-
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
BobRyan said:
Wow! I asked yes or no specifically, and politely many times. I did not see the words yes or no anywhere.
I have a focus problem with my eyes. I edit my posts later after the blue background because it is less strain. Please be courteous of that, and answer simple yes or no questions when I request it. Or at least add the details after. You are being unfair.
Be honest, is this defensiveness because you know I am a former SDA?
Please don't discriminate against me due to this, this is a forum for all religions here provided by Baptists. Let's appreciate the fact we are all able to post here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can I ask you all if we can stick to some ground rules so we can continue this conversation in an adult manner?
1. Answer the SPECIFIC question asked with a yes or no. Use these exact words of yes or no. Stick to the topic at first, then if you wish to add details, do it after you have answered. It's common courtesy.
2. If you wish not to answer, just say so
3. No name calling or sarcasm to folks who decline answering questions. It's their perogative.
4. Do not put down anyone's reading comprehension or abilities. People are at different levels.
5. Do not derail a question directed to a specific poster. Allow the poster to answer for themselves. It makes no difference whether you approve of the question, since it wasn't directed at you anyway. This doesn't mean others can't chime in.
Ok, to everyone here, Can we agree and stick to these?
1. Answer the SPECIFIC question asked with a yes or no. Use these exact words of yes or no. Stick to the topic at first, then if you wish to add details, do it after you have answered. It's common courtesy.
2. If you wish not to answer, just say so
3. No name calling or sarcasm to folks who decline answering questions. It's their perogative.
4. Do not put down anyone's reading comprehension or abilities. People are at different levels.
5. Do not derail a question directed to a specific poster. Allow the poster to answer for themselves. It makes no difference whether you approve of the question, since it wasn't directed at you anyway. This doesn't mean others can't chime in.
Ok, to everyone here, Can we agree and stick to these?
Last edited by a moderator:
ByGracethroughFaith
New Member
Joe said:
One of the tenets of the SDA faith is the annihilation of the wicked.
BGTF
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
ByGracethroughFaith:
//One of the tenets of the SDA faith is the annihilation of the wicked.//
The effects of 'annihilation of the wicked' last forever,
as the Bible says. I don't agree, but it isn't a heresy, just
a logical/literal reading of the Holy Scripture.
And it isn't a salvation issue. I know I'd react with fear
as much to total annihilation as to eternal
physical punishment.
ByGracethroughFaith:
//It is not the salvation by grace alone through
faith alone offered in the Bible.//
Most Baptists I know really believe that there
are things you have to do (works) to get saved.
I personally don't agree, but it isn't a salvation
issue.
Here is how SDA's get saved according
to a Bible some of the use (which just
happens to be one that my Baptist Pastor uses):
Romans 10:9-10 (NASB = New American
Standard Bible):
9 that if you confess with your mouth
Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes,
resulting in righteousness,
and with the mouth he confesses,
resulting in salvation.
The SDAs may also believe that the Mark of
the Beast (MoB) is Sunday worship (which
I bear here in the Age of the Gentiles - can't see
it -- but I wear it :saint: ).
I believe the MoB is a physical mark of the
Beast from the Sea Empire/Philosophy system
during the Tribulation Period only.
But this surely isn't a salvation issue
nor a heresy.
//One of the tenets of the SDA faith is the annihilation of the wicked.//
The effects of 'annihilation of the wicked' last forever,
as the Bible says. I don't agree, but it isn't a heresy, just
a logical/literal reading of the Holy Scripture.
And it isn't a salvation issue. I know I'd react with fear
as much to total annihilation as to eternal
physical punishment.
ByGracethroughFaith:
//It is not the salvation by grace alone through
faith alone offered in the Bible.//
Most Baptists I know really believe that there
are things you have to do (works) to get saved.
I personally don't agree, but it isn't a salvation
issue.
Here is how SDA's get saved according
to a Bible some of the use (which just
happens to be one that my Baptist Pastor uses):
Romans 10:9-10 (NASB = New American
Standard Bible):
9 that if you confess with your mouth
Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes,
resulting in righteousness,
and with the mouth he confesses,
resulting in salvation.
