-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Seventh-Day Adventism
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
- Status
I can't make you see the obvious brother. What the SDA church has said above in their "unofficial, but voted on" statement is to equate Ellen's writings to scripture without calling them "scripture". THE SOURCE IS GOD (according to them, for both)
It is what it is.
Here is what you are attempting to do.
Over here on the left is the Bible. It is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: This is "SCRIPTURE"
Over here on the right is the writings of EGW. They carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine. However, this is NOT "SCRIPTURE"
Both are from divine Authority. Both are for doctrine. But both are NOT scripture.
Is it the word "scripture" that is hanging you up here?
"Scripture" means holy Written. The men who wrote it were not holy but the document is holy BECAUSE THE SOURCE IS GOD!
What is said to be the SOURCE of Ellen's writings? GOD!
Apparantly they do not understand what the word "scripture" actually means. To say that the cannon is closed in one breath and then in another say here is some more divine authority writings is negating the first statement with the last.
I think they might have been trying to appease the outsiders looking in and the insiders all in one statement. To say "see we believe only in the accepted cannon as scripture" to the Christian world and to say "Ellen's writings are also scripture" to the flock within their own congregation.
What possible reason could there be for such a conflicting statement from them, i don't know, but they sure have things all mixed up. Only the bible is inspired for doctrine BUT Ellen's writings are from God as well and for doctrine. Kinda throws the term "only" out the window. Go figure!
God Bless! :thumbs:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear I DO see "steaver quoting steaver"
Please don't keep re-quoting yourself to show that this is actually you yourself making stuff up. I already believe you on that point.
YOUR belief is "inspired = SCRIPTURE" and as flawed as that is given the case of Miriam, Aaron, Anna, Elizabeth, Philips daughters, Agabus and ALL those in 1Cor 14 -- that still IS YOUR belief.
The amazing thing is that you want to pretend that SDAs believe as you do on that point.
It is kinda like the evolutionist that insists that HE has good science and that Bible believing Christians don't and THEN want's to claim that "Christians say they reject science because it does not agree with their beliefs" WHEN in fact informed Christians make no such claim AT ALL.
Instead the informed believers are saying "we ACCEPT science and find that IT is in perfect harmony with what we find in scripture - the atheist darwinists have come up with JUNK science and are trying to disguise it as valid science. It is just thinly veiled religious faith in atheism."
in that illustration the atheist darwinist is spinning his own views INTO the Christian statements and representing them as IF Christians agreed with thinly veiled attempt to co-opt and compromise science as servant to his "religion" without anyone noticing the trick .
in Christ,
Bob
Please don't keep re-quoting yourself to show that this is actually you yourself making stuff up. I already believe you on that point.
YOUR belief is "inspired = SCRIPTURE" and as flawed as that is given the case of Miriam, Aaron, Anna, Elizabeth, Philips daughters, Agabus and ALL those in 1Cor 14 -- that still IS YOUR belief.
The amazing thing is that you want to pretend that SDAs believe as you do on that point.
It is kinda like the evolutionist that insists that HE has good science and that Bible believing Christians don't and THEN want's to claim that "Christians say they reject science because it does not agree with their beliefs" WHEN in fact informed Christians make no such claim AT ALL.
Instead the informed believers are saying "we ACCEPT science and find that IT is in perfect harmony with what we find in scripture - the atheist darwinists have come up with JUNK science and are trying to disguise it as valid science. It is just thinly veiled religious faith in atheism."
in that illustration the atheist darwinist is spinning his own views INTO the Christian statements and representing them as IF Christians agreed with thinly veiled attempt to co-opt and compromise science as servant to his "religion" without anyone noticing the trick .
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I apologize this is so long...
In addressing a few things that have come up in conversation, I would like to say I read on the SDA website that they state they have "never set a date for the coming of Christ"
Regarding EH influence, and how it plays into Doctrine, see below.
Source is the Official SDA website www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/spirit-of-prophecy.html
Resolution on the Spirit of Prophecy
As delegates to the 2005 General Conference Session in St Louis, Missouri, we acknowledge that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been richly blessed by the Lord through the gift of prophecy manifested in the ministry and writings of Ellen G White. Through it the Lord guided the development of the Church from a small number of members to a worldwide movement entrusted with the proclamation of a message of salvation in Christ and the hope of His soon return in glory. Her ministry has directly contributed to the preservation of the unity of the Church and has sustained it in difficult times. Her writings continue to be a most positive influence in the life of the Church, providing for it comfort, guidance, instruction, correction, and theological stimulus. Their study will constantly lead the Church back to the Bible as the very foundation of faith and practice.
