-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1888 the real issue that is not being discussed
- Thread starter Adventist Dissident
- Start date
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
What was wrong with this post it was #2. Did you read this???
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html
The Uriah Smith-Ellen G. White Misunderstanding
Uriah Smith was distressed when this "mother in Israel" took E. J. Waggoner's position on the law in Galatians. He had expected her to take the same position she did in the similar controversy with Waggoner's father in 1856. Her apparent about-face astonished him. What is more, Mrs. White had sent a testimony telling J. H. Waggoner he was wrong.
There is another interesting aspect to this matter. In her February 18, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, written from Basel, Switzerland, Mrs. White said the dispute over the law in Galatians was an unimportant side issue which should not disturb the unity of the church. But when she actually heard Waggoner on this disputed matter in 1888, she thought it was worth risking a denominational revolution.
A little over a year after Minneapolis, Uriah Smith wrote a letter to Mrs. White on the issue of the law in Galatians. He expressed considerable surprise at the change in her position. He reminded her of the 1856 debate over J. H. Waggoner's position, of her part in silencing him and of her testimony to J. H. Waggoner stating he was wrong. Smith stated that E. J. Waggoner's articles in the Signs of 1886 had seemed to him then, as well as at the time of writing in February, 1890, to directly contradict Mrs. White's counsel to J. H. Waggoner.
According to Smith some had tried to make it appear that Mrs. White did not have J. H. Waggoner's stand on the law in Galatians in mind when she said his position was wrong. Smith was adamant, however, that the only issue involved in 1856 was whether the law which Paul said was "added" was the moral law. (32)
Mrs. White, however, was not as clear on the subject as Smith appeared to be. In her February, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, she said:
I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years....
I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me....
I have wanted to get out articles in regard to the law, but I have been moving about so much, my writings are where I can not have advantage of them.... But I did see years ago that Elder Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. (33)
About seven weeks later Mrs. White wrote Butler and Smith, reiterating her deep concern over the loss of the article she had read to J. H. Waggoner. She said:
I am troubled; for the life of me, I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were, that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. (34)
Mrs. White's ambivalent recollections on this matter make us wonder whether she told J. H. Waggoner that his views were wrong or whether she was only trying to caution him against agitating differences among the brethren. Smith, however, wrote to Mrs. White, saying:
My recollection on that is quite distinct, and if I was on oath at a court of justice, I should be obliged to testify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, that was the only point then at issue [whether the law in Galatians 3 was the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic law system]; and on that you [Ellen G. White] said that Brother Waggoner was wrong. (35)
In a letter written in response to Mrs. White's rebuke for his Signs articles of 1886, E. J. Waggoner added to the apparent confusion when he said:
I will say also that I had never heard of your having read a testimony to my father in regard to the law. I did not know that you had ever spoken on the subject. If I had known that, the case would have been different.
He then added: ]"I may state, however, that the view which I have taught is quite materially different from that which father held. I do not know whether or not he now holds the same view." (36) However, an examination of J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, shows that he and his son took substantially the same position on the law in Galatians 3. (37) Why then did E. J. Waggoner plead that his position differed from his father's? Was it to protect himself from the charge of guilt by association? Or was it a wish to be judged on his own merits? Furthermore, what happened to the testimony Mrs. White wrote to father J. H. Waggoner, saying he was wrong? No one seems to know.
With Footnotes and sources
31. White, Selected Messages, 1:233-41, 341, 367.
32. Smith to White, 17 Feb. 1890; Smith to W. A. McCutchen, 8 Aug. 1901.
33. Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.
34. White to Butler and Smith, 5 Apr. 1887.
35. Smith to White, 17 Feb. 1890.
36. Our attempts to locate the original of this letter have failed. The only remaining evidence for its existence is found in a letter from Dores E. Robinson to W. H. Branson, dated May 8, 1935. On pages 3 and 4 of this letter Robinson quotes from E. J. Waggoner's letter, adding the following comment: "I have copied this from the original which we have on our correspondence file at the office." At the time of writing the letter, Robinson was on the staff of the Ellen G. White Estate in Washington, D.C.
37. Some representative statements from J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments (1854), are as follows.
