Can An Evangelical Sunday Worshiper Actually Become a Seven Day Adventist: Its More Than Just The D

LoveGodsWord said:

I think you are missing the point. I do not interpret those quotes as saying what you are claiming here. They are not saying to me that EGW commentaries on the bible are replacing the bible. For me there is nothing in those quotes to suggest this. That is something it seems you are reading into that are not there and your post here is non responsive to what you are quoting from.

Click to expand...

No, you stated the point quite clearly:

LoveGodsWord said:

All I see in those statement is that her writing are more like an inspired bible commentary

Click to expand...

You have just stated that Ellen White's writings are an inspired commentary.

And the statements of the GC said that they have doctrinal authority, and are used to correct inaccurate interpretations.

That is not applying the Bible as the standard. That places Ellen White's writings as the guide to inspired, correct, interpretation. Or it couldn't correct inaccurate interpretations.

tall73 said:

No, you stated the point quite clearly:

You have just stated that Ellen White's writings are an inspired commentary.

And the statements of the GC said that they have doctrinal authority, and are used to correct inaccurate interpretations.

That is not applying the Bible as the standard. That places Ellen White's writings as the guide to inspired, correct, interpretation. Or it couldn't correct inaccurate interpretations.

Click to expand...

No! I said in context...

LoveGodsWord wrote: Perhaps because there is as the bible says "every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14) seeking to deceive if possible God's very elect just as the bible teaches *Matthew 24:24. This is how it is today is it not with as some estimate over 40,000 different Christian religions in the world today? All I see in those statement is that her writing are more like an inspired bible commentary. We are being a little naive if we think the various christian religions of the world do not use bible commentaries are we not? Also, to be honest I am quite amazed how many people deny spiritual gifts in the Church as if they are not biblical *1 Corinthians 12:1-11. Though all of this is probably off topic to the OP.

You then responded with...

tall73 said:

If her writings are an INSPIRED Bible commentary and correct inaccurate interpretations how is the Bible the standard?

Click to expand...

Then I said...

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ I think you are missing the point. I do not interpret those quotes as saying what you are claiming here. They are not saying to me that EGW commentaries on the bible are replacing the bible. For me there is nothing in those quotes to suggest this. That is something it seems you are reading into that are not there and your post here is non responsive to what you are quoting from.

Click to expand...

Please stop making strawman arguments no one is talking about or claim things here that no one believes as it is misinformation.

Perhaps this will help...

Do Seventh-day Adventists believe that the writings of Ellen G. White are equal to, or an addition to, the Scriptures? If the Bible is all-sufficient, why do we need Ellen White's writings?

Seventh-day Adventists do not place Ellen White's writings on the same level as Scripture. "The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject" (Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . , p. 227). Another way of framing this question is to ask why the church should need any of the promised gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White answered this question in the Introduction to her book The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan:

"In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience. "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16, 17, R.V.).

"Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through His Word, has not rendered needless the continued presence and guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our Saviour, to open the Word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings. And since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the Word.

"The Spirit was not given--nor can it ever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. . . .

"In harmony with the Word of God, His Spirit was to continue its work throughout the period of the gospel dispensation. During the ages while the Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament were being given, the Holy Spirit did not cease to communicate light to individual minds, apart from the revelations to be embodied in the Sacred Canon. The Bible itself relates how, through the Holy Spirit, men received warning, reproof, counsel, and instruction, in matters in no way relating to the giving of the Scriptures. And mention is made of prophets in different ages, of whose utterances nothing is recorded. In like manner, after the close of the canon of the Scripture, the Holy Spirit was still to continue its work, to enlighten, warn, and comfort the children of God" (The Great Controversy, pp. vii, viii).

- Source EGW Estate

Hope this is helpful

LoveGodsWord said:

Please stop making strawman arguments no one is talking about.

Click to expand...

It is not a straw-man argument. When you say her writings are an inspired Bible commentary, and when the GC says her writings correct inaccurate interpretation, that is plain.

Seventh-day Adventists do not place Ellen White's writings on the same level as Scripture. "The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject" (Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . , p. 227).

Click to expand...

Yes, she must be judged by the Scriptures. Yet, the statement of the GC indicates that her writings correct interpretations of the Scriptures, and have authority for doctrine.

Now if you said that Paul's interpretation of the OT passages was correct because he was a prophet, we agree. If you say his writings, inspired by God, have authority, we agree. But Paul was already checked out by the apostles in his day, and Peter indicated God gave Paul wisdom. The apostles were chosen by Christ Himself.

