Seventh-Day Adventism

[BobRyan]

No offense, but the logic your question is enveloped in is skewed Steaver. They can believe that the writings of EGW are fallible, yet believe they are 100% correct. There is no contradiction or fallacy in that statement at all.

Exactly!

I thought I must be posting in Korean the way I kept getting that question that made the assumption "all who are fallable must also be in error".

I may say 2+2 = 4 and "be correct" but I am still not "mathematically infallible"!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joe: Someone give me a whip!



I gotta go for real now, back in a few hrs

HP: Not until you tell us what you are riding.

 

[steaver]

ALL my posts are fallible.

But as it turns out ALL my posts are also CORRECT.

Time to think about that for a minute Steaver...

Minute 's up.:thumbs:

In Christ,

Bob

Already have. It is an oxymoron statement and therefore untrue.

If all of your post are correct, then all of your post are infallible.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

And I quote "Third Person of the Godhead" --

Are you asking how old He is??

Or are you asking if the members of the SDA church that came out of the "Church of the Brethren" in the mid to late 1800's took a while to come around to the Trinitarian position?

Ok, I asked a dumb question. Here's the revised version:

Do the SDA believe the Holy is God and therefore a member of the Trinity?

 

[BobRyan]

Well you have one believer in that kind of logic -- and it appears to be "you".

Here is another infallible statement for you.

6.02 x 10^23 will be useful in converting atomic weights to grams.

Am I "chemically infallible" now as well?:wavey:

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, I asked a dumb question. Here's the revised version:

Do the SDA believe the Holy is God and therefore a member of the Trinity?

Yep.

Third Person of the Godhead is usually the way you find it in SDA documents but you also find it as "Third Person of the Trinity" Holy Infinite Mighty God.

 

[steaver]

HP: No one. I was simply trying to illustrate how one can suggest things that have no validity by the way one forms a question. It related to your asking a question which suggested that if the SDA’s thought the writings of EGW were fallible that they could point to an error. No offense, but the logic your question is enveloped in is skewed Steaver. They can believe that the writings of EGW are fallible, yet believe they are 100% correct. There is no contradiction or fallacy in that statement at all.

You should not make things up brother, that is called bearing false witness. :tear:

It is a contradiction. I don't know why you cannot see it. It is no different than saying the Word of God is infallible but it could be wrong. Both BR's statement and this statement are oxymorons and therefore contradictory.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I thought I must be posting in Korean the way I kept getting that question that made the assumption "all who are fallable must also be in error".

I may say 2+2 = 4 and "be correct" but I am still not "mathematically infallible"!

HP: Another way of putting it is that I can be certain I have my facts straight, as certain as anything is certain in this life, but I admit to the possibility of error. If God is to reveal to me new light or understanding, I may in fact see things differently. Because I may see things differently in another light, does not necessitate that I can or should be able to point it out with the light I now have.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed. We are all prone subject to flaws and error - but that does not mean that we MUST make incorrect statements either in science or religion on basic topics etc. We could be very cautious and only post correct statements on some topic and yet we are STILL fallible.

Fallible has to do with the CAPABILITY of error or possibility of error it is not a statement that you are IN error in your views.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is no different than saying the Word of God is infallible but it could be wrong.

At some point Steaver - it pays to throw away that shovel instead of digging deeper:laugh:

Infallible - not having the POSSIBILITY/capability of being in error.

Fallible - having the CAPABILITY/Risk of being in error BUT not a statement that you ARE in error!

Seems simple enough Steaver - why do you struggle with it?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Go look at the varity of meanings of inerrancy
in the #6 Bible Inerrancy Poll (Poll #3 & #4 results are on
the same page).

The #6 Inerrancy Poll topic is at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30182

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: You should not make things up brother, that is called bearing false witness.

HP: I would assume that you believe you are fallible. Let’s assume that you are still certain you understand me and my illustration. One might say you are 100% certain of what you believe concerning what I said. Does the possibility still exist you might not be understanding me correctly? Would you now have to be able to show me where you are wrong to prove that you really believe you are fallible?

 

[BobRyan]

INFALLIBLE: incapable of failure or error; "an infallible antidote"; "an infallible memory"; "the Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible"; "no doctor is infallible"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Steaver you seem dissappointed that SDAs do NOT argue that Ellen White was "INCAPABLE of error" ... or else you are claiming that unless someone is already IN ERROR on some topic then they must be INCAPABLE of error.

 

[steaver]

HP: I would assume that you believe you are fallible. Let’s assume that you are still certain you understand me and my illustration. One might say you are 100% certain of what you believe concerning what I said. Does the possibility still exist you might not be understanding me correctly? Would you now have to be able to show me where you are wrong to prove that you really believe you are fallible?

What does this have to do with you saying I beat my wife?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Steaver you seem dissappointed that SDAs do NOT argue that Ellen White was "INCAPABLE of error" .

Not at all. I haven't ever seen any such official statement from them but i will trust your word that they do preach it in their churches.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Agreed. We are all prone subject to flaws and error - but that does not mean that we MUST make incorrect statements either in science or religion on basic topics etc. We could be very cautious and only post correct statements on some topic and yet we are STILL fallible.

Fallible has to do with the CAPABILITY of error or possibility of error it is not a statement that you are IN error in your views.

in Christ,

Bob

The Romanists say the same thing about the pope now. He is capable of error unless he is speaking officially for the church, in which case he suddenly becomes infallible. Ellen White is merely the pope of the SDA.

And then God said...

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach...


BGTF

 

[Joe]

HP,



why... is your mother missing?