Regarding the circumstances under which the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, J. H. Waggoner stated:
"His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with judaizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ 'without the law.' Rom. iii, 19-23. This is also shown in Gal. iv, 21; v, 1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected" (p. 74).
On Galatians 3:2-5:
"It might be inferred from Gal. iii, 2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law" (p. 76).
On Galatians 3:24:
"When we inquire into the nature and office of the law that was added, there will be no difficulty in viewing it as the same that was transgressed. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith: justification by the law being impossible by reason of transgression. Here it is evident that he refers to the moral law; for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law; for 'by the law is the knowledge of sin.' So 'the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;' perfect as a standard of right, convincing of sin, and thus bringing us to Christ, the way of salvation. Such conversion is genuine and complete. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Gal. iii, 19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin" (p. 51).
On the phrase, "under the law":
"All will admit that the Galatians had been affected with Judaizing notions of self-righteousness; yet we trust it has been made plain that other errors were obtaining among them, having no reference to the customs of the Jews. If they 'turned back' to their former practices they would again become heathen idolaters; but if under the influence of other teachers they resorted to circumcision, and looked to the law for justification, they were also under condemnation, being proved sinners by their own rule of justification, and this is the signification of the phrase, 'under the law,' as used in the letters to the Romans and Galatians.... This, we think, plainly shows that the Apostle was convincing them of sin by the moral law" (p. 86).
Only the moral law is a rule of justification:
"Was any one, under any circumstances, justified by the law of Moses, or was justification ever coupled with that law? We think not. Nothing but a moral law can be a rule of justification; and the law of Moses consisted only in shadows, which were remembrancers of sin, but could never take away sin. They were not instituted as a means of acceptance with God, [see Ps. xl, 6-8; 1, 8-12; Isa. ii, 10-20; Jer. vi, 20; Amos v, 21-24; 1 Sam. xv, 21, 22; Heb. viii, 5; ix, 9; x, 1-4,] and were not included in man's whole duty to him; [Jer. vii, 22, 23; Eccl. xii, 13;]" (p. 111).
here is the source
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html[/quote]
what is wrong with these quotes? Answer point by point.
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html
The Uriah Smith-Ellen G. White Misunderstanding
Uriah Smith was distressed when this "mother in Israel" took E. J. Waggoner's position on the law in Galatians. He had expected her to take the same position she did in the similar controversy with Waggoner's father in 1856. Her apparent about-face astonished him. What is more, Mrs. White had sent a testimony telling J. H. Waggoner he was wrong.
There is another interesting aspect to this matter. In her February 18, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, written from Basel, Switzerland, Mrs. White said the dispute over the law in Galatians was an unimportant side issue which should not disturb the unity of the church. But when she actually heard Waggoner on this disputed matter in 1888, she thought it was worth risking a denominational revolution.
A little over a year after Minneapolis, Uriah Smith wrote a letter to Mrs. White on the issue of the law in Galatians. He expressed considerable surprise at the change in her position. He reminded her of the 1856 debate over J. H. Waggoner's position, of her part in silencing him and of her testimony to J. H. Waggoner stating he was wrong. Smith stated that E. J. Waggoner's articles in the Signs of 1886 had seemed to him then, as well as at the time of writing in February, 1890, to directly contradict Mrs. White's counsel to J. H. Waggoner.
According to Smith some had tried to make it appear that Mrs. White did not have J. H. Waggoner's stand on the law in Galatians in mind when she said his position was wrong. Smith was adamant, however, that the only issue involved in 1856 was whether the law which Paul said was "added" was the moral law. (32)
Mrs. White, however, was not as clear on the subject as Smith appeared to be. In her February, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, she said:
I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years....
I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me....
