SDA unique doctrine

[BobRyan]

Targus
Originally Posted by targus
Bob Ryan, how about going over to the other thread on Ellen White and let us know which of her writings are "inspired". After all, in order to be able to test them against Scripture you have to be able to identify them first - right?

I gave you a 650+ page volume of inspired writings (The Great Controversy by Ellen White) to "conduct your supposed interest in a sola-scriptura test".


That book is one of the BEST examples of --the following list all wrapped up in one convenient volume for your "test".

Bob said -
When Ellen White speaks to the subject of (and in favor of)
1. believer's Baptism,
2. the state of the dead,
3. the literal millennium,
4. the pre-mill second coming,
5. the Trinity,
6. the 2Cor 5 judgment of all,
7. the literal bodily resurrection of christ,
8. the literal bodily resurrection of the saints,
9. the need to test all doctrines "Sola Scriptura",
10. the fact of free will,
11. the process of Atonement as defined in scripture .... etc

these messages that she claims to have come from God are going to "cut across somebody's doctrinal view".

I don't see how anyone who is not already Adventist in doctrine would even begin to confirm her as a prophet. I don't see how a Baptist would ever confirm a Lutheran prophet if that prophet endorsed the very doctrinal distinctives of the Lurtheran faith that are in opposition to that which most Baptists believe.

How much simpler could this BE????

And then you revealed your "bait and switch"

Originally Posted by targus

Bob Ryan gave me the title of an (Ellen White) book to read (for which the claim of inspiration is made by SDAs) and test...

That's not what I asked for.

Not "enough material" for your supposed "test" in those 650+ pages????

Not to be exceeded by anything but this insightful post (Clarification added in parens)

Targus

I am NOT asking for a "book". (by Ellen White - accepted as inspired by SDAs)
I am NOT asking for a "simple sample" (of such a book easy to test here).
I am NOT asking for SDA "doctrine". (To test sola scriptura)

Saving us BOTH - a lot of time.

Thanks!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Passion of Deception


Quotations taken from, ‘The Desire of Ages’, or, ‘The Passion of Love’, by EG White, Remnant Publications, Inc. Coldwater, MI, 2004. All rights reserved, ISBN 1-883012-18-X.

Interlinear analysis by CG Ebersöhn. I won’t plagiarise, promise— it would defy my objectives, which are, to show the falsities of both the author and her authoring. Besides, I am invited by the publishers, “Are you searching for the truth? Do you need reliable answers to urgent questions?”, Like this one, “Is the development of character important?”— the very third page after one has opened the book! I therefore will go ahead with using and quoting from the above book, without written consent. And if ‘they’ want to prosecute, so be it! It has become time for the truth!

Just to make sure the reader won’t miss which are the words of EG White, and which mine, I have italicised her words, and put them in quotation marks. Each remark of hers I might choose to respond to, shall be quoted, as it stands in the ‘edition’ above indicated.

It is actually to the chapter, ‘The Lord is Risen’, that I want to get; but will need some time for.

Watch this URL for it: http://www.biblestudents.co.za

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ’s Divinity

“Chapter 1, ‘Gethsemane’, This chapter is based on Matthew 26:36-56; Mark 14:32-50; Luke 22:39-53; John 18:1-12.”

(p 12) “. . . As man He must suffer the consequences of man’s sin. As man He must endure the wrath of God against transgression.”

Reference: “Zechariah 13:7”:

“. . . the Man that is My Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts.” Like Christ was the Fellow of man, so was He the Fellow of Yahweh. He was of the nature of man and of God in Himself, indistinguishable and inseparable, one, “the Mystery of Godliness”, indeed. Christ’s sufferings were His; not of a part of Him merely. As suffered the Son of man, so suffered the Son of God. ‘As man’, so, ‘as God’.

“As man” as though not also ‘as God’, is a falsity: “As man He must suffer the consequences of man’s sin. As man He must endure the wrath of God against transgression”. And it is yet another falsity such a claim “is based on Matthew 26:36-56; Mark 14:32-50; Luke 22:39-53; John 18:1-12.”

