEREBY the Seventh Day became the Sabbath of the LORD your God. THESE are WORKS of God of the "exceeding greatness of His power when He raised Christ from the dead".
Simple for the eye of faith to see; impossible for the eye not seeing Christ, and not seeing Christ in His resurrection. Always the case, always has been, and always will be like that, unfortunately.

 

Ok - give it a shot. Walk me through that.

Let's go to the "origin" to see if it's "origin" is in the resurrection of Christ.

Show how exegesis of Gen 1-2:3 reveals that the 7th day of Creation week was made a Holy Day for some reason OTHER than what God said.

Or show from God speaking on that same subject in Exodus 20:8-11 how HE idenfies the "origin" of the day to be in the resurrection of the dead in Genesis.

Or show that in Mark 2:27 where Christ speaks of the "MAKING" of the day that it was "MADE as a recognition of the fact of Christ's resurrection".

I am open to seeing the "origin" discussed.

By "comparison" in 1Cor 11 you have the "origin" of the Lord's supper discussed and there the origin is said to "commemorate the Lord's Death until He comes". There we see that a careful exegetical review of the text - shows the origin and shows what it specifically deals with.

I have no problem admitting that God the Son - the Messiah-God (Christ the Creator) IS the origin of the day. In fact it is HE who says what the day is for in Exodus 20:8-11 and it is CHRIST that authors the words of Gen 1-2:3 through His Holy Spirit.

I have no problem at all with the John 1:1-3 idea that Christ IS the creator and all that was done is IN Christ and is OF Christ and has its origin in Christ.

But as wonderful as all that is - I can not just insert whatever I like into the text of Gen 1-2:3 or into Exodus 20:8-11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So the argument is that Friday of Creation week is the death of Christ and Sabbath is Christ in the tomb restintg and not risen -- and the 8th day of Creation week is God being raised from the dead??.

Clearly you have to "read that in" to the text apart from anything like "exegesis".

Wouldn't you have to admit that God did not give that 8th day much attention in the text of Gen 1-2:3 describing the Creation?

It makes for a great metephorical story for a homily or illustration - but it is not good Bible exegesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

PS - I keep saying "Eric" in my previous posts when I really mean "Steaver".

Sorry about that lapse of brain cells, Steaver.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting BobRyan,
"Let's go to the "origin" to see if it's "origin" is in the resurrection of Christ.

Show how exegesis of Gen 1-2:3 reveals that the 7th day of Creation week was made a Holy Day for some reason OTHER than what God said."

Bob, I'm not fighting you, please?

Just look at your own words here again: "Let's go to the "origin" to see if it's "origin" is in the resurrection of Christ."

Just this one point, "walk" us through the whole! Discover the Sabbath's eschatology right here. Come back to these words of your, and don't again leave from them until you've discovered the true meaning of what you have put into words yourself!

Like before I ask you again? Why won't you accept, let's go to the "origin" AND see THAT the Sabbath's "origin" is in the resurrection of Christ? Can't you SEE, "The exceeding greatness of GOd's Power when He raised Christ from the dead" in Genesis, reading, "God on the Seventh Day RESTED having FINISHED, having BLESSED, having SANCTIFIED having REVIVED Himself"? The it's no point I try to do it for you.

 

Quoting Bob Ryan,
"So the argument is that Friday of Creation week is the death of Christ and Sabbath is Christ in the tomb restintg and not risen -- and the 8th day of Creation week is God being raised from the dead??."

Bob, am I blind to see what you see? Goodness! What gives you the idea I suggest an 'eighth day' here? No, I give up! How many times have I conferred with YOU, BobRyan, putting forth my conviction Jesus rose from the dead ON and IN the Sabbath DAY the Seventh DAY of the week ('Saturday')?

Now I think I see what makes you think I meant Sunday, and that is that God must have WORKED on the Sabbath Day in order to raise Jesus from the dead if He rose from the dead on the the Sabbath Day. because you understand Jesus' being in the state of death as God's rest on the sabbath Day. Now I regard that as an abominable idea death could be Jesus' rest of the Sabbth Day. No, Jesus' RISING on the Sabbath Day was Jesus' Act of victorious REST on and of the Sabbath Day.

 

Bobn,
I said something like this more or less before, and am obliged to it here again, that so it comes into light what the Seventh Day Adventists really believe about Mrs EG White. (The thread allows my referring to her.) Mrs White said Jesus 'rested' on the Sabbath in the grave; she said Jesus was crucified on Friday, and rose on Sunday. Therefore, no matter what, it's final. So is it because the messenger of the Lord has spoken. You people DO place her on par with Scripture. No explanations help.

