Adding to the Word?

[freeindeed2]

Avonia--If there were plays about the time of trouble--than whatever church did/or is doing that are going against EGW's admonition that 'NOTHING theatrical should enter the work'! She vehemently discourages plays and skits depicting biblical themes.

So see--she gets the blame for what others do.

Where is that admonition in the Bible again?

Stickin' with the Bible ONLY...

 

[Mankin]

I visited a pentacostal church once cause my friend invited me. The speaking in tongues part freaked me out.

 

[Mankin]

They actually admited they were pressuring people to do it. Speaking in tongues is all psychology. The first people to speak incomprehensively for a religious experience were the Oracles of Delphi who were pagan fortune tellers of ancient Greece.

 

[michaeneu]

Interesting that even herself she says the work is of God or of Satan. So who do you think it originated with?

Clearly, MVA’s question was addressed by Haggai:

How can we believe everything Paul or John said? They too were imperfect sinners.
My point being, though I don't think EGW was infallible, i think her writings were inspired by God. But how do we know which are inspired and which are just her personal suggestions, advice, and admonitions: Whichever are convenient or according to our desire? EGW wrote in her time and for her time, as well as ours. Jesus and the apostles did likewise. They discussed issues of that time.

On a further note, EGW received the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10) in the same vain as, for instance, Spurgeon, and NOT Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera. There can be no doubt by anyone who truly investigates her work that the “Testimonies” are NOT to be received on the same level as the latter OT authors! So the answer to MVA’s question is that EGW’s work was inspired by Yah, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.

She was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.

The problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who don’t embrace EGW’s work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to “progress” onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.

The question to MVA should be does she take EGW’s work on par with the prophetic gift given Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera?

Michael

 

[NightEternal]

How could 'human to human' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

How could sexual relations between married human beings be considered 'base crimes'?

How could 'beast to beast' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

EGW used the 'base crime' phrase in only one other instance, and it was to describe Potiphar's wife's advances on Joseph.

How could 'beast to beast' relationships 'deface the image of God'?

Why did Uriah Smith, in an attempt to defend EGW's statements, say that her amalgamation statements referred to "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country"?

If this is NOT what EGW meant, then where did she make the correction? Instead the Whites promoted Smith's publication at campmeetings!!!

Sometimes the desire to be right blinds one from the truth!

In Christ alone...

BINGO.

Thanks for saving me the typing time Free. I just logged on to respond with your exact words!

But you see, this is what Honor does. In her hurry to attack me, she doesn't reason things though and makes unfounded, unprovable statements.

Every single person I have discussed this amalgamation issue with (including SDA pastors), and I mean every single one, has told me man and beast is exactly what she meant by her statement. Some of these people have specialized in SDA history and the prevailing misconceptions people of the 1800's had.

Only someone attempting weak EGW apologetics claims otherwise.

So I guess all of those individuals are idiots as well according to Honor.

 

[NightEternal]

I think the bickering about trivial EGW things is just that..trivial.

Could this be any more offensive?

Trivial to YOU maybe. There is a lot more at stake here than just wrong opinions friend. There is the credibility of a whole denominational /doctrinal belief system. If she is proven to be a false prophetess, that is huge, with major implications. Or do you think we just grapple with these issues in here to pass some recreational time? No. Our very existence and future in the church hinges on what the outcome is, so please don't minimize that!

Futhermore, why don't you ask the hundreds of formers who have given up thier livelihood, careers, families, friends, belief system, homes, everything they ever knew for the last 20 or so years as a result of EGW issues and see if they think the matter is trivial?

Or how about those who became mentally unbalanced or even committed suicide (yes, I have heard about such cases) in thier attempts to follow her counsel right to the letter?

The stakes are high and it is NOT trivial.

 

[NightEternal]

Do you know of any kids who were threatened with hell fire for not accepting those myths?

BINGO!!!

Her 'Easter Bunny' analogy falls flat on its face right where it belongs.

 

[mva1985]

Clearly, MVA’s question was addressed by Haggai:



On a further note, EGW received the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10) in the same vain as, for instance, Spurgeon, and NOT Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera. There can be no doubt by anyone who truly investigates her work that the “Testimonies” are NOT to be received on the same level as the latter OT authors! So the answer to MVA’s question is that EGW’s work was inspired by Yah, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.

She was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.

The problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who don’t embrace EGW’s work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to “progress” onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.

The question to MVA should be does she take EGW’s work on par with the prophetic gift given Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera?

Michael

First of all my question was addressed to RC. Who refuses to answer and I'm fine with that.

Secondly, EGW did receive visions like the Bible prophets. Her works are not canon. Also, if you happen to have the CD of her writings search for "I was shown" and see how many results you get.