As delegates, we affirm the important role the writings of Ellen G White still play in nurturing the Adventist movement and in preserving the unity of the world Church. Consequently, we call upon Seventh-day Adventists throughout the world to prayerfully study her writings, in order to understand more fully God's purpose for His remnant people. We call upon church leaders at all administrative levels to plan and facilitate the promotion and study of the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy in their respective fields. We call upon our youth to acquaint themselves with the wealth of divine counsel found in these writings because it will greatly enrich their lives as they serve the Lord and fellow human beings.
In addressing a few things that have come up in conversation, I would like to say I read on the SDA website that they state they have "never set a date for the coming of Christ"
Regarding EH influence, and how it plays into Doctrine, see below.
Source is the Official SDA website www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/spirit-of-prophecy.html
Resolution on the Spirit of Prophecy
As delegates to the 2005 General Conference Session in St Louis, Missouri, we acknowledge that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been richly blessed by the Lord through the gift of prophecy manifested in the ministry and writings of Ellen G White. Through it the Lord guided the development of the Church from a small number of members to a worldwide movement entrusted with the proclamation of a message of salvation in Christ and the hope of His soon return in glory. Her ministry has directly contributed to the preservation of the unity of the Church and has sustained it in difficult times. Her writings continue to be a most positive influence in the life of the Church, providing for it comfort, guidance, instruction, correction, and theological stimulus. Their study will constantly lead the Church back to the Bible as the very foundation of faith and practice.
As delegates, we affirm the important role the writings of Ellen G White still play in nurturing the Adventist movement and in preserving the unity of the world Church. Consequently, we call upon Seventh-day Adventists throughout the world to prayerfully study her writings, in order to understand more fully God's purpose for His remnant people. We call upon church leaders at all administrative levels to plan and facilitate the promotion and study of the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy in their respective fields. We call upon our youth to acquaint themselves with the wealth of divine counsel found in these writings because it will greatly enrich their lives as they serve the Lord and fellow human beings.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hey - you double posted again.
The date setting statement is "technically" correct because of the 50,000 or so Millerites that WERE expecting Christ to return in 1844 less than 1 tenth of 1 percent became Seventh-day Adventists. It would be very wrong to characterize the entire group of Millerites by the Adventist doctrines of 1 tenth of 1 percent of their group. Doctrines that only came about after the Millerite movement ended.
It would also be wrong to think of the thousands that joined the Adventists in the mid to late 1800's as being just the SAME group of 50 that came out of the Millerite movement and started the Adventist church.
in Christ,
Bob
The date setting statement is "technically" correct because of the 50,000 or so Millerites that WERE expecting Christ to return in 1844 less than 1 tenth of 1 percent became Seventh-day Adventists. It would be very wrong to characterize the entire group of Millerites by the Adventist doctrines of 1 tenth of 1 percent of their group. Doctrines that only came about after the Millerite movement ended.
It would also be wrong to think of the thousands that joined the Adventists in the mid to late 1800's as being just the SAME group of 50 that came out of the Millerite movement and started the Adventist church.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I know...I hate these eyes of mine. A focus problem. I must regularly adhere to my eye exercises.
Anyway, here's the rest- This is an official church meeting.
Source: official SDA website-
Note that EH beliefs regarding women differ from the official doctrinal positions of SDA. Yet in other instances, Doctrine is dictated by EH
http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/1995gcsession/070511ann.txt
The basic, the most powerful argument and consistent argument used
against the ordination of women to the gospel ministry is what is
called, "The Order of Creation." They go back to the book of Genesis 1
and 2, and they will draw out statements that indicate that man existed
before woman. Man was created first, and woman was taken out of man,
therefore man holds a precedence in that certainly, but also in
leadership. How shall we apply that to ordination? Then we move to the
third chapter of the book of Genesis, and if we read Genesis 3 when
after the fall God pronounces a judgment, you notice that the judgment
falls equally upon the man and the woman on both of them.
But then comes the statement that is used by those who want to insist
upon the headship of man over woman. And there is no doubt about it in
my mind there is a change that happens before the Fall that relates
specifically to the man and woman, husband and wife, and after the Fall
between the man and woman. I read in Gen. 3:16, a well-known
statement, to the woman God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in
child bearing." That has to the do with the home, not the church. "I
will in pain shall you bring forth children." That is also in the
context of the family that "your desire shall be for your husband that
he will rule over you." It is the husband/wife relationship. I wonder
how wise it is to use the husband/wife relationship as a model for the
same kind of headship to the man/woman relationship in general, that it
is to say, whether in society or in the church.
