Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

And, like you, I've read the majority of EGW's books, including the nine volumes of her testimonies to church members, plus quite a bit of her "unofficial" writings. I've also read the writings of her critics. And as of today, I remain convinced that Mrs. White was inspired by God, and that the criticisms leveled against her are weak, if not invalid.
​

What is weak or invalid about the many documented cases whereas...
...the statements of Ellen White were "corrected" subsequent to her death.
...So that what you are reading today does NOT reflect what she said?

One example out of many is where, prior to the I.J. teaching...
...Ellen affirmed God told her "The Shut Door" teaching was correct.

Pythons, you will need to quote where EGW affirmed that God told her the shut door teaching was correct. That is not what I have read, and if your misquotes below are any indication of your research, I doubt you can supply such a quote.

This seems to be cheating in that there becomes NO WAY to test a prophet.....
...Because once the prophetic statement was made it was altered over and over again.
...So that today a devout SDA can point to what is in print "today".
...And claim prophetic inspiration for Ellen White.

As was demonstrated by Walter Martin SDA's do not appeal to Scripture...
...They appeal to Ellen White's interpretation of Scripture.
...That is what "tests".

Examples of this in practice....
...The following quotes are from the General Conference archives.
...Which can be confirmed simply by clicking the link below.

Unfortunately for you, I did click on the link below, and I took the time to read the context of the quotes you picked and chose from a 1971 Review article.

The Bible is an infallible guide, but it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division

​

You have juxtaposed this quote to the following quotes to give an entirely wrong impression, and I consider that "cheating" by you.​

Here is the context. "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. This view was taken and expressed in substance by Cardinal Manning when he left the Episcopal Church and became a Catholic. He saw a weakness in all the Protestant denominations of which he had any knowledge in the fact that the settlement of matters of faith resided in the vote of fallible man." End quote. (Bolding and underlining is mine)

And the paragraph ends with "Hence, Cardinal Manning said in substance, 'An infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter.' " ​

Your next line of quote is found at the end of the article, nowhere near the above quote. So you have made it look as if SDAs have said that an infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter, when, in fact, that is Cardinal Manning's opinion. ​

Of course, if the rest of the article is based on Cardinal Manning's point of view, then I think that that particular article is off base and should not be pointed to as church doctrine or part of the 28 fundamental beliefs.​

I'm deleting the rest of your post because I don't think it is an honest evaluation of the church's official position or of EGW's position. I think you undermined your own believability by quoting out of context the way you did, Pythons.​

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, you will need to quote where EGW affirmed that God told her the shut door teaching was correct. That is not what I have read, and if your misquotes below are any indication of your research, I doubt you can supply such a quote.

Sure,

I saw the cruel power of Satan that has afflicted us of late and bound us to keep the truth from coming out in the paper. . . . I saw these efforts of Satan were to hinder the paper coming out, for the lines that were being published were written in the Spirit of God, and would rejoice the hearts of the trusting ones, and Satan knew it would hurt his cause because it would be seen by these testimonies that most of the Advent people believed AS WE DO that there was a shut door in '44. And to have the plain, clean truth come out in the paper . . . would cause many to decide for the truth and to take a firm and unyielding stand for God and His truth. I saw that the paper would strengthen the things that remain and would help build up God's people in the most holy faith. . . . {6MR 250.1}

And,

While in Exeter, Maine, in meeting with Israel Dammon, James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a shut door. I suffered much at the commencement of the meeting. Unbelief seemed to be on every hand. There was one sister there that was called very spiritual. She had traveled and been a powerful preacher the most of the time for twenty years. She had been truly a mother in Israel. But a division had risen in the band on the shut door. She had great sympathy, and could not believe the door was shut. (I had known nothing of their differences.) Sister Durben got up to talk. I felt very, very sad. At length my soul seemed to be in an agony, and while she was talking I fell from my chair to the floor. It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the Holiest as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. They were all deeply interested in the view. They all said it was entirely new to them. The Lord worked in mighty power setting the truth home to their hearts. Sister Durben knew what the power of the Lord was, for she had felt it many times; and a shorty after I fell she was struck down, and fell to the floor, crying to God to have mercy on her. When I came out of vision, my ears were saluted with Sister Durben's singing and shouting with a loud voice. Most of them received the vision, and were settled upon the shut door. Previous to this I had no light on the coming of the Bridegroom, but had expected Him to [come to] this earth to deliver His people on the tenth day of the seventh month. I did not hear a lecture or a word in any way relating to the Bridegroom's going to the Holiest. {5MR 97.3}

"When I came out of vision"......
...That, right there is telling you God told Ellen the shut door teaching was truth.
...UNLESS you are suggesting that the "band & Sister Durban".
...Believed in the shut door and Ellen didn't.
...Does that work for you?


I appreciate your spiritual vigor & eagerness Laodicean...
...It's nice to discuss things with one grounded in their Faith.
...My citations will be from the writtings of Ellen White.
...& SDA denominational sources.

The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings[/url]

You will note that 12.5 is addressing the timing of Michael the archangel...
...When he stands up and DELIVERS his people.
...Of course in Ellen's theolgy Michael is also Christ.
...So, it's the same entity - two different 'events'.

Grant, of Mrs. Burdick, and others published in the Crisis are
not true. The statements in reference to my course in '44 are false. {1BIO 258.5}

With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in '44 I did belive NO MORE SINNERS would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point. {1BIO 259.1}


The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings

Ellen evidently most strongly thought this as the following statemensts show.

