SDA please explain the failed prediction of Ellen White (SDA Prophet)

[BobRyan]

I, unlike the non-Trinitarian Adventists, no longer have to try to reconcile Ellen White's early non-Trinitarian statements, with her later more Trinitarian statements. I just note she changed her story.

Sadly for you then -- that IS THEIR story

Good luck trying to get it off the ground.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Even THEY have not been able to move the SDA denomination away from its "ONE God in THREE Persons" statement on the Godhead - so how in the world are you hoping to have any success at all in that area?

Why would I want to move you further away? No, I just point our your inspired author contradicted the Trinity in her early statements.

Your efforts to take statements out of the large context "noted".

meanwhile it is obvious Ellen was raised Trinitarian as a Methodist and that she strongly affirmed "one God in three persons" explicitly in her writings.

All sad news for that tiny group of non-Trinitarians in the much larger group of 22 Million SDAs affirming our 28 Fundamental beliefs which include our One God in THREE persons affirmation of the Triune Godhead.

You have free will and can reject all the glaringly obvious evidence you wish... but you can't sell me on some of these fact-challenged crusades you go on since I actually have the documents that a lot of your readers don't have the time to look into for themselves.

 

[tall73]

Just not in reality. Even James White admitted that his views eventually lined up with the Trinitarian position.

Yes, Bob, and it trended, as her public statements did, from non-Trinitarian to Trinitarian.

But in reality, her statements in the GC, and some of the other statements, cannot be reconciled with the Trinity. And you haven't tried.

Ellen White of course never went for James White's anti-trinitarian views -- SHE was in fact raised as a Methodist and firmly trinitarian the entire time - as we both know.

Yes we in fact know she was raised a Methodist. No we do not know that she was always firmly a Trinitarian.

And of course her own statements rule it out.

==========================================
Jesus said that He would go to 'my God and your God"
Jesus said "the Father is greater than I"
Jesus said "no one knows that future detail not even the Son - only the Father knows"

and when taken OUT of the larger CONTEXT our JW friends can spin those to mean that Jesus is not God -
We really don't need to follow the JW model on that one -- rather we need to keep the statements in context.

The problem Bob is we are keeping Ellen White's early statements in context, as the non-Trinitiarian Adventists point out to you. She was surrounded by non-Trinitarians for decades, and didn't come out against them until much later.

But moreover, her non-Trinitarian statements are given in the midst of her made up back-story that is also non-Trinitarian.


We see for instance in Spiritual Gifts Volume 1 the following:

Satan in Heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God's dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance, and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Jesus, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. 1SP 17.1

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was his Son to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. The Father's will would be fulfilled in him. 1SP 17.2

Trinitarians don't imagine the angels being confused on who the Son of God is. But Ellen White went through multiple revisions of this narrative, of which the Great Controversy quote is one of them, and then later the Patriarchs and Prophets version.

 

[tall73]

Indeed I have met a few of non-trinitarians (in fact a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

And of course, they were the majority during the formative years.

Over 22 million SDAs today. And the SDA Fundamental Beliefs are solidly, explicitly "One God in THREE Persons".

Where is your "tiny" group of non-trinitarians??

Did you run into 22 million?
11 Million?
4 Million?

20??

I don't have a number Bob. Nor is the number the issue. The issue is that you tried to pretend this was just a distortion by non-Adventists. Indeed it is not. I have said multiple times in this thread that the Trinitarian Adventists are in the great majority today. And that is a good thing.

But the issue is Ellen White's non-Trinitarian statements, in a non-Trinitarian setting of the Great Controversy, written while the SDA church was predominantly non-Trinitarian.

 

[tall73]

Sadly for you then -- that IS THEIR story

Good luck trying to get it off the ground.

Bob, it already is off the ground. People around the world have noted Ellen White's non-Trinitarian statements due to the internet, and reading her actual statements.

It just so happens the best presentations of it often come from Adventists who know that was the original position.

And the fact that you knew of their arguments means you were disingenuous when you claimed I was making up this issue.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Bob, and it trended, as her public statements did, from non-Trinitarian to Trinitarian.

That's a nice story - but it not how it worked in the case of the history of James White.