‘It is written’, not, “as a man”; it is written, “Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things?”— the whole, the only, the one, “the Christ”. We cannot dissect Him as were He an object of our curiosity. “Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; … this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” Paul never spoke of Jesus Christ ‘as man’. In fact, said he, “We no longer know Christ after the flesh”. ‘As man’ would mean we knew Christ ‘after the flesh’. But now we know Him as Lord and God even in His suffering of dying and death, or we do not know Him; for in His suffering of dying and death, both Jesus and the Father are glorified.

The Christ of God in his suffering, is Jesus the Son of Man in his resurrection, “Christ, the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.” Paul preached not a Christ ‘as man’; He preached Jesus, as Christ, as Christ who “must needs have suffered”. Always, while ‘in the flesh’, Jesus had been Man fully; always, while ‘in the flesh’, Jesus had been God fully. As through resurrection from the dead Jesus was God and Man fully, so through entering into and going through death, was He both Man and God, fully.

Mrs White maintained that Christ not ‘as God’ suffered and died the death which is sin’s reward. She teaches a strange gospel.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

“Judas”

(p 40-41) . . . “As the trial drew to a close, Judas could endure the torture of his guilty conscience no longer. Suddenly a hoarse voice rang through the hall, sending a thrill of terror to all hearts: He is innocent; spare Him, O Caiaphas!
The tall form of Judas was now seen pressing through the startled throng. His face was pale and haggard, and great drops of sweat stood on his forehead. Rushing to the throne of judgment, he threw down before the high priest the pieces of silver that had been the price of his Lord’s betrayal. Eagerly grasping the robe of Caiaphas, he implored him to release Jesus, declaring that He had done nothing worthy of death. Caiaphas angrily shook him off, but was confused, and knew not what to say. The perfidy of the priests was revealed. It was evident that they had bribed the disciple to betray his Master.
“I have sinned,” again cried Judas, “in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.” But the high priest, regaining his self-possession, answered with scorn, “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Matt. 27:4. The priests had been willing to make Judas their tool; but they despised his baseness. When he turned to them with confession, they spurned him.
Judas now casts himself at the feet of Jesus, acknowledging Him to be the Son of God, and entreating Him to deliver Himself. The Saviour did not reproach His betrayer. He knew that Judas did not repent; his confession was forced from his guilty soul by an awful sense of condemnation and a looking for of judgment, but he felt no deep, heartbreaking grief that he had betrayed the spotless Son of God, and denied the Holy One of Israel. Yet Jesus spoke no word of condemnation. He looked pityingly upon Judas, and said, For this hour came I into the world.
A murmur of surprise ran through the assembly. With amazement they beheld the forbearance of Christ toward His betrayer. Again there swept over them the conviction that this man was more than mortal. But if He was the Son of God, they questioned, why did He not free Himself from His bonds and triumph over His accusers?
Judas saw that his entreaties were in vain, and he rushed from the hall exclaiming, It is too late! It is too late! He felt that he could not live to see Jesus crucified, and in despair went out and hanged himself.
Later that same day, on the road from Pilate’s hall to Calvary, there came an interruption to the shouts and jeers of the wicked throng who were leading Jesus to the place of crucifixion. As they passed a retired spot, they saw at the foot of a lifeless tree, the body of Judas. It was a most revolting sight. His weight had broken the cord by which he had hanged himself to the tree. In falling, his body had been horribly mangled, and dogs were now devouring it. His remains were immediately buried out of sight; but there was less mockery among the throng, and many a pale face revealed the thoughts within. Retribution seemed already visiting those who were guilty of the blood of Jesus.”


