SDA unique doctrine

[targus]

Jonah 3
Jonah Preaches at Nineveh
1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”


Bob Ryan, this does not support Ellen White's false vision.

Jonah was merely doing as the Lord instructed him to. The Lord instructed him to announce "Forty days more and Nineveh will be destroyed."

Scripture then goes on to tell us "why" God did not destroy Nineveh.

Ellen White did not write any further about her failed vision. Did Ellen White tell us that the "angel" insturcted her exactly what to say? Did she then go on to explain why Christ did not return as she predicted. She simply had a false vision - indeed if she actually had a vision at all. SDA just sort of let this slide after everyone at the conference had died over the years and Christ still had not returned.

 

[targus]

The SDA denomination emphasizes Revelation 12:17 which they say provides two identifying marks of the true remnant church in the last days:

1. They keep the "Commandments of God", especially the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath holy (ie Saturday)

2. They have the "faith of Jesus" which Revelation 19:10 identifies as the "Spirit of Prophecy".

For SDA's the Spirit of Prophecy was "manifested in the life and writings of Ellen G. White".

Therefore, the SDA Church is the only church that has the identifying marks of the remnant church of Revelation.

In other words - No prophet Ellen equals no SDA as the "remnant church of Revelation".

And that is why SDA's will cling to the false prophet Ellen White no matter what.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Rayan you are confused.

This response concerns your comparison of Ellen White's failed vision when she stated that some of the people attending the conference would still be alive when Christ returned. You attempted to compare that failure with Paul's words. There is no comparison.

I repeat.

I repeat the Ellen White discussion you seek - is already stated as being "pointless" in a context with a non-SDA.

Did you miss that part??

NASB - 1Thess 4

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we[/b] who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.[/b]

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Targus saiid -
Let's look at the "details", Bob.

As I said before - I am always happy when it looks like you might actually get into exegesis in actual scripture.

It would be a pleasure to see you do it.

Paul did not say, "Some of the people now listening to me speak will be alive and will be caught up together."

In fact Paul said -- that the WE who believe and the WE who do not want you to be uninformed is the WE who will be alive and remain ... let's observe "the details".

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we[/b] who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.[/b]


From the standpoint of exegesis - the first century reader at Thesselonica is going to think that Paul is writing to them -- not to people who 'will someday live 2000 years later".

They are not reading this as "WE who are now alive writing to you will be the Dead in Christ when the Lord comes. But THEY who are alive at that time in the future will find that WE will preceed them for WE will be the "Dead in Christ" and WE shall rise first - then THEY who are alive at that time will be caught up together with US who were just resurrected - and so shall WE always be with the Lord".

I realize that you and I read this 2000 years later knowing that this is what will really transpire - even though the words are not there.

His words were meant to be included in Scripture - which is meant for all humankind for all time. In other words, the words "we who are still alive" are meant for all persons that were living then,

Indeed. We can see that.

And that is the way his readers would have taken it as well.

How "interested" they may have been as decade after decade saw first one then another of the number who read Paul's letter - pass away until finally none of that generation was left.

Notice that EVEN in the case of John - he has to qualify Christ's statement to Peter "What does it matter to you if I will that he continues to live until I return" speaking of the Apostle John -- and John says "IF is the key word here -- he did not say I would continue to live that long". But clearly the earnest hope of the saints was that the 2nd coming would be soon - perhaps before the death of John.

Your "prophet" on the other hand specifically said...

As I said the reason I don't have that "your prophet" discussion with non-SDAs is that it is completely pointless.

EVEN if I got you to accept the Biblically sound exegesis of "WE who are alive and remain" in 1Thess 4 -- and you agreed to the similarity with what Ellen White said -- I WOULD STILL argue that you NOT accept her as a prophet SINCE the primary test "sola scriptura" of the doctrinal messages she claimed to have been from God MATCH perfectly with SDA doctrine -- and you have not yet come to the point of understanding the proof and support that doctrine has "sola scriptura".

I.e. the entire discussion along the lines you keep trying to have - is pointless!

Obviously.

You keep trying to get to your "prophet fails" end-point "as if " you have done something. If you read the posts you will see -- it is a point without a point that you keep trying to reach.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You have it a bit backwards, Bob.

The meaning of Paul's words are not determined by the listener/reader.

One of the first "context principles" of exegesis is that we "pay attention" to the author's words and what the author was conveying to his primary first-order audience - the people that actually "got the letter".

By ignoring that principle of exegesis - you seem to hope to make your case.

But as I have already said EVEN if I got you to accept the rock solid biblical principles of exegesis in this case and agree to the similarity of Paul's argument to the one Ellen White makes - I WOULD STILL argue that you not accept Ellen White as a prophet SINCE the Biblical test of a prophet is first and formost "agreement between the message that is from God and scripture as the rule and judge of that message". Since you have not yet come to the point of understanding the sound sola-scriptura proofs for SDA doctrine - there is no other option -- it would not matter if your view of that one prediction went for or against Ellen White.

The result is the same since you are non-SDA.

How much more obvious could this be?