But now you are saying that you both test Ellen White by the Scriptures, but that her writings also correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture. I am guessing by that system she will pass your test. But that is placing her above the Scriptures.

In harmony with the Word of God, His Spirit was to continue its work throughout the period of the gospel dispensation. During the ages while the Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament were being given, the Holy Spirit did not cease to communicate light to individual minds, apart from the revelations to be embodied in the Sacred Canon. The Bible itself relates how, through the Holy Spirit, men received warning, reproof, counsel, and instruction, in matters in no way relating to the giving of the Scriptures. And mention is made of prophets in different ages, of whose utterances nothing is recorded. In like manner, after the close of the canon of the Scripture, the Holy Spirit was still to continue its work, to enlighten, warn, and comfort the children of God" (The Great Controversy, pp. vii, viii).

Click to expand...

We agree the Spirit continues its work. But the Scriptures are still the test, not the "inspired Bible commentary" which corrects inaccurate interpretation of Scripture.

tall73 said:

No, you stated the point quite clearly:

You have just stated that Ellen White's writings are an inspired commentary.

And the statements of the GC said that they have doctrinal authority, and are used to correct inaccurate interpretations.

That is not applying the Bible as the standard. That places Ellen White's writings as the guide to inspired, correct, interpretation. Or it couldn't correct inaccurate interpretations.

It is not a straw-man argument. When you say her writings are an inspired Bible commentary, and when the GC says her writings correct inaccurate interpretation, that is plain.

We agree the Spirit continues its work. But the Scriptures are still the test, not the "inspired Bible commentary" which corrects inaccurate interpretation of Scripture.

Click to expand...

No your making arguments no one believes by trying to argue that SDA's believe in EGW over the bible which is not true, even after I posted you official SDA statement stating the opposite. No one ever once said that the scriptures are not the final test so your making arguments no one is arguing about. See post # 83 linked. As posted in the first few posts to you I do not interpret what was written from the GC as you have and posted official SDA statement stating the exact opposite of your interpretation of what you provided earlier.

LoveGodsWord said:

No your making arguments no one believes trying to argue that SDA's believe in EGW over the bible even after I posted you official SDA statement stating the opposite. Please stop making things up no one believes here. No one ever once said that the scriptures are not the final test. So please do not say that they have. See post # 83 linked

Click to expand...

I posted two statements from the church in General Session, which state that they correct inaccurate interpretations of the Bible, and that they have doctrinal authority.

If they correct inaccurate interpretations of the Bible, how could you test them by the Bible?

It is the General Conference delegates in business session that approved the fundamental beliefs, AND these statements.

LoveGodsWord said:

As posted in the first few posts to you I do not interpret what was written from the GC as you have and posted official statement stating the exact opposite of your interpretation of what you provided earlier.

Click to expand...

I am sure you disagree. But we will let people evaluate what the statements actually say.

tall73 said:

I posted two statements from the church in General Session, which state that they correct inaccurate interpretations of the Bible, and that they have doctrinal authority. You can claim no one believes that, but as statements by the General Conference session that holds as much weight as the fundamentals, passed by the same body.

Click to expand...

No. I claimed that no one believes EGW over the bible which is the argument your seeking to make and showed official SDA statements disagreeing with your interpretation of the statements you provided earlier. This is why I am disagreeing with you.

LoveGodsWord said:

No. I claimed that no one believes EGW over the bible

Click to expand...

You claim they must say the same thing because you said her writings are an inspired commentary.

But then how can you test her by the Bible if her writings give the correct interpretation of the Bible?

LoveGodsWord said:

and showed official SDA statements disagreeing with your interpretation of the statements you provided earlier.

Click to expand...

All of them are official statements from the GC session.

tall73 said:

You claim they must say the same thing because you said her writings are an inspired commentary. But then how can you test her by the Bible if her writings give the correct interpretation of the Bible? All of them are official statements from the GC session.

Click to expand...

