To answer that question one needs to look at each belief in detail and determine where it is coming from.
In the 1st chapter of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs on the Word of God, we find that it is based on 207 Bible verses, references to 12 Bible chapters and 8 books in the Bible. vs 4 to EGW (3 pages, and one paragraph), one to Siegfried Horn's book which dealt in part with the DSS and the carefulness with which the Bible was transmitted and one book about Bible interpretation.
: djconklin Fri Jun 08, 2012 - 22:10:41
To answer that question one needs to look at each belief in detail and determine where it is coming from.
In the 1st chapter of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs on the Word of God, we find that it is based on 207 Bible verses, references to 12 Bible chapters and 8 books in the Bible. vs 4 to EGW (3 pages, and one paragraph), one to Siegfried Horn's book which dealt in part with the DSS and the carefulness with which the Bible was transmitted and one book about Bible interpretation.
I think you will find all of them are biblical.
Are SDA beliefs based on EGW?
The Investigative Judgment as taught by Seventh-day Adventists is most certainly based on EGW.
Since according to SDA policy, Ellen has provided corrected interpretations of scripture to remove teachings that are derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience and modern culture, we can safely say that SDA beliefs are based on EGW..
You can find the following statement at the botttom of the document at this link.
https://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Bninth-business-meeting
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
: current occupant2 Tue Dec 04, 2018 - 22:31:03
Since according to SDA policy, Ellen has provided corrected interpretations of scripture to remove teachings that are derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience and modern culture, we can safely say that SDA beliefs are based on EGW..
You can find the following statement at the botttom of the document at this link.
https://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Bninth-business-meeting
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
I find this rather amazing that Ellen White specifically told the church not to use her as their source of truth, but learn from the truths from the bible. Amen.
Ellen White herself said: "Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim from the revealed Word of God."397 To the delegates of the General Conference in 1901, she said, "Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never [sic] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' [sic]—'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.'398 ..."
"...The final court of appeal must always be the Bible.
This was the strong conviction of her husband James White who wrote: "There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. . . . What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn form the Holy Scriptures.
No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. . . . It's motto has been, 'The Bible, and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.'. . .206
"Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position."395
He could see that, very early in Adventism, some were inclined to give her writings an authority over and above the Scriptural authority for the work of a prophet. "They conclude that if it be true that God is reviving some of the gifts, 'for the comfort of his people, and correct those who err from Bible truth.' That all errors would at once be corrected by these gifts, and the church be saved the trouble of searching the Word for truth to expose error. . . . They would put the gifts where they do not belong. . . . The revival of any, or all of the gifts, will never supersede the necessity of searching the Word to learn the truth."396 ...."
"...the Bible is its own interpreter and every Christian is free to study the Bible (guided by the Holy Spirit) to find truth for themselves. The following points support James White in his stand:
1. Jesus left a promise to His Church. "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." ( John 14:25-26)
2. Recognising this point and practicing it is part of being Protestant. The Catholic Church tried to impose upon Christians the role of the pope as the infallible interpreter of Scripture. This concept was rejected by Protestants, because it violated the principle of sola Scriptures. Besides, once you have any external authority telling you what the Bible means, you make that authority more powerful than the Bible itself.
3.The Bible is a completed book. Hebrews 1:1 gives the reason for this, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. . . . " The generation of Jesus' day were taught by Christ and individuals wrote down what they had learned. Jesus was the fullest, most complete revelation of God. Nothing that comes after Him will ever add to or eclipse the revelation of God in Him. All that comes after will be but a reflection of the light that shone through Him. Therefore the work of prophets is to call people back to study and obey that final, complete, revelation in Jesus. The work of prophets is to point out duties already revealed and neglected...."excerpted from MORE THAN A PROPHET ... by Graeme Bradford.
SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.
The Review and Herald, official paper of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has published the teaching that the Bible must be infallibly interpreted and that the SDA members must have that confidence in the writings and statements of Ellen White.
Coming from the official paper of the SDA, you know that the teachings are carefully screened and approved as actual teachings of the denomination.
You can find the following statements on page 4, 5 and 6 of the document from the link below.
"This illustrates the fact that most denominations, at least, have no satisfactory court of final appeal, that while the Bible is infallible and is the basis of all Christian faith, it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division." [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
"In describing the last of God's people in the earth, Revelation 12: 17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman [the church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (compare Rev. 19:10).
When will the people of God cease trusting their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret, by their own reason, what God says to them through His appointed channel?
When we come to the place where we place no trust in man nor in the wisdom of men, but unquestionably accept of and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy, as set before us in the Bible and as witnessed in the present manifestations of this gift be confirmed among us and become, in fact, the counselor, guide, and final court of appeal among God's people. Under the leadership of Christ, through this gift, the cause of God will move forward with mighty strides to final victory.". [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19710603-V148-22.pdf
: current occupant2 Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 10:00:05
SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.
The Review and Herald, official paper of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has published the teaching that the Bible must be infallibly interpreted and that the SDA members must have that confidence in the writings and statements of Ellen White.
Coming from the official paper of the SDA, you know that the teachings are carefully screened and approved as actual teachings of the denomination.
You can find the following statements on page 4, 5 and 6 of the document from the link below.
"This illustrates the fact that most denominations, at least, have no satisfactory court of final appeal, that while the Bible is infallible and is the basis of all Christian faith, it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division." [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
"In describing the last of God's people in the earth, Revelation 12: 17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman [the church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (compare Rev. 19:10).
When will the people of God cease trusting their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret, by their own reason, what God says to them through His appointed channel?
When we come to the place where we place no trust in man nor in the wisdom of men, but unquestionably accept of and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy, as set before us in the Bible and as witnessed in the present manifestations of this gift be confirmed among us and become, in fact, the counselor, guide, and final court of appeal among God's people. Under the leadership of Christ, through this gift, the cause of God will move forward with mighty strides to final victory.". [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19710603-V148-22.pdf
As most churches...
: Hobie Mon May 27, 2019 - 06:22:55
As most churches...
So you believe that the SDA church is like "most churches"..
Actually, christian churches do not have a prophet like Ellen or Joseph who are the infallible interpreters of the Bible for their members.
That is what the above statements say that the SDA church claims for Ellen's authority.
Thanks, Richard, for boosting this Posts - that DJ abandoned.
Yep
: current occupant2 Tue Dec 04, 2018 - 22:31:03
Since according to SDA policy, Ellen has provided corrected interpretations of scripture to remove teachings that are derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience and modern culture, we can safely say that SDA beliefs are based on EGW..
You can find the following statement at the botttom of the document at this link.
https://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Bninth-business-meeting
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
For now, many can safely say whatever they wish with impunity before humanity, but not before God. There is good reason for some such as yourself to prefer to examine the words of a few SDA's from long ago, rather than the history of where actual doctrines came from. Such would reveal that much of what SDA's believe was around long before they ever existed among numerous bible believers of the past. This of course changes the nature of EGW's writings to those supporting and maintaining what other bible believers before her espoused, and not her invention of them. This is not acceptable of course to those agenda driven anti-EGW enthusiasts, who are as eaten with EGW as any other individual on the planet.
Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.Either EGW was a false prophet and all who have believed her testimony will be condemned for doing so, while those warning against her testimony will be rewarded, or she was the real deal and those who accused her of being a false prophet will be condemned, while those who believed her testimony in accordance with scripture and the Holy Spirit of God will be rewarded for doing so. So be it. Judge thy proclaimed servants Lord, Come Lord Jesus, and bring your rewards with you.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
: current occupant2 Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 10:00:05
SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.
The Review and Herald, official paper of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has published the teaching that the Bible must be infallibly interpreted and that the SDA members must have that confidence in the writings and statements of Ellen White.
Coming from the official paper of the SDA, you know that the teachings are carefully screened and approved as actual teachings of the denomination.
You can find the following statements on page 4, 5 and 6 of the document from the link below.
"This illustrates the fact that most denominations, at least, have no satisfactory court of final appeal, that while the Bible is infallible and is the basis of all Christian faith, it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division." [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
"In describing the last of God's people in the earth, Revelation 12: 17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman [the church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (compare Rev. 19:10).
When will the people of God cease trusting their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret, by their own reason, what God says to them through His appointed channel?
When we come to the place where we place no trust in man nor in the wisdom of men, but unquestionably accept of and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy, as set before us in the Bible and as witnessed in the present manifestations of this gift be confirmed among us and become, in fact, the counselor, guide, and final court of appeal among God's people. Under the leadership of Christ, through this gift, the cause of God will move forward with mighty strides to final victory.". [SDA R&H June 3, 1971, pg 4-6.]
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19710603-V148-22.pdf
One article from one SDA magazine a half century old, does not dictate what and why SDA's of today believe anything. A great many SDA's have disagreed about EGW's writings, concerning what was inspired and what was not. Many do not even accept her as a prophet, and remain within the denomination. My faith has never been based on articles in magazines which I rarely if ever read. Nor have I agreed with some of the few articles I have read. Even writing to said magazine publishers on occasion to contest the validity of some of their articles.
Just because you blindly follow an anti-EGW agenda, does not mean that all SDA's who accept her as a prophet have done so in like manner. Some people actually read, study, and compare EGW's writing and all others with scripture in order to make proper judgement concerning the same. So, were you actually reading R&H magazines from 1971, or have you taken this info from some anti-EGW internet site? How does one come upon a 48 year old article to support their albeit diversionary arguments? How about examining actual doctrine and proving it originated with EGW in line with the topic of this thread.
: Amo Sat Jun 29, 2019 - 09:08:41
For now, many can safely say whatever they wish with impunity before humanity, but not before God. There is good reason for some such as yourself to prefer to examine the words of a few SDA's from long ago, rather than the history of where actual doctrines came from. Such would reveal that much of what SDA's believe was around long before they ever existed among numerous bible believers of the past. This of course changes the nature of EGW's writings to those supporting and maintaining what other bible believers before her espoused, and not her invention of them. This is not acceptable of course to those agenda driven anti-EGW enthusiasts, who are as eaten with EGW as any other individual on the planet.
Either EGW was a false prophet and all who have believed her testimony will be condemned for doing so, while those warning against her testimony will be rewarded, or she was the real deal and those who accused her of being a false prophet will be condemned, while those who believed her testimony in accordance with scripture and the Holy Spirit of God will be rewarded for doing so. So be it. Judge thy proclaimed servants Lord, Come Lord Jesus, and bring your rewards with you.
This is current official SDA teaching and policy.
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
Your stupid reply with irrelevant Bible texts just shows that you did not even read the statement of confidence that I posted so I reposted it for your reading pleasure.
: Amo Sat Jun 29, 2019 - 09:29:14
One article from one SDA magazine a half century old, does not dictate what and why SDA's of today believe anything. A great many SDA's have disagreed about EGW's writings, concerning what was inspired and what was not. Many do not even accept her as a prophet, and remain within the denomination. My faith has never been based on articles in magazines which I rarely if ever read. Nor have I agreed with some of the few articles I have read. Even writing to said magazine publishers on occasion to contest the validity of some of their articles.
Just because you blindly follow an anti-EGW agenda, does not mean that all SDA's who accept her as a prophet have done so in like manner. Some people actually read, study, and compare EGW's writing and all others with scripture in order to make proper judgement concerning the same. So, were you actually reading R&H magazines from 1971, or have you taken this info from some anti-EGW internet site? How does one come upon a 48 year old article to support their albeit diversionary arguments? How about examining actual doctrine and proving it originated with EGW in line with the topic of this thread.