It is a dicussion that only makes sense between two SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jonah 3
4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”


Bob Ryan, this does not support Ellen White's false vision.

The reader will instantly recall "Ninevah was NOT overthrown in 40 days of Jonah's message".

The reader will instantly recognize that Jonah did NOT say "IF you repent this will not happen".

But the reader will also recall that these messages are "conditional" as Ezekiel and Jeremiah have stated.

Ellen White did not write any further about her failed vision.

OK - now I am interested --

You say that like you actually know something.

What is it you claim to know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA denomination emphasizes Revelation 12:17 which they say provides two identifying marks of the true remnant church in the last days:

1. They keep the "Commandments of God", especially the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath holy (ie Saturday)

2. They have the "faith of Jesus" which Revelation 19:10 identifies as the "Spirit of Prophecy".

For SDA's the Spirit of Prophecy was "manifested in the life and writings of Ellen G. White".

Therefore, the SDA Church is the only church that has the identifying marks of the remnant church of Revelation.

When the SDA who DOES accept Ellen White is making their case with the SDA today that does accept all the SDA doctrines "sola scriptura" but does NOT accept that Ellen White is a person who happened to have the gift of prophecy -- the argument you state above is the one that the SDA who DOES accept Ellen White will make.

The SDA who does NOT accept Ellen White will note that the gift of Prophecy was also manifest among the Bible writers just as the Angel states in Rev 19 and that the SDA focus on those writings and the correct interpretation of prophecy still places the Adventist church in that same unique position of having insight into prophecy. And since at this point in time BOTH Ellen White AND those prophets who contributed to scripture are all deceased - it amounts to the same argument "for the gift of prophecy" in either case.

I don't completely agree with their argument when they counter with that - but I understand their point.

Happens all the time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Bob Ryan said "yada, yada yada..."

Ok, I get it. You only discuss Ellen Failed Prophet White with other SDA's.

No surprise there.

Since your denomination's claim to be the remenant church is tied up in that woman, I can understand why you would rather not discuss it with someone who doesn't already agree with it.

But Scripture tells us to be ready with an answer.

When it comes to the SDA doctrine of Ellen White, I am an unbeliever.

So do as Scripture instructs you and give me your ready answer.

 

[BobRyan]

Targus said "yada yada" -?

again?

The point "at the start" of this thread is that SDA doctrine is established "sola scriptura" as opposed to the Targus "sola-Ellen-White" fiction.

Targus has been "dissappointed" by that glaring fact throughout the entire discussion.

The "obvious fact" that Prophets must be doctrinally established "sola scriptura" in terms of testing the doctrine of the prophet's message seems to be "totally lost on Targus". The fact that the "Ellen White" discussion is "pointless" if you are going to start by saying that you have not done the "homework" on the "sola scriptura" point -- of page 1 -- should be apparent to any unbiased objective reader.

The fact that Targus is not using sound Biblical exegesis in 1Thss 4 in this case turns out to be incidental - since he is already ignoring the larger "sola scriptura" test for doctrine "as if that is optional".

I.E nothing much has changed since page 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The reader will instantly recall "Ninevah was NOT overthrown in 40 days of Jonah's message".

Obviously not. They repented in sackcloth and ashes, and therefore God had mercy on them. Whey therefore should it have been overthrown? Jonah's objective was accomplished.

The reader will instantly recognize that Jonah did NOT say "IF you repent this will not happen".

Only if the reader is a simpleton and very naive, perhaps holding some presuppositions that don't want to make him believe that Jonah didn't say "if you repent," a phrase implied in the very words that he spoke. What a stretch you have to make this argument. It is one of the most foolish ones I have heard yet. I can't really believe that I am spending time answering this.

Arise, go to bNineveh, that cgreat city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
b. For seeing the great obstipation of the Israelites, he sent his Prophet to the Gentiles, that they might provoke them to repentance, or at least make them inexcusable: for Nineveh was the chief city of the Assyrians.

c. For as authors write, it contained in circuit about forty-eight miles, and had 1500 towers, and at this time there were 120,000 children in it; (Geneva Bible)

"cry against it" That doesn't mean weep Bob. It means preach a message of repentance. And that is what he did. And that is what happened. The people repented due to the message of repentance that was preached. Why can a class of grade one students understand this and you can't??
Is it because you have an axe to grind and are trying to imply that Jonah was a false prophet like E.G. White, or the corollary--that because you think that Jonah's message didn't come true and that he was a true prophet that White therefore is a true prophet as well. It doesn't work Bob. Your logic is flawed in both scenarios. E.G. White was a known false prophet.

 

[BobRyan]

1. My argument is not that Ninevah should have been overthrown or that Jonah was a false prophet.
2. My point stands -the reader will instantly see what is actually IN the text - as WRITTEN.

In the same way - my point in 1Thess 4 is not that "Paul was wrong".
At the same time - exegesiis shows us clearly that that the "WE" in 1Thess 4 can be clearly identified as contemporary with Paul as he writes and his readers read - his letters to them.

All of these men were in their right place as inspired writers - approved by the Bible tests of inspiration.

