Adding to the Word?

[NightEternal]

So for those of you here that think I am afraid to think for myself or come to my own conclusions - well you are just plain wrong.

Someone who was thinking for themselves and coming to thier own conclusions wouldn't be constantly splattering someone else's thoughts and conclusions (EGW quotes) all over the forum.

Most of us Progs have been SDA's for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, so I hope you don't think you are dazzling us or telling us anything new by doing that.

 

[sentipente]

MVA, checking the claims others make without checking what you have always believed does not make you a "double-checker."

 

[honorthesabbath]

I saw this in that thread:



http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41825719&postcount=2

Were they reading Ellen White for a "Bible study"?

No Sop, I said the 'topic came up' WHILE I was at the bible study. WOW---talk about trying to create more hatred and deceit!

 

[honorthesabbath]

Mmmmmmm, eating crow. Always tastes good, don't it?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41838876&postcount=7

Want some mustard with that Trads?

Might as well forget it RC. They will deny your evidence and cling to the sinking ship right until it hits the bottom of the ocean.

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. The question of what she meant was settled years ago by men more qualified than us and yet they still hang desperately to thier weak explanation.

HHmm--let's see Night--you claim to ON this sinking ship--you riding it to the bottom too??

 

[Sophia7]

No Sop, I said the 'topic came up' WHILE I was at the bible study. WOW---talk about trying to create more hatred and deceit!

You said they read her statement. I wanted to know if they read it at the Bible study. Just trying to clarify what you meant. Thank you.

 

[mva1985]

Someone who was thinking for themselves and coming to thier own conclusions wouldn't be constantly splattering someone else's thoughts and conclusions (EGW quotes) all over the forum.

Most of us Progs have been SDA's for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, so I hope you don't think you are dazzling us or telling us anything new by doing that.

Night,

I never claimed to be dazzling anyone. And I have been an Adventist all of my life so what does that prove.

By the way I am not dazzled by your sarcastic posts. It does not help to promote your position.

 

[mva1985]

MVA, checking the claims others make without checking what you have always believed does not make you a "double-checker."

Senti,

I just wanted you to know that I do not have you on ignore. I read your posts and then mostly just chose to ignore them, because they lack content, and you are not really interested in having an honest discussion with someone.

BTW, Merry Christmas!

 

[mva1985]

Someone who was thinking for themselves and coming to thier own conclusions wouldn't be constantly splattering someone else's thoughts and conclusions (EGW quotes) all over the forum.

Night,

If I find something that expresses my beliefs but someone has written it much better then I , then I will use the quote to share how I believe.

Simple really.

 

[mva1985]

How can you claim it is not true. It is one of the points that Uriah Smith wrote about in his defense of EGW's vision. His explaination is that a couple of words were missing.

You will notice that the official Ellen White site does not rewrite it as Uriah Smith did.


You said you read only 20 of the pdf slides on the amalgamation PDF yet you declared it a waste of time. You don't double check you assume and deny. And I can't see how anyone would find that as being responsible.
that article found at
http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf

RC,

While EGW statement about the Tower of Babel can be read both ways. Yes it could have been written to be more clear, but when you read her statement and read it in light of the Bible it is clear that the Tower of Babel was built after the flood, besides if the Tower of Babel was built before the flood wouldn't the flood have destroyed it?

I find no conflict between what EGW wrote and the Bible.

 

[NightEternal]

HHmm--let's see Night--you claim to ON this sinking ship--you riding it to the bottom too??

Get real, would you? I was not referring to the SDA church as the sinking ship. I was referring to this airbrushed concept of an infallible EGW you guys seem to have.

So, I'll thank you to stop always misrepresenting what I say. Of course, you will continue to do it just like you always do, so, never mind.

Besides the ship of the infallible EGW sunk long ago. It's just humorous to watch you people desperately try to maintain it in the face of the evidence at hand.

 

[michaeneu]

michaeneu… First, it is more than just opinion that EGW did not receive the same gift of prophecy as the authors of both Testaments. Period.

MVA response…In your opinion.

Wait, I thought you had acknowledged that her work was not canon, which is tantamount to stating that she DID NOT receive the same gift as the aforementioned prophets. Well, which is it: did she receive the same gift that would make ALL her work canon, just as the authors of both Testaments, and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” or did she NOT receive the same gift that relegates her work as inferior to the aforementioned, profitable piecemeal and NOT as a whole, more or less like Spurgeon’s work? And that is the issue and relevant to the quotes you made concerning her “Testimonies”!!!

If her “Testimonies” were a “lesser light”, which I believe even see stated, then her work is subject to criticism to be accepted or rejected bit by bit when examined by the “greater light”—the Scriptures!