I saw that since Jesus left the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and entered within the second veil, the churches have been filing up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet their members profess to be Christians. Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations, are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, ‘God will not smell in their assemblies’

If every Church apart from the Adventist band produces prayers that are abominaton unto God...
...Then those "other churches" along with the individuals who make them up.
...Are a total abomination unto God.

And over all these evil traits they throw the cloak of religion. I was shown the pride of the nominal churches. God was not in their thoughts; but their carnal minds dwell upon themselves. They decorate their poor mortal bodies, and then look upon themselves with satisfaction and pleasure. Jesus and the angels looked upon them in anger. Said the angel, Their sins and pride have reached unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judgment have slumbered long, but will soon awake. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord. The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and they will drink the wrath of God. An innumerable host of evil angels are spreading themselves over the whole land. The churches and religious bodies are crowded with them.
The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings

Unfortunately for you, I did click on the link below, and I took the time to read the context of the quotes you picked and chose from a 1971 Review article. You have juxtaposed this quote to the following quotes to give an entirely wrong impression, and I consider that "cheating" by you.

Was the article written and publshed by a Catholic or other "fallen church"?
...The header flat out STATES​

The Bible is an infallible guide, but it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division.​

That article, Laodicean, goes on to explicitly state that Ellen White, exercising the Spirit Of Prophecy...
...IS the infallible interpretor.
...Juxtaposed? LOL.​

What equates to juxtaposed is you claiming the denomination in that very Adventist Review...
...Claims Ellen is NOT the infallible interpretor.
...And that's exactly what you just did.​

Here is the context. "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. This view was taken and expressed in substance by Cardinal Manning when he left the Episcopal Church and became a Catholic. He saw a weakness in all the Protestant denominations of which he had any knowledge in the fact that the settlement of matters of faith resided in the vote of fallible man." End quote. (Bolding and underlining is mine)

And the paragraph ends with "Hence, Cardinal Manning said in substance, 'An infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter.' " ​

And JUST like Manning claimed the Catholic Church had authority to interpret Scripture....
...The Adventist Review claimed the IDENTICAL ability via Ellen White.
...Which is exactly what I told initially.
...That's the context, deal with it.​

Your next line of quote is found at the end of the article, nowhere near the above quote. So you have made it look as if SDAs have said that an infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter, when, in fact, that is Cardinal Manning's opinion. ​

In the Review article in question "WHO" are the people of God & what is the "PRESENT DAY MANIFESTATION of the gift of Prophecy? Are you suggesting it's the Catholic Church Laodicea? Other then Ellen White what do you suggest the article is suggesting?​

Of course, if the rest of the article is based on Cardinal Manning's point of view, then I think that that particular article is off base and should not be pointed to as church doctrine or part of the 28 fundamental beliefs.​

It is part of your Fundamental Beliefs...
...Which is why Ellen's texts are continuing and authoritative.​

I'm deleting the rest of your post because I don't think it is an honest evaluation of the church's official position or of EGW's position. I think you undermined your own believability by quoting out of context the way you did, Pythons.​

We shall see about that my friend....
...But I can understand your feverish desire to depart this discussion.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

We make ourselves ready by coming to God to have Him make us ready.

You make the most interesting distinctions. One might say you have a distinction for every occasion. Doesn't it all get confusing after a while?

I would say that everything I need to be ready has already been completed by an entity other than myself.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by BFA

So does God make us ready or do we make ourselves ready?
​

Originally Posted by Laodicean

We make ourselves ready by coming to God to have Him make us ready.
​

You make the most interesting distinctions. One might say you have a distinction for every occasion. Doesn't it all get confusing after a while?

Distinctions are meant to unravel confusion. Lump everything together under one undifferentiated umbrella, and you have confusion.

I would say that everything I need to be ready has already been completed by an entity other than myself.

BFA

Yes, I agree. So we make ourselves ready by going to that Entity in order to receive what has been completed on our behalf.

 

[Joe67]

A garment of shame has been provided.

A table of affliction and adversity has been spread before us.

Joe

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Pythons, you will need to quote where EGW affirmed that God told her the shut door teaching was correct. That is not what I have read, and if your misquotes below are any indication of your research, I doubt you can supply such a quote.
​

Sure,


Originally Posted by Ellen White

I saw the cruel power of Satan that has afflicted us of late and bound us to keep the truth from coming out in the paper. . . . I saw these efforts of Satan were to hinder the paper coming out, for the lines that were being published were written in the Spirit of God, and would rejoice the hearts of the trusting ones, and Satan knew it would hurt his cause because it would be seen by these testimonies that most of the Advent people believed AS WE DO that there was a shut door in '44. And to have the plain, clean truth come out in the paper . . . would cause many to decide for the truth and to take a firm and unyielding stand for God and His truth. I saw that the paper would strengthen the things that remain and would help build up God's people in the most holy faith. . . . {6MR 250.1}
​

​

There was indeed a shut door, eventually correctly understood, that referred to the movement of Jesus from the timeline of the first-apartment symbolism into the timeline of the second-apartment symbolism. This was indeed affirmed by God.

But there was also a shut-door misunderstanding that EGW participated in, and this misunderstanding was not affirmed by God. Shortly after 1844, for a time, many of the disappointed Adventists (SDAs did not come into existence until 1863) thought that the door of probation had closed forever for those who refused to believe in the second coming.

Mrs. White wrote, in a letter to Loughborough, the following: "With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in '44 I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point."