The 2015 statement of confidence I am reposting for your benefit, simply emphasizes the words of the '48 year old article'.
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
The veil of Ellen is impairing your thinking.
.
Your stupid reply with irrelevant Bible texts just shows that you did not even read the statement of confidence that I posted so I reposted it for your reading pleasure.
The bible verses shared are not irrelevant to anyone, including yourself. You and I and all who profess Christ are being judged by what we preach. False prophets and teachers will receive their just reward from Christ Himself when He returns to set all things straight. Tell Him then, that His words are or ever were, irrelevant to anyone at any time. Any SDA's that would or do accept EGW as an authentic prophetess of God simply because someone else said so, are just like countless others who won't take the time to know for themselves through personal prayer and study, what is truth. All such will be lost for thinking that the convictions of another can save them. No one is, has been, or will ever be saved by being a member of any denomination and or blindly submitting to supposed authorities of the same apart from personal prayer study and conviction in agreement with the same.
The majority of SDA doctrine existed long before us, and all of it is biblical. Any who claim, believe, and place their faith in EGW as the originator of truth in biblical doctrine, are and will be lost. Just as those who reject the truths she testified of in agreement with scripture, will be lost as well. Not because of rejecting her writings, but because of rejecting truth which comes from God alone. You yourself are without question a liar if you will maintain that SDA beliefs are all based upon the writings of EGW alone as their original source. This is a lie, and all who promote it will be condemned by God for doing so.
Here we all are, pick a doctrine and prove it originated with EGW. What is the problem? This is your claim, prove it.
: Amo Sat Jun 29, 2019 - 09:29:14
One article from one SDA magazine a half century old, does not dictate what and why SDA's of today believe anything. A great many SDA's have disagreed about EGW's writings, concerning what was inspired and what was not. Many do not even accept her as a prophet, and remain within the denomination. My faith has never been based on articles in magazines which I rarely if ever read. Nor have I agreed with some of the few articles I have read. Even writing to said magazine publishers on occasion to contest the validity of some of their articles.
Just because you blindly follow an anti-EGW agenda, does not mean that all SDA's who accept her as a prophet have done so in like manner. Some people actually read, study, and compare EGW's writing and all others with scripture in order to make proper judgement concerning the same. So, were you actually reading R&H magazines from 1971, or have you taken this info from some anti-EGW internet site? How does one come upon a 48 year old article to support their albeit diversionary arguments? How about examining actual doctrine and proving it originated with EGW in line with the topic of this thread.
Hi Amo, I am wondering just where you stand concerning the SDA church. I know you do not have to reveal anything, but I am really confused. You and I have been posting for quite some time and I know you have some disagreement with the church, but you have always defended the doctrines I have questioned. One of the fundamental doctrines has to do directly with the writings of Ellen G. White the undisputed more that a prophet.#18 Another doctrine is that members believe in the Spiritual gifts and ministries, #17. Do you adhere to those two doctrines of the SDA church?
Even though the doctrines of the church did not originate with Ellen White, she, through her "visions" and her "Angel" certainly added the stamp of approval. Ellen and James White were the guiding forces behind the movement. To try to deny her involvement is a fruitless task.
All the distinctive SDA Doctrines were thought up by people other than Ellen White....
...What Ellen White did was CONFIRM the distinctive Doctrine by issuing a Divine fiat.
...Examples:
http://www.penofinspiration.com/
http://www.stepstolife.org/php/view_...rticle_id=1429
http://orangenjsda.org/from-the-pen-of-inspiration/
1MR 28
Before I stand on my feet, I have no thought of speaking as plainly as I do. But the Spirit of God rests upon me with power, and I CANNOT but speak the words GIVEN me. I dare not withhold one word of the testimony.... I speak the words GIVEN ME by a higher power than human power, and I CANNOT, if I would, recall [retract] one sentence
Ellen White
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is NOT represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers[/b]")
Ellen claimed to be God's pen
Ellen White
After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly... When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon ME. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given ME, with instruction as to how WE were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to ME, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given ME[/b]." (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905)
R&H Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out
Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 298
We MUST follow the directions given through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings]. ... God has spoken to us through His Word. He has spoken to us through the Testimonies to the church and through the books that have helped to make plain our present duty and the position that we should now occupy[/b]
Hmmm. Another thread resurrected from eight years ago. I will respond as time allows.
: Amo Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 19:06:32
Hmmm. Another thread resurrected from eight years ago. I will respond as time allows.
Actually, your friend Hobie resurrected this thread back in May 2019 and you have responded to several other posts IN THIS THREAD since that time.
Your response quoted above is an obvious ploy to avoid answering Beam's question.
I'll Repost them for your convenience.
>>>Hi Amo, I am wondering just where you stand concerning the SDA church. I know you do not have to reveal anything, but I am really confused. You and I have been posting for quite some time and I know you have some disagreement with the church, but you have always defended the doctrines I have questioned. One of the fundamental doctrines has to do directly with the writings of Ellen G. White the undisputed more that a prophet.#18 Another doctrine is that members believe in the Spiritual gifts and ministries, #17. Do you adhere to those two doctrines of the SDA church?
Even though the doctrines of the church did not originate with Ellen White, she, through her "visions" and her "Angel" certainly added the stamp of approval. Ellen and James White were the guiding forces behind the movement. To try to deny her involvement is a fruitless task.<<<<
: current occupant2 Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 21:28:30
Actually, your friend Hobie resurrected the thread back in May 2019 and you have responded to several other posts since that time.
Your response quoted above is an obvious ploy to avoid answering Beam's question.
I'll Repost them for your convenience.
I am not holding my breath. Amo has a poor track record for answering our questions.
: beam Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 07:45:47
I am not holding my breath. Amo has a poor track record for answering our questions.
Poor AMO.
He really does need to get his biblical understanding under the control of the Holy Spirit.
Where are you Amo?
I'm busy. There is a lot more to life than answering beam and CO2. Including addressing several other threads on these boards I am involved with. Every time I don't answer you two quickly enough or at all, doesn't mean as you childishly suggest, I am afraid or unable to do so. To the contrary, I have been addressing your false accusations for years now. As the age of this thread itself testifies. There were several before you making many of your same false accusations.
: Amo Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 10:48:24
I'm busy. There is a lot more to life than answering beam and CO2. Including addressing several other threads on these boards I am involved with. Every time I don't answer you two quickly enough or at all, doesn't mean as you childishly suggest, I am afraid or unable to do so. To the contrary, I have been addressing your false accusations for years now. As the age of this thread itself testifies. There were several before you making many of your same false accusations.
In the time it took to write the above quoted response, you could have given an answer to your questions.
: current occupant2 Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 14:17:07
In the time it took to write the above quoted response, you could have given an answer to your questions.
I'll answer your questions if and when I decide to do so. There are a great many things which take precedence over answering them. Nevertheless, I have answered and addressed a great many of them in the past along very similar lines.
: Amo Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 16:14:36
I'll answer your questions if and when I decide to do so. There are a great many things which take precedence over answering them. Nevertheless, I have answered and addressed a great many of them in the past along very similar lines.
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1 Peter 3:15
: current occupant2 Sat Jun 29, 2019 - 09:36:51
The 2015 statement of confidence I am reposting for your benefit, simply emphasizes the words of the '48 year old article'.
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
VOTED, To approve the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White, which reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
The veil of Ellen is impairing your thinking.
.
Never seen, heard, or read anything you have quoted above. Nothing I have ever believed has therefore been based upon it. You're the one searching through what others have said in the past not me. My decisions about EGW and scripture are not based upon the testimony of others, but rather prayerful study of all in the light of scripture. Your incessant anti-EGW agenda is impairing your thinking. You are far more eaten up with EGW than I am. You bring her up continuously. I rarely bring her up at all, here or anywhere else.
Here is the question or point I have asked you to address, which you never have. Since we are gong to discuss people not addressing each others questions or points.
Here we all are, pick a doctrine and prove it originated with EGW. What is the problem? This is your claim, prove it.
: Amo Sat Jun 29, 2019 - 11:11:52
Here we all are, pick a doctrine and prove it originated with EGW. What is the problem? This is your claim, prove it.
Well, first of all you will have to quote my words that claim any doctrine or a Particular doctrine originated with EGW
I did not start this thread.
It was your friend, Mr. Conklin, that set up the strawman by starting this thread.
None of the posts I have read by anyone besides Mr. Conklin have claimed that Ellen White originated doctrine.
And just because you have distanced yourself from the official seventh-day Adventist church because they hurt your feelings, Doesn't mean that you have a different view of Ellen White's spiritual authority.
: current occupant2 Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 20:57:25
Well, first of all you will have to quote my words that claim any doctrine or a Particular doctrine originated with EGW
I did not start this thread.
It was your friend, Mr. Conklin, that set up the strawman by starting this thread.
None of the posts I have read by anyone besides Mr. Conklin have claimed that Ellen White originated doctrine.
And just because you have distanced yourself from the official seventh-day Adventist church because they hurt your feelings, Doesn't mean that you have a different view of Ellen White's spiritual authority.
More childish nonsense. I have distanced myself from the denomination because it continues to forsake the truth, and simply will not take action against those teaching and establishing error within it. Your childish speculations and or accusations are just that. I suggest you address the issues, and stop spouting out nonsense concerning things which you have no idea. Nevertheless, you are of course free to do as you wish.
: Amo Sun Jan 12, 2020 - 11:11:10
More childish nonsense. I have distanced myself from the denomination because it continues to forsake the truth, and simply will not take action against those teaching and establishing error within it. Your childish speculations and or accusations are just that. I suggest you address the issues, and stop spouting out nonsense concerning things which you have no idea. Nevertheless, you are of course free to do as you wish.
How does your view of the spiritual authority Ellen White differ from that position stated by the Seventh-day Adventist church in the statement of confidence that I posted?
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
: Amo Sun Jan 12, 2020 - 11:11:10
More childish nonsense. I have distanced myself from the denomination because it continues to forsake the truth, and simply will not take action against those teaching and establishing error within it. Your childish speculations and or accusations are just that. I suggest you address the issues, and stop spouting out nonsense concerning things which you have no idea. Nevertheless, you are of course free to do as you wish.
Please provide a quote of a statement by me that says any doctrine was originated by Ellen White.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Well, first of all you will have to quote my words that claim any doctrine or a Particular doctrine originated with EGW
I did not start this thread.
It was your friend, Mr. Conklin, that set up the strawman by starting this thread.
None of the posts I have read by anyone besides Mr. Conklin have claimed that Ellen White originated doctrine.
: Amo Sun Jan 12, 2020 - 11:11:10
More childish nonsense. I have distanced myself from the denomination because it continues to forsake the truth, and simply will not take action against those teaching and establishing error within it. Your childish speculations and or accusations are just that. I suggest you address the issues, and stop spouting out nonsense concerning things which you have no idea. Nevertheless, you are of course free to do as you wish.
The Seventh-day Adventist church claims that no one distances themselves from the adventist church because of doctrinal error.
The only reasons that I've seen put forward by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for people leaving the church is that
1. Other members have hurt those who leave.
2. Those who leave are having marriage problems or other personal problems like losing their job.
.
How about it, AMO?
Please share honestly with us —-
How does your view of the spiritual authority Ellen White differ from that position stated by the Seventh-day Adventist church in the statement of confidence that I posted?
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
How about it, HOBIE/RICHARD?