 

I have to admit - I never knew you thought Christ rose from the dead on the 7th day of the week.

I am convinced he rose from the dead on Sunday. When the disciples said "THIS IS THE THIRD DAY" since all these things happened - it fixes the day as the FIRST day of the week.

It has to be a Sunday -- first day resurrection.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. You agreed that it is the ORIGIN of the day that we need to look at. And you claim its ORIGIN is in the resurrection.

#2. The statement you give above - is not an exegetical review of the ORIGIN - because the first place we find the 7th day being blessed and made Holy is in Gen 2:3 and you are not touching that with a ten foot pole.

#3. You claim that Christ was raised from the dead on Sabbath even though the disciples say of the First day of the week "THIS is the THIRD day since all these things happened" making Sunday that 3rd day since the crucifixion.

You are basically making the same argument that all the Sunday keeping Christians make for Sunday based NOT on God's command to keep the day holy but on man's view of "What would be a neat thing to do to show honor to the day on which Christ arose".

You argue AGAINST the wording God gives for keeping the day and FOR the wording man gives for Sunday - only you apply it to Saturday because you think Christ rose on that day.

This means if we study and find that Christ really did rise from the tomb on Sunday morning - you would have your entire argument 100% identical to the argument made by Sunday keeping Christians.

Am I missing something on this?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting Bob yan,
"I am convinced he rose from the dead on Sunday. When the disciples said "THIS IS THE THIRD DAY" since all these things happened - it fixes the day as the FIRST day of the week.

It has to be a Sunday -- first day resurrection."

As you will notice, we're arguing this subject now on two threads.
In any case,
First to correct your inverted commas:
"This is the third day since ..." "since all these things happened".
"This day" was Sunday? Yes! so,
Sunday=firstdaysince;
Then Saturday=Secondddaysince
And Friday=Seconddaysince
Since = after these things happened
After/since - NOT 'with'/'including
Therefore "these things (mentioned/enumerated) happened BEFORE Friday.
What are the "these things that happened"/"these things" MENTIONED?
Note what ARE mentioned for being "these things that happened"
Then SEE, what is NOT mentioned for being "these things that happened"
I'll wait for your post for the answer, you now being on line
In Christ,
Gerhard

 

As usual my arithmetic is awkward, Correction:
Sunday=thirddaysince;
Saturday-seconddaysince;
Friday=firstdaysince
Sorry!

 

Quoting BobRyan,
"It has to be a Sunday -- first day resurrection."

Why, Bob? Why?
Why, if every possible and to man impossible but to God only possible reason may be presented that it "HAS TO BE" God's Sabbath Day! For is not God ULTIMATE Victory, His once for all TRIUMPH in Christ in resurrection from the dead, the acme, the height, the ultimate of all the works of God?
Which work of God required """"the EXCEEDING greatness of His power""""? Then that work ONLY is great enough to be God's Act of Rest, and that act of rest of God ALMIGHTY, is seen NOWHERE ELSE than in His resurrection of His Christ from the dead!

 

It HAS TO BE """"the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD yuor God"""". The Sabbath's NAME alone, is enough to tell and to witness Jesus' resurrection would be its very fulfilment, its very establishment, its very and original, creation, - "the Sabbath was MADE ... FOR ... MAN". The WHOLE Gospel is contained in the words "made for man". The Sabbath was therefore, "made for man", for the first Adam and for his benefit, but ultimately, for the Second Adam to His service.

 

I will put the last few on this thread so that we can keep it here

So the NT Gospel writers keep emphasizing that Christ was to be raised "ON the Third day" or in some cases "AFTER 3 days".... so when that SAME author points out that Sunday "IS the THIRD DAY" how can the point be missed??

Here we see the same author writing about the same subject presenting it consistently and progressively in his gospel account. It cluminates with the statement that week-day-1 IS the THIRD day being highlighted in the book.

Notice that this is the 3RD day since Jesus was arrested etc.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the resurrection ON the Third day AND have Sunday BE the Third day since the trial WITHOUT having Jesus raised ON Sunday.

The Gospel writer has gone out of his way to emphasize the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The problem is that once Sunday is the THIRD day - you have a problem.

It does not matter whether you make it the THIRD day SINCE the trial started, or SINCE the trial ended OR since His death - because He is supposed to be RAISED "On the Third Day" according to the same chapter -- Luke 24:7 (same chapter, same author, same context, same point).

In Christ,

Bob