His change came about before the very strong trinitarian statements made by Ellen White. She did not come out and publically condemn his views but would never side with them. She would just quote scripture and leave it at that. Not until he died did she come out with much more explicit statements . So there is no room for the wild assertion that James was following Ellen White in that regard. He knew from the start she was raised as a Trinitarian Methodist.

But in reality, her statements in the GC, and some of the other statements, cannot be reconciled with the Trinity.

until they are read in the larger context.

In any case - your all-Ellen-White-all-the-time agendas are something of your own doing so I leave you to them as usual.

The problem Bob is we are keeping Ellen White's early statements in context,

sadly.. you are not. Your efforts are confined to source documents that most of your readers either don't have access to or don't have the time to research .. unlike me.

So I don't find them very compelling as I guess you know by now.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, it already is off the ground. People around the world have noted Ellen White's non-Trinitarian statements

People around the world have already noted the clear trinitarian statements in the SDA fundamental beliefs.
People around the world have already noted that Methodists - even in Ellen White's day were trinitarian
People around the world have already noted that Ellen White was raised as a Methodist
People around the world (including you) have noticed Ellen White's pro-trinitarian "one God in three persons" statements.

Your claim to have bad news based on inference and inuendo is noted and of course I leave you to all that stuff since I actually do have the materials and the facts on this topic that you seem to be struggling with.

You have free will and can choose to ignore whatever you wish. It is fine with me. I happy to leave that to you.

 

[tall73]

BobRyan said:


Your efforts to take statements out of the large context "noted".

Actually, I have discussed the larger context.

meanwhile it is obvious Ellen was raised Trinitarian as a Methodist and that she strongly affirmed "one God in three persons" explicitly in her writings.

She didn't start discussing her heavenly "trio" , etc. until the 1890's Bob. That is the larger context. And she ruled it out in the Great Controversy statement, among others.

All sad news for that tiny group of non-Trinitarians in the much larger group of 22 Million SDAs affirming our 28 Fundamental beliefs which include our One God in THREE persons affirmation of the Triune Godhead.

And the inspired author who disagreed with that in her early writings.

You have free will and can reject all the glaringly obvious evidence you wish... but you can't sell me on some of these fact-challenged crusades you go on since I actually have the documents that a lot of your readers don't have the time to look into for themselves.

Something tells me the readers won't buy that Bob. I post document after document, and you don't even try to explain the context.

I post links to the whole context, and you just say "they don't have the time."

Bob, some of these folks discussing have been looking at the issues for years now. They apparently do have the time. When they ask you questions, or for documentation, you don't give it.

When you try to explain away plain statements, they know it.

And when you pretend I am making up arguments, and it turns out that you have argued with Adventists here at CF about the same issue, they notice it.

 

[tall73]

Your claim to have bad news based on inference and inuendo is noted and of course I leave you to all that stuff since I actually do have the materials and the facts on this topic that you seem to be struggling with.

Yeah Bob, you will have to break out that material to explain away the need for an assembly of the angels who were confused about who the Son of God was.

And you will have to explain why you only had one being that could enter into the counsels and purposes of God. And you will have to explain why it took until the 1890's for Ellen White's trio to show itself.

But you have not in fact posted that material. And you haven't dealt with the material posted.

 

[Sophia7]

In context that is a reference to something "not God" and as we all know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all GOD - just as even Ellen White admitted.

In context, that is a reference to Jesus as the only "being" allowed to enter the councils of God. So is Jesus God or "not God," as you said above? You haven't explained this.

 

[BobRyan]

In context, that is a reference to Jesus as the only "being" allowed to enter the councils of God.

True.

In Context it allows God the Father to be in that meeting.
In context it allows for the Holy Spirit to be "The third person of the Godhead" -- no SDA doctrine treats this as meaning that there was not a Triune Godhead at that time.

In context it reminds us that Lucifer wondered why he was not included - but does not say anything about "Lucifer thought the Holy Spirit should not be included - but could not figure out why Lucifer would not be included" - so then there was never a time when SDAs thought this meant that the Holy Spirit - the third person of the Godhead - was being excluded from something.

This gets into "yes but what did this or that person think"? Instead of "yes but what do the fundamental belief statements say this denomination teaches"?

Since I actually am an SDA that affirms the SDA fundamental beliefs, and the inspired gift of 1 Cor 12 given to Ellen White - I think this POV needs to be considered rather than trying to suppose/imagine what it is that SDAs must be thinking. IT is better to try actually asking one who accepts the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA denomination.