Further in that same letter she writes: "It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. . . . I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it . . . . I saw that in '44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it, and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel went into darkness . . . . " ("Review and Herald, January 14, 1932, p. 6, accompanied by photographic facsimile of this part of her letter.")

So when EGW writes, "that most of the Advent people believed AS WE DO that there was a shut door in '44," she is not referring to her early erroneous belief that the door was shut on the rest of the world forever, and she makes it clear she received no vision affirming such a belief, as you say. But she did receive visions affirming that there was a shut door in '44. It just was not the kind of shut door that you and the early Adventists believed.

And,


Originally Posted by Ellen White

While in Exeter, Maine, in meeting with Israel Dammon, James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a shut door. I suffered much at the commencement of the meeting. Unbelief seemed to be on every hand. There was one sister there that was called very spiritual. She had traveled and been a powerful preacher the most of the time for twenty years. She had been truly a mother in Israel. But a division had risen in the band on the shut door. She had great sympathy, and could not believe the door was shut. (I had known nothing of their differences.) Sister Durben got up to talk. I felt very, very sad. At length my soul seemed to be in an agony, and while she was talking I fell from my chair to the floor. It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the Holiest as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. They were all deeply interested in the view. They all said it was entirely new to them. The Lord worked in mighty power setting the truth home to their hearts. Sister Durben knew what the power of the Lord was, for she had felt it many times; and a shorty after I fell she was struck down, and fell to the floor, crying to God to have mercy on her. When I came out of vision, my ears were saluted with Sister Durben's singing and shouting with a loud voice. Most of them received the vision, and were settled upon the shut door. Previous to this I had no light on the coming of the Bridegroom, but had expected Him to [come to] this earth to deliver His people on the tenth day of the seventh month. I did not hear a lecture or a word in any way relating to the Bridegroom's going to the Holiest. {5MR 97.3}
​

"When I came out of vision"......
...That, right there is telling you God told Ellen the shut door teaching was truth.
...UNLESS you are suggesting that the "band & Sister Durban".
...Believed in the shut door and Ellen didn't.
...Does that work for you?

no that doesn't work for me. What works for me is recognizing that there were two approaches to the shut door. There was the misunderstanding that the shut door meant that there was no longer any hope for the rest of the world. And there was the understanding, affirmed by God, that the door to the first-apartment timeline had ended or closed, and the door to the most holy or second-apartment timeline had opened or begun.

Distinctions matter.

I appreciate your spiritual vigor & eagerness Laodicean...
...It's nice to discuss things with one grounded in their Faith.
...My citations will be from the writtings of Ellen White.
...& SDA denominational sources.


Originally Posted by Ellen White,
The Lord has shown me in vision, THAT Jesus rose up, and SHUT THE DOOR, and ENTERED the HOLIES OF HOLIES AT the 7th month 1844; but Michael's standing up (Dan. 12:1) to deliver his people, is in the future. {WLF 12.4}

The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings
​

​

Right. Exactly right. There was a shut door and open door in the sanctuary symbolism.

You will note that 12.5 is addressing the timing of Michael the archangel...
...When he stands up and DELIVERS his people.
...Of course in Ellen's theolgy Michael is also Christ.
...So, it's the same entity - two different 'events'.

yes, two different events. Is there a problem with this?

Originally Posted by Ellen White

Grant, of Mrs. Burdick, and others published in the Crisis are
not true. The statements in reference to my course in '44 are false. {1BIO 258.5}

With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in '44 I did belive NO MORE SINNERS would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point. {1BIO 259.1}


The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings
​

Ellen evidently most strongly thought this as the following statemensts show.


Originally Posted by Ellen White, Early writings page 273

I saw that since Jesus left the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and entered within the second veil, the churches have been filing up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet their members profess to be Christians. Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations, are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, ‘God will not smell in their assemblies’
​

​

Mrs. White made it clear that this vision applied to the time of the disappointment, not to the future. Those who, at that time, scoffed and ridiculed the prophetic timeline of the sanctuary doctrine, seared their consciences and once they had turned back from the truth presented to them at that time, there was no more hope for those people. But it did not mean that the uninformed were lost, or that generations following were also lost.

The same applies today. If you meet truth today and turn away from it, your fate will become like those in 1844. You will be lost. But that doesn't mean that others are also lost, just because you have been.

If every Church apart from the Adventist band produces prayers that are abominaton unto God...
...Then those "other churches" along with the individuals who make them up.
...Are a total abomination unto God.

this is in the context of 1844, when people turned away from the truth of the sanctuary doctrine, correctly calculated but incorrectly applied. These statements do not refer to the uninformed or the generations following. So please don't think that SDAs presently believe that the prayers from other denominations are an abomination. This was specific to a certain time in history...and probably has been repeated and will be repeated again. But keep it in context.

Originally Posted by continuing on

And over all these evil traits they throw the cloak of religion. I was shown the pride of the nominal churches. God was not in their thoughts; but their carnal minds dwell upon themselves. They decorate their poor mortal bodies, and then look upon themselves with satisfaction and pleasure. Jesus and the angels looked upon them in anger. Said the angel, Their sins and pride have reached unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judgment have slumbered long, but will soon awake. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord. The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and they will drink the wrath of God. An innumerable host of evil angels are spreading themselves over the whole land. The churches and religious bodies are crowded with them.
The Complete Published Ellen G. White® Writings
​

​

again, this was spoken for a particular time, not for all time. Unfortunately, though, such a tragedy repeats throughout history.

(continuing in the next post...)