Please share honestly with us —-
How does your view of the spiritual authority Ellen White differ from that position stated by the Seventh-day Adventist church in the statement of confidence that I posted?
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
You would think that AMO and Hobie/Richard would be eager to declare their position about the authority of Ellen White - after all, adherence to the interpretations of Ellen are integral to Seventh-day adventist beliefs.
: current occupant2 Wed Jan 22, 2020 - 15:09:08
You would think that AMO and Hobie/Richard would be eager to declare their position about the authority of Ellen White - after all, adherence to the interpretations of Ellen are integral to Seventh-day adventist beliefs.
Since DJ Conklin Began the thread, he should also affirm his allegiance to Ellen and her writings.
: current occupant2 Wed Jan 22, 2020 - 15:09:08
You would think that AMO and Hobie/Richard would be eager to declare their position about the authority of Ellen White - after all, adherence to the interpretations of Ellen are integral to Seventh-day adventist beliefs.
I guess you would think wrong. After just so many fruitless debates concerning unending accusations so often abandoned after being addressed, some people just opt out. Not to worry though, you will no doubt supply more opportunities to address this or other accusations you will bring forward in the future.
: Amo Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 16:03:26
I guess you would think wrong. After just so many fruitless debates concerning unending accusations so often abandoned after being addressed, some people just opt out. Not to worry though, you will no doubt supply more opportunities to address this or other accusations you will bring forward in the future.
You could have cleared the air and declared your actual position on the statement of confidence enacted as policy by the general conference of Seventh-day Adventist, with the same amount of effort that it took to write The dribble in your post above.
Why not just tell us whether Or not you agree with the statement of confidence.. it takes a lot less effort than the normal Seventh-day Adventist song and dance to avoid revealing who they really are.
Where have Amo and Hobie/Richard and David disappeared to?
Why won't they come here and publicly declare their belief in Ellen White as a prophet of God?
Why won't the acknowledge the SDA teaching that Ellen has the power to correct erroneous interpretations of the scriptures that are presented by themselves and others.
That makes Ellen's statements the final authority on what the Bible really teaches.
: current occupant2 Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 19:12:44
You could have cleared the air and declared your actual position on the statement of confidence enacted as policy by the general conference of Seventh-day Adventist, with the same amount of effort that it took to write The dribble in your post above.
Why not just tell us whether Or not you agree with the statement of confidence.. it takes a lot less effort than the normal Seventh-day Adventist song and dance to avoid revealing who they really are.
If or when I desire to clear the air of the stench you often put upon it, I will. I would have to read and consider the statement first, it simply is not near the top of my things to do list.
: current occupant2 Fri Feb 07, 2020 - 12:57:49
Where have Amo and Hobie/Richard and David disappeared to?
Why won't they come here and publicly declare their belief in Ellen White as a prophet of God?
Why won't the acknowledge the SDA teaching that Ellen has the power to correct erroneous interpretations of the scriptures that are presented by themselves and others.
That makes Ellen's statements the final authority on what the Bible really teaches.
They probably do not feel that you are anyone they need to answer, having already addressed so very many of your accusations and questions. I received a personal message from Hobie to the effect that he was being blocked from these boards. I tried to respond but my response was blocked as well. I have experienced similar problems in the past. As far as I know DJ Conklin has not posted on these boards for many years now. It is not likely he will respond, if this is the David you referred to above.
: Amo Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 16:14:21
If or when I desire to clear the air of the stench you often put upon it, I will. I would have to read and consider the statement first, it simply is not near the top of my things to do list.
Yes, Ellen White and the teachings of Adventism is a stench of heresy in the nostrils of Christians everywhere.
It is understandable that you wish to secret your connection to and distance yourself from such putrid teachings as they convey - however, you continue to post the identical teachings in your continued unsuccessful attempts to contribute to discussion on this forum.
: current occupant2 Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 17:22:05
Yes, Ellen White and the teachings of Adventism is a stench of heresy in the nostrils of Christians everywhere.
It is understandable that you wish to secret your connection to and distance yourself from such putrid teachings as they convey - however, you continue to post the identical teachings in your continued unsuccessful attempts to contribute to discussion on this forum.
You are of poor judgment and observation. I have been addressing your non stop accusations on these boards for years now. I have not distanced myself from that which I have continuously defended on these boards but in your petulantly childish mind. It apparently irks you to no end when I will not be manipulated into continual debate with your incessant and twisted accusations. So be it.
Awe, does your failure to articulate a coherent biblical Defense of sda teachings bother you?
.
: current occupant2 Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 18:40:56
Awe, does your failure to articulate a coherent biblical Defense of sda teachings bother you?
.
More of the same. Bent is as bent does I reckon.
I guess you would think wrong. After just so many fruitless debates concerning unending accusations so often abandoned after being addressed, some people just opt out. Not to worry though, you will no doubt supply more opportunities to address this or other accusations you will bring forward in the future.
Without Ellen G. White, none of you in this child board would believe the way you believe. You don't follow the Bible. You follow White. None of her teachings are biblical, in any way, shape, or form. You, yourself, can't even answer simple questions when it comes to your own doctrine. I've been asking you for YEARS how you keep the Sabbath, and you have failed to answer the question.
Every.Single.Time.There is a reason for that. False teachers always avoid answering questions that they know will expose their doctrine as being false. It would be a good deal simpler to ditch the false beliefs and use the Bible alone to form your doctrine and theology than to have to sit on an Internet Forum and constantly attempt to defend a doctrine that is demonstrably false . . .
More of the same. Bent is as bent does I reckon.
Joseph Smith - died 1844
William Miller - died 1849
Ellen G. White - died 1915
Charles Taze Russell - died 1916
I find it both humorous and frightening that all 4 of these people formed their own special denominations that all claim the exact some things. That they are the one, true church on Earth. That that church is the only remnant of
true Christianity left. They all have a special prophet that the church's doctrine is based on, their own special books that have weight equal, or above that of sola scriptura, and they all have their own rules, ordinances and rituals that do not come from the Bible.
What I find most incredible is that these con artists, long after they have died, still find willing and faithful dupes to disseminate their cons. Estimates vary, but between 18 and 25 million people on this Earth claim the SDA faith, so Ellen G. White, a century after her death, still has millions of people foolish enough to buy into her lies.
Amazing.
: Cobalt1959 Wed Feb 26, 2020 - 13:09:01
Without Ellen G. White, none of you in this child board would believe the way you believe. You don't follow the Bible. You follow White. None of her teachings are biblical, in any way, shape, or form. You, yourself, can't even answer simple questions when it comes to your own doctrine. I've been asking you for YEARS how you keep the Sabbath, and you have failed to answer the question.
Every.
Single.
Time.
There is a reason for that. False teachers always avoid answering questions that they know will expose their doctrine as being false. It would be a good deal simpler to ditch the false beliefs and use the Bible alone to form your doctrine and theology than to have to sit on an Internet Forum and constantly attempt to defend a doctrine that is demonstrably false . . .
You have been answered many times over, your just don't accept the answer as an answer. You are so manipulative in conversations apparently, that you won't accept an answer unless it is one you approve of or expect I guess. The commandment itself specifies how to observe it. Here it is yet again.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Has it ever occurred to you that we do to have whatever it is you are asking us to give you? Do you want a list of dos and don'ts? I do to have one. Do you want a list of more minute details of exactly how to do what the commandment specifies? I do not have one. Nor do I care to have one for myself or others. This is what the Jews of Jesus day wrongly did. Such destroys the entire purpose of the sabbath which is to rest in God, not one's own works or rigorous observation of such a list.
You have been answered yet again, whether you care to accept it or not.
: Cobalt1959 Wed Feb 26, 2020 - 13:24:26
Joseph Smith - died 1844
William Miller - died 1849
Ellen G. White - died 1915
Charles Taze Russell - died 1916
I find it both humorous and frightening that all 4 of these people formed their own special denominations that all claim the exact some things. That they are the one, true church on Earth. That that church is the only remnant of true Christianity left. They all have a special prophet that the church's doctrine is based on, their own special books that have weight equal, or above that of sola scriptura, and they all have their own rules, ordinances and rituals that do not come from the Bible.
What I find most incredible is that these con artists, long after they have died, still find willing and faithful dupes to disseminate their cons. Estimates vary, but between 18 and 25 million people on this Earth claim the SDA faith, so Ellen G. White, a century after her death, still has millions of people foolish enough to buy into her lies.
Amazing.
Ignorance is as ignorance does, or says I guess. William Miller did not form a denomination that I know of, he was a Baptist. Correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I am ignorant upon this point. All denominations believe they have the truth of course. Why would anyone choose to be in a denomination they did not believe had the truth. Nevertheless the SDA denomination has always believed the vast majority of God's true faithful reside in other denominations or even religions, thus our prophetic message from God calling His people out of Babylon.
Our denomination is not based upon EGW. The vast majority of our beliefs were around before our denomination existed. Our biblical seventh day sabbath truth was given to us by a Seventh Day Baptist. Our belief in the imminent second coming of Christ was and is still shared by many other Christians. Our biblical understanding of the sleep of the dead was believed by many long before us. Much of our prophetic beliefs are those built upon the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers themsleves.
You are of course free to point out the lies you say EGW told, as many others have on these boards as well. Most of which were based upon the same kind of ignorance you just demonstrated in the post I am addressing, or the manipulation of her words unto the ends of those bringing forth their accusations. Here we are, bring them, the worst that could happen is that we will arrive at the truth concerning either what she said, or what you claim.
: Amo Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 17:01:34
Ignorance is as ignorance does, or says I guess. William Miller did not form a denomination that I know of, he was a Baptist. Correct me if I am wrong, perhaps I am ignorant upon this point. All denominations believe they have the truth of course. Why would anyone choose to be in a denomination they did not believe had the truth. Nevertheless the SDA denomination has always believed the vast majority of God's true faithful reside in other denominations or even religions, thus our prophetic message from God calling His people out of Babylon.
(Color change is mine) Either you are doing a cover-up or you have not read what the church has believed about all the members of other churches. If we don't submit to the teachings of the SDA church we are bound for Hell.
These great example prove What I write: It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}
But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}
No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}
All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}
Our denomination is not based upon EGW. The vast majority of our beliefs were around before our denomination existed. Our biblical seventh day sabbath truth was given to us by a Seventh Day Baptist. Our belief in the imminent second coming of Christ was and is still shared by many other Christians. Our biblical understanding of the sleep of the dead was believed by many long before us. Much of our prophetic beliefs are those built upon the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers themsleves.
Excuse me if I am wrong, but haven't you told us that you are not SDA? It was Ellen's prophetic stamp of approval that sealed the doe lies you say EGW told[/quote],
Thanks Amo, that will take a while to get accomplished.
as many others have on these boards as well. Most of which were based upon the same kind of ignorance you just demonstrated in the post I am addressing, or the manipulation of her words unto the ends of those bringing forth their accusations.
You are of course free to point out there we are, bring them, the worst that could happen is that we will arrive at the truth concerning either what she said, or what you claim.
Be assured we will and of course you will be in denial as always.
Either you are doing a cover-up or you have not read what the church has believed about all the members of other churches. If we don't submit to the teachings of the SDA church we are bound for Hell.
You mean the lake of fire don't you, SDA's don't believe in hell. As a former SDA, you know this of course. Those who have heard and understand the truth, and reject the same, are of course lost souls.