SDAs have always viewed God the Son , Jesus, as "The Word" that was "with God and WAS God" from the very beginning. His role was to explain infinite God to finite beings. So in Gen 18 He appears "as a human" to Abraham. And in both OT and NT he is referenced as "Michael" such that "Michael and HIS angels war against the devil and HIS angels". God the Son always had the role of identifying in some way with finite beings to better convey to them just who God is, what His character is like -- etc.

Even James White from his old days in the "Christian Connexion" denomination that he came from - would admit that Christ is the one in John 1:1 as "The Word" who was in the beginning "WITH God and in fact WAS God" and in fact the Son of God. And James admits that he finally came around to a full triune Godhead POV near the end of his life.

This creates the "context" for God the Son, Christ to be view in a way by all finite created beings - as somehow connected with them , identified with them, representing them -- in the Godhead. So not too surprising that He alone was considered worthy/equal to enter into the councils of God the Father -- as opposed to a finite created being like Lucifer.

 

[Sophia7]

Do you accept the TEN in their unedited unchanged form as included in the moral law of God - just as stated in scripture?

Please quote the Scripture that states what "the moral law of God" is.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah Bob, you will have to break out that material to explain away the need for an assembly of the angels who were confused about who the Son of God was.

It is very hard for some people to consider that just maybe Lucifer was able to dupe super intelligent sinless beings like Angels by taking advantage of the fact that Angels are not all-knowing. And at a time when they do not have the incarnation, the sin experiment etc to "inform them" about detail relationships in the triune Godhead - it was possible for a detail or two to be accepted by them "by faith" rather than "because every single fact was already fully known".

A lot of folks may wish to jump in there via extreme inference and imagine stuff for us - but that is not very compelling as to just how and why Lucifer was able to dupe them.

 

[BobRyan]

Please quote the Scripture that states what "the moral law of God" is.

That is confusing for some people but we have some good examples for who is not so confused by it in my signature line. Where all those Sunday keeping groups agree with the Sabbath keeping groups that the TEN are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12.

The law such that "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 -- it is the law that defines what sin IS - as Rom 3:19 tells us, as 1 John 3:4 tells us and as Romans 6 and James 2 also inform us. So not too surprising that almost all Christian denominations on planet earth align at this point.

No wonder since in Eph 6:2 the TEN are specifically singled out as having "honor your father and mother" as "The first commandment with a promise" -- applicable to all mankind in that New Covenant.

No wonder since in Jeremiah's day they knew about the Deut 5:22 fact that "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud to the people and ADDED NO more". Meaning that when Jeremiah says God writes His LAW on the heart and mind under the NEW Covenant - his readers had to be dead sure that this included the TEN at the very minimum, no matter what else it also included.

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today as included in the moral law of God (under the NEW Covenant) --
[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul

 

[tall73]

People around the world have already noted that Methodists - even in Ellen White's day were trinitarian

And Adventists historians have noted Ellen White's view developed into a Trinitarian one.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
MOON: THE QUEST FOR A BIBLICAL TRINITY

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=jats

In previous research I have traced the development of the Adventist
doctrine of God from opposition to the Trinity doctrine as traditionally
formulated to acceptance of the biblical concept of one God in three per-
sons.9 I have also traced the clear progression in Ellen White’s visions
from 1850 onward, showing that her visions gradually formed her concept of God until by 1898, when she published Desire of Ages, she held a
trinitarian concept.

In the 1890s, when she become convinced of the individuality and
personhood of the Holy Spirit, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal
and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to describe the
Father and the Son. For instance, addressing the church at Avondale Col-
lege in 1899, she declared, “the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as
God is a person, is walking through these grounds, unseen by human
eyes .

 

[tall73]

True.

In Context it allows God the Father to be in that meeting.
In context it allows for the Holy Spirit to be "The third person of the Godhead" -- no SDA doctrine treats this as meaning that there was not a Triune Godhead at that time.

Before the entrance of evil there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance.

No Bob, in context it says He is the only being who could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.

And note the statement in the same chapter:

"Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and who stood highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven."

She is indicating Christ as honored of God among the inhabitants of Heaven. And He is the one who can enter into the councils of God.