I have wanted to get out articles in regard to the law, but I have been moving about so much, my writings are where I can not have advantage of them.... But I did see years ago that Elder Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. (33)
About seven weeks later Mrs. White wrote Butler and Smith, reiterating her deep concern over the loss of the article she had read to J. H. Waggoner. She said:
I am troubled; for the life of me, I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were, that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. (34)
Mrs. White's ambivalent recollections on this matter make us wonder whether she told J. H. Waggoner that his views were wrong or whether she was only trying to caution him against agitating differences among the brethren. Smith, however, wrote to Mrs. White, saying:
My recollection on that is quite distinct, and if I was on oath at a court of justice, I should be obliged to testify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, that was the only point then at issue [whether the law in Galatians 3 was the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic law system]; and on that you [Ellen G. White] said that Brother Waggoner was wrong. (35)
In a letter written in response to Mrs. White's rebuke for his Signs articles of 1886, E. J. Waggoner added to the apparent confusion when he said:
I will say also that I had never heard of your having read a testimony to my father in regard to the law. I did not know that you had ever spoken on the subject. If I had known that, the case would have been different.
He then added: ]"I may state, however, that the view which I have taught is quite materially different from that which father held. I do not know whether or not he now holds the same view." (36) However, an examination of J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, shows that he and his son took substantially the same position on the law in Galatians 3. (37) Why then did E. J. Waggoner plead that his position differed from his father's? Was it to protect himself from the charge of guilt by association? Or was it a wish to be judged on his own merits? Furthermore, what happened to the testimony Mrs. White wrote to father J. H. Waggoner, saying he was wrong? No one seems to know.
With Footnotes and sources
31. White, Selected Messages, 1:233-41, 341, 367.
32. Smith to White, 17 Feb. 1890; Smith to W. A. McCutchen, 8 Aug. 1901.
33. Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.
34. White to Butler and Smith, 5 Apr. 1887.
35. Smith to White, 17 Feb. 1890.
36. Our attempts to locate the original of this letter have failed. The only remaining evidence for its existence is found in a letter from Dores E. Robinson to W. H. Branson, dated May 8, 1935. On pages 3 and 4 of this letter Robinson quotes from E. J. Waggoner's letter, adding the following comment: "I have copied this from the original which we have on our correspondence file at the office." At the time of writing the letter, Robinson was on the staff of the Ellen G. White Estate in Washington, D.C.
37. Some representative statements from J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments (1854), are as follows.
Regarding the circumstances under which the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, J. H. Waggoner stated:
"His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with judaizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ 'without the law.' Rom. iii, 19-23. This is also shown in Gal. iv, 21; v, 1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected" (p. 74).
On Galatians 3:2-5:
"It might be inferred from Gal. iii, 2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law" (p. 76).
On Galatians 3:24:
"When we inquire into the nature and office of the law that was added, there will be no difficulty in viewing it as the same that was transgressed. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith: justification by the law being impossible by reason of transgression. Here it is evident that he refers to the moral law; for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law; for 'by the law is the knowledge of sin.' So 'the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;' perfect as a standard of right, convincing of sin, and thus bringing us to Christ, the way of salvation. Such conversion is genuine and complete. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Gal. iii, 19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin" (p. 51).
On the phrase, "under the law":
"All will admit that the Galatians had been affected with Judaizing notions of self-righteousness; yet we trust it has been made plain that other errors were obtaining among them, having no reference to the customs of the Jews. If they 'turned back' to their former practices they would again become heathen idolaters; but if under the influence of other teachers they resorted to circumcision, and looked to the law for justification, they were also under condemnation, being proved sinners by their own rule of justification, and this is the signification of the phrase, 'under the law,' as used in the letters to the Romans and Galatians.... This, we think, plainly shows that the Apostle was convincing them of sin by the moral law" (p. 86).
Only the moral law is a rule of justification:
"Was any one, under any circumstances, justified by the law of Moses, or was justification ever coupled with that law? We think not. Nothing but a moral law can be a rule of justification; and the law of Moses consisted only in shadows, which were remembrancers of sin, but could never take away sin. They were not instituted as a means of acceptance with God, [see Ps. xl, 6-8; 1, 8-12; Isa. ii, 10-20; Jer. vi, 20; Amos v, 21-24; 1 Sam. xv, 21, 22; Heb. viii, 5; ix, 9; x, 1-4,] and were not included in man's whole duty to him; [Jer. vii, 22, 23; Eccl. xii, 13;]" (p. 111).
here is the source
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html[/quote]
what is wrong with these quotes? Answer point by point.