Details... they "Can" be your friend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From post #2 page ONE.

1. Targus says - "Gift of prophecy -- ok"

? -- You accept 1Cor 12? 1Cor 14? as being valid???

-- Can you give me an example of someone that you believe has/had the Gift of prophecy??

Dead silence from Targus -

3. Given that Ellen White was Adventist - and that scripture says that all messages given by a prophet with the claim that the message is of God must be in conformity to the Word of God "If they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light" Isaiah 8 -- then how in the world can we discuss the degree to which Ellen White conforms to the doctrines of scripture without first discussing the Doctrines of the Adventist Church vs scripture -- since "She was Adventist"???

If it turns out that you are "Baptist" when you do this exercise - it is "Likely" that you find Baptist doctrines not Adventist ones to be the ones you accept from the Bible.

If if turns out that you are "Presbyterian" when you do this exercise - it is "likely" that you will find that it is Presbyterian doctrines not Adventist one that you accept from the Bible.

If it turns out that you are Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist ... You get the idea.

This point appears to have gone past Targus.

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.

This point was clearly lost on Targus.

Just stating the obvious.

Indeed -


in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Bob Ryan, the problem with your "explanation" is that any failed prediction made by any "false prophet" could be brushed off in the same way that you brush off the the failed prediction of Ellen White that we are talking about here.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying that the only way to get Paul, Jonah and John the baptizer to pass the Bible test of a prophet and be considered "true" is to use a rule that is "so flexible" so "fluid" that it would accomodate any false prophet on the planet?

Why not take the path of carefully defining the test so that Paul and Jonah, and John are in compliance and so that the SAME rule used for them can be used for others??

Seems like the logical approach.

HOWEVER "IF" you claim to be "looking for a rule" such that Ellen White would "pass or fail" objectively - as a prophet for a NON-SDA the answer is THERE CAN be no such rule -- because THE FIRST rule is "sola scriptura" doctrinal agreement in scripture on messages pertaining to doctrine that Ellen White claimed to have come from God. God CAN NOT be in "doctrinal error" so IF you find that her messages do not agree with your own personnal view of Bible doctrine -- you have NO WAY to say "well yes but she passes on the prediction basis alone". No such thing!!

I keep pointing that out -- as an obvious fact and you keep running away from it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[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?

Or don't you know which of her writings are "inspired" and you just accepted the SDA party line without testing them against Scripture?

 

[targus]

Are you saying that the only way to get Paul, Jonah and John the baptizer to pass the Bible test of a prophet and be considered "true" is to use a rule that is "so flexible" so "fluid" that it would accomodate any false prophet on the planet?

No, I'm saying that is what you are doing with your false prophet - Ellen White.

Why not take the path of carefully defining the test so that Paul and Jonah, and John are in compliance and so that the SAME rule used for them can be used for others??

Did that - you just refused to consider it.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Or don't you know which of her writings are "inspired" and you just accepted the SDA party line without testing them against Scripture?

That's a reasonable request = I went over there and gave you a simple one that in my opinion meets the criteriia of something covering a lot of doctrine - which could easily be identified as "not Catholic" and "not Lutheran" etc.

Which is my point here - that all messages have to be compared to scripture and tested for doctrinal accuracy.

If that the one claiming the gift of prophecy does not pass that test -- there is no point in "looking for more tests".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Why not take the path of carefully defining the test so that Paul and Jonah, and John are in compliance and so that the SAME rule used for them can be used for others??

Did that - you just refused to consider it.

You claimed you needed to toss exegesis out the window for your solution.

I have a hard time with "that" as the solution.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

To which we got treated to Argus' brief excursion into reason and logic - asking for inspired-text to test "sola scriptura" -- but when given a perfect example of such an Ellen White book to use as "his test" --

Targus leaps off into "one book is not enough I need whole lists of books, writings etc".

I.e - "Dead Silence" on the point raised above.

Targus' agenda ends without "a point"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sadly - this is an exchanged that highlights the "Bible avoidance" approach that Targus is taking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by targus
,
Is it possible to test a "prophet's" "inspired" writings against Scripture if you don't know which writings are supposed to be "inspired" and which are not"?

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.

As I said before -- thanks for admitting that you actually have no interest in that "sola scriptura" exercise.:thumbs:

Saves us both lots of time!:type:

:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Sadly - this is an exchanged that highlights the "Bible avoidance" approach that Targus is taking.






As I said before -- thanks for admitting that you actually have no interest in that "sola scriptura" exercise.:thumbs:

Saves us both lots of time!:type:

:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

Here is question I asked.

"Is it possible to test a "prophet's" "inspired" writings against Scripture if you don't know which writings are supposed to be "inspired" and which are not? "

You did not answer that question.

I am still waiting for you to anwer the question.

Everything else is merely misdirection on your part.

No doubt others reading these threads can also see that you simply don't answer questions as asked - but attempt to misdirect instead.

Do you have an answer?

Here is the question yet again...

Is it possible to test a "prophet's" "inspired" writings against Scripture if you don't know which writings are supposed to be "inspired" and which are not"?