The SDAs may also believe that the Mark of
the Beast (MoB) is Sunday worship (which
I bear here in the Age of the Gentiles - can't see
it -- but I wear it :saint: ).
I believe the MoB is a physical mark of the
Beast from the Sea Empire/Philosophy system
during the Tribulation Period only.
But this surely isn't a salvation issue
nor a heresy.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
BobRyan said:
I have the Spiritual Gift of prophecy. What I say hardly ever
gets confused with 'Holy Writ' :saint:
Like Sister Ellen White, I have the Spiritual Gift of prophecy.
Unlike Sister Ellen White, I don't have the ability to
write well.
My Paternal Grandfather, Edd Edwards, in
1911 got a copy of Ellen White's THE GREAT CONTROVERSY
Between Christ and Satan (Review & Herald Publishing
Assn, 1907). My Mother passed it on to me in
1976 when my Father died. In the last 31 years
I've had time to read it (it is fragile).
(My one-on-one training by an SDA preacher was in 1972-1973
before I had the books).
If my Grandfather "Edd with two 'd's" was interested
in SDAs back in 1911, perhaps he was the one who
acquired (I got it at the same time) a book by
Uriah Smith: DANIEL AND THE REVELATION (Southern
Publishing Association, Nashville, Tenn, 1897).
Brother Uriah Smith was right up my alley so I read his
book a time or two also. He had the gift of prophecy just
like I do. He could string paragraphs together much better
than I can, like Ellen White did. He writes about Bible prophecy
in light of what is going on in his day. He figured the
Ottoman Empire, north of the Holy Land was where the
'King of the North' might be from. The Ottoman Emprie held
the Holy Land in Smith's day. I always thought that King of
the North might be from Russia, which is also North of
Israel. Of course I'm a better Prophet than Brother Uriah
Smith was, cause I lived in 1964 - the year when mankind
had the nuclear weapons and othe WMDs (weapons of mass
destricution) to do all the bad stuff that are told to happen
during the Tribulation Period. So while Brother Uriah Smith
saw God getting even with evil humans in the Tribualtion
Period (not to mention Satan) as a reason for the Second
Coming -- I see God's reason for the Second Coming is to
SAVE THE HUMAN RACE FROM SELF-DESTRICUTION.
Part two of my question on the thread "Authorative Writings" is..IF her writings are NOT infallible then I would like an example given from her writings on Christian doctrines that the SDA rejects as being in error.
If this has been presented and I missed it I greatly appologize. Please direct me to the post.
God Bless! :thumbs:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
steaver said:
Bad question, Brother Steaver.
A document can be without error and still NOT be infallible.
(Say a perfectly correct TV Repair Manual.)
A lot of Sister Ellen White's writings I read while under
full time employment (i.e. 40 hours a week) as a PROOF READER.
I can look at printed pages and find typos if the page is
farside close to me or sidewise (I can't do this if the page
is turned over
).I never saw a spelling error in her book (which being printed
in the old fashioned way was really astounding).
That doesn't make it inerrant.
I find spelling errors in the KJV1611 Edition. But I consider
it inerrant. Spellilng errors can be over looked; doctrinal
error is more serious. 'Inerrant' is about DOCTRINE,
not minor 'catchable' errors.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
BobRyan said:
What I was responding, and awaiting an answer for, is that the SDA has taught, and is still teaching?, that her prophesies are of the same quality, inspired. The only Scripture where inspired is used to desribed the quality of Scripture, the word is theopneustos: God-breathed, or breathed out by God such that there is no mixture thought originating from the human mind. The SDA seems to be teaching us that White's prophesies and doctrines are if this quality, but not given for Scripture.
If the words of White, or the prophets of the NT which you equate White, do not prophesy infallibly, then what is it? How do we know Agubus was a true prophet or had the gift of prophesy from God? Could his prophesy be wrong? And if it was, doesn't that make him out to be a false prophet?
If White prophesied events saying, The Lord told me, and it does not come to pass, doesn't that make her out to be false?
Bad question, Brother Steaver.
A document can be without error and still NOT be infallible.
(Say a perfectly correct TV Repair Manual.)
