Seventh-Day Adventism

[steaver]

(Ed)...

I believe that God gives different denominations
different ministries. The Holy Spirit enables His ministries
different.

Amen brother Ed, but I am not speaking of "ministries". Would God tell one denomination it is a sin to worship on Sunday and tell another it is just fine?

I am addressing the "do's and don'ts" (sin) given by God for God's children. All of them no matter what denomination they are in.

Bob likes to say that Ellen's writings defining things like pork eating being a sin for Christians is for SDA's ONLY. This is retarded. If God gave a word to a prophet to clarify a sin it surely would not be for just a few of His children. If Ellen was a true prophet of our Lord then every single Christian living must obey her words written on behalf of God. Not just a denomination.

Now if it is a "grey" area where liberty is allowed I would agree with you. But if it is "sin" then that is another matter all together, then we cannot say it is just for one group and not for all.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mark 11:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
For verely I say vnto you, that whosoeuer shall say vnto
this mountaine, Bee thou remoued, and bee thou cast
into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall
beleeue that those things which hee saith,
shall come to passe: he shal haue whatsoeuer he saith.

I'm sure the same things goes for molehills raying:

Humans tend to make mountains out of molehills;
the Lord tends to make molehills out of mountains.

 

[steaver]

I'm sure the same things goes for molehills raying:

Humans tend to make mountains out of molehills;
the Lord tends to make molehills out of mountains.

With all due respect brother, I usually agree with your insights but this is not just a "molehill". If God gave a commandment through a prophet for His children to abstain from anything because it is sin in His sight then we all need to know about it and obey God's word.

This debate is not over bake sales in church or how many hail Mary's one should utter. This is about "thus sayeth the LORD". God would not tell one group of children you MUST do it this way or ye sin and then say it is ok for another group to go ahead and do those sins.

We are addressing what is sin here and that is not a "molehill" in my eyes. God bless you Ed.

:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Bob said

Her contribution was not in giving new doctrine nor even in defining SDA doctrine. Rather it was in revealing details about the future, details about the past, and primarily in correcting individuals - guiding the church in starting education ministries, health ministries, schools of evangelism and squashing fanatacism as the early group got started. (For example there was a "holy flesh" movement that tried to get started among early SDAs)

Very often her writings to individuals were private letters "Bro S I saw in the night vision that you were ...." in many case these were things known only to the person she was correcting. Sometimes to a husband who was too harsh and critical to his wife, sometimes to a wife who was too harsh with her children, or prone to depression or whose cooking was ruining the health of her family.

I know what "Bob said". I am dealing with what the SDA church has said. Either you reject the SDA's vote that EGW's writings are equal to God speaking or you don't. I took it that you agreed with this....

We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.

The above is not an individual statement. It is an agreement between the majority in the SDA church, correct? Do you reject this statement as an individual? Since you did not say you rejected it when asked i took it as you accept it since you tried to dismiss it as just a "un-official vote".

The statement is the same found in 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.

Divine authority = inspiration of God

profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness = godly living and for doctrine

(BobRyan)....

So as already stated - the only reason Ellen White's writings have value is the source. If it is God then it stands as having authority and His accuracy. If testing them against scripture shows that the source is not of God - then it has little or no value.


But if testing shows them to be doctrinally in harmony with scripture - then the reader is under obligation to the authority that represents. The quotes above show SDAs viewing themselves as being obligated to listen to inspired messages that are tested against the Bible and found to have God as the source.

Doesn't matter which way you want to say it brother it means the same thing! IF God is the source then it is EQUAL to scripture!!

Why do the merry-go-round that only leads to the same conclusion?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Doesn't matter which way you want to say it brother it means the same thing! IF God is the source then it is EQUAL to scripture!!

Why do the merry-go-round that only leads to the same conclusion?

I suppose if your not going to pay attention to the details you could end up there. Good thing SDAs don't do that - just Steaver.:laugh:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am addressing the "do's and don'ts" (sin) given by God for God's children. All of them no matter what denomination they are in.

Bob likes to say that Ellen's writings defining things like pork eating being a sin for Christians is for SDA's ONLY. This is retarded.