These great example prove What I write: It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}
Of course God will honor those who honor Him. This is a no brainer. God Himself has pronounced a blessing upon those Jews or Gentiles who will honor His Sabbath. You have been presented with the scriptures which testify of this, you simply reject them, and then claim EGW made this distinction instead of God. This is your own major malfunction, not EGW's. She simply believed God's word and reiterated the truths expounded within them, which you deny. Here read the scriptures again for yourself. Deny what you will, it will change nothing.
Isa 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice:
for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it;
that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4
For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give
them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants,
every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}
Another no brainer. Those who reject the truths of God's word, in favor of satanic lies or counterfeits, cannot be saved. Duh! Do you claim it to be otherwise?
2 Th 2:1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him,
whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.You are simply one of those who have received not the love of the truth, and choose to believe a lie. Therefore do you reject the authority of God's commandments, and His sabbath. Saying the former produce death, as though God were the author of it, and the latter is only observed by the deceived. So be it. May God judge between us.
No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
There it is. Straight out of God's mouth, and written with His own finger. Disregard it at your own peril according to your false gospel if you wish.
Isa 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. 12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.13
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.Which one of us is the one who denies that which the mouth of the Lord has spoken in the scriptures above? Which of our gospels denies the above scriptures and the others we just examined concerning God's sabbath? Which gospel makes the teachings of the Apostle Paul contradict those of the other prophets of scripture, and even the words of Jesus Christ Himself which I have shared with you many times over? It is your gospel even according to your own false understanding that there can no be separation or difference between the ten commandments of God and all the other laws and regs. given to literal Israel during the OT. If such is true and the plain statements to the contrary in the NT are to be ignored, then you and I and all should be keeping all of them. This is not true though, these are the babbling's of a false gospel. So be it.
All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}
All these statements are just so many no brainers. Of course all will be judged according to the light they had concerning all subjects, including God's sabbath. This statement would be true even if you were correct and I was wrong, which neither of us are.
Excuse me if I am wrong, but haven't you told us that you are not SDA? It was Ellen's prophetic stamp of approval that sealed the doe lies you say EGW told,
Thanks Amo, that will take a while to get accomplished.
Your last statement above doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps you could expound. I have said I no longer attend an SDA church because I could go to any Christian church to hear the generic sermons preached in the ones near by I could attend. Nor will I hear the once distinctive prophetic message which the church used to give. Not to mention the continual slide into apostasy steadily progressing within the same. As is obvious, I do not rely on the, or a denomination to maintain that which I believe. I have the scriptures, which even EGW repeatedly said were the final word on all matters. Which is why I continually refer to them, and not EGW. Strange thing that it is, you and others bring her up continuously, while accusing me and SDA's of being reliant upon her. She seems to be much more of a crutch to your arguments than mine. So be it.
Be assured we will and of course you will be in denial as always.
Yes, no doubt we will both continue to deny the others testimony as false. So be it. God will judge between us.
The short answer is NO, SDA beliefs are not based off of Ellen G. White. The longer answer is the beliefs are based off the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneer's - Ellen simply confirmed those anti-trinitarian beliefs with rapid-fire visions.
: Cathlodox Mon May 04, 2020 - 22:36:49
The short answer is NO, SDA beliefs are not based off of Ellen G. White. The longer answer is the beliefs are based off the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneer's - Ellen simply confirmed those anti-trinitarian beliefs with rapid-fire visions.
"Our position on the Testimonies (Mrs. White's writings) is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone. Nothing is surer than this, that this message and the visions (of Mrs. White ) belong together" (Review and Herald, Supplement, August 14, 1883).
: current occupant2 Tue May 05, 2020 - 14:59:42
"Our position on the Testimonies (Mrs. White's writings) is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone. Nothing is surer than this, that this message and the visions (of Mrs. White ) belong together" (Review and Herald, Supplement, August 14, 1883).
Yes, that's accurate.
Ellen was initially a Methodist and agreed with the Methodist Fundamental Beliefs (Including the Trinity)...
...Ellen and her family were dismissed from the Methodist Church over a discipline issue.
...Shortly after that ejection Ellen married James White.
James White was a militant anti-trinitarian who maintained Jesus was NOT God...
...Ellen White surrendered her former Methodist beliefs and agreed with James.
...The two of them (James & Ellen White) were directly responsible.
....For the following statements.
"...there is ONLY ONE GOD, The Father".
"But it [the Bible] does emphatically say that there is ONLY one God, The Father".
"Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on
the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destrtmtive error".
These types of statements were the teachings of the SDA Pioneers....
...Ellen White confirmed them in her writings.
: Cathlodox Tue May 05, 2020 - 20:10:41
Yes, that's accurate.
Ellen was initially a Methodist and agreed with the Methodist Fundamental Beliefs (Including the Trinity)...
...Ellen and her family were dismissed from the Methodist Church over a discipline issue.
...Shortly after that ejection Ellen married James White.
James White was a militant anti-trinitarian who maintained Jesus was NOT God...
...Ellen White surrendered her former Methodist beliefs and agreed with James.
...The two of them (James & Ellen White) were directly responsible.
....For the following statements.
"...there is ONLY ONE GOD, The Father".
"But it [the Bible] does emphatically say that there is ONLY one God, The Father".
"Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on
the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destrtmtive error".
These types of statements were the teachings of the SDA Pioneers....
...Ellen White confirmed them in her writings.
Yes, Seventh-day Adventists believe that the atonement on the cross was "complete" but it was not completed at that time.
Here is the statement of a noted sda theologian during the discussions leading up to the adoption of the sda fundamental Beliefs (#9 to be specific).
Dr. Murdoch PhD was dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Andrews University theological seminary beginning in 1959.
Neal Wilson was president of the North American division of seventh Day Adventists and went on to become the president of the worldwide general conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
W. G. C. MURDOCH: "Mr. Chairman, we hold to a complete atonement, but not a completed atonement. That is the crux of the question."
NEAL C. WILSON: "Very good."
Christ's atonement for humanity was complete. His atonement in individual lives cannot be complete until or unless the individual accepts this truth and Him as their personal Savior. The work of atonement for God's people is the giving of the gospel of Jesus Christ, unto atonement for all who accept. Though Christ's atonement was complete, the work of atonement goes forward always until the end.
: Cathlodox Mon May 04, 2020 - 22:36:49
The short answer is NO, SDA beliefs are not based off of Ellen G. White. The longer answer is the beliefs are based off the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneer's - Ellen simply confirmed those anti-trinitarian beliefs with rapid-fire visions.
We believe in, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I don't know about others, but I care not about being accepted into any trinitarian creed. I believe scripture, not creeds.
: Amo Fri May 08, 2020 - 12:15:03
We believe in, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I don't know about others, but I care not about being accepted into any trinitarian creed. I believe scripture, not creeds.
I believe you've summarized the issue Amo - A creed defines ones beliefs....
...The early SDA's (including Ellen) believed ONLY the Father was God.
...& the Father formed a new Personality out of his own flesh.
...& named it Michael the archangel.
Thus the early SDA's had zero problems in saying Michael Christ was "Divine" because they believed he was...
...Because Michael Christ was made out of the same flesh matter as was the Father.
...This was the way the SDA's rolled.
Now, I grant that today you don't hear much about Father God having a hominid flesh body from SDA's...
...I would agree that generally the SDA Church moved away from militantly teaching that doctrine.
...The point was that they did - with incredible vigor I would add.
...Until literally 1930.
: Cathlodox Sat May 09, 2020 - 01:37:11
I believe you've summarized the issue Amo - A creed defines ones beliefs....
...The early SDA's (including Ellen) believed ONLY the Father was God.
...& the Father formed a new Personality out of his own flesh.
...& named it Michael the archangel.
Thus the early SDA's had zero problems in saying Michael Christ was "Divine" because they believed he was...
...Because Michael Christ was made out of the same flesh matter as was the Father.
...This was the way the SDA's rolled.
Now, I grant that today you don't hear much about Father God having a hominid flesh body from SDA's...
...I would agree that generally the SDA Church moved away from militantly teaching that doctrine.
...The point was that they did - with incredible vigor I would add.
...Until literally 1930.
A load of pure crap. Some early SDA's had different idea's about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This having to do no doubt to the early denomination being formed by many from varying denominations and beliefs. EGW and her family were Methodists before accepting William Miller's prophetic interpretations, and Miller was a baptist. Are you saying Methodists and Baptists believed only the Father was God? Apart from this the writings of EGW herself completely contradict the drivel you spewed from your finger tips in the above quoted post.
: Amo Sat May 09, 2020 - 10:24:33
A load of pure crap. Some early SDA's had different idea's about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This having to do no doubt to the early denomination being formed by many from varying denominations and beliefs. EGW and her family were Methodists before accepting William Miller's prophetic interpretations, and Miller was a baptist. Are you saying Methodists and Baptists believed only the Father was God? Apart from this the writings of EGW herself completely contradict the drivel you spewed from your finger tips in the above quoted post.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
William Miller's prophetic schema attracted people from all kinds of denominations...
...& after Miller formally announced his errors he urged people to return to their churches.
...Leaving ONLY those individuals who didn't have a Church to go back to.
I.E. the anti trinitarians.
Ellen White's Family was dismissed from the "Methodist" Church in September of 1843...
...& Yes, both the Methodist & Baptist Churches are "solidly" Trinitarian in Doctrine.
...Ellen married James White (a rabid anti-Trinitarian) on August 1846.
...Ellen's tune pertaining to the Trinity changed rapidly after being bedded down by James.
This is not drivel Amo, its fact.
Below are a few facts, not exhaustive, just representative.
"
Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in Christ's own speech; for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning".
Present Truth December 18, 1890You saw where it says "Christ's PERSONALITY had a beginning" as contrasted with God (Father ONLY) who had no beginning? Its important you see this and understand what it is if you don't already know about it. The Personality of God Doctrine was defined by SDA's when Ellen White was alive to mean that Father God had a flesh, bone and organ body in hominid shape AND that ONLY the Father was God. I can assure you that this teaching is not able to be reconciled with the Trinity Doctrine - and the SDA's were most frank and upfront about it.
"
We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of. God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion".
Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871 No. 26SDA's believed that Ellen White's inspired testimonies refuted the Trinity Doctrine, period.
So much was written about this subject during the period Ellen White was alive and exercising her prophetic ministry to deny it can only be from ignorance of the facts or dishonestly.
My point in posting this isn't to point out that SDA's were teaching blatant heresy throughout Ellen White's life but to reach SDA's and simply show them the truth and pose the question that IF it can be shown that Ellen White was in fact teaching heretical errors when she was alive would it not be logical to consider she may have been mistaken on some of the other things she doubled down on? I'm speaking of the some of the other "distinctive teachings" promulgated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. SDA's don't have anything to fear from other Christians and they absolutely don't need to worry about other Christians hunting them down to torture and kill them because they have a special devotion to Saturn's day (Saturday).
: Cathlodox Sun May 10, 2020 - 01:32:12
That's not what I'm saying at all.
William Miller's prophetic schema attracted people from all kinds of denominations...
...& after Miller formally announced his errors he urged people to return to their churches.
...Leaving ONLY those individuals who didn't have a Church to go back to.
I.E. the anti trinitarians.
Ellen White's Family was dismissed from the "Methodist" Church in September of 1843...
...& Yes, both the Methodist & Baptist Churches are "solidly" Trinitarian in Doctrine.
...Ellen married James White (a rabid anti-Trinitarian) on August 1846.
...Ellen's tune pertaining to the Trinity changed rapidly after being bedded down by James.