And another quote, this time from the Spirit of Prophecy, on the same theme, from the parallel chapter on satan's fall:

Christ had been taken into the special counsel of God in regard to his plans, while Satan was unacquainted with them. He did not understand, neither was he permitted to know, the purposes of God. But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of Heaven, his power and authority to be the same as that of God himself.

There was contention among the angels. Satan and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They were discontented and unhappy because they could not look into his unsearchable wisdom and ascertain his purposes in exalting his Son Jesus, and endowing him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son. 1SP 18.2


Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Jesus Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Satan that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which he had conferred upon his Son. They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God, and his mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned; and that he had given no commands but what it was joy for the heavenly host to execute. They urged that Christ's receiving special honor from the Father, in the presence of the angels, did not detract from the honor that he had heretofore received.


The loyal angels hasten speedily to the Son of God, and acquaint him with what is taking place among the angels. They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels.

All the heavenly host were summoned to appear before the Father, to have each case determined. Satan unblushingly made known his dissatisfaction that Christ should be preferred before him. He stood up proudly and urged that he should be equal with God, and should be taken into conference with the Father and understand his purposes. God informed Satan that to his Son alone he would reveal his secret purposes, and he required all the family in Heaven, even Satan, to yield him implicit, unquestioned obedience; but that he (Satan) had proved himself unworthy a place in Heaven.

Now in the later chapter regarding the fall:

Sorrow filled Heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with his Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father his person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. 1SP 45.1

And as they should witness his sufferings, and the hate of men towards him, they would be stirred with the deepest emotions, and through their love for him, would wish to rescue and deliver him from his murderers; but that they must not interfere to prevent anything they should behold; and that they should act a part in his resurrection; that the plan of salvation was devised, and his Father had accepted the plan.

Jesus bade the heavenly host be reconciled to the plan that his Father accepted, and rejoice that fallen man could be exalted again through his death, to obtain favor with God and enjoy Heaven

Said the angel, Think ye that the Father yielded up his dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of Heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give his beloved Son to die for them.

Now Bob, if you can read through those quotes and see a "Trinitarian" concept, your Trinity detector is malfunctioning.

Christ had been "taken into" the special counsel of God? Christ's power and authority were the same as that of "God Himself? The angels have to acquaint the pre-incarnate Son of God with what is going on? Jesus has to be endowed with unlimited power? "The Great God" could at once have hurled the deceiver from Heaven but gave the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with "His own Son?" satan demands that he be taken into conference with the FATHER and understand His purposes.

And after the fall Jesus goes to the Father, not the Holy Spirit and the Father, and offers His life. Now later she wrote that it was decided before the fall. But in this account the Son is pleading with the Father (not the Spirit and the Father), after the fall.

Bob, this is not describing the Trinity.

In context it reminds us that Lucifer wondered why he was not included - but does not say anything about "Lucifer thought the Holy Spirit should not be included - but could not figure out why Lucifer would not be included" - so then there was never a time when SDAs thought this meant that the Holy Spirit - the third person of the Godhead - was being excluded from something.

Of course there was Bob. Because the majority of Adventists at this time thought the Spirit was a force without a personality, as the history articles point out. And Ellen White did not mention the Spirit having a personality or being part of the Godhead until the 1890's. Moreover, there is no Holy Spirit mentioned at all, and satan wants to be taken into conference with the Father--because he was jealous that the Son was.

 

[tall73]

Ellen White of course never went for James White's anti-trinitarian views -- SHE was in fact raised as a Methodist and firmly trinitarian the entire time - as we both know.

In 1891 Brother Chapman writes to Ellen White because leadership is insisting he needs to change some views of his.

Lt 7, 1891

m.egwwritings.org

----

June 11, 1891


Bro. Chapman,

I have received yours dated June 3. In this letter you speak in these words: “Elder Robinson does not wish me to leave, but urges that I enter the canvassing field until such time as the conference can afford to employ me in some other capacity, but states positively that I cannot be sent out to present the truth to others until some points held by me are changed or modified, in order that the views regarded by us as a people should be properly set forth. He quotes as a sample, “my idea in reference to the Holy Ghost not being the Spirit of God, which is Christ, but the angel Gabriel, and my belief that the 144,000 will be Jews who will acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah. On all fundamental points I am in perfect harmony with our people; but when I try to show what seems to me to be new light on the truth those in authority, none of whom have seemingly ever made a personal investigation of the matter, refuse to look into the Bible, but brand me as ‘a fellow with queer ideas of the Bible.’” 7LtMs, Lt 7, 1891, par. 1
----

The first "view" he puts forward is “my idea in reference to the Holy Ghost not being the Spirit of God, which is Christ, but the angel Gabriel".