Is this "you quoting me"????

Sounds like "you quoting you again" and again, and again.

i encourage you to come around to paying attention to the substance of the discussion rather than making stuff up in post after post.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Is the SDA just another orthodox Christian demoniation? Right now, that is not the impression I get. I truly hope I am wrong.

In Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" he made it very clear that there is no excuse for calling Adventism a cult.

I am inclined to agree with him.

As I seek to understand SDAs I will seek to accurately represent what they beleive. Regarding what kind of prophet-ess White should be regarded as I have found conflicting statements. Some that have come from this board, and others that have come from official publications of the SDAs.

Whom am I to believe? But that aside, this I would like to learn from you:

I know of no SDA document that says non-SDAs have a Biblical basis for considering Ellen White to be a valid prophet IF their doctrinal views are held sola-scriptura AND they find that her messages do no line up with their own views.

1. Do you think people are true Christians who worship on Sunday?

Yes. But didn't we already cover that ground?

2. Can an unbaptized person enter into heaven?

Yes -but that is not a "doctrinal statement" for SDAs.

3. Can a person who has genuinely been born again, sought to obey God in all things from a pure conscience, finally lose their salvation?

AS we saw on the 3 or 4 OSAS debunking threads - OSAS is a false doctrine and this is understood on this board by a large number -- almost none of which are SDA.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

With all due respect brother, I usually agree with your insights but this is not just a "molehill". If God gave a commandment through a prophet for His children to abstain from anything because it is sin in His sight then we all need to know about it and obey God's word.

This debate is not over bake sales in church or how many hail Mary's one should utter. This is about "thus sayeth the LORD". God would not tell one group of children you MUST do it this way or ye sin and then say it is ok for another group to go ahead and do those sins.

Here "again" we find that steaver is just "not paying attention.

STeaver appears dissappointed that SDAs do NOT consider Ellen White's writings to be scripture or at the very least to BASE DOCTRINE on her writings INSTEAD of scripture.

The other wild idea Steaver has is that SDAs were given doctrine by Ellen White and that this is unfair since God would not give doctrine to one group through a last-day prophet and not other groups of Christians.

But "again" this is just Steaver "ignoring the details". NO DOCTRINE was given to SDAs through Ellen White NO NOT EVEN on the Clean unclean meat topic. (That is a topic like the Sabbath where Ellen White was not the first to promote it. But in that case she actually opposed those who did promote it - at least for a while)

So the GOOD NEWS is that when WE ALL read Lev 11 WE ARE ALL reading the SAME inspired source!!

This just could not BE any easier Steaver. You have to really want to ignore "the simple details" to keep getting mixed up on this the way you are doing.

You are starting to remind me of the parable of the talents - AS it turns out that even in the easy simple details you are getting confused. To get this right you do not have to agree with SDA doctrine - all you have to do is keep the facts straight enough to object with a reasonable amount of acceptance of "details".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I know what "Bob said". I am dealing with what the SDA church has said. Either you reject the SDA's vote that EGW's writings are equal to God speaking or you don't. I took it that you agreed with this....

Bob said there is only ONE gift of prophecy in 1Cor 12 - Steaver seems completely lost at that point.

Bob said that GOD ALONE is the ONLY reason that ANY prophecy has ANY value at all for GOD ALONE is infallible.

Again Steaver appears to be lost when it comes to getting that point understood.

Bob said that while ALL prophets (true prophets ) have the SAME SOURCE (God) not ALL prophets are considered canonical - not ALL prophets are writing scripture as we see with Anna, Miriam, Aaron, Mary, Elizabeth, Agabus, Philips Daughters, those in 1Cor 14 etc etc etc.

But this to seems to escape Steaver.

Maybe the problem is that these are TOO MANY DETAILS.

Perhaps less facts would be better for that discussion with Steaver.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I apologize for that post RB, it was still a rough draft yet got saved somehow. When I noticed, it's was too late to edit.

I need to explain something clearer. Within six days of judgment, SDA's believe that it expected we obey the tn commandments even more, but I won't elaborate.Since most churches honor the sabbath on Sunday, not Saturday

Ok Joe -- now I am the one that is getting lost on the details.