Upvote
0
OK, I have 30 secure news sources that say Castro has died, are they true, no, because they all are sources that are ANTI CASTRO or have a agenda against him. Go to the Ellen G Whites writings or identifiable historical sources, do your homework.......
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
you are the most intellectically dishonest person I have ever met in my entire life Post number 2 &22 in this thread is nothing but quotes and facts and documentation. None of the sites I have quoted are anti-Adventist. all have been referenced to there source material and can be double checked.
i have given you quotes from
Clifford Goldstine pg. 14 paragragh 1 of "Grafitt" pro adventist and denominatinally paid.
Gilbert Valentine page 83 of "w.w prescott" pro-adventist and denominatilanlly paid.
Prestent truth magazine a Pro EGW site - which you didn't read
the article is footnoted and referenced to there scource. - which i know you don't read
I have presented my side now it is your turn to debunk the theroy. If you won't debunk point by point then you have not business posting here. If you have something that contradicts what I have said then bring it foreward. other wise go somewhere else.
There is evidence & source material. your defence or lack of defence will be a wittness to anyone who come here.
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The posts are so cluttered here that it will take some time for me to really examine them, especially the quotes, particularly the EGW quotes. I am more interested in the EGW quotes, than any other quotes.
Once I have been able to do that, which may take a few days to accomplish, especially as I have my own SDA forum that needs my attention, I will make my own response here.
Once I have been able to do that, which may take a few days to accomplish, especially as I have my own SDA forum that needs my attention, I will make my own response here.
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
By cluttered, I mean that they contain so much information, quotes, etc. that it will take time to examine each quote, etc. for myself. By that, I mean seeking out each quote in their context, etc. for my own understanding, etc.
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I read the following:
The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant. {3BIO 387.1}
This was not a new subject of interest to Seventh-day Adventists. J. H. Waggoner, in his book The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, published at the Review office in 1854, took the position that the "added law" of verse 19 and the "schoolmaster" of verse 24 was the moral and not the ceremonial law. He took the controversial stance that "not a single declaration" in Galatians "referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law" (page 24). {3BIO 387.2}
According to Uriah Smith, "Sister White . . . had a vision in which this law question was shown her, and she immediately wrote J. H. Waggoner that his position on the law was wrong," and the book was taken off the market (Uriah Smith to W. A. McCutchen, Aug. 6, 1901). This settled the matter for a number of years. Then the question was raised as to whether the counsel given to Waggoner referred to the doctrinal positions in the book or to the matter of publishing conflicting views. {3BIO 387.3}
The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant. {3BIO 387.1}
This was not a new subject of interest to Seventh-day Adventists. J. H. Waggoner, in his book The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, published at the Review office in 1854, took the position that the "added law" of verse 19 and the "schoolmaster" of verse 24 was the moral and not the ceremonial law. He took the controversial stance that "not a single declaration" in Galatians "referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law" (page 24). {3BIO 387.2}
According to Uriah Smith, "Sister White . . . had a vision in which this law question was shown her, and she immediately wrote J. H. Waggoner that his position on the law was wrong," and the book was taken off the market (Uriah Smith to W. A. McCutchen, Aug. 6, 1901). This settled the matter for a number of years. Then the question was raised as to whether the counsel given to Waggoner referred to the doctrinal positions in the book or to the matter of publishing conflicting views. {3BIO 387.3}
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Note the "According to Uriah Smith" part in the last paragraph of the quote I posted.
Also note the "Then the question was raised as to whether the counsel given to Waggoner referred to the doctrinal positions in the book or to the matter of publishing conflicting views" part in the last sentence of that same paragraph.
Also note the "Then the question was raised as to whether the counsel given to Waggoner referred to the doctrinal positions in the book or to the matter of publishing conflicting views" part in the last sentence of that same paragraph.
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
valid point daryl.
May i make a suggestion thel us establish some rules.
1. We will start at the beginning
2. we will present evidence , only one person can present evidence. as appointed by the team.
3. each piece of evidence will be given a point either for EGW or for Smith
4. we will score. 2 point fore EGW ,2. point Smith fe each piece of ecvidence.