It is totally unfounded Judas “threw down before the high priest the pieces of silver that had been the price of his Lord’s betrayal”, inside his house, and while during the ‘trial’ there. No Judas-‘scene’ played off in ‘the hall’ of Caiaphas’ home. Matthew records, “All the chief priests and elders of the people took council against Jesus”, in the house of Caiaphas, 26:57-75, “to put Him to death”. 27:1. “And when they had bound Him”, after His ‘trial’ there, “they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor” (27:2). “Then”, says verse 3, “Judas … brought again the thirty pieces of silver: to the chief priests and elders”. It seems he from somewhere brought the hidden money of shame to, the house of the high priest, and after the ‘trial’; he did not take the money as if from his pocket in the home of Caiaphas.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is totally unfounded Judas, in the house of Caiaphas, “threw down before the high priest the pieces of silver that had been the price of his Lord’s betrayal”. It says that after the priests first refused the money, Judas “cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and hanged himself.” Verse 5. The priests much later, “took the silver pieces”, where and when they could have argued, “It is not lawful for to put in the treasury”.

Judas never came near inside the house of Caiaphas or “the throne of judgment” inside it! “But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled.” After all it was not Judas’ wish, but God’s determinate will, that decided all the disciples should forsake Him. So they forsook Him – everyone of them. And Judas, embarrassed by his ‘Master’ being taken like “a thief with swords and staves”, did not with the mob go to the house of Caiaphas. After he betrayed Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Judas left, too afraid to stay, and too ashamed of himself to look anyone in the eye. “Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled.”

It was only after the ‘hearing’ before the high priest, and “When they had bound Him, and led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate”, that Judas “brought again the thirty pieces to the chief priests and elders”. It was in the absence of the ‘throng’, after they had left for Pontius Pilate’s place. No words are exchanged between Judas and the priests in Jesus’ presence. Judas’ guilty conscience drove him to Caiaphas’ home; but he was received coldly at the door, What have you come here for, “again!”? What is it you want, ‘this time’? O, you (in the mean time) repented your betrayal of innocent blood? Boring! “What is that to us? See thou to that!” slammed
they the door in the face of Judas. Judas sat no foot inside! There was nothing of the ‘recorded’ melodrama around the ‘throne of judgment’ and ‘at Jesus’ feet’!

The passion of the plagiarist is blinding, for, somewhere, White had to have got her nonsense from – from anywhere, but from the Gospels; from anywhere, but from ‘Inspiration’! It is such utter disrespect for fact, truth, ‘detail’ from ‘the pen of Inspiration’, that Seventh Day Adventists refuse to open their eyes to.

We shall have another look at the 'penitent thief'-issue in the next post.

 

[BobRyan]

The point "remains" -- the book The Great Controversy provides a perfect example of test-case-doctrines that anyone with half an interest in scripture could use to SEE that Ellen White was not posting "Lutheran" or Catholic (or even GE) doctrine.

And "yes" GE -- I could also have selected from another of other books as well.

But the point is clear with the one -- pretty simple really.

Surprised that you guys are pretending to find this concept so difficult.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You clearly brings over what you want to bring over, BobRyan: Nothing! I must admit, 'nothing' goes over my head.

 

[BobRyan]

Then let's start with "the details" I have given in "This thread" - since you are posting on it.

 

[BobRyan]

Although SDA doctrines were initially established and discovered by Adventists prior to Ellen White having "any news at all about them" - yet over the course of her life time - the List of SDA doctrines given multiple times on this thread - can also be found in Ellen White's writings as messages from God where the message is favorable to that specific doctrine.

So when the Bible classes within Adventism are done sola scriptura to establish and study doctrine - they are using the same methods the first Adventists used -- yet we can also see that the list gets included in a message given to Ellen White after some length of time. The result is that those Adventists that do accept the fact that Ellen White was given the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy are in doctrinal agreement with that group of Adventists that accept the 1 Cor 12 gifts but do not consider that Ellen White happens to be an example of someone with the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy promised to the NT church.

Simply historical fact.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That means one thing: All Adventists - before or after White, acceptin or not accepting White for inspired - all Adventists, and all their doctrines, are in accordance with the Scriptures.

You say with a huge turn in the road what in a straight line between points a and b would have been: EG White is in absolute accordance with the Scriptures - unfailingly -- which is, 'inspired'.

In short: Rejected! Not true; an infamous lie!