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Unfortunately for you, I did click on the link below, and I took the time to read the context of the quotes you picked and chose from a 1971 Review article. You have juxtaposed this quote to the following quotes to give an entirely wrong impression, and I consider that "cheating" by you.

​

Was the article written and publshed by a Catholic or other "fallen church"?

...The header flat out STATES​

Originally Posted by header on the review article linked

The Bible is an infallible guide, but it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division.​

​

I'm not sure what header you are referring to, because the title or header of the article is "The Source of Final Appeal."​

That article, Laodicean, goes on to explicitly state that Ellen White, exercising the Spirit Of Prophecy......IS the infallible interpretor.

...Juxtaposed? LOL.​

​

I read the entire article, Pythons, and nowhere does it say that Ellen White is the infallible interpreter. I grant you that the final paragraph hints in that direction, but this is just an article by one person in the Adventist Review, not church doctrine. Personally, I think the author's reasoning is flawed because he tries to compare the prophets under a theocracy to the councils held in the New Testament, and he considers that those New Testament leaders have the "spirit of prophecy." Under that definition, then all the leaders of the church, any church, have the spirit of prophecy. I don't think we can be that sweeping, unless you want to change the definition of "spirit of prophecy."

And yes, you have unfairly juxtaposed a statement by Cardinal Manning next to the final paragraph to make it appear that the author is saying that EGW is the infallible interpreter of Scripture.​

What equates to juxtaposed is you claiming the denomination in that very Adventist Review......Claims Ellen is NOT the infallible interpretor.

...And that's exactly what you just did.

I have juxtaposed nothing. I made a statement of my own, not pulled out one paragraph in an article and lined it up next to some distant statement in the same article. In any event, what one writer says in the Review is not the same as the denomination's position. You might as well go to the Spectrum website and quote some of the writer's opinions and say that theirs is the official position of the SDA church, just because they happen to be SDAs too.

Originally Posted by Laodicean​

Here is the context. "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. This view was taken and expressed in substance by Cardinal Manning when he left the Episcopal Church and became a Catholic. He saw a weakness in all the Protestant denominations of which he had any knowledge in the fact that the settlement of matters of faith resided in the vote of fallible man." End quote. (Bolding and underlining is mine)
​

​

And the paragraph ends with "Hence, Cardinal Manning said in substance, 'An infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter.' "
​

And JUST like Manning claimed the Catholic Church had authority to interpret Scripture....

The Adventist Review claimed the IDENTICAL ability via Ellen White.

...Which is exactly what I told initially.

...That's the context, deal with it. ​

​

​

I agree that the writer has used the Catholic standard -- the pope is the infallible interpreter of scripture -- to make a nuanced case for the need for the church to rely more heavily on the church's messenger, Mrs. White. But by your placing the two statements side by side, you give a stronger weight to the position taken by the author than I imagine he intended. ​

In any event, one person writing in a church paper does not make church policy. Fundamental belief #18 says, "her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." That is not the same as saying that her writings are an infallible interpretation of scripture. Indeed, Mrs. White mourned the fact that for all the time that the church's doctrines were being hammered out, she could not understand the scripture herself, and it was only after the final conclusions were arrived at that she sometimes received confirmation via vision of the correctness of the positions taken. That doesn't sound like she was doing the interpreting.​

Fundamental #18 also says, "They [her writings] also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." Even her writings must be tested by the Bible. That doesn't sound "infallible" to me.​

Originally Posted by Laodicean​

Your next line of quote is found at the end of the article, nowhere near the above quote. So you have made it look as if SDAs have said that an infallible Bible is of no value without an infallible interpreter, when, in fact, that is Cardinal Manning's opinion.
​

In the Review article in question "WHO" are the people of God & what is the "PRESENT DAY MANIFESTATION of the gift of Prophecy? Are you suggesting it's the Catholic Church Laodicea? Other then Ellen White what do you suggest the article is suggesting?

​

I admit that the article does seem to be suggesting that Mrs. White is of the same caliber as Biblical prophets. And I agree with that suggestion. But it is incorrect to draw the conclusion that you have drawn, that therefore, the church believes that she is the infallible interpreter of scripture. Maybe one author in the Review believes that, but it is not the position of the church. ​

There's a distinction between one person's opinion and the official position of the church.​

Originally Posted by Laodicea​

Of course, if the rest of the article is based on Cardinal Manning's point of view, then I think that that particular article is off base and should not be pointed to as church doctrine or part of the 28 fundamental beliefs.
​

It is part of your Fundamental Beliefs...

​

not part of the fundamental beliefs.

...Which is why Ellen's texts are continuing and authoritative.

​

a continuing and authoritative source of truth is not the same as infallible interpreter of the Bible. Again, there's a distinction. But maybe you don't care to make distinctions.

Originally Posted by Laodicean
I'm deleting the rest of your post because I don't think it is an honest evaluation of the church's official position or of EGW's position. I think you undermined your own believability by quoting out of context the way you did, Pythons.

​

​

We shall see about that my friend.......But I can understand your feverish desire to depart this discussion.

​

not at all feverish, my friend. I'm still here.

By the way, why did you delete the video that you had on here earlier today. I listened to it this morning, but did not have time to reply until now, and I see it is now removed.