That is the principle which I believe happens to be at stake. As we
listen to what the book of Genesis tells us, there is no doubt about
it. I would like, however, to mention to you that in the view of Ellen
White, this did not exist at the beginning. She tells us for instance
in Testimonies to the Church, volume three, page 484, "When God created
Eve, he desired that she should possess neither inferiority nor
superiority to man. But in all things she should be his equal.
[audience heartily applauds]. I wish you would not applaud. I wish that
the spirit of reverence and seeking the spirit's guidance will help us
listen to the Scriptures.
Ellen White tells us that in all things she [woman] is equal, so we
cannot speak of an order of creation. We can speak of an order of the
Fall. There were radical changes occurring after the fall, however,
(this we where some of us disagree) after the Fall, 2,000 years later
Anyway, here's the rest- This is an official church meeting.
Source: official SDA website-
Note that EH beliefs regarding women differ from the official doctrinal positions of SDA. Yet in other instances, Doctrine is dictated by EH
http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/1995gcsession/070511ann.txt
The basic, the most powerful argument and consistent argument used
against the ordination of women to the gospel ministry is what is
called, "The Order of Creation." They go back to the book of Genesis 1
and 2, and they will draw out statements that indicate that man existed
before woman. Man was created first, and woman was taken out of man,
therefore man holds a precedence in that certainly, but also in
leadership. How shall we apply that to ordination? Then we move to the
third chapter of the book of Genesis, and if we read Genesis 3 when
after the fall God pronounces a judgment, you notice that the judgment
falls equally upon the man and the woman on both of them.
But then comes the statement that is used by those who want to insist
upon the headship of man over woman. And there is no doubt about it in
my mind there is a change that happens before the Fall that relates
specifically to the man and woman, husband and wife, and after the Fall
between the man and woman. I read in Gen. 3:16, a well-known
statement, to the woman God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in
child bearing." That has to the do with the home, not the church. "I
will in pain shall you bring forth children." That is also in the
context of the family that "your desire shall be for your husband that
he will rule over you." It is the husband/wife relationship. I wonder
how wise it is to use the husband/wife relationship as a model for the
same kind of headship to the man/woman relationship in general, that it
is to say, whether in society or in the church.
That is the principle which I believe happens to be at stake. As we
listen to what the book of Genesis tells us, there is no doubt about
it. I would like, however, to mention to you that in the view of Ellen
White, this did not exist at the beginning. She tells us for instance
in Testimonies to the Church, volume three, page 484, "When God created
Eve, he desired that she should possess neither inferiority nor
superiority to man. But in all things she should be his equal.
[audience heartily applauds]. I wish you would not applaud. I wish that
the spirit of reverence and seeking the spirit's guidance will help us
listen to the Scriptures.
Ellen White tells us that in all things she [woman] is equal, so we
cannot speak of an order of creation. We can speak of an order of the
Fall. There were radical changes occurring after the fall, however,
(this we where some of us disagree) after the Fall, 2,000 years later
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to add that what I posted last was not just a church meeting. It was a meeting of SDA Theological Professors whom are responsible for SDA Doctrine.
Really? Here's an excerpt Regarding Headship of Man over Woman-A meeting of the SDA Official Theological Professors. SDA Official Website http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/1995gcsession/070511ann.txt
"I would like, however, to mention to you that in the view of Ellen White, this did not exist at the beginning. She tells us for instance
in Testimonies to the Church, volume three, page 484, "When God created
Eve, he desired that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to man.
But in all things she should be his equal. [audience heartily applauds]. I wish you would not applaud. I wish that the spirit of reverence and seeking the spirit's guidance will help us listen to the Scriptures."
The audience of SDA's clearly do not follow Sola Scriptura as you state SDA's do or they wouldn't be applauding something opposing scripture. Even Professor Emeritus, who is presenting this for the SDA Theological Seminary is uncomfortable with their applause and re-directs them to seek the Holy Spirits guidance to help listen to THE SCRIPTURES, not the writings of Ellen White.
Exactly! By adhering to your own Biblical guidelines, you can't view her as a true prophet. So....she can only be a false prophet.
So by your own Biblical guidelines...,you must believe with this audience of SDA's clapping, they are ignoring what they have been taught regarding the sola-scriptura models AND so is this Professor Emeritus from the SDA Theological Seminary.
"Ellen White tells us that in all things she [woman] is equal, so we cannot speak of an order of creation. We can speak of an order of the Fall"
With this statement above, SDA's Doctrine CANT include the teaching of the order of creation BECAUSE of Ellen Whites differing views on the subject. I wonder how many other false beliefs of Ellen White's do the SDA's avoid placing into their Doctrine due to her error? Continue to promote and witness knowing they are untruths?