 

[DHK]

Hmm

"sola scriptura"
"Pre-Mill"
"Trinitarian"
"Saved by Grace through Faith"
"66 books - not just 27"
"Literal 2nd coming"
"Literal Resurrection"

You are right - you probably would have scored high-SDA:applause:

To tell the truth Bob, I believe that you personally have been affected by this board since you have joined. Perhaps your position has moved closer to the Baptist position more than you suspected.
I suspect that there are different types of SDA's

For example, a couple of years ago we had a "hard-core" SDA named "3AngelsMom". Do you remeber her. I do, and I remember some of her beliefs. These are some of them.
She denied the trinity.
She denied the deity of Christ.
She stuck to the phrase that Christ "proceeded from the Father" but would never go so far as to say that Christ was deity.
She believed that Ellen G. White was an inspired prophet and therefore her writings were inspired--at par with the Scriptures. This means sola scriptura is out. White's writings is a secondary authority with equal weight with the Scriptures.
She relied a lot on psychology/psychiatry.
And there was more that I can't remember.

These are not the same beliefs that you hold to.

There was a group of SDA's in England. I still have the newspaper clipping. God told them to sell all that they have and go to Nigeria in November of 1987 and wait on a certain mountain there for the coming of Christ. So they pulled all their children out of school, quit their jobs, sold all that they had, and made their trek to Nigeria to wait for Christ to come. It was another fruitless prediction of the coming of Christ by the SDA. I don't know what they did when they discovered that Christ did not come--perhaps make up some story that Christ did some other event in the Temple in heaven--who knows? Maybe he speeded up the process of the Investigative Judgement.

There are obvious different types of SDA's who believe in different things, even a different set of doctrines. Perhaps some are of the "old time beliefs of the traditional Ellen G. White" which some of the more modern SDA have rejected. You have to admit some of the things that she taught and believed were pretty whacky and much of it was plagiarized. So much for being a genuine prophet.

 

[steaver]

I suspect that there are different types of SDA's

I have friends and family that are members of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. These family and friends totally disagree with some of the teachings and practices that these churches stand for, like OSAS and women pastors for example. Yet they would never change because that is where they have been born and raised, it is their family. To go against the family in some church circles is very intimidating and sometimes ugly.

I agree that Bob doesn't fit the type of SDA's I have deliberated with in the past. I have had some in very prominent positions declare to me that regardless of my faith in Christ that if I had been shown by them the scripture forbidding the eating of pork then I am bound to not eat pork and if I do I will not be saved.

Bob does well defending his positions without EGW, however incorrect his exgesis might be at times. He at least makes every effort to leave such a controversal figure out of his postings even if she is the one in his mind clouding his understandings. If he would see EGW as what she really is, just a commentarian, then he could shake off some of the views that he must adhere to since he is a SDA. The SDA has gone above and beyond to make EGW a word of God as to indoctrinate it's followers into keeping their interpretations of the scriptures inerrant.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

To tell the truth Bob, I believe that you personally have been affected by this board since you have joined. Perhaps your position has moved closer to the Baptist position more than you suspected.

That is true especially when it comes to total depravity.

I think the Calvinist position there makes the subject of the New Birth far more distinct and clarifies the difference between one who is born-again vs not very well.

Also my own Bible-chapter-based notes and Bible-Doctrine-based notes have improved significantly as a result of discussions on this board!

I suspect that there are different types of SDA's

For example, a couple of years ago we had a "hard-core" SDA named "3AngelsMom". Do you remeber her. I do, and I remember some of her beliefs. These are some of them.
She denied the trinity.
She denied the deity of Christ.
She stuck to the phrase that Christ "proceeded from the Father" but would never go so far as to say that Christ was deity.

Also true.

I was made aware of a very small group of Adventists that reject the Trinity about 6 years ago. Never even heard of them before that.

Having said that - I was trying to get my wife to join this board because I thought it would be good for her to get involved in seeing what other people think -- but when I finally persuaded her - her application was denied.

I have a daughter that reads this board regularly as well - but have not been able to convince her to try to join.

She believed that Ellen G. White was an inspired prophet and therefore her writings were inspired--at par with the Scriptures. This means sola scriptura is out. White's writings is a secondary authority with equal weight with the Scriptures.

I think that point could be made better by Adventists and is beneficial to hear inside the SDA churches that we should not be dragged into using Catholic terms like "infallible" when in fact none of our doctrinal statements use that language for Ellen White or the gift of prophecy.

Basically we should not let ourselves get sloppy when it comes to the difference. But I do agree that it is the SAME God inspiring Agabus in the NT as inspiring Paul so that you can not argue for either a "lesser God" or "more error" in what Agabus says once you accept him as having the gift of prophecy.

She relied a lot on psychology/psychiatry.
And there was more that I can't remember.

Worse - she relied a lot on quoting SDA documents instead of making her own sola-scriptura arguments. I tried to encourage her not to do that via PM - but I failed.

It was another fruitless prediction of the coming of Christ by the SDA.

I am aware of the millerites doing that 1830's 1840's prior to the SDA church being established in 1860 but I am not aware of SDAs doing it.

There are obvious different types of SDA's who believe in different things, even a different set of doctrines. Perhaps some are of the "old time beliefs of the traditional Ellen G. White" which some of the more modern SDA have rejected. You have to admit some of the things that she taught and believed were pretty whacky and much of it was plagiarized.

Her commentaries contain phrases similar to other commentaries (books she read and recommended to her readers) - but I know of no other authors that made her prophetic predictions or that mentioned some of the details in historic incidents that are what we call "signature Ellen White".

So much for being a genuine prophet.

As I have been saying - I see no way for a non-SDA to view an SDA prophet like Ellen White as a true prophet from a doctrinal test alone.

in Christ,

Bob