Just one comment on it. Towards the end, it got to where I couldn't agree with it any longer. The idea seemed to be that the continuous weekly cycle was thrown off by the Gregorian calendar. That is not the case. Here's a quote from Wiki:​

"Gregory dropped 10 days to bring the calendar back into synchronisation with the seasons. Lilius originally proposed that the 10-day correction should be implemented by deleting the Julian leap day on each of its ten occurrences during a period of 40 years, thereby providing for a gradual return of the equinox to 21 March. However, Clavius's opinion was that the correction should take place in one move and it was this advice which prevailed with Gregory. Accordingly, when the new calendar was put in use, the error accumulated in the 13 centuries since the Council of Nicaea was corrected by a deletion of ten days. The last day of the Julian calendar was Thursday, 4 October 1582 and this was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 (the cycle of weekdays was not affected)."

The weekly cycle was never broken.

__________________​

​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The almost complete fulfillment of most lines of prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, indicates that Christ's coming is imminent.

Returning to FB #25, what if He doesn't come during my lifetime or yours? How will this impact our faith?

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

Returning to FB #25, what if He doesn't come during my lifetime or yours? How will this impact our faith?

BFA

faith remains, for hope springs eternal. But there will be sadness.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Originally Posted by BFA

So does God make us ready or do we make ourselves ready?
​

Originally Posted by Laodicean

We make ourselves ready by coming to God to have Him make us ready.
​

Distinctions are meant to unravel confusion. Lump everything together under one undifferentiated umbrella, and you have confusion.



Yes, I agree. So we make ourselves ready by going to that Entity in order to receive what has been completed on our behalf.

This sparks a number of questions in my mind. Do I go to God or does God come to me? Which came first; the chicken or the egg?

faith remains, for hope springs eternal. But there will be sadness.

I suppose I'm wondering whether Jesus Christ offers benefits that enhance the lives of believers whether or not He happens to come during their lifetime? Is Christianity worthwhile even if Jesus Christ doesn't return as quickly as we think He might? If so, why should we be sad?

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

This sparks a number of questions in my mind. Do I go to God or does God come to me? Which came first; the chicken or the egg?

God has already come to us. He waits for us to "go" to Him. So I suppose that means that God comes to us first. It is up to us to respond.

I suppose I'm wondering whether Jesus Christ offers benefits that enhance the lives of believers whether or not He happens to come during their lifetime?

of course He does. That is what it is all about. Heaven begins on earth.

Is Christianity worthwhile even if Jesus Christ doesn't return as quickly as we think He might?

of course!

If so, why should we be sad?

because now we see through a glass darkly, and I really want to...long to...see My Lord face to face.

BFA[/quote]

 

[Byfaithalone1]

God has already come to us. He waits for us to "go" to Him. So I suppose that means that God comes to us first. It is up to us to respond.

If God already came to me, aren't He and I together? Why would I need to go to Him if we're already together? Does He come to me and then leave me?

of course!

Cool!

because now we see through a glass darkly, and I really want to...long to...see My Lord face to face.

I have full assurance today that I will see Him face to face. I don't need to wait until the end of time to find out whether I am safe to save. I don't need to worry about whether I will fall away from Him because He's not a God who is going to let something snatch me out of His hand. I have no doubts. That is the meaning of rest. That is the benefit of the gospel.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

If God already came to me, aren't He and I together?

Yes, if you have responded to Him.

God came to us and has made Himself available to every single one of us, if we choose to accept His presence. The choice is still left up to us whether we want to trust Him, or not. So, yes, if you have accepted him, then He and you are together. But if you refuse to trust Him, then even though He has come to you, and waits, ("Behold I stand at the door and knock,") you will not be together.

Why would I need to go to Him if we're already together?

"go to Him" is not meant in a physical sense. "Go to Him" means to respond in faith to His invitation to be reconciled.

Does He come to me and then leave me?

Never. He says, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Hebrews 13:5, and "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:20.

So, no, God will never leave you. But we have the free will to leave God if we choose.

I have full assurance today that I will see Him face to face.

Yes!! and I look forward to that day and hope that it will be in my lifetime. I wish I wouldn't have to wait until I die and I'm resurrected to see Him. It makes me sad to think of waiting any longer before meeting my Saviour in person.

I don't need to wait until the end of time to find out whether I am safe to save. I don't need to worry about whether I will fall away from Him because He's not a God who is going to let something snatch me out of His hand. I have no doubts. That is the meaning of rest. That is the benefit of the gospel.

BFA

I agree with you on this

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Yes, if you have responded to Him.

So God and I are only together if I do something?
He doesn't actually come to me; rather, I come to Him?

God came to us and has made Himself available to every single one of us, if we choose to accept His presence.

If God came to me, would it be easy for me to deny His presence?

"go to Him" is not meant in a physical sense. "Go to Him" means to respond in faith to His invitation to be reconciled.

Physical or not, the point is the same. If I go to Him, then at best He only comes part way to me (whether that's a metaphorical or literal coming).

So, no, God will never leave you. But we have the free will to leave God if we choose.

What will He do if I try to leave? Nothing? I thought nothing would snatch me from His hand? Does that suggests that He lets go easily? As a person of faith, what have I to fear?

Believe it or not, I'm not a 5-point Calvinist. However, I do marvel at the way you describe certain things. You make things sound human-directed when I view them as God-directed.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

So God and I are only together if I do something?

"together" meaning "reconciled," right? I hope we are using the same understanding of words here.

You are only reconciled (together) with God if you choose to accept His presence.

He doesn't actually come to me; rather, I come to Him?

He comes to you, BFA, according to Revelation 3:20. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Maybe I'm phrasing things poorly.

You don't come to Him. You respond to His "knock," you open the "door"....or you don't.

If God came to me, would it be easy for me to deny His presence?

depends on the extent of our pride and desire to be independent of God.