Consequently, her assertion that someone is “not right” if they criticize her “Testimonies”, is a contradiction that her work is the “lesser light”. One cannot have it both ways! If her work is “lesser light” it is subject to criticism and the conscience of the beholder as to whether it is genuine inspiration or not, not unlike Spurgeon’s work and inspiration.

michaeneu… Secondly, the popery thing will always enter into it when individuals like you hold those quotes up that state that any who reject the Testimones of EGW are "not right"! That is popery, plain and simple.

MVA response…I did not write it she did. So your problem is with her not me.

But it is you that are holding her assertion up as if it were above criticism; that is popery and simply untenable. It is clear that she could not even maintain consistency in her principles and was a fallible person subject to vicissitudes as to the authority of her own work.

michaeneu… Thirdly, I did not deny that White was shown things from Yah, as were other individuals like Spurgeon, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.

MVA response…Keep comparing her to Spurgeon if that makes you feel better.

Feelings have nothing to do with it; it comes down to the authority of her work! Her work was the “lesser light” and subject to criticism by the Scriptures, not the other way around. Unfortunately, individuals, such as you, hold those quotes of hers up to stifle any criticism of her work and that is truly what is “not right” with Yah! That has to be part of the trail that is mention in Revelation 3:10; we are being tempted to lift men and their institutions above Christ in the time of the end.

michaeneu… Finally, and most significant, the institution of the SDA's is riding the two-horned beast by incorporation as seeking its aid to enforce its trademark name. Consequently, I see nothing in the contemporary institution that would warrant continued fellowship; it has left the foundation and become like so many other denominations, the Sabbath issue notwithstanding.

MVA response…So do you think the church should not take advantage of the tax exempt status?

Clearly the church is not to enter into covenant with the world, let alone the two-horned beast. Need I have to show you the scriptures that uphold this? The church in the wilderness resisted, what makes one thing that anything has changed?

Protestantism is heir to the church in the wilderness; history confirms that the church or the woman came out of the wilderness and assimilated into the Protestants that had separated from Roman Catholicism. Some even assimilated into Romanism herself. The church in the wilderness represented God’s regenerate people and those people did not just disappear; they were ultimately assimilated by the Protestants or Rome and were defiled by them. This is why the mother of harlots must also be the woman of Revelation chapter twelve in a fallen condition because that woman came out of the wilderness and was assimilated by Protestantism or Rome. This is what the imagery aims to depict in our time that is confirmed by history. Only the remnant seed ultimately escapes being defiled by Protestant women or denominationalism. Incorporation, joining into compact with the two-horned beast relegates any denomination into the inferior position as Babylon.

Michael

 

[mva1985]

Wait, I thought you had acknowledged that her work was not canon, which is tantamount to stating that she DID NOT receive the same gift as the aforementioned prophets. Well, which is it: did she receive the same gift that would make ALL her work canon, just as the authors of both Testaments, and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” or did she NOT receive the same gift that relegates her work as inferior to the aforementioned, profitable piecemeal and NOT as a whole, more or less like Spurgeon’s work? And that is the issue and relevant to the quotes you made concerning her “Testimonies”!!!

If her “Testimonies” were a “lesser light”, which I believe even see stated, then her work is subject to criticism to be accepted or rejected bit by bit when examined by the “greater light”—the Scriptures!

Consequently, her assertion that someone is “not right” if they criticize her “Testimonies”, is a contradiction that her work is the “lesser light”. One cannot have it both ways! If her work is “lesser light” it is subject to criticism and the conscience of the beholder as to whether it is genuine inspiration or not, not unlike Spurgeon’s work and inspiration.






But it is you that are holding her assertion up as if it were above criticism; that is popery and simply untenable. It is clear that she could not even maintain consistency in her principles and was a fallible person subject to vicissitudes as to the authority of her own work.






Feelings have nothing to do with it; it comes down to the authority of her work! Her work was the “lesser light” and subject to criticism by the Scriptures, not the other way around. Unfortunately, individuals, such as you, hold those quotes of hers up to stifle any criticism of her work and that is truly what is “not right” with Yah! That has to be part of the trail that is mention in Revelation 3:10; we are being tempted to lift men and their institutions above Christ in the time of the end.





Clearly the church is not to enter into covenant with the world, let alone the two-horned beast. Need I have to show you the scriptures that uphold this? The church in the wilderness resisted, what makes one thing that anything has changed?