And How does Ellen White answer him? Does she say, "well I have known ever since I was a Methodist that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that He is the third member of the Godhead."

No.

She urges him to get in line with the bretheren, and says, among other things:

------

Brethren should be very modest in urging these side issues which often they do not themselves understand, points that they do not know to be truth and that it is not essential to their salvation to know. When there is difference of opinion on such points, the less prominence you give to them, the better it will be for your own spirituality and for the peace and unity that Christ prayed might exist among brethren. 7LtMs, Lt 7, 1891, par. 7

I have been shown that it is the device of the enemy to lead minds to dwell upon some obscure or unimportant point, something that is not fully revealed or is not essential to our salvation. This is made the absorbing theme, the “present truth,” when all their investigations and suppositions only serve to make matters more obscure than before and to confuse the minds of some who ought to be seeking for oneness through sanctification of the truth. 7LtMs, Lt 7, 1891, par. 12

Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery; it is not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others, because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct. The expositions by which you sustain your position are not sound. You may lead some to accept your explanations, but you do them no good, nor are they, through accepting your views, enabled to do others good. 7LtMs, Lt 7, 1891, par. 13

It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, “the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in my name.” [John 14:26.] “I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” [Verses 16, 17.] This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter.

There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.

--------

Now Bob, why did she not say that the Holy Spirit has a personality, and is one of the three persons of the Godhead, and I have known that ever since I was a Methodist?

It was not for another couple of years, as the Adventist historian noted, that she understands that the Holy Spirit is a person. And then later she includes Him in the Trio. But in 1891, when some guy claims the Holy Spirit is Gabriel she says these points are not essential, and she doesn't seek to understand the mysteries raised, and says it is not essential for him to know.

Now Bob, I think we can put to rest that the Adventist church was a bastion of Trinitarian thought throughout its history. But we also can see Ellen White was not a Trinitarian schoalar from her Methodist days.

 

[Leaf473]

...the arguments of non-Trinitarian Adventists...

Wait, there are non-Trinitarian Adventists?

 

[Leaf473]

Do you accept the TEN in their unedited unchanged form as included in the moral law of God - just as stated in scripture?

I think we both know the answer to that one...

I do not accept your interpretation of the laws from the Old Testament. So specific to the way you are using the terms, No, I don't accept them.

so given that you already fail to agree on that basic point about the Law of God - what is the point of going to anything else other than a diversion from this primary, basic, first-step?

First, because this is the denomination specific theology discussion forum. I'm interested in discussing SDA specific theology. One question about that is: Are they able to say the scripture passages where all of the commandments that they believe we are to keep today are found?

Second, there is always benefit in posting scripture, all scripture is beneficial!

If you would like to post passages that include laws from the Old testament that SDA's believe are to be kept today, that would be beneficial. And that is the point.

Quoting scripture passages of laws from the Old testament that SDA's believe are for today would not be a diversion in the denomination specific theology section.

Peace be with you, my man!

 

[Sophia7]

No wonder since in Jeremiah's day they knew about the Deut 5:22 fact that "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud to the people and ADDED NO more".

Since you quoted Deut.5:22, which version of the ten commandments was spoken by God and written in stone? The Exodus version or this version, also from Deut. 5?

6 "'I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

7 'You shall have no other gods besides Me.

8 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, even on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing favor to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

11 'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave unpunished the one who takes His name in vain.

12 'Keep the Sabbath day to treat it as holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall not do any work that day, you or your son or your daughter, or your male slave or your female slave, or your ox, your donkey, or any of your cattle, or your resident who stays with you, so that your male slave and your female slave may rest as well as you. 15 And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to celebrate the Sabbath day.

16 'Honor your father and your mother, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well for you on the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

17 'You shall not murder.

18 'You shall not commit adultery.

19 'You shall not steal.

20 'You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

21 'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male slave or his female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'"