No, as posted to you in the first post and let me say it again. I do not interpret those statement as saying the SDA Church puts EGW over the bible. I even posted you an official SDA statement stating the exact opposite of what your claiming here. Your misinterpreting the statements you have provided and just repeating things we have already discussed (see post # 83 linked). Lets be honest here Tall. You have not provided a single statement that says that the SDA Church puts the writing of EGW over the bible. You have read that into the quotes you have provided while disregarding the official statement from the SDA church stating exactly what the SDA Church believes in regards to EGW and the bible which is not what your trying to claim here. Sorry but I disagree with you here. Lets not go round and round in circles here. It is going off topic to the OP. Sorry but I do not agree with the interpretation you have applied to those statements seeking to claim that SDA's follow EGW over the bible. That interpretation is simply not truthful which has already been shown in the linked post above. So I guess we will agree to disagree.

LoveGodsWord said:

I do not read those statement as saying the SDA Church puts EGW over the bible.

Click to expand...

Already addressed. They indicate her view of the Bible is the right one, and they say the same thing, because her writings CORRECT inaccurate interpretations of Scripture. In other words, no other view of Scripture can be correct, per Adventists. Because her writings correct other views.

I even posted you an official statement stating the opposite of what your claiming. Your misinterpreting the statements you have provided and just repeating things we have already discussed

Click to expand...

They are all official statements.

Lets be honest here Tall. You have not provided a single statement that says that the SDA Church puts the writing of EGW over the bible.

Click to expand...

I am being honest here. I stated you think they both must say the same thing because her writings correct other interpretations if they differ.

You have read that into the quotes you have provided while ignoring the official statement from the SDA church stating exactly what the SDA Church believes in regards to EGW and the bible.

Click to expand...

I have not ignored it at all. I also noted their other two statements, which are official. And they state that her writings correct inaccurate views of Scripture.

Sorry but I disagree with you here. Lets not go round and round in circles here. It is going off topic to the OP.

Click to expand...

It is not off topic. The OP discussed the relation of EGW to the Bible. And you can decide what you reply to.

Sorry but I do not agree with the interpretation you have applied to those statements seeking to claim that SDA's follow EGW over the bible. That interpretation is simply not truthful. So I guess we will agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Do you think any interpretation of Scripture by Ellen White is incorrect?

Do you think they are saying the same thing?

If you think all of her interpretations are correct, and they are saying the same thing, then you are putting her on the same level as Scripture. And there is no other way it could be because inspiration is inspiration.

So if Ellen White is inspired, per Adventists, then her view of Scripture must be right. And if the Scriptures are not clear on a point, then you must take her view, because she corrects inaccurate interpretation.

So explain how you test her writings by the Bible if her writings point out inaccurate interpretation?

tall73 said:

Already addressed. They indicate her view of the Bible is the right one, and they say the same thing, because her writings CORRECT inaccurate interpretations of Scripture. In other words, no other view of Scripture can be correct, per Adventists. Because her writings correct other views.

Click to expand...

Repetition. Already addressed in post # 92 linked. Your reading into those statement what they do not say. I do not read those statement as saying the SDA Church puts EGW over the bible. I even posted you an official SDA statement stating the exact opposite of what your claiming here. Your misinterpreting the statements you have provided and just repeating things we have already discussed (see post # 83 linked). Lets be honest here Tall. You have not provided a single statement that says that the SDA Church puts the writing of EGW over the bible. You have read that into the quotes you have provided while ignoring the official statement from the SDA church stating exactly what the SDA Church believes in regards to EGW and the bible.

tall73 said:

They are all official statements I am being honest here. I stated you think they both must say the same thing because her writings correct other interpretations if they differ. I have not ignored it at all. I also noted their other two statements, which are official. And they state that her writings correct inaccurate views of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Sure but not with the interpretation your trying to add to them (see post # 83 linked and post # 92 linked) already addressed.

tall73 said:

It is not off topic. The OP discussed the relation of EGW to the Bible. And you can decide what you reply to.

Click to expand...

Actually it is off topic. The OP discussed in point 6 only the relationship of EGW prophetic status not if SDA's put EGW before the bible which was already answered for you in an official SDA statement in post # 83 linked. As posted earlier it is your interpretation of the statement you provided not if they were official or not. You were trying to apply an interpretation to those statements that SDA's put EGW over the bible which is not truthful or accurate as debunked in the official statement that directly refutes that interpretation in post # 83 linked.

tall73 said:

Do you think any interpretation of Scripture by Ellen White is incorrect?

Click to expand...