What does it mean "within six days of judgment"???

I never heard of that before.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Is this "you quoting me"????

Sounds like "you quoting you again" and again, and again.

i encourage you to come around to paying attention to the substance of the discussion rather than making stuff up in post after post.

I post one line that was something a learned from you after debating with you over several years and you claim I make stuff up post after post. This was not "made up" but not said by you in this particular thread. This I learned from you after several discussions over the past.

You would have to show where i "made stuff up post after post" in order for that statement to be true. I trust you won't find any.

As for "paying attention to the substance", I have stayed on point even though you continue to divert, playing the "SDA's don't really believe what their statements say they believe" angle. It's not "official" :tear:

(Steaver)....

The statement is the same found in 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.

Divine authority = inspiration of God

profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness = godly living and for doctrine

Quote:
(BobRyan)....

So as already stated - the only reason Ellen White's writings have value is the source. If it is God then it stands as having authority and His accuracy. If testing them against scripture shows that the source is not of God - then it has little or no value.


But if testing shows them to be doctrinally in harmony with scripture - then the reader is under obligation to the authority that represents. The quotes above show SDAs viewing themselves as being obligated to listen to inspired messages that are tested against the Bible and found to have God as the source.

(Steaver)....

Doesn't matter which way you want to say it brother it means the same thing! IF God is the source then it is EQUAL to scripture!!

Why do the merry-go-round that only leads to the same conclusion?

You have the right to reject the SDA statement "We (SDA) believe". I doubt you will though.

Go ahead now, more divert, divert, divert......nobody claims her writings are equal even though her writings are said to be inspiried by the same source the scriptures are inspired, that is God Himself. But no, they are not equal. Remember 2+2=4.

Throw the horse over the fence some hay now. :wavey:

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Nope -- she is fallible. ALL her writings are fallible -- they just also happen to be correct.

As it turns out -Yes

- but that is an SDA doctrine that had to stand on it's own WITHOUT Ellen White.

As it turns out - Yes. But that is an SDA doctrine regarding Dan7, Dan 8, 2Cor 5:10 and Romans 2 that had to stand on its own "sola scriptura" WITHOUT Ellen White.

Yes.

However as you point out - you have more than one or two illustrative points on why one who believes as you do -- should NOT accept Ellen White as a valid prophet.

Actually you and Ellen are incorrect on all three accounts.

What exactly is your position with the SDA?


BGTF

 

[BobRyan]

RB Quote:

1. Do you think people are true Christians who worship on Sunday?

Yes. But didn't we already cover that ground?

RB Quote:
2. Can an unbaptized person enter into heaven?

Yes -but that is not a "doctrinal statement" for SDAs.

RB Quote:
3. Can a person who has genuinely been born again, sought to obey God in all things from a pure conscience, finally lose their salvation?

AS we saw on the 3 or 4 OSAS debunking threads - OSAS is a false doctrine and this is understood on this board by a large number -- almost none of which are SDA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually you and Ellen are incorrect on all three accounts.

I understand why you do not agree with Ellen White.

But my argument is that doctrine must stand "sola scriptura" and SDAs do not reference doctrine and say "as proof -- Ellen White likes it".

You seem to differ with that statement of mine .. so.. Facts please.

What exactly is your position with the SDA?

I am one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I post one line that was something a learned from you after debating with you over several years and you claim I make stuff up post after post. This was not "made up" but not said by you in this particular thread. This I learned from you after several discussions over the past.

You would have to show where i "made stuff up post after post" in order for that statement to be true. I trust you won't find any.

I thought I GAVE the quote of you making something up in the post you are quoting above - you know... the part you left out when you gave that quote from me.

I will find it again for you.

Wait a minute...here it is ..

Steaver
Quote:
Originally Posted by steaver
I am addressing the "do's and don'ts" (sin) given by God for God's children. All of them no matter what denomination they are in.

Bob likes to say that Ellen's writings defining things like pork eating being a sin for Christians is for SDA's ONLY. This is retarded.