Physical or not, the point is the same. If I go to Him, then at best He only comes part way to me (whether that's a metaphorical or literal coming).

okay, I take back any phraseology that hints of "coming to Him" if that confuses things. There are steps we take in order to "come to Christ," and these steps are just instructions on how to open the door of our minds and hearts when we hear that knock. We do not have to go anywhere in order to "come to God," because He is already there at the door. But what are the "steps" you need to take to let God in and be reconciled?

What will He do if I try to leave? Nothing? I thought nothing would snatch me from His hand? Does that suggests that He lets go easily? As a person of faith, what have I to fear?

I imagine you are referring to the text, John 10:29: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand." This, I believe and trust that as long as I choose to stay, no one and nothing can snatch me away from God. But we still have free will, and we can choose to leave. That's different.

Believe it or not, I'm not a 5-point Calvinist. However, I do marvel at the way you describe certain things. You make things sound human-directed when I view them as God-directed.

BFA

I'm sorry, if the emphasis seems to be human-directed. I agree with you that our eyes need to be fixed on Jesus. Only then we are safe. But we also need to be aware of what happens when we lose interest in Jesus, when we wander away from Him. It is not a matter of once saved, always saved. We still have the option to put other things in our life ahead of our love for God.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

"together" meaning "reconciled," right? I hope we are using the same understanding of words here. You are only reconciled (together) with God if you choose to accept His presence.

Yes, I agree that we are talking about reconciliation. With this in view, is it possible for God to reconcile us to Himself?

You don't come to Him. You respond to His "knock," you open the "door"....or you don't.

And what if I don't? Is God capable of opening the door on His own? Would He do that or is He limited by my response?

okay, I take back any phraseology that hints of "coming to Him" if that confuses things. There are steps we take in order to "come to Christ," and these steps are just instructions on how to open the door of our minds and hearts when we hear that knock.

What are these steps?

We do not have to go anywhere in order to "come to God," because He is already there at the door. But what are the "steps" you need to take to let God in and be reconciled?

I think you may have answered your own question. We don't have to go anywhere. We don't have to take steps. The concept of "steps to Christ" is a myth.

This, I believe and trust that as long as I choose to stay, no one and nothing can snatch me away from God. But we still have free will, and we can choose to leave. That's different.

Sounds like you can snatch yourself out of your Father's hand. That makes you quite powerful indeed. That also makes salvation very tentative and not something you can be assured of.

But we also need to be aware of what happens when we lose interest in Jesus, when we wander away from Him. It is not a matter of once saved, always saved. We still have the option to put other things in our life ahead of our love for God.

Yes, and we will do so. We don't lose our salvation each time we put other things in our life ahead of our love for God. Jesus Christ does not let go of His own as quickly and as easily as some people presume.

I don't want to overstate these points as I do believe that there is a useful tension in Scripture on these issues. However, if we land in a place where "our will" uscerps "God's will," then I suspect that our perspective may be out of balance.

BFA

 

[Princessdi]

Ok so, I don't believe God ever leaves us. However, because we have free will, we can ignore or acknowledge His presence. He is there, He has proveded salvation, we just have to acknowledge His presence, and the rescue. He does not force us. He has reconciled Himself to us, but it does take two to reconcile.


Because of free will, there has to be the option for one party other to not reconcile. Because God says, He will never leave us, that He is steady knocking at out heart's door, that nothing can separate Him from us, and He cannot lie, then the failure to reconcile is on our part, not His. He offers the Gift, but we all know a gift can be rejected, right?

The parable of the Prodigal son is that right idea. The youngest son chose to leave, but his father never stopped loving him, looking for him to return. Unconditional love and relationship still intact. The father was right there when his son needed him to be. The interesting thing is that the son did believe that the relationship had changed doe to his own behavior, but it had not. The elder son also thought it should have changed........

 

[Laodicean]

Princessdi gave a really great explanation. Hopefully, I won't have to add much more now.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

"together" meaning "reconciled," right? I hope we are using the same understanding of words here. You are only reconciled (together) with God if you choose to accept His presence.
​

Yes, I agree that we are talking about reconciliation. With this in view, is it possible for God to reconcile us to Himself?

yes, it is not only possible for God to reconcile us to Himself; it is reality. It has already happened. He waits with open arms. But will we reconcile to God?

Originally Posted by Laodicean You don't come to Him. You respond to His "knock," you open the "door"....or you don't.
​

And what if I don't? Is God capable of opening the door on His own? Would He do that or is He limited by my response?

I'm sure that God is capable of opening the door on His own, but He will not do that because He has given us free will and He will not violate that. Apparently, He has chosen to limit Himself when it comes to our response to Him. Freewill is that important to Him. And, thankfully, we are not robots.

Originally Posted by Laodicean okay, I take back any phraseology that hints of "coming to Him" if that confuses things. There are steps we take in order to "come to Christ," and these steps are just instructions on how to open the door of our minds and hearts when we hear that knock.
​

What are these steps?

believe, surrender, repent, accept forgiveness, move forward with Jesus in newness of life. These are the steps to "opening the door" to Christ.

Originally Posted by Laodicean We do not have to go anywhere in order to "come to God," because He is already there at the door. But what are the "steps" you need to take to let God in and be reconciled?
​

I think you may have answered your own question. We don't have to go anywhere. We don't have to take steps. The concept of "steps to Christ" is a myth.