5. only reasonable conlclusion will be accepted
6. in the event of a tie 1 point will be awared to each
7. person with the most points wins.
8. Un resolved issues will be give to a jury of 8
4 for EGW: to be name by you, since you are new may i suggest DJ konklin, on the DL, Reddog or g85
4 for Smith : to be named by me
9. you can consult your team for advice e-mail and Pm but not in the fourm so as to keep any confusion out of the fourm and on topic.
10. Teams can post questions,and objections but they must come throuh the designated poster. ONLY ONE POSTER PER TEAM AT A TIME.
11. no personal attacks,or ascribing evil motive. attacks will take away a ..5 points
the assumption will always given in favor of honest motives until proven other wise. You cannot say that the other person has ill will until you can prove it. You will
11. b YOU will accurately represent the thought, feeling and beliefs of other, Never tell some one what they belife ALWAYS ASK. ..5 points will be deducted for this behavior. As an example of this bad behavor I cited DL statement about me. YOU have had a problem longer then that. refering to me questioning EGW since 10/06. He neither has the right or the knowledge to make such a statment. It is nothin but a personal attack. Assume good motives and intentions.
12. all quotes must have a reference, unless agreed upon by the jury, all parties involved, as comon knowledge
13. Common knowledge are those issues general know by Adventist if you just grew up in the system, for example, Ellen White claimed to be a prophet. She lived in healdsburg,ca at one point, she traveled to australia and europe. This also applies to common phrase.
14. you can substuite your self for any of your teammates but must Declare , as substutie.. " I will SUB OUT and I PASS TO ..... THEN you take you place in the jury and no more direct commenting
15. The jury can ask for a review of any of the evidence or stamentes so long as 75% of the Jury or greater is in agreement. that mean you will have to convince 1/2 of the other team to review.
16 appeals on reason and logic or fair conclusion can be made to the jury. 75% or greater, of they jury must agree in order to OVERTURN as stament or REQUEST A REWRITE of the logic.
17. While in appeal NO FURTHER POSTS will be allowed.
18. If we should be intrrupted in the process by and outsider. there post will be ignored and appeals weill be made to have it removed.
19. This is a serach for what is TRUE only what can be know will be accepted.
20. documented souces will be assumed valid until proven other wise.
b. direct source will be accepted
c. indirect sourcs , such as a quote in a paper or on a web site will be accepted as long as it is a direct quote and have a footnote or reference. such as. j.h. waggoners book on the law as found on the site about his son E.J. WAggoner. This is acceptable because it is a direct quote with a reference and can be look up.
d. opinion of others will be accepted only if they back it up with a direct quote. and a source.
I am putting this invation out to you Daryl because I know you are a reasonalble person and you go with the facts. you usyally let the fact tell you what to believe rather then you beliefs tell you what the facts are.
if you accept we will discusse the time and proceedure for posting. opening statments , personal statments about beliefs and purpose, will be negotited. All participatints will have to make statments about beliefs about the topic and there experiance with in the chruch and views with EGW. Also statments as to why you ae involved and what one expects to get out of this experiance.
i hope you will agree to this.
What I would like is an orderly, friendly intellegent discussion. that we can look at the evidence.
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I think all the participants here should discuss your suggestion, the rules you are suggesting, etc. before I either agree, or disagree with this process.
Those who icedragon 101 suggested be on my team, please respond by telling us what you think of this suggestion, etc.
Those who icedragon 101 suggested be on my team, please respond by telling us what you think of this suggestion, etc.
Upvote
0
- Sep 24, 2005
- 12,364
- 456
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There is a forum called Denominational Formal Debates where any interested parties could take such a debate. However, this is a subject that seems like a dead end to me because there are no extant manuscripts or written records, as far as I know, of what Ellen White told J.H. Waggoner in 1856. She herself could never even remember what she had written to him. It's Uriah Smith's word against hers. A lack of evidence would preclude any conclusions on this.
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2005
- 46,723
- 4,216
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
From the research I have done on this so far, that is the conclusion I am also arriving at.
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
let me simplify this for you. After 1888 EGW taught and wrote about RBF, The GC and the DA are good examples of this. On one disagrees about this. The question is What did they teach "offically" Prior to 1888 and why?