*sigh* I am praying hard for you brother :1_grouphug:
BobRyan said:
Really? Here's an excerpt Regarding Headship of Man over Woman-A meeting of the SDA Official Theological Professors. SDA Official Website http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/1995gcsession/070511ann.txt
"I would like, however, to mention to you that in the view of Ellen White, this did not exist at the beginning. She tells us for instance
in Testimonies to the Church, volume three, page 484, "When God created
Eve, he desired that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to man.
But in all things she should be his equal. [audience heartily applauds]. I wish you would not applaud. I wish that the spirit of reverence and seeking the spirit's guidance will help us listen to the Scriptures."
The audience of SDA's clearly do not follow Sola Scriptura as you state SDA's do or they wouldn't be applauding something opposing scripture. Even Professor Emeritus, who is presenting this for the SDA Theological Seminary is uncomfortable with their applause and re-directs them to seek the Holy Spirits guidance to help listen to THE SCRIPTURES, not the writings of Ellen White.
Exactly! By adhering to your own Biblical guidelines, you can't view her as a true prophet. So....she can only be a false prophet.
So by your own Biblical guidelines...,you must believe with this audience of SDA's clapping, they are ignoring what they have been taught regarding the sola-scriptura models AND so is this Professor Emeritus from the SDA Theological Seminary.
"Ellen White tells us that in all things she [woman] is equal, so we cannot speak of an order of creation. We can speak of an order of the Fall"
With this statement above, SDA's Doctrine CANT include the teaching of the order of creation BECAUSE of Ellen Whites differing views on the subject. I wonder how many other false beliefs of Ellen White's do the SDA's avoid placing into their Doctrine due to her error? Continue to promote and witness knowing they are untruths?
Bob Ryan said:
*sigh* I am praying hard for you brother :1_grouphug:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Joe said:
Clearly it has been a while since you have been SDA. Perhaps you just forgot. SDAs do not get a group of professors together have them vote on doctrine and then have that as the doctrine of the church.
That also is not how it is done.
Though I am happy to have the meeting notes from various people that meet -- so not complaining there.
(Just a point of correction)
#1. SDAs do not ordain women ministers as per the voted policy of the church today.
#2. NOT ordaining OR ordaining women is NOT one of the 28 doctrinal statements of the church today
#3. While I am happy that someone at a meeting some place said something and you object and perhaps others at the meeting applauded.... (what the world are you doing???) -- SDAs are not bound in any way by such meetings -- nothing "offiial" about it in terms of SDA doctrine.
#4. SDA doctrines ARE published at the site - hint for the reader: you seem to be avoiding them -- and these are what we teach in our churches, Bible colleges and evangelistic meetings. WE DO NOT go around with manuscripts of every meeting known to "A group of professors" as the teaching of the church.
In fact you are doing the most evangelistic work regarding such meetings that I have seen so far.
Just stating the obvious.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
[qote] Bob said Quote:
SDAs are not taught to establish doctrinal statements by going to Ellen White either in baptismal classes or in church schools. So those who resort to that method are simply ignoring what they have been trained/told/instructed to do regarding the sola-scriptura models used to establish doctrine. [/quote]
I am sorry to have to be the one to report this to you but..
1. SDAs clapping at a meeting is not how we get our doctrinal statements.
2. I am not bound by every meeting where SDAs might meet and clap after hearng a speaker say something.
3. It would be insane to use such methods to establish doctrine for ANY denomination -- not just SDAs.
Again just stating the obvious here.
Having said that - I don't mean to be in any way denying the scripture in Gen 3 where the curse upon the woman included the statement "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" -- I am not making a doctrinal statement here just noting policy and practice of the church. But just to clarify -- I am also very happy to accept Gen 3 details.
I guess you can imagine it that way.
The reason that SDAs do not base ANY doctrine on Ellen White is BECAUSE of belief number 1 in our list of doctrinal statements it is NOT because SDAs hold that "Ellen White was wrong so often we just can't trust her doctrinal point of view" as you seem to suggest.
Case in point - i have to assume that since you are not SDA you do not hold to at least one or two doctrines of the SDA church. Clearly that must mean you do not come to the same conclusions that SDAs do when they search the scriptures to define their doctrinal statements. That is a difference where BOTH of you are reading the SAME scripture. It has nothing to do with Ellen White.
in Christ,
Bob
SDAs are not taught to establish doctrinal statements by going to Ellen White either in baptismal classes or in church schools. So those who resort to that method are simply ignoring what they have been trained/told/instructed to do regarding the sola-scriptura models used to establish doctrine. [/quote]
I am sorry to have to be the one to report this to you but..