Protestantism is heir to the church in the wilderness; history confirms that the church or the woman came out of the wilderness and assimilated into the Protestants that had separated from Roman Catholicism. Some even assimilated into Romanism herself. The church in the wilderness represented God’s regenerate people and those people did not just disappear; they were ultimately assimilated by the Protestants or Rome and were defiled by them. This is why the mother of harlots must also be the woman of Revelation chapter twelve in a fallen condition because that woman came out of the wilderness and was assimilated by Protestantism or Rome. This is what the imagery aims to depict in our time that is confirmed by history. Only the remnant seed ultimately escapes being defiled by Protestant women or denominationalism. Incorporation, joining into compact with the two-horned beast relegates any denomination into the inferior position as Babylon.

Michael

Right now all I have energy for:

The Bible canon was closed in the fourth century if I am not mistaken - so her writings are not canon. And yes they are subject to the Bible.

 

[michaeneu]

Right now all I have energy for:

The Bible canon was closed in the fourth century if I am not mistaken - so her writings are not canon. And yes they are subject to the Bible.

Yes, subject to the criticism of the Scriptures and subject to error! If one then criticizes parts of her work it DOES NOT follow that their standing with Yah is "not right." That is dependent upon the issue and who stands with the greater light, the scriptures. It is self evident that White was not infallible and subject to error!

Michael

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC,

While EGW statement about the Tower of Babel can be read both ways. Yes it could have been written to be more clear, but when you read her statement and read it in light of the Bible it is clear that the Tower of Babel was built after the flood, besides if the Tower of Babel was built before the flood wouldn't the flood have destroyed it?

I find no conflict between what EGW wrote and the Bible.

No actually it can't be read both ways. That is why Uriah said it should be rewritten. Just because she states the other somewhat correct information about the tower of Babel (at least time wise, her whole theory of what they were doing has nothing in common with the Bible account) does not make her incorrect statement any more correct. All it does is show that she contradicted herself. And it is the contradiction of what the Bible said to her statement as well as her own internal contradiction that is the problem. At least assuming prophet standards. Of course if you don't hold to her as a prophet it is simply a case where she said something dumb, something pretty much all of us can relate to.

 

[sentipente]

her writings are not canon. And yes they are subject to the Bible.

EGW's writings should never be subject to the Bible. The Bible does not establishe truth. The Bible reflects truth to the extent that writers were able to assimilate and properly communicate it. Truth exists independently of the Bible or any other text.

 

[Avonia]

EGW's writings should never be subject to the Bible. The Bible does not establishe truth. The Bible reflects truth to the extent that writers were able to assimilate and properly communicate it. Truth exists independently of the Bible or any other text.

For me, that's a breath of fresh air.

 

[tall73]

Right now all I have energy for:

The Bible canon was closed in the fourth century if I am not mistaken - so her writings are not canon. And yes they are subject to the Bible.

It appears you believe the Scriptures do test the writings of EGW. Can you think of an example of the church accepting something from the Scriptures that disagreed with EGW?

Or is your view that EGW always agrees with the Bible?

 

[moicherie]

Night--you see what YOU WANT to see my friend. Many years ago when I read EGW's 'amalgamation' statement, not once did I think that she was referring to man and animals procreating--not once! How absurd to even imagine such a thing.

I understood immediately that she was referring to peoples intermingling and man's incessant cross-breeding of animals that they themselves wouldn't do in nature that resulted in the variations. Today it's hard to find a 'purebred' race upon this earth (if there ever truly was) .Races and nationalities of people interbreed now without much of a thought. But hundreds of years ago--cross marriage was rare. I know this is what she meant.

When it was brought to my attention a few years ago on Yahoo that some were saying that she meant that man and animals were procreating--I laughed till I cried. I thought to myself' "how could any idiot actually think that she was referring that"? It still amazes me.

Cross marriage?? Interbreeding? What next the horrors of miscegnation? There is only one race on this planet and its the human race, some Adventists subconscious racist mindset need to get that in their head if they intend to live eternally with their non white fellow men. EGW views are not a surprise for her time the average 19th century white person was not exactly a proponent of seeing non white human as their true equal, however we Christians living today in 2007 have no excuse for such ignorance.

 

[moicherie]

I've never been in an Adventist church that did alter calls. But it's an every service practice in the Pentecostal church--and yes--it leaves those strangers in their seats feeling like bugs in a jar!

Its done a lot in the UK.

 

[sentipente]

I've never been in an Adventist church that did alter calls. But it's an every service practice in the Pentecostal church--and yes--it leaves those strangers in their seats feeling like bugs in a jar!

It happens every Sabbath in some Adventist churches as well. That the same people have to be saved every week seems to be overlooked.