This is not drivel Amo, its fact.
Below are a few facts, not exhaustive, just representative.
"Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in Christ's own speech; for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning". Present Truth December 18, 1890
You saw where it says "Christ's PERSONALITY had a beginning" as contrasted with God (Father ONLY) who had no beginning? Its important you see this and understand what it is if you don't already know about it. The Personality of God Doctrine was defined by SDA's when Ellen White was alive to mean that Father God had a flesh, bone and organ body in hominid shape AND that ONLY the Father was God. I can assure you that this teaching is not able to be reconciled with the Trinity Doctrine - and the SDA's were most frank and upfront about it.
"We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of. God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion". Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871 No. 26
SDA's believed that Ellen White's inspired testimonies refuted the Trinity Doctrine, period.
So much was written about this subject during the period Ellen White was alive and exercising her prophetic ministry to deny it can only be from ignorance of the facts or dishonestly.
My point in posting this isn't to point out that SDA's were teaching blatant heresy throughout Ellen White's life but to reach SDA's and simply show them the truth and pose the question that IF it can be shown that Ellen White was in fact teaching heretical errors when she was alive would it not be logical to consider she may have been mistaken on some of the other things she doubled down on? I'm speaking of the some of the other "distinctive teachings" promulgated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. SDA's don't have anything to fear from other Christians and they absolutely don't need to worry about other Christians hunting them down to torture and kill them because they have a special devotion to Saturn's day (Saturday).
More totally twisted crap no doubt. I will find your quotes in their proper context, and no doubt reveal the manipulation applied. I could easily produce several quotes from EGW which completely contradict your above claim, which I have already shared on these boards many times over. Still I know you would and probably already do simply choose to ignore them so you can continue to push the above crap. So be it.
"Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in Christ's own speech; for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning". Present Truth December 18, 1890
Please share your source for the above quote you supplied. I am not able to find such a quote. Was it on line, or in a printed article?
: Amo
More totally twisted crap no doubt. I will find your quotes in their proper context, and no doubt reveal the manipulation applied. I could easily produce several quotes from EGW which completely contradict your above claim, which I have already shared on these boards many times over. Still I know you would and probably already do simply choose to ignore them so you can continue to push the above crap. So be it.
I'm not understanding why you're taking this tact unless its because I'm sharing something with you that you already knew about? I can appreciate how exposing how quoting the SDA's 2nd most famous Anti-Trinitarian saying he believed in the Divinity of Christ would cause someone to question Ellen White's identical statements. I can understand that. Below are a few sources that contain the quote you yearned to see in context. Followed by some others.
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/PT/PT18901218-V06-26.pdf(
page 9 of 16 / The Divinity of Christ)
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18890408-V15-14.pdf(
page 6 of 16)
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/BEST/BEST18891001-V04-19.pdf(page 9 of 16)
SDA's while Ellen White lived denied the doctrine of the atonement on the cross.
"
That trinitarianism is thus responsible for much of this unbelief must be apparent to those who are not themselves unwilling to reason from cause to effect. Another result of this doctrine is a serious difficulty in the question of the atonement. If Christ and the Father constitute only one person, and Christ died for our race, the death of God is thereby involved, and consequently a denial of his immortality ; and, worse than all this, the unavoidable conclusion, that for the period of time in which Christ lay in the tomb, the universe had no God to uphold and govern it.
To be sure, this is evaded, as a noted American D. D. confesses, " by a dodge," in which it is asserted that only the human part of Christ died. But this does not help the matter in the least, for if that were true, then we have only a human offering .or sacrifice, and we might as well take sides with the Unitarian at once, in denying the divine atonement. With such confusion as this to represent Christianity, it is no wonder that the heathen get a degraded idea of God, as evidenced in the reply of the Chinaman to the Jew, who was reviling his nationality. Thinking
to retort upon him as severely as possible -he replied: "Ah I me know you ; you kill the Melican man's God." How much better it would be to accept the doctrine of the distinct individuality and personality of the Father and the Son, confessing them " one" in heart, mind and purpose, and thus avoid the jargon of confusion always attendant upon erroneous doctrine. Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error."
Sabbath Herald Popular Errors and their Fruits page 5 of http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18650829-V26-13.pdfIn what way have I misrepresented the materials?
: Cathlodox Sun May 10, 2020 - 18:59:26
I'm not understanding why you're taking this tact unless its because I'm sharing something with you that you already knew about? I can appreciate how exposing how quoting the SDA's 2nd most famous Anti-Trinitarian saying he believed in the Divinity of Christ would cause someone to question Ellen White's identical statements. I can understand that. Below are a few sources that contain the quote you yearned to see in context. Followed by some others.
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/PT/PT18901218-V06-26.pdf
(page 9 of 16 / The Divinity of Christ)
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18890408-V15-14.pdf
(page 6 of 16)
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/BEST/BEST18891001-V04-19.pdf
(page 9 of 16)
SDA's while Ellen White lived denied the doctrine of the atonement on the cross.
"That trinitarianism is thus responsible for much of this unbelief must be apparent to those who are not themselves unwilling to reason from cause to effect. Another result of this doctrine is a serious difficulty in the question of the atonement. If Christ and the Father constitute only one person, and Christ died for our race, the death of God is thereby involved, and consequently a denial of his immortality ; and, worse than all this, the unavoidable conclusion, that for the period of time in which Christ lay in the tomb, the universe had no God to uphold and govern it.
To be sure, this is evaded, as a noted American D. D. confesses, " by a dodge," in which it is asserted that only the human part of Christ died. But this does not help the matter in the least, for if that were true, then we have only a human offering .or sacrifice, and we might as well take sides with the Unitarian at once, in denying the divine atonement. With such confusion as this to represent Christianity, it is no wonder that the heathen get a degraded idea of God, as evidenced in the reply of the Chinaman to the Jew, who was reviling his nationality. Thinking
to retort upon him as severely as possible -he replied: "Ah I me know you ; you kill the Melican man's God." How much better it would be to accept the doctrine of the distinct individuality and personality of the Father and the Son, confessing them " one" in heart, mind and purpose, and thus avoid the jargon of confusion always attendant upon erroneous doctrine. Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error." Sabbath Herald Popular Errors and their Fruits page 5 of http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18650829-V26-13.pdf
In what way have I misrepresented the materials?
Only one of the links you provided is from 1890 as you quoted. Still there are 16 pages to go through looking for your quote. I will sift through your rubbish when I have a little more time.
Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is en- titled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to over- throw the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in Christ's own speech ; for it is most posi- tively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning. Then, too, the statement is emphatically true in view of the position which Christ had assumed. He " emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." Phil. 2 : 7, Revised Version. He was "made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Heb. 2 : 9. In order to redeem men, He had to come where they were. In order to become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, He must come into active sympathy with us through the same experiences of suffering that His people are called upon to endure. " It behoved Him to be made in all points like unto His brethren." Through His hu- manity He felt the fulness of human woe. He did not lay aside His divinity, but He laid aside His glory, and veiled His divinity with humanity. So His statement, " My Father is greater than I," is perfectly consistent with the claim, made by Him- self as well as by all who wrote of Him, that He was and is God.
E . J . W .
There is your quote with more context. The comment about Christ's personality having a beginning was in relation to His human nature which did have a beginning, as the entire context plainly reveals. If you read the article you knew this and simply chose to ignore it, or perhaps you got the quote elsewhere and then found it after I asked. In any case, it is as I suggested, twisted rubbish. I will have to look into the initials E.J.W. to see who that was. It certainly was not EGW, maybe James White, but I do not know what the E. stands for if so. Look at the rest of your rubbish later.
: Amo
There is your quote with more context. The comment about Christ's personality having a beginning was in relation to His human nature which did have a beginning, as the entire context plainly reveals. If you read the article you knew this and simply chose to ignore it, or perhaps you got the quote elsewhere and then found it after I asked. In any case, it is as I suggested, twisted rubbish. I will have to look into the initials E.J.W. to see who that was. It certainly was not EGW, maybe James White, but I do not know what the E. stands for if so. Look at the rest of your rubbish later.
You didn't read that very well.
"The Father is first IN POINT OF TIME". Incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine.
&
"He is also greater in that He [The Father] had no beginning". Incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine.
"WHILE Christ's personality had a beginning". Read that over again -
Christ's PERSONALITY.
The "
PERSONALITY" being referenced here ISN'T about the human nature. That's the whole point of the SDA "Personality of God Doctrine" - that the Father was eternally a flesh and blood hominid with every organ and member of a perfect man. Michael and Lucifer the archangels were also flesh hominids.
You are familiar with Ellen White's writings I assume?
"Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty". Ellen White
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (page 2)
If Christ didn't TOW THE ROPE & remain loyal His Deity COULD BE LOST. Incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926
He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation
Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will
Ellen White, DA 131
Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not ONLY became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure AND eternal loss
Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.
You could not configure a hypothetical situation whereas the Father would eternally cease to Exist - simply because the Father is "GOD".
Ellen White was explicit in that ONLY the Father was God in the ultimate sense.
"And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statement".
&
"But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is". Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780829-V52-10.pdf (Personality of God article)
Realize that Ellen White was personally responsible for those statements - she revised Canright's article so that it would read the way it did.
You're to full of crap Cathlodox, to even continue addressing the lies you are propagating. Instead of trying to address your endless twisting and turning of others words and intents, I will just share what EGW and others have actually said in context regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that all may see for themselves how you twist and turn the words of others unto your own ends of false testimony. There will be no excuse in the end for those who chose to bear flesh witness against others. We'll begin with the following.
The Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900, par. 2
Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send me." He could pledge himself to become man's surety; for he could say that which the highest angel could not say,—I have power over my own life, "power to lay it down, and ... power to take it again."
The Faith I Live By, Page 46
His Eternal Pre-existence
Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God......His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. (The Faith I Live By, Page 46 His Eternal Pre-existence)
Lift Him Up, Page 16
The Pre-Existence of the Son of God
And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. John 17:5, RSV.
While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.
The world was made by Him, "and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (verse 3). If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. This was no robbery of God. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," He declares, "before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depths" (Proverbs 8:22-27).
Well we can see that Ellen contradicted herself so many times that it is impossible to know what she really believed and what she really taught.
And if Satan (Ellen) rise up against himself (herself), and be divided, (s)he cannot stand, but hath an end.
Mark 3:26
: current occupant2 Tue May 12, 2020 - 11:16:23
Well we can see that Ellen contradicted herself so many times that it is impossible to know what she really believed and what she really taught.
And if Satan (Ellen) rise up against himself (herself), and be divided, (s)he cannot stand, but hath an end.
Mark 3:26
More false witness. If you are correct your will be rewarded. If you are lying you will burn in the lake of fire.
: Amo Tue May 12, 2020 - 11:34:24
More false witness. If you are correct your will be rewarded. If you are lying you will burn in the lake of fire.
The material from. Ellen in your post contradicted the material from Ellen in Cathlodox's post.
YOU just proved that Ellen contradicted herself!! LOLOL
Amo, the SDA's during the lifetime of Ellen White believed that Christ was "God essentially and in the highest sense".
The SDA Pioneers that even you would admit were anti-Trinitarian said as much, literally the same way.
The SDA understanding was that God MADE Christ out of Himself (similar to how Eve was made from a part of Adam). This is why (and how) Ellen could look heaven-ward and proclaim "in him was life original, unborrowed, underived", OF COURSE it was, SDA's believed it was the LIFE (Deity) OF THE FATHER that was ON LOAN to Christ and was His to retain provided he didn't screw up.