Don't get hung up on a word. "Steps" can have other meanings than the one you have in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the meaning you have in mind is that "steps," to you, mean that we have to come to God who is far and away from us, and we have to knock frantically on His "door," hoping that He will have mercy and open to us. Not so.

Originally Posted by Laodicean This, I believe and trust that as long as I choose to stay, no one and nothing can snatch me away from God. But we still have free will, and we can choose to leave. That's different.
​

Sounds like you can snatch yourself out of your Father's hand. That makes you quite powerful indeed. That also makes salvation very tentative and not something you can be assured of.

having free will does not make salvation tentative at all. Once you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, He keeps you.

There have been times in my life when I've been discouraged or angry or disappointed in life and/or God, and I determined to leave the whole religious "fantasy" as I would call it at those times. And yes, that makes me powerful, but only in the sense that I have been given free will to "snatch" myself out of my Father's hand, as you phrased it.

But every time I was about to leave, the Spirit would make the suggestion, "Ask Him to keep you." That kind of request would allow me to have the free will to leave and yet allow God to intervene and keep me. So I remember distinctly saying, on a number of occasions, "Father, I'm leaving. Woohoo, here I come, world!" Then I would add, "But, Father, please don't let me go. Hold onto me because I can't hold onto you any longer." (Maybe I should have long ago stopped trying to hold onto God. That act can be very wearying. I've learned that just asking Him to keep me gives me wonderful "Sabbath" rest.)

And, oh, I should add: God has never failed me. Once I gave Him the permission to keep me, He has held me tied to Him. I am forever grateful to Him for keeping me this way.

So, yes, I can agree with you that it is not that easy to be lost. Even when we are tempted to give up, it is not until we persist and persist in the leaving, and refuse to ask God to keep us, that God will finally reluctantly let us go. I've heard it said that it is harder to be lost than to be saved, and I agree.

Originally Posted by Laodicean But we also need to be aware of what happens when we lose interest in Jesus, when we wander away from Him. It is not a matter of once saved, always saved. We still have the option to put other things in our life ahead of our love for God.
​

Yes, and we will do so. We don't lose our salvation each time we put other things in our life ahead of our love for God. Jesus Christ does not let go of His own as quickly and as easily as some people presume.

I agree with you on this. It is the trend of our lives that matter, not the individual fallings and risings. There are many times when I've had to say, "Lord, I can't do this. I am tired, I am weary, and I don't have what it takes to do this right thing, or to keep on doing that right thing. You know, Father, that my spirit is willing, but my flesh is weak." And invariably, when I pray that kind of prayer, strength comes, and I find that I am able to validate the text that says, "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." Isaiah 40:31.

And so that is why I am inclined to think that once we have surrendered our lives to Jesus, we are no longer sinners. We are saints fighting various character defects and flaws. "Saints" in my opinion, are not perfect people. They are just converted people, converted to the ways and will of Jesus.

Oh, and those times when I forget to talk to the Lord about whatever tendencies I have towards sinning? Then I do indeed fall, but I rise again, still under the umbrella of Christ's righteousness. He understands.

I don't want to overstate these points as I do believe that there is a useful tension in Scripture on these issues. However, if we land in a place where "our will" uscerps "God's will," then I suspect that our perspective may be out of balance.

BFA

yes, and God's will is that our will be in harmony with His.

 

[Pythons]

There was indeed a shut door, eventually correctly understood, that referred to the movement of Jesus from the timeline of the first-apartment symbolism into the timeline of the second-apartment symbolism. This was indeed affirmed by God.

The issue, however, is Ellen making affirmations salvation was terminated for humanity...
...Between 1844 & 1850 - 51.
...And claiming God "shew" her.

A Prophet ( and those who support it ) are not at liberty to play Penn and Teller...
...With what God said via them.

There are MORE then enough detailed descriptions of what "the shut door" was...
...That it's foolish to attempt to re-define the term after the fact.
...And that's what Ellen & her apologists have attempted to do.

But there was also a shut-door misunderstanding that EGW participated in, and this misunderstanding was not affirmed by God. Shortly after 1844, for a time, many of the disappointed Adventists (SDAs did not come into existence until 1863) thought that the door of probation had closed forever for those who refused to believe in the second coming.

Participated would not be the correct word to use in this case...
...Bludgeoned is more accurate of a discription.

Mrs. White wrote, in a letter to Loughborough, the following: "With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in '44 I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point."

Ellen's letter to John Norton Loughborough in 1874, is that the one?
...The period we will be inspecting is previous to 1874.
...Because that's the time hack Ellen used her prophetic gift.
...To establish shut door teaching.

Ellen's letter to J.N.L. was simply a shill for her Penn and Teller street game...
...The ploy she was fond of using in moving her teachings around.
...Only instead of a ping pong ball under the cup it was theology.

Ellen's 1st vision was claimed to have taken place on December of 1844....
...THAT vision was not put into print until Jan 24 1846 - where it appeared.
...In "The Day Star" rag & again in 1847 in a "Word to the Little Flock".

The text of which can be read fully at the following "pro E.G.W." site...
...On page 4 Ellen explicitly states she was told in vision the shut door was valid.
...And the Adventists who had left the movement were counted among those.
..."Which God HAD rejected".
http://sopvindicated.org/Sopvindicated/Downloads/WLF.pdf

Directly PRIOR to Ellen's 1st vision ( December 1844 ) Ellen and those around here in Portland Maine....
...Had GIVEN UP on both the Midnight cry AND the shut door.
...Thanks to Ellen's prophetic gift she was able to bludgeon the flock.
...Back into the TRADITIONAL BELIEF of the "shut door".