My focus is where she tells everyone to go to and that is the bible. Your the only one here wanting to talk about EGW when all that has been provided here in this OP is nothing but scripture.

tall73 said:

If you think all of her interpretations are correct, and they are saying the same thing, then you are putting her on the same level as Scripture. And there is no other way it could be because inspiration is inspiration

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Already addressed in post # 83 linked.

tall73 said:

So if Ellen White is inspired, per Adventists, then her view of Scripture must be right. And if the Scriptures are not clear on a point, then you must take her view, because she corrects inaccurate interpretation.

Click to expand...

No. Words and scripture are opened to interpretation. Just as there are 40,000+ different interpretations of Christianity based on false interpretation of the scriptures people do the same thing to EGW writings. What you have not picked up on here is that truthful interpretation of Gods' Word can only be revealed to anyone through the Spirit of truth that God gives to those who obey Him *see Acts of the Apostles 5:29; John 16:13; John 7:17; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27 which is a part of God's new covenant promise to those who believe and follow His Word (Hebrews 8:11). No one therefore receives Gods' Spirit if they are living in a life of known unrepentant sin and unbelief (Hebrews 10:26-31) once they have been given a knowledge of the truth and choose to turn away from it, depart the faith and return to unbelief and sin according to the scriptures. It is your interpretation I am in disagreement with not any of the statements provided here. We believe different things through interpretation.

tall73 said:

So explain how you test her writings by the Bible if her writings point out inaccurate interpretation?

Click to expand...

See previous section. According to the scriptures, sin (breaking God' commandments and not believing and following God's Word *1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11; Romans 7:7; Romans 14:23) is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil *1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14. Therefore says Jesus you shall know them (who is from God and who is not) by their fruits *Matthew 7:16-20; John 15:1-6; 1 John 2:3-4. Therefore no one believes on or in Christ if they do not follow what Gods Word says (Matthew 7:21-23). See also Isaiah 8:20; 1 John 2:3-4. Sorry dear friend but I do not believe you (see Hebrews 10:26-31). So we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.

tall73 said:

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

This is part of the statement that was voted by the General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventists Church in San Antonio, Texas, July 2-11, 2015.

A Statement of Confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy

As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that "in His Word God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience" (The Great Controversy, p 7). We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.

This is part of the statement that was approved and voted by the General Conference session in Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 30, 1995.

Freth, why did the General Conference vote to agree with the notion that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture, if they are not used to interpret Scripture? And why did they say they had authority for doctrine?

You think they will pass the proposed statement for the next session, from the executive committee? This line looks interesting:

http://excom.zcuc.adventist.org/wp-...-in-the-Writings-of-Ellen-G-White-in-EN-1.pdf

Rather than replacing Scripture, they uplift its normative character, safeguard the Church from “every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), and offer an inspired guide to Bible passages without exhausting their meaning or preventing further study.

Click to expand...

This is very telling! Thank you for this enlightening information.

LoveGodsWord said:

According to the scriptures, we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. Obedience to God's law is not how we are saved

Click to expand...

You could have just said that when I quoted Ellen White stating that sabbath observance was required for salvation. Is this to mean you are in disagreement with Ellen White?

LoveGodsWord said:

According to the scriptures we need to believe and follow all of Gods' Word to be saved.

Click to expand...

Where in scripture is it taught that one needs to follow ALL of God's Word to be saved ?

Following is the letter sent to the Gentile believers in the early Church ... from the Jerusalem Council (i.e. Peter, Paul, James, John, Silas, Barnabas, etc.) ...

Acts 15

"The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul

— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell."

LoveGodsWord said:

According to the scriptures we need to believe and follow all of Gods' Word to be saved. Salvation is conditional on believing and following what Gods' Word says.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

According to the scriptures, we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. Obedience to God's law is not how we are saved

Click to expand...

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Which one is the correct statement?

Michael Collum said:

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Which one is the correct statement?

Click to expand...

All of God's Word does not mean just God's laws. I do not see any contradiction here.

SabbathBlessings said:

All of God's Word does not mean just God's laws. I do not see any contradiction here.

Click to expand...

Try reading the context.

Michael Collum said:

Try reading the context.

Click to expand...

I did.

SabbathBlessings said:

I did.

Click to expand...

So the context was about sabbath observance being required for salvation as per Ellen White's quote.

In light of this, I doubt your ability to interpret the scriptures.

Danthemailman said:

This is very telling! Thank you for this enlightening information.

Click to expand...

Here let me help you with that. Please see post # 83 linked it is misinformation. I have never met anyone in the Church that teaches EGW over the bible (see official SDA statement attached in the linked post).