I've already provided you with multiple statements by Ellen White that prove that she was anti-Trinitarian - what I'm asking you to do is acknowledge that fact and simply consider if she was wrong about THAT than its reasonable to conclude that she was wrong about some other things as well.
: current occupant2 Tue May 12, 2020 - 15:35:11
The material from. Ellen in your post contradicted the material from Ellen in Cathlodox's post.
YOU just proved that Ellen contradicted herself!! LOLOL
Same old same old same old from both of you. I've been playing this same game for years now with you and others. If or when I take the time to prove once again that you have taken others words out of context it will mean nothing to you. You will not admit of your false witness, but just move on to the next false witness. So be it. God will bring all witness into judgment sooner than most think. I don't think we will have to wait so very long for this matter and all others to be resolved.
: Amo Wed May 13, 2020 - 22:10:24
Same old same old same old from both of you. I've been playing this same game for years now with you and others. If or when I take the time to prove once again that you have taken others words out of context it will mean nothing to you. You will not admit of your false witness, but just move on to the next false witness. So be it. God will bring all witness into judgment sooner than most think. I don't think we will have to wait so very long for this matter and all others to be resolved.
You have never taken the time to prove that any statement from Ellen that we have posted is out of context.
You have, however, told us several times that this is a game that you are playing with us.
We have never said or claimed that this is a game.
: current occupant2 Wed May 13, 2020 - 22:15:20
You have never taken the time to prove that any statement from Ellen that we have posted is out of context.
You have, however, told us several times that this is a game that you are playing with us.
We have never said or claimed that this is a game.
This lie too, you will answer to God for, regardless of who is right or wrong. No lie is, has been, or ever can be spoken with impunity before God. Your above statement is an easily proved lie, I suggest you repent, and lie no more.
: Amo Wed May 13, 2020 - 22:33:43
This lie too, you will answer to God for, regardless of who is right or wrong. No lie is, has been, or ever can be spoken with impunity before God. Your above statement is an easily proved lie, I suggest you repent, and lie no more.
Hollow threats from one who ascribes to the teaching of a false prophet named Ellen White.
I don't think I've witnessed anything written from Amo that repudiated Ellen White's teaching that ONLY the Father is God in the ultimate sense. I don't think any SDA has addressed if a person had and lost deity WHERE that deity would go? These are simple and fair questions and shouldn't be an issue for one that throws rocks at other religions and accuses them of being aligned Lucifer, claims to have the "real key" of Bible prophecy, etc. All this stuff looks to be a canard.
: current occupant2 Wed May 13, 2020 - 23:42:46
Hollow threats from one who ascribes to the teaching of a false prophet named Ellen White.
They are not my threats. The scriptures testify that all liars will burn in the lake of fire. That means at least one of us will certainly end up there, if not both of us seeing that all humanity are liars. Those alone who are truly in Christ will be spared.
: Cathlodox Thu May 14, 2020 - 10:33:46
I don't think I've witnessed anything written from Amo that repudiated Ellen White's teaching that ONLY the Father is God in the ultimate sense. I don't think any SDA has addressed if a person had and lost deity WHERE that deity would go? These are simple and fair questions and shouldn't be an issue for one that throws rocks at other religions and accuses them of being aligned Lucifer, claims to have the "real key" of Bible prophecy, etc. All this stuff looks to be a canard.
You have never shown a quote from EGW where she says only the Father is God in the ultimate sense. Only out of context statements which you personally interpret to mean such. I have supplied many quotes where EGW irrefutably states that Christ is fully God and the self existing one with no beginning or end. You simply choose to ignore such, which itself is choosing ignorance. There is a reason the first five letters of the word ignorance are the same as the word ignore. Apparently, you simply do not believe that Christ became fully man, and therefore was not subject to all the same things that we are, such as death. Which of course means that He did not truly die for us, which creates all kinds if problems for His gospel. Tell us Cathlodox, just exactly who did die for humanity, if God could not, and how are we saved by or through that death?
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
So Cathlodox, was Jesus fully man and fully God? Which one died for us? Did both? What happened to Jesus divinity when He died, if He as God did die for us? Could we be saved by anyone but God dying for us? Just exactly what are you saying and claiming in your above statement?
: Amo
You have never shown a quote from EGW where she says only the Father is God in the ultimate sense. Only out of context statements which you personally interpret to mean such. I have supplied many quotes where EGW irrefutably states that Christ is fully God and the self existing one with no beginning or end. You simply choose to ignore such, which itself is choosing ignorance.
Lets put an end to you saying this Amo.
Sabbath Herald August 29, 1878How the doctrine of the trinity, of three Gods, can be reconciled with these positive statements I do not know. It seems to me that nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the trinity, than do the scriptures above quoted. And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible.
The above D.M. Canright anti-Trinitarian article was revised and Edited by Ellen White and her Husband...
...It's just foolish to assert that D.M. Canright AND Ellen White were in favor of the Trinity doctrine.
....It's also foolish to claim Canright didn't know what he was talking about in his book SDAism renounced.
....Where he was very clear SDA's didn't hold to the Trinity Doctrine.
"
In Doctrine they differ RADICALLY from Evangelical Churches. The main points are these: THEY REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY; hold to the materiality of all things...." (see: page 31 of the viewer or 25 of the actual book:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112069956131&view=1up&seq=31Ellen White was directly responsible for the above reading the way it did...
...Along with her Husband James White - who literally DROWNED in EGW's writings.
...James White unequivocally understood Ellen's "prophetic gift" to
repudiate the Trinity.
Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of. God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way.
These are not pot shots - they are simply the facts.
: Amo
o Cathlodox, was Jesus fully man and fully God? Which one died for us? Did both? What happened to Jesus divinity when He died, if He as God did die for us? Could we be saved by anyone but God dying for us? Just exactly what are you saying and claiming in your above statement?
"
When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus died. Jesus is both God and man. Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross that means God died on the cross. But we do need to be careful because it is nuanced. When we say that Mary gave birth to Jesus and therefore she is the mother of God we are not saying that God began at that moment of birth. In a similar way, when we say that God died on the cross we mean that Jesus died on the cross but not that divinity somehow died on the cross".
Catholic Answers https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-god-die-on-the-cross[/b]
The Eastern Orthodox position is the same:
"
The Orthodox can say without question that God died. Note, however, that this in no way implies that God ceased to exist or ceased to function. However, He, through the Hypostatic Union, suffered death, having His Soul separated from His Flesh".
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56952/according-to-orthodox-christianity-did-god-die-on-the-cross-at-calvaryEllen White and the other Pioneering Seventh-day Adventists categorically rejected Creedal Christianity - to them the Council of Nicea was a "blasphemous" affront to Father God and his Son Michael the archangel. Its my understanding that the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. accept Nicea as systematizing Scripture - i.e. they believe the Nicene Creed summarizes what the Bible teaches pertaining to God being one Substance that's equally possessed by three separate Persons - this was believed and taught to be "eternally" the case. Again, this was all blasphemy to SDA's who militantly taught that ONLY the Father was God and that God created a new PERSONALITY (body of flesh) for Michael the archangel out of God's own flesh body.
So, in answer to your question YES, God died in as much as God can die. God became man WITHOUT CEASING to be God so when Jesus died on the cross God actually experienced it. The difference between creedal or Apostolic Christianity is that Christians don't believe that God lied dead and cold in the grave for three days - Christians believe that Jesus' soul went exactly to where the Bible says it went - there was not one mili-second of separation between the members of the Trinity.
: Cathlodox Sun May 17, 2020 - 22:49:07
Lets put an end to you saying this Amo.
Sabbath Herald August 29, 1878
How the doctrine of the trinity, of three Gods, can be reconciled with these positive statements I do not know. It seems to me that nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the trinity, than do the scriptures above quoted. And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible.
The above D.M. Canright anti-Trinitarian article was revised and Edited by Ellen White and her Husband...
...It's just foolish to assert that D.M. Canright AND Ellen White were in favor of the Trinity doctrine.
....It's also foolish to claim Canright didn't know what he was talking about in his book SDAism renounced.
....Where he was very clear SDA's didn't hold to the Trinity Doctrine.
"In Doctrine they differ RADICALLY from Evangelical Churches. The main points are these: THEY REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY; hold to the materiality of all things...." (see: page 31 of the viewer or 25 of the actual book: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112069956131&view=1up&seq=31
Ellen White was directly responsible for the above reading the way it did...
...Along with her Husband James White - who literally DROWNED in EGW's writings.
...James White unequivocally understood Ellen's "prophetic gift" to repudiate the Trinity.
Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871
We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of. God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way.
These are not pot shots - they are simply the facts.
You haven't put an end to anything. Nothing above has stated that only the Father is God in the ultimate sense. Just a bunch of gibberish and quotes put together and assembled to prove a point I don't even care about. The word trinity does not appear anywhere in scripture, nor do I or a great many others care anything about accepting the term and or the varying definitions applied to it. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We worship the one and only true God whom each of them is. Let others squabble, argue, and even kill each other as they have over things not yet explained by God regarding the same. I am not interested. Think, say, and accuse as you will. I care nothing for trinity doctrines.
: Cathlodox Tue May 19, 2020 - 00:32:18
"When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus died. Jesus is both God and man. Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross that means God died on the cross. But we do need to be careful because it is nuanced. When we say that Mary gave birth to Jesus and therefore she is the mother of God we are not saying that God began at that moment of birth. In a similar way, when we say that God died on the cross we mean that Jesus died on the cross but not that divinity somehow died on the cross". Catholic Answers https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-god-die-on-the-cross[/b]
The Eastern Orthodox position is the same:
"The Orthodox can say without question that God died. Note, however, that this in no way implies that God ceased to exist or ceased to function. However, He, through the Hypostatic Union, suffered death, having His Soul separated from His Flesh". https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56952/according-to-orthodox-christianity-did-god-die-on-the-cross-at-calvary
Ellen White and the other Pioneering Seventh-day Adventists categorically rejected Creedal Christianity - to them the Council of Nicea was a "blasphemous" affront to Father God and his Son Michael the archangel. Its my understanding that the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. accept Nicea as systematizing Scripture - i.e. they believe the Nicene Creed summarizes what the Bible teaches pertaining to God being one Substance that's equally possessed by three separate Persons - this was believed and taught to be "eternally" the case. Again, this was all blasphemy to SDA's who militantly taught that ONLY the Father was God and that God created a new PERSONALITY (body of flesh) for Michael the archangel out of God's own flesh body.
So, in answer to your question YES, God died in as much as God can die. God became man WITHOUT CEASING to be God so when Jesus died on the cross God actually experienced it. The difference between creedal or Apostolic Christianity is that Christians don't believe that God lied dead and cold in the grave for three days - Christians believe that Jesus' soul went exactly to where the Bible says it went - there was not one mili-second of separation between the members of the Trinity.
I thought you said God cannot die. I care nothing for "Creedal Christianity". Yet another term found nowhere in scripture.
You have to read through things a little better.
"God died in-as-much as God can die".... & ... "there was not one mili-second of separation between the members of the Trinity".
Understand that you (Adventists in general) have poured new and alien definitions into long ago established terms. Your idea of what God is - is radically different than Apostolic Christianity's truth is. Moreover the Adventist understanding of death is radically different than that of Apostolic Christianity as well as Judaism's during the time of Christ. The massive re-definition of established terms is where most the confusion comes from.