Bob said --
Is this "you quoting me"????

Sounds like "you quoting you again" and again, and again.

i encourage you to come around to paying attention to the substance of the discussion rather than making stuff up in post after post.

I know that is not "you quoting me" because it contains your own spin - your own failed accusation AS IF I EVER took your wild spin as my own position.

My position has never been that " Ellen White makes up doctrine for SDAs". Nor even "God told Ellen White to make up doctrine for SDAs". You keep insisting that is her role - I keep saying it is not -- then eventually you get to the point of pretending that I ever took your side in that accusation and started actually DOING what you were trying to pretend.

Kinda like your "Ellen White's writings are equal to scripture" non-quote that you TRY to stick in other people's writings and have FAILED to actually make it happen outside of a lot of "pretending".

Your ill-constructed logic is of the form "Well they did not actually say what I accuse them of - but if I were one of them that is the way I would take it -- whether they actually came out with an actual 'Ellen White writes scripture' statement or not".

As horribly contrived as that is on your part - making stuff up like that does not form a doctrinal position for actual SDAs. Why is that so confusing for you?

Key point - you EXPECT (almost INSIST) that SDAs should go to ELLEN White to have her make up doctrine for them -- but they do not - plain and simple. That is NOT the source of SDA doctrine. You may differ with their doctrine but you should at least know how they came up with it -- without having to do a lot of revisionist history spinning to get there.

It is convenient story-telling pablum to go around pretending that they are just "reading Ellen White to come up with doctrine" but carefull attention to their history and "details" shows that this is not how it came about. That was not her role in the SDA church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

I understand why you do not agree with Ellen White.

But my argument is that doctrine must stand "sola scriptura" and SDAs do not reference doctrine and say "as proof -- Ellen White likes it".

You seem to differ with that statement of mine .. so.. Facts please.

In the three areas discussed where you are incorrect, there have been many discussions which brought you no further out of error, so there really isn't much use getting into it.

I am one.

Specifics please: Elder, Board member, Missionary, Apologist, Janitor, something else?


BGTF

 

[BobRyan]

Janitor -- but in a software kinda way

 

[BobRyan]

In the three areas discussed where you are incorrect, there have been many discussions which brought you no further out of error, so there really isn't much use getting into it.

Sounds like a non-answer.

My statement was that SDAs are not using Ellen White as proof for whatever doctrine you may not like.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to conclude that - Just because you don't agree with the doctrine -- does not change the method used by SDAs to come to accept the doctrine you don't like.

Surely this is merely stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having given that last post to Steaver about Ellen White's role in the church - i have to confess to one thing in Steaver's favor.

While growing up in the SDA church I often wondered why the church did NOT go to Ellen White for doctrine. I thought as a child that it would be a great thing to do - you have prophet who is really connected to God through dreams and visions -- what a great modern day source to just get the information straight and run with it! What could be better?

But each time I checked into the history and the details and followed the doctrinal arguments -- it was clear that from the very start they were very careful NOT to go that route. Even God Himself seemed to be in on that model when I read about the "Sabbath conferences" where they were working through their initial doctrinal statements.

I found it frustrating for a while -- but then the light dawned.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Janitor -- but in a software kinda way

Please enlarge.

BGTF

 

[Joe]

Bob, an SDA friend explained it to me. He found it on the Official SDA website for me, yet I did not book mark it. I was hoping you knew, and would add the specifics to my post.

It read exactly, but not in those words, that SDA's are a distinct group of people who in the last days before judgement will be the only one's holding to the commandment, SPECIFICALLY the Sabbath Day. I read this along with him right before we took off riding. The weather was going to change so we needed to hurry.

If it's ok, he might be over tomorrow and I can ask him to post an answer for you and myself.

As a Sabbath keeper, I am interested. I had not heard of this before. It may be something regarding Ellen White's beliefs and he left that out. But I don't think so.

Again, this doesn't mean that SDA's stated they were special, but set apart as a group (with others who honor the Sabbath) for some particular reason very close to the Judgment day. It never stated the reason, but Sabbath keepers were set apart.