 

[michaeneu]

First of all my question was addressed to RC. Who refuses to answer and I'm fine with that.

Secondly, EGW did receive visions like the Bible prophets. Her works are not canon. Also, if you happen to have the CD of her writings search for "I was shown" and see how many results you get.

One should expect on these forums that questions are up for grabs and not solely conducive to personal correspondence. Consider your question answered in full.

The phrase "I was shown" was commonly used by many Christian authors of the time, which did not elevate her inspiration above, for example, Spurgeon's, like I stated previously. Again, she was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.

And again, the problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who don’t embrace EGW’s work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to “progress” onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.

Michael

 

[mva1985]

One should expect on these forums that questions are up for grabs and not solely conducive to personal correspondence. Consider your question answered in full.

The phrase "I was shown" was commonly used by many Christian authors of the time, which did not elevate her inspiration above, for example, Spurgeon's, like I stated previously. Again, she was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.

And again, the problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who don’t embrace EGW’s work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to “progress” onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.

Michael

Well, my conversation at the time was with RC and he has not answered the question. I don't consider it answered by him. Fine if someone else wants to share their opinion.

I tire of this whole "popery" thing. Find me a trad that buys into that.

Again, the phrase "I was shown" was used by EGW to refer to times that she had been shown things by God.

 

[NightEternal]

Does the SDA church accept any interpretation of Scripture that disagrees with the one she set forth? No.

Do all of the doctrines and beliefs of the church have to pass the Ellen test before being accepted? Yes.

Is she the final interpreter of Scripture for the church who cannot be questioned? Yes.

Not being able to question what she endorses as truth and not being allowed to challenge her interpretation of Scripture is called speaking ex-cathedra.

Hence, the SDA church indeed has a pope, wether they choose to admit it or not.

 

[StormyOne]

in the early 80s the Review published an article later to be known as the "I Saw" article... in it the church explained that not every time EGW said "I saw" was she in vision... sometimes when she said I saw she was relaying some type of information... the example used was the time EGW read in a newspaper about a boy almost drowning in Australia and then wrote to her son, "I saw that you were about to drown....."

RC or Senti might remember the article....

 

[mva1985]

in the early 80s the Review published an article later to be known as the "I Saw" article... in it the church explained that not every time EGW said "I saw" was she in vision... sometimes when she said I saw she was relaying some type of information... the example used was the time EGW read in a newspaper about a boy almost drowning in Australia and then wrote to her son, "I saw that you were about to drown....."

RC or Senti might remember the article....

I will admit to never having read that article, but I specifically mentioned searching for the phrase "I was shown."

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well, my conversation at the time was with RC and he has not answered the question. I don't consider it answered by him. Fine if someone else wants to share their opinion.

I tire of this whole "popery" thing. Find me a trad that buys into that.

Again, the phrase "I was shown" was used by EGW to refer to times that she had been shown things by God.

So far everyone else who has commented has said that I did answer your question. I don't know how to make it more clear for you. Personally I think you are afraid to deal with the issues so you are pretending that I have not answered you. It is frightening to see what lengths people go to to avoid facing reality.

 

[StormyOne]

I will admit to never having read that article, but I specifically mentioned searching for the phrase "I was shown."

I saw and I was shown.... were used interchangeably.

 

[mva1985]

So far everyone else who has commented has said that I did answer your question. I don't know how to make it more clear for you. Personally I think you are afraid to deal with the issues so you are pretending that I have not answered you. It is frightening to see what lengths people go to to avoid facing reality.

 

[mva1985]

I saw and I was shown.... were used interchangeably.

Stormy,

If you are interested I will try and find the quote where EGW writes about this very phrase.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

If you are interested I will try and find the quote where EGW writes about this very phrase.

no need... I believe that you are comfortable with the premise that every time she said, "I was shown" she was "in vision."

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Ok it is not pretending you simply are ignoring the issues.

so lets vote on that. Who thinks MVA is ignoring the issues in this thread?

 

[Avonia]

Ok it is not pretending you simply are ignoring the issues.

so lets vote on that. Who thinks MVA is ignoring the issues in this thread?

Come on! Do you really think it's in his best interest to openly entertain all the issues discussed here, all at once? Each of us must go through our own learning process. Pushing too much is counter productive. We all have our comfort zone outside of which we panic. There are many circles where everyone on this forum would pull in and defend.

No one of us is much closer to the truth of an infinite God than any other among us. We are taking baby steps with each other and exploring one little aspect that's part of another, that's part of another . . . and on forever.

Senti often hints at this. That's why he says the only thing we can do is "stay in school" and keep paying attention.