Evidence seems to indicate the prior to 1888 they taught something different and that EGW's prophetic ministery was responsible for it. What they taught was Legalism. In order to teach the sabbath the agreed in 1856 that the Law in Galataions was the Cermonial Law(petaining to the temple services) instead of the 10 commandments also know aslo as the moral law.
The reason it is important which law you are talking about is that the function of the Moral law is to convict you of sin. and bring you to christ. It is like a spiritual X-RAY. it tells you you are sick, which then leads you to search out healing, that healig is christ. the 10 commandments are a tool It is the means of converting people. "The law of the lord is perfect ,CONVERTING the soul. To convert a person is to bring them back to God.
They, the pioneers choose, at the urging of EGW's, vision from God, or so Uriah Smith claims, to interpet the passagage in Galatains as the Cermoinal Law,pretaing to the temple. How does the cermonial Law bring us back to God is anyones guess. This leaves us on own to come up with the power to keep Gods law. Since we have not come to christ, we believe we can keep it on our own or so they taught. That leads to legalism.
The problem is the J.H. Waggoner published a book the shows that He had the correct interpation and he was urged, by EGW to Keep quite and give it up. This was not just an opinion but a vision from God to do so. If that is the case the problem is You have God through EGW Contradicting His own statment in the scriptue. If that is the Case then Ellen White Cannot be a Prophet. for the scriptures say "the spirt of the prophets are subject to the prophets". Ellen cannot contradict the Bible
A second problem is that in 1888 she did an apperant about face. Where once she endorsed the inncorrect view of the cermoinal law , she now held to the correct view of the moral law. If this is true then not only did she contradict the bible she contradicted herself. does this clear things up
Upvote
0
O
OntheDL
Guest
Yeah got it. Thanks, but no thanks. Repeating the same thing does not a fact make. You have provided zero proof along with the scores of your other attempts. Now you appear to be beating a dead horse. Just let it go and learn something useful rather than dwelling in controversy.
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
DL I would appreciate it you don't post in here anymore. your post are not constructive. i have given you proof and will give you more proof in a while. You are not open to these ideas and you and have not read the post. I have give you a number of posts of evidence allready but you either did not read it,understand it or like it. I succespect you just didn't like it. You have attacked me personally ascribing evil motives. I loose respect for those who attack. Yoru influlence is being lessened and not inhansed by your actions. You say I have not posted any evidence, either you have not read this thread or you just want hear it. read post #1 #2 and #22
Upvote
0
- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,396
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Since you are not capable of reading post #1,2,22 let me make it abundantlyl clear. Lets reviw the evidence already posted.
Evidence #1
1. "Uriah smith had a hard time accepting the message not so much because of the message, but because he thought he remembered EGW opposing it in a vision in 1856, when Waggoners father brought it up. "W.W. Prescott -The forgotten giant of 2nd generation Adventism" Gilbert Valintine, page 82-83
a. Uriah Smith says he rememberd EGW opposing this view . Waggoner1 in 1856.
b. it was not just an opinion it was a VISION. so it was God opposing the view in 1856
2. I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.... Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.
a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.
b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
c. J.H. was quitet after that.
d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.
Evidence #1
1. "Uriah smith had a hard time accepting the message not so much because of the message, but because he thought he remembered EGW opposing it in a vision in 1856, when Waggoners father brought it up. "W.W. Prescott -The forgotten giant of 2nd generation Adventism" Gilbert Valintine, page 82-83
a. Uriah Smith says he rememberd EGW opposing this view . Waggoner1 in 1856.
b. it was not just an opinion it was a VISION. so it was God opposing the view in 1856
2. I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years.... Ellen G. White, Letter 37, 1887.
a. ellen white acknowledges that there was a letter or some correspondence between Her and J.H Waggoner over this matter.
b. She states that He was incorrect and shown by God to be incorrect . God opposed J.H Waggoner
c. J.H. was quitet after that.
d. waht ever J.H. Waggoner taught is wrong, according to God, as stated by ellen.
e. Smiths recolletion of this matter is valadited by White herself.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