: Cathlodox Sat May 23, 2020 - 12:12:30
You have to read through things a little better.
"God died in-as-much as God can die".... & ... "there was not one mili-second of separation between the members of the Trinity".
Understand that you (Adventists in general) have poured new and alien definitions into long ago established terms. Your idea of what God is - is radically different than Apostolic Christianity's truth is. Moreover the Adventist understanding of death is radically different than that of Apostolic Christianity as well as Judaism's during the time of Christ. The massive re-definition of established terms is where most the confusion comes from.
The pot calling the kettle black once again.
Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?Mar 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?Yes I know well that the Catholic denomination has very different ideas about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than scripture itself presents. Nevertheless, Christ did actually experience the separation from His Father that all the wicked will feel after judgement as well. It could be no other way, He came to pay the penalty for our sins. Your Christ is not the same as my Christ. He was born to God and a sinless mother who was unlike any other human being, and therefore was nothing like the rest of us. Nor did He die the death which we deserve in paying the penalty for our sins, as my Savior has. So be it.
You said -
"Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty". Ellen White
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (page 2)
If Christ didn't TOW THE ROPE & remain loyal His Deity COULD BE LOST. Incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
You are the one who said God dying was incompatible with your Trinity doctrine. This is your problem because of that doctrine, not mine. Jesus Christ was and is God, and He died for our sins, this is our salvation. You are the one who rejects this, not me. It is your trinity doctrine that creates contradictions in scripture, not my scriptural belief in the Father, Son, and Holy ghost. You do not accept scripture which testifies that Christ was tempted in all points as we are by rejecting the notion that God could die for humanity, which He did voluntarily, not me.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels;
but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself
hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
SDA understanding of death is in exact agreement with biblical testimony, we care nothing about what other and or more numerous professed Christians believe, the final word for true Christianity is the word of God.
: Amo Sun May 24, 2020 - 11:13:57
The pot calling the kettle black once again.
Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mar 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Yes I know well that the Catholic denomination has very different ideas about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than scripture itself presents. Nevertheless, Christ did actually experience the separation from His Father that all the wicked will feel after judgement as well. It could be no other way, He came to pay the penalty for our sins. Your Christ is not the same as my Christ. He was born to God and a sinless mother who was unlike any other human being, and therefore was nothing like the rest of us. Nor did He die the death which we deserve in paying the penalty for our sins, as my Savior has. So be it.
You said -
You are the one who said God dying was incompatible with your Trinity doctrine. This is your problem because of that doctrine, not mine. Jesus Christ was and is God, and He died for our sins, this is our salvation. You are the one who rejects this, not me. It is your trinity doctrine that creates contradictions in scripture, not my scriptural belief in the Father, Son, and Holy ghost. You do not accept scripture which testifies that Christ was tempted in all points as we are by rejecting the notion that God could die for humanity, which He did voluntarily, not me.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
SDA understanding of death is in exact agreement with biblical testimony, we care nothing about what other and or more numerous professed Christians believe, the final word for true Christianity is the word of God.
Amo , I am staying out of this one as I consider it case closed.
I agree with you in your "Nevertheless, Christ did actually experience the separation from His Father that all the wicked will feel after judgement as well."
for we all know that had to be longer then a nano-second. That is biblical and also in the Catholic bible.
But can you explain if " Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity."
what is meant by
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If the deity was only on loan, how could it be that the Son would be included in so important a covenant or sacrament, depending on your specific church? (Mine says sacrement)
: Rella Sun May 24, 2020 - 11:32:09
Amo , I am staying out of this one as I consider it case closed.
I agree with you in your "Nevertheless, Christ did actually experience the separation from His Father that all the wicked will feel after judgement as well."
for we all know that had to be longer then a nano-second. That is biblical and also in the Catholic bible.
But can you explain if " Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity."
what is meant by
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If the deity was only on loan, how could it be that the Son would be included in so important a covenant or sacrament, depending on your specific church? (Mine says sacrement)
I can't keep up with the never ending accusations. Supply the quote which says Christ's deity was on loan, and who said it, and I will either show the proper context it was pulled out of, or deny the statement as the false teaching it most obviously is.
: Amo Sun May 24, 2020 - 12:24:30
I can't keep up with the never ending accusations. Supply the quote which says Christ's deity was on loan, and who said it, and I will either show the proper context it was pulled out of, or deny the statement as the false teaching it most obviously is.
No no no.
Not me
I did not say that.
I said I agreed with youthat Christ was seaprated from the father upon curcifixion and that was longer then a nano second that was suggested by Catholodox.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding if so forgive me..
Correcting myself: Where did this come from?
"You said -
Quote
"Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty". Ellen White
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (page 2)
If Christ didn't TOW THE ROPE & remain loyal His Deity COULD BE LOST. Incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
This is what I was referencing in my
"what is meant by
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If the deity was only on loan, how could it be that the Son would be included in so important a covenant or sacrament, depending on your specific church? (Mine says sacrement)"
Where ever the truth of that statement comes from. It is wrong.
That is all I was meaning to say.
: Rella Sun May 24, 2020 - 12:50:45
No no no.
Not me
I did not say that.
I said I agreed with youthat Christ was seaprated from the father upon curcifixion and that was longer then a nano second that was suggested by Catholodox.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding if so forgive me..
Correcting myself: Where did this come from?
"You said -
Quote
"Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty". Ellen White
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (page 2)
If Christ didn't TOW THE ROPE & remain loyal His Deity COULD BE LOST. Incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore the Deity was ON LOAN from the Father exactly as Ellen White and the other SDA Pioneer's repeatedly said it was. This is also incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
This is what I was referencing in my
"what is meant by
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If the deity was only on loan, how could it be that the Son would be included in so important a covenant or sacrament, depending on your specific church? (Mine says sacrement)"
Where ever the truth of that statement comes from. It is wrong.
That is all I was meaning to say.
I don't think anyone said Christ's deity was on loan, I think this is what Cathlodox presumes EGW meant while suggesting His deity could be lost if He submitted to temptation and sinned. He apparently does not believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ really did risk all, when He came here to do battle with the evil one as one of us. If He could not sin, as in having no choice in the matter because He was God, then He certainly did not really become one of us. Nor could the scriptures ever declare that He was tempted in all points as we are, which it does. If He had fallen and sinned, He could obviously no longer be God. He did in fact risk all to save humanity.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Praise His holy, righteous, pure, and undefiled name.
Amo,
You saw that part of the quote that said:
"But it [the BIBLE] does EMPHATICALLY say that there is only one God, THE FATHER and every argument of the Trinitarians......"
That was what Ellen said, Amo.
As for Ellen and Jesus not being God in the "ultimate sense". Here:
"Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life...."
NOVEMBER 14,1854. R&H
: Cathlodox Fri Jun 26, 2020 - 14:20:50
Amo,
You saw that part of the quote that said:
"But it [the BIBLE] does EMPHATICALLY say that there is only one God, THE FATHER and every argument of the Trinitarians......"
That was what Ellen said, Amo.
As for Ellen and Jesus not being God in the "ultimate sense". Here:
"Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life...."
NOVEMBER 14,1854. R&H
Scripture does say there is only one God. Do you deny this? Maybe I'll look into the above quote for more context, maybe I won't. Not that it matters, even if proved wrong or out of context to your point, you will just move on to another accusation. You waited over a month for the above reply. I'm certainly in no rush to dig down to the bottom of your latest point or accusation.
I'll make it easy for you.
In the ultimate sense
Jesus is not God / pages 1-3 / want you to get the context
https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18541114-V06-14.pdf
I work and sometimes I don't have the time to keep up on the forums - but when I do I post.
: Cathlodox Sat Jun 27, 2020 - 01:25:35
I'll make it easy for you.
In the ultimate sense
Jesus is not God / pages 1-3 / want you to get the context
https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18541114-V06-14.pdf
I work and sometimes I don't have the time to keep up on the forums - but when I do I post.
You have no intention of making anything easy, save perhaps easy viewing of that which you insist means EGW said Jesus is not God. Never mind the gobs of testimony from her to the opposite effect. You hunt and search for anything you may construe unto your own ends, rather than accept the plain simple and numerous testimonies to the opposite effect. So be it, you are of course free to do as you wish.
The Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900, par. 2
Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all heaven.
But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send me." He could pledge himself to become man's surety; for he could say that which the highest angel could not say,—
I have power over my own life, "power to lay it down, and ... power to take it again." The Faith I Live By, Page 46 His Eternal Pre-existence
Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us
that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God....
His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.
Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right.
He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. (The Faith I Live By, Page 46
His Eternal Pre-existence)
Lift Him Up, Page 16 The Pre-Existence of the Son of God
And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. John 17:5, RSV.
While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence.
The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.
The world was made by Him, "and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (verse 3). If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt.
Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. This was no robbery of God. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," He declares, "before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depths" (Proverbs 8:22-27).
There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid.
This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible....
[/b]The Faith I Live By, Page 76 A Saviour From Eternity
The salvation of the human race has ever been the object of the councils of heaven. The covenant of mercy was made before the foundation of the world.
It has existed from all eternity, and is called the everlasting covenant. So surely as there never was a time when God was not, so surely there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to manifest His grace to humanity.
"The Eternal Father, the unchangeable One gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. He is willing to do more, " more than we can ask or think." Ellen White, Sabbath Herald July 9, 1895
Like I've shared with you previously - The Anti-Trinitarian Pioneers and laymen contemporary of Ellen White had ZERO issues with Ellen's statements - because those statements reflected what they believed.
Example of Ellen White's statements: "In Him was life original, unborrowed".
Pioneer understanding: Of course it was life original, it came from the Father - who was "THE UNCHANGEABLE ONE".
is there ANY hypothetical situation you can think of where it could be said that "THE FATHER" could lose His Deity?
Lose Definition: be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something)
Ellen White, 21MR 418.5
"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; THAT would have been impossible.
SDA's, do they not, maintain that Christ was ignorant of anything immediately after His death on the cross? I may have this wrong but I was understanding that SDA's taught that Jesus entered into soul sleep when He died on the cross. Ellen claims that the Deity did not sink and die yet was SEPARARTED from Christ.
If this happened as Ellen claimed where did this "Deity" go?
What happened with Christ's death on the cross sounds identical to what Ellen described would happen to Christ if He sinned & lost His salvation. The only difference between the two was that in the case of Jesus' death on the cross the Deity would again be reunited or as Ellen said MIXED into His glorified human nature while IF Christ would have sinned the loss of Deity (which could not die according to Ellen) would have been a permanent loss.
If Christ's "Deity" wasn't His own individual consubstantial Deity WHO'S WAS IT? Where did that Deity go when Christ died on the cross and did this Deity have an specific identity?
These are fair questions I'm asking.
: Cathlodox Sat Jun 27, 2020 - 20:07:49
"The Eternal Father, the unchangeable One gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. He is willing to do more, " more than we can ask or think." Ellen White, Sabbath Herald July 9, 1895
Like I've shared with you previously - The Anti-Trinitarian Pioneers and laymen contemporary of Ellen White had ZERO issues with Ellen's statements - because those statements reflected what they believed.
Example of Ellen White's statements: "In Him was life original, unborrowed".
Pioneer understanding: Of course it was life original, it came from the Father - who was "THE UNCHANGEABLE ONE".
is there ANY hypothetical situation you can think of where it could be said that "THE FATHER" could lose His Deity?