A lot of Sister Ellen White's writings I read while under
full time employment (i.e. 40 hours a week) as a PROOF READER.
I can look at printed pages and find typos if the page is
farside close to me or sidewise (I can't do this if the page
is turned over
I never saw a spelling error in her book (which being printed
in the old fashioned way was really astounding).
That doesn't make it inerrant.
I find spelling errors in the KJV1611 Edition. But I consider
it inerrant. Spellilng errors can be over looked; doctrinal
error is more serious. 'Inerrant' is about DOCTRINE,
not minor 'catchable' errors.
I don't believe brother Ryan is playing those kind of word games with me. I was very specific when wording my questions so "typos" were not the focus when I say "fallible".
Bob already answered the first question on the other thread, that is that the SDA church does believe that EGW's writings on Christian doctrines can be fallible (in error doctrinally).
Now I want to know which writings of EGW's on Christian doctrine does the SDA church reject as error. If a SDA member does not know I don't know who would.
God Bless! :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
BobRyan said:
You know Bob, the more I learn about this movement the more I realize there must be some real turmoil within it. I have taken from you that the above statement is accurate SDA beliefs. I think I may have been led to a mistake by you. Consider:
"Seventh-day Adventists hold that Ellen G. White performed the work of a true prophet during the seventy years of her public ministry. As Samuel was a prophet, as Jeremiah was a prophet, as John the Baptist, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the church of Christ today. October 4, 1928."
The above quote is from Review and Herald, the offical church paper.
And again,
"Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely fortunate in approaching the question of inspiration of the prophets. We are not left to find our way, drawing our conclusions from writings of two thousand years and more ago, that have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. With us it is an almost contemporary matter, for we had a prophet in our midst. It is generally granted by the careful student of her works that the experience of Ellen G. White was no different from that of the prophets of old. What is more, rather than having in our possession only relatively few chapters of a handful of letters as is the case of the extant records of the Bible prophets, we have the full range of Ellen G. White’s writings, penned through a period of 70 years. She wrote in the English language, so we are not confronted with the problems of translation. The Ellen G. White Writings, p. 15."
The author here was Arthur White, grandsom of Ellen.
What say ye?
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Simply another bad question, one that deserves no answer from BR. You are suggesting that if one believes he is fallible that one of necessity must be able to point to a doctrine or idea in error. That is simply not true.
I believe what I believe. You do the same. We both admit that we are fallible. Just the same, that does not mean there is any specific belief of our own that we directly feel as in error, it simply means that ‘in the light and understanding I now have’ I have faith that what I believe is indeed true, but I also realize that if God grants to me new light and understanding some of my beliefs may indeed change. One cannot point to ‘which ones are in error’ until new revelation or light is granted, and it is not required to be able to do so to also believe we are fallible. Again, your question is simply in error.
By the way, have you stopped beating you wife yet?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Thanks Joe. All I am doing is chiming in. :laugh:
I would like to ask you a couple of yes or no questions. Are you born again? If so, when did you give your heart and life to the Lord? If it was while you were within the SDA’s just say yes. If it was after you left them just say no.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: What kind of a leading question is that? I can only guess as to why. Let me ask you a question. Why did some brilliant men like Asa Mahan leave the Calvinistic circles and write books such as the one he did entitled, “Out of Darkness into Light?”
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Try reading the book. It is an interesting read.
People become disillusioned for right as well as wrong reasons. God gave us all an intellect and a free will to utilize in the best way we can with the light we have been granted. God can lead us in and out of groups for many various reasons.
As for EGW, you tell me. Was she guilty of plagiarism? Let me ask you a few questions with some of the line of questioning some on this board utilize.
Are you perfect? Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. What does that have to do with ones standing before God? Our works have absolutely nothing to do with our salvation, and have nothing to do with keeping it. Regardless what one does if they are of the elect all their past present and future sins are paid for two thousand years ago. Why would you drag up something that God has already forgotten before it ever happen? If one leaves the Church and goes to another because it is believed one in charge has sinned, do you think the next church or leader will be without sin? If any claim such they are simply liars.
How am I doing?:smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status