When SHE [ Ellen White ] received her first vision, Dec 1844, she AND ALL the band in Portland Maine had GIVEN UP the midnight cry AND SHUT DOOR, as being in the PAST. It was THEN that the Lord SHEW her in VISION, the error into which she and the band in Portland HAD FALLEN.

Miller incepted the "shut door", Jesus didn't come in 1844 and people lost faith...
...Ellen and the little band are mentally junked sitting around in Portland Maine.
...After GIVING UP the midnight cry AND "shut door".
...Until God "shew" Ellen she and the other's were in error for rejecting it????

The Word to the Little Flock continues...

She [ Ellen White ] THEN related her VISION to the band, and about sixty CONFESSED their ERROR, and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God.

This is starting to sound very familiar, isn't it. It is the same "swap" that was used...
...To attempt to make Miller's message valid.
...When it was heretical.

William Miller's ONLY message was to repent and get ready because Jesus was coming in 1844....
...There was NO OTHER MESSAGE, that was IT.

Various Ministers at the time came out and said they agreed with repenting and living holy lives but were against the setting of a specific time for Jesus' 2nd Coming.

Ellen White lambasts those Ministers, claiming the reason they rejected Miller's date was that they hated Jesus. This is cultic reasoning to the extreme because it demonizes Christians who actually read and believed the Bible when it clearly stated that on man would know the day, season, etc of Jesus' Return.

This is why I bring this up - Ellen stated she didn't use a vision to teach the shut door & I just demonstrated she did.....
...There was only ONE meaning of the "Shut door" between 1844 and 1850 - 51.
...Are you suggesting Ellen "re-defined" what the shut door equated to years prior to her even realizing she re-defined it?
...You can' be suggesting that, can you?

Further in that same letter she writes: "It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. . . . I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it . . . . I saw that in '44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it, and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel went into darkness . . . . " ("Review and Herald, January 14, 1932, p. 6, accompanied by photographic facsimile of this part of her letter.")

I get what you're saying Laodicea but this is impossible belief for Ellen, given the ONLY meaning of Shut Door....
...That existed between 1844 and 1850 - 51 was explicit that salvation had passed away PERMENANTLY.

So when EGW writes, "that most of the Advent people believed AS WE DO that there was a shut door in '44," she is not referring to her early erroneous belief that the door was shut on the rest of the world forever, and she makes it clear she received no vision affirming such a belief, as you say. But she did receive visions affirming that there was a shut door in '44. It just was not the kind of shut door that you and the early Adventists believed.

& I just made it clear she indeed had such a belief....
...And claimed God "shew her" this teaching.

If what I said previously wasn't enough I'll give you another one to consider...
...That has Ellen White clearly teaching that God "shew" her the shut door was valid.

Very early next morning Joseph Tuner called, said he was in haste going out of the city in a short time, and wated I should tell him ALL THAT GOD had shown me IN VISION. It was with fear and trembling I told him ALL. After I had got through he said he had told out the same last evening. I rejoiced, for I had expected he was coming out against me, for all the while I had not heard any one say what he believed. He said the Lord had sent him to talk the evening before, but as I would not, he meant his children should have the light in some way, so he took him.

Well, Here is what Joseph Turner understood "The Shut door to mean" prior to speaking with Ellen.

But can ANY sinner be converted if the door is SHUT? Of course they cannot, though changes that may appear to be conversions may take place.... But to think of laboring to convert the great masses of the world at such a time, would be as idle as it would have been for the Israelited, when they were down by the red sea, to have turned about to convert the Egyptians. It would be labor lost, to say nothing of the danger we might incur upon our own souls

That's what Joe Turner understood "The shut door" to be......
...And Ellen was in a state of ecstasy once she spilled the beans of her vision to Joe.
...Because her vision agreed with Joe????

Did Joe Turner NOT understand what the shut door really was?

Let's see how you answer my answers before I start to heap on even more visions....
...And Ellen's understanding of what the shut door was between 1844 and 1851.

And thanks for talking about this with me Laodicean.

 

[from scratch]

"together" meaning "reconciled," right? I hope we are using the same understanding of words here.

You are only reconciled (together) with God if you choose to accept His presence.



He comes to you, BFA, according to Revelation 3:20. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Maybe I'm phrasing things poorly.

You don't come to Him. You respond to His "knock," you open the "door"....or you don't.



depends on the extent of our pride and desire to be independent of God.



okay, I take back any phraseology that hints of "coming to Him" if that confuses things. There are steps we take in order to "come to Christ," and these steps are just instructions on how to open the door of our minds and hearts when we hear that knock. We do not have to go anywhere in order to "come to God," because He is already there at the door. But what are the "steps" you need to take to let God in and be reconciled?



I imagine you are referring to the text, John 10:29: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand." This, I believe and trust that as long as I choose to stay, no one and nothing can snatch me away from God. But we still have free will, and we can choose to leave. That's different.



I'm sorry, if the emphasis seems to be human-directed. I agree with you that our eyes need to be fixed on Jesus. Only then we are safe. But we also need to be aware of what happens when we lose interest in Jesus, when we wander away from Him. It is not a matter of once saved, always saved. We still have the option to put other things in our life ahead of our love for God.

It appears to me that you are on the works side of abtaining salvation. Eph 2:8, 9 says that it is by faith and not anything we can do. Where does this faith/desire come from? Us? No! That is not our nature. Where do we get the ability to believe? I think the real answer to both my questions is God. They are His works not ours. God chose us, we did not choose Him.