Lose Definition: be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something)
Ellen White, 21MR 418.5
"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; THAT would have been impossible.
SDA's, do they not, maintain that Christ was ignorant of anything immediately after His death on the cross? I may have this wrong but I was understanding that SDA's taught that Jesus entered into soul sleep when He died on the cross. Ellen claims that the Deity did not sink and die yet was SEPARARTED from Christ.
If this happened as Ellen claimed where did this "Deity" go?
What happened with Christ's death on the cross sounds identical to what Ellen described would happen to Christ if He sinned & lost His salvation. The only difference between the two was that in the case of Jesus' death on the cross the Deity would again be reunited or as Ellen said MIXED into His glorified human nature while IF Christ would have sinned the loss of Deity (which could not die according to Ellen) would have been a permanent loss.
If Christ's "Deity" wasn't His own individual consubstantial Deity WHO'S WAS IT? Where did that Deity go when Christ died on the cross and did this Deity have an specific identity?
These are fair questions I'm asking.
Your first quote above which I will paste below, is backed up by scripture. If you have a problem with it, then you have a problem with scripture.
"The
Eternal Father,
the unchangeable One gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was
made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. He is willing to do more, " more than we can ask or think."
Ellen White, Sabbath Herald July 9, 1895Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again,
when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
I do not mean to offend by stating this, but perhaps your misunderstandings or negative perceptions of what EGW has said, are based upon a lack of knowledge pertaining to what the scriptures themselves have said, which she bases her statements upon. Christ was
made, in the likeness of men, to reveal
the express image of God to men. She merely combined these two scriptural truths into one statement which you quoted. Which you presumed meant something other than that which scripture itself has stated.
As far as the rest of your reasoning above, I would say your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of Christ's mission. Jesus Christ did not come to earth and become a man so that God could die, He came here to provide salvation through the death of fallen humanity, not God. If God died, everything would die. The law demands the death of the sinner not God. Christ provided that death having tasted it for all of humanity as the second Adam and head of the same. He didn't just die the literal death which we all die, He died a continual spiritual death to sin all His life long, which none of us could do. Now, if we accept His death on our behalf, and enter into His experience by faith, we are saved. He provided a way for fallen humanity to die the death the law requires, while saving the life of the repentant sinner who enters into this death by faith. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nitpicking about what happened to divinity when Christ died, which I do not believe the scriptures specifically address, is to entirely miss the point of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Much like the issue of the trinity, you wish to argue and quibble about things which the scriptures do not clearly define, which as far as I can tell is simply missing the point.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about the death of God caused by sin. It is about the death of humanity caused by sin. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not become a man in order to save God from death, but the sinner. He therefore became one of us, and died the death we deserve as one of us, that we by faith might enter into that death and be saved from the death the law demands from us. If we by faith choose to die to the sinner by willfully entering into the sacrificial death provided by our Savior, the penalty of the law will be met, and we can walk in newness of life in Christ. Death came through one man's disobedience unto condemnation, but through the man Jesus Christ's righteousness in obedience to God even to the point of death, justification comes upon all who accept and choose to enter into that death. Now all must choose which man they will follow. Just as all of humanity was in the first Adam when he sinned against God and brought death upon all, so all of humanity was in Christ as the new or second Adam when He died on the cross unto justification for all. We died, not God, and that was the whole point. That all who now choose to do so, may enter into that death, the death of fallen humanity unto salvation.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace...................................
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.Again, we are the one's who need to die, not God. Jesus did not come so that God could die, He came so that we could die to the sinner within, unto newness of life in Christ. The purpose of the cross was not to crucify God Himself, but rather fallen humanity. It was the crucifixion of the man Jesus Christ, who Himself was the express image of the Father in human flesh, according to the mystery of Godliness. That all humanity might have the choice again to return to the image of God in which it was created. Not by the death of God, but by the death of fallen humanity for all who choose so.
1 Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
It does not say that God died in the above mystery, because God did not manifest Himself in the flesh to crucify Himself, but rather to crucify fallen humanity through Himself who alone could do any such thing.
]Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus,
who was made a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God
should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Christ was made a little lower than the angels as a man, for the suffering of death as a man, that He should taste death for all of fallen humanity. Humanities death I say, not God's.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,)
to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.The sacrifice of animals as a type of Christ could not cleanse us from sin, but by faith in what those sacrifices represented. They represented the body prepared for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that body was our body. He came in our body to do the will of God all His life long, ending at the cross according to the will of God I say, that His sacrifice and life might be our sacrifice and life by faith in Him. He did that which we could not do, weak as we are through the flesh which included that which only God could do in laying down His own life and taking it back again. Praise His holy, pure, and undefiled name. We died in Christ Jesus our Lord, not God, and that was the whole point.
Rom 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
God came to condemn sin in the flesh to death, not the sinner or Himself. He came to destroy sin, and thereby save the sinner. He did so by taking our sinful nature or flesh, and living a perfectly righteous life in it, ending in the crucifixion of it. He came to destroy sin, not Himself or sinners. Now all us sinners who choose by faith to be in Him at His death first and foremost, are justified before the law which condemned us to death. Who then are to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus who knew no sin. He died the death we deserve, that we might live the life He alone can impart.
Mt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Mt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.It all begins at the cross for each and every one of us. Will we pick up Christ's cross and follow after Him or not? That cross is about us dying to the sinner self, not God dying. Do we want to be like the first Adam, or the second one Jesus Christ our Lord. Arguing about what happened to God the Son at the cross, rather than focusing on Jesus the second Adam and only man who was the express image of God, is kind of missing the entire point as I see it. The exact nature and relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is not revealed in scripture. Nor is the exact nature and mystery of God in human flesh. Demanding conformity to one's own views relating to such, is somewhat akin to claiming to be God, who alone knows the depths of such mysteries. There is this one man described in scripture apart from Christ though, who claims such insight and authority for himself.
2Th 2:1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
You didn't read that slowly enough.
"Him who was made in the express image of his Person AND SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN"...
That is not speaking of the Incarnation - its speaking of something that was MADE in the express image of the body of "God" [The Father] and then "sent down from heaven".
I can assure you that there is zero Scriptural warrant for that.
: Cathlodox Tue Jun 30, 2020 - 08:41:38
You didn't read that slowly enough.
"Him who was made in the express image of his Person AND SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN"...
That is not speaking of the Incarnation - its speaking of something that was MADE in the express image of the body of "God" [The Father] and then "sent down from heaven".
I can assure you that there is zero Scriptural warrant for that.
I read it just fine, I'm just not reading into it whatever I wish to be there, and adding words to her own in order to establish such, as you do. She did not say "and then" sent down from heaven, these are your words not hers. He was made in the express image of His Father and sent down to earth from heaven, not and then sent down to earth from heaven. I suggest you are the one who needs to read a little slower, and stop adding your own words to those of others.
Joh 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus,
who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Do any think the above references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the scriptures above are talking about something which happened in heaven before Christ came to earth as one of us? Of course not, the scriptures make it plain elsewhere that all such references are in relation to the incarnation to save humanity. Just as EGW made the same plain many times over as well, in her writings. You just choose to ignore all such, in order to support your false accusations. So be it.
I don't think this is a issue anymore as we see it coming true...
: Amo Fri Jul 03, 2020 - 10:36:05Do any think the above references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the scriptures above are talking about something which happened in heaven before Christ came to earth as one of us? Of course not, the scriptures make it plain elsewhere that all such references are in relation to the incarnation to save humanity. Just as EGW made the same plain many times over as well, in her writings. You just choose to ignore all such, in order to support your false accusations. So be it.
This was not directed at me; however, the question is important to me. Do I think the above references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the scriptures above are talking about something which happened in heaven before Christ came to earth as one of us? Absolutely Yes!!
I would ask you, In John 1:14, what was made flesh? What became flesh? Every one of those passages that you highlighted speak of something that preexisted the physical birth of the man Jesus.
So I am not sure what you are trying to say. But it is very obvious in the passages that you posted there that while it does indeed speak of the incarnation, the references also speak to something that existed before the incarnation that became the incarnation. That something was the second person of the Trinity, however you choose to designate Him before He became known as God, the Son.
Are SDA beliefs based on teachings of EGW?
For those beliefs which are different than Orthodox Christian teachings, 100%.
Heavenly Sanctuary Doctrine, health message, Sunday Law, etc.
: 4WD Tue Mar 05, 2024 - 07:11:05This was not directed at me; however, the question is important to me. Do I think the above references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the scriptures above are talking about something which happened in heaven before Christ came to earth as one of us? Absolutely Yes!!
I would ask you, In John 1:14, what was made flesh? What became flesh? Every one of those passages that you highlighted speak of something that preexisted the physical birth of the man Jesus.
So I am not sure what you are trying to say. But it is very obvious in the passages that you posted there that while it does indeed speak of the incarnation, the references also speak to something that existed before the incarnation that became the incarnation. That something was the second person of the Trinity, however you choose to designate Him before He became known as God, the Son.
No one is denying our Lord Jesus' existence before the incarnation. Cathlodox falsely claims SDA's do.
: Texas Conservative Tue Mar 05, 2024 - 07:58:35Are SDA beliefs based on teachings of EGW?
For those beliefs which are different than Orthodox Christian teachings, 100%.
Heavenly Sanctuary Doctrine, health message, Sunday Law, etc.
The scriptures teach that there is a sanctuary or temple in heaven where our Lord Jesus intercedes for us now. The book of Daniel even speaks of a cleansing of the sanctuary. How say you EGW made these things up?
The scriptures most definitely do speak of healthy eating and drinking, as our bodies are indeed declared to be the temple of God. There was an original diet for humanity which excluded meat, then those foods declared unclean by God for Israel. Will you deny any of this had to do with the health of humanity? As though God Himself never considered such for His creation when telling them what they should and or should not eat?
There have been civil Sunday laws in a great many countries for at least about 1700 years now. SDA's have no doctrines concerning the sacredness of Sunday. As you yourself do, along with a great many others. You have the doctrines. We just believe you will eventually attempt to universally force this day as a holy day upon all of humanity. As many Sunday doctrine believers have already throughout history, and are presently doing as well.
Sunday laws are and have been a reality for many centuries now. There are many people today who want more of them, and there is at least one globalist system that would like to see them globally established. Namely, the Roman Catholic pontiff and clergy.
: current occupant2 Fri Jan 17, 2020 - 22:39:56How about it, HOBIE/RICHARD?
Please share honestly with us —-
How does your view of the spiritual authority Ellen White differ from that position stated by the Seventh-day Adventist church in the statement of confidence that I posted?
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN G WHITE
As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various spiritual gifts among His people (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-14), and particularly for the prophetic guidance we have received through the life and ministry of Ellen G White (1827-1915).
On the centennial of her death, we rejoice that her writings have been made available around the globe in many languages and in a variety of printed and electronic formats.
We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.
We commit ourselves to study the writings of Ellen G White prayerfully and with hearts willing to follow the counsels and instructions we find there. Whether individually, in the family, in small groups, in the classroom, or in the church, a combined study of the Bible and her writings provide a transforming and faith-uplifting experience.
We encourage the continued development of both worldwide and local strategies to foster the circulation of her writings inside and outside the church. The study of these writings is a powerful means to strengthen and prepare His people for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Ella S Simmons, Chair
John H Thomas, Secretary
Myron A Iseminger, Actions Editor
Tamara K Boward, Recording Secretary
What would say of Martin Luther, or Tyndale, or any of the Reformers, were they led by God..