1. SDAs clapping at a meeting is not how we get our doctrinal statements.
2. I am not bound by every meeting where SDAs might meet and clap after hearng a speaker say something.
3. It would be insane to use such methods to establish doctrine for ANY denomination -- not just SDAs.
Again just stating the obvious here.
Having said that - I don't mean to be in any way denying the scripture in Gen 3 where the curse upon the woman included the statement "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" -- I am not making a doctrinal statement here just noting policy and practice of the church. But just to clarify -- I am also very happy to accept Gen 3 details.
I guess you can imagine it that way.
The reason that SDAs do not base ANY doctrine on Ellen White is BECAUSE of belief number 1 in our list of doctrinal statements it is NOT because SDAs hold that "Ellen White was wrong so often we just can't trust her doctrinal point of view" as you seem to suggest.
Case in point - i have to assume that since you are not SDA you do not hold to at least one or two doctrines of the SDA church. Clearly that must mean you do not come to the same conclusions that SDAs do when they search the scriptures to define their doctrinal statements. That is a difference where BOTH of you are reading the SAME scripture. It has nothing to do with Ellen White.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hey I think Joe and I actually agree on something! Non-SDAs who take their view on the Bible (even if that view includes praying to the dead, purgatory, OSAS, images in church worship, infant baptism, Calvinism etc) have no Bible basis for accepting a prophet whose messages from God are refuting those beliefs held to be "from scripture".
in Christ,
Bob
ByGracethroughFaith
New Member
That answers my question.BobRyan said:
Now I can just let you go where you want to go.
BGTF
My observation is that SDA is largely like the Mormons. They practice "Christianity" in such an odd fashion as to have demonstrated beyond a doubt that their beliefs comes to them apart from the Bible.BobRyan said:
In many mainline denoms it is difficult to tell whether or not they pratice biblical Christianity. In the case of these 2, it is not. The Bible is merely a "prop" for their flawed systems of theology.
How else can one explain these things away?
skypair
Hey -- the Roman Empire (political Rome) ended. Only 3 of the "angels" were bound in the Euphrates (Dan 7:12 = Rev 9:14) and yet a/the 4th will emerge with them in the 6th trumpet to reunify the Empire.BobRyan said:
What you are concerning yourself with is religious Babylon -- the MOTHER OF HARLOTS, Rev 17. Don't get the 2 confused.
And even your construct doesn't tell us anything about the 1844 date. So how can you know what went on and what is going on in heaven?
skypair
BobRyan said:
GE
This is what breaks my heart! A list of 'voted beliefs', for the creation of doctrine! I weep! First it implies the method and ground -- the source, of SDA doctrine; then it implies the scope and authority of SDA doctrine. That is not Scripture only, but majority ruling - (what is this political gogga called now ... democracy! Not Theocracy! Then just as autocratic as only democracy can be, which virtually is the coldest tyranny on the market.
As a matter of fact, they believe that worshipping on Sunday is the "mark of the beast!" that all the rest of us, if we continue doing so now and in the tribulation, will go to hell!Joe said:
And to be obligated to any of the commandments is to be obligated to ALL. So do they observe Passover and the other feasts? Do they have a high priest, etc., etc., etc.?
skypair
BobRyanEVEN the NIV study notes admit that the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 is pagan Rome that follows the Greek Empire.
This is just too simple.
The only challenge is that instead of slicing and dicing the 4th empire -- all you need is to KEEP the Roman empire and observe that it goes from PAGAN Rome to PAPAL Rome which creates the DARK Ages - and Century after Century of "persecution of the saints".
Now for some that is just not acceptable - but a lot of people looking at world history "will get it".
Have no fear. It is all right there in the chapter.
GE
As you say BR, a lot of people looking at world history "will get it", and did get it. Long before the Seventh Day Adventists did. The Reformers saw the same. And I am glad on this point I take my stand with you and with the lot of other people too. Away with antichrist!
This is just too simple.
The only challenge is that instead of slicing and dicing the 4th empire -- all you need is to KEEP the Roman empire and observe that it goes from PAGAN Rome to PAPAL Rome which creates the DARK Ages - and Century after Century of "persecution of the saints".
Now for some that is just not acceptable - but a lot of people looking at world history "will get it".
Have no fear. It is all right there in the chapter.
GE
As you say BR, a lot of people looking at world history "will get it", and did get it. Long before the Seventh Day Adventists did. The Reformers saw the same. And I am glad on this point I take my stand with you and with the lot of other people too. Away with antichrist!
Joe said:
GE
Joe, I am also a believer of the Seventh Day Sabbath - little petunia in an onion-patch! Please tell us more about yourself, here on the thread, please?
- Status