Is our love meant to be conditional?

[JohnMarsten]

Without truly wanting to cause any confusion around in this forum, I came across another statement of EGW that kinda struck me:

Then I saw that scripture did not mean the wicked whom God had rejected that we must love, but he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household; yet I saw that we should not do the wicked around us any injustice; -- But, our neighbors whom we were to love, were those who loved God and were serving him.
(Signed) E. G. White." (The Camden Vision, Camden, N. Y. June 29, 1851.)


It is actually very fascinating to me, because it would solve a lot of problems that one might encounter along the way, I mean, how many times have we been insulted and stuff by people from outside the church, the statement above kinda backtracks to the idea of hate your enemy (but dont do him any injustice).

Honestly, how do you understand the statement? Do you practice what EGW preached or are you more into loving everybody around, wicked or holy...

 

[Cribstyl]

Mat 5:43¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Luk 6:27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luk 6:28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Mat 5:43¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Luk 6:27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luk 6:28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Yeah, I know that, too. So what do you think about EGWs statement? isnt it kinda secterian? Heard the JWs doing a similar thing...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You might want to check the authenticity of your source... just because someone wrote a book about it and it was rumoured to have happened, doesn't mean it did.

 

[JohnMarsten]

You might want to check the authenticity of your source... just because someone wrote a book about it and it was rumoured to have happened, doesn't mean it did.

you are always so sceptical about anything I come up with... is it a general stance of yours to question everything I write?

IMO people claim it is non-genuine because the vision contains shut door statements which she claimed to have never made... which again is a more than obscure thing...

you might wanna check this link

http://www.ex-sda.com/camden-g.htm

 

[Cribstyl]

Yeah, I know that, too. So what do you think about EGWs statement? isnt it kinda secterian? Heard the JWs doing a similar thing...

From my studies, I find that early Adventism was in defense mode after the great disappointment. Those who are trying to establish all EGW writings compatable to scripture, will have to edit and explain away untill the end of time.


Personally, I like to address questions and comments on what the bible means or could mean on a subject.
This is so I wont break my commitment to those I love, this forum, and especially SDA members.
I often attend Sabbath worship and enjoy it until they reference other sincere worshippers of God.

When a SDA member ask me questions, I try to avoid direct criticsm of what they consider as "more clarity" than the word of God gives.

Having read ECR comments above,.......
@ ECR

A certain quote taken from EGW writings is the thread subject, not books that other people wrote.

 

[JohnMarsten]

From my studies, I find that early Adventism was in defense mode after the great disappointment. Those who are trying to establish all EGW writings compatable to scripture, will have to edit and explain away untill the end of time.


Personally, I like to address questions and comments on what the bible means or could mean on a subject.
This is so I wont break my commitment to those I love, this forum, and especially SDA members.
I often attend Sabbath worship and enjoy it until they reference other sincere worshippers of God.

When a SDA member ask me questions, I try to avoid direct criticsm of what they consider as "more clarity" than the word of God gives.

Having read ECR comments above,.......
@ ECR

A certain quote taken from EGW writings is the thread subject, not books that other people wrote.

as a matter of fact I must defend ECR as this camden vision has some obscure surroundings... a guy is said to have written it down but apostosized 4 years afterwards (if I am not mistaken), so it is indeed worthy to be questioned.

I admire your way of conduct with SDA worship.

I had my problems with it back then when I was an active member, but when I kinda started questioning stuff, things got a little hairy. I began to realize that the many people which I held in 'high esteem' were actually talking things they hardly really know anything about or as I would say based their whole religiousness on things they have read rather than on experience and own opinion. In fact it dawned on me at that time that SDAism is mostly based on the knowledge you have read in EGW and the more you know about it, or maybe even able to quote it directly, the higher you will be regarded. In other words people who are somewhat illiterate in regard to EGW will be looked down upon... but that may be just my observation. (but believe me I have met a lot of sickos there )

 

[Stryder06]

Don't think I'll ever understand the purpose of threads like these

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Don't think I'll ever understand the purpose of threads like these

They are meant to cast doubt on the writings of sister White and thereby, our beliefs as Adventists.

I know atheists that can very convincingly disparage the Bible but that doesn't prove them right... if you're looking for a way to not believe in something, Satan will always provide ample material to back your beliefs. This holds true for the Bible or SOP.

 

[Stryder06]

They are meant to cast doubt on the writings of sister White and thereby, our beliefs as Adventists.

I know atheists that can very convincingly disparage the Bible but that doesn't prove them right... if you're looking for a way to not believe in something, Satan will always provide ample material to back your beliefs. This holds true for the Bible or SOP.

Couldn't have said it better. My question was more rhetorical in nature.

 

[JohnMarsten]

They are meant to cast doubt on the writings of sister White and thereby, our beliefs as Adventists.

I know atheists that can very convincingly disparage the Bible but that doesn't prove them right... if you're looking for a way to not believe in something, Satan will always provide ample material to back your beliefs. This holds true for the Bible or SOP.

Nice answer, but dont you think that this could apply to any church? How then can we measure if something is true or not?

Let me give you another example: EGW is against intermarriage between the races, white men can labor for the colored, but colored cannot labor for the whites, white men should always be leaders (colored never). She definitely said that.

Now, if somebody is an EGW purist he will stick to that even though times have changed dramatically and 'colored' people can even become presidents of the US.

One might argue that EGW made the above statements because of her times and it was best then. In this regard, one might say none of her teachings might be valid for today.

That intermarriage thing is not necessarily a problem of mine, but that doesnt mean that this puts me into a position of overlooking it.

Casting a shadow on EGW is definitely not the aim of such posts, its rather an invitation to reason, and the only thing that for example you are doing is defending her (and that not really convincingly, it I may assert that).

One might debate over the bible, its prophets and what they meant when they said a certain thing, why cant we do this with EGW? Can we really believe that EVERYTHING she wrote was inspired and true? In regard to the above statements then in what way is it still binding today? Are we supposed to view certain people as inferior? Are we to make a difference at all?

 

[Stryder06]

Nice answer, but dont you think that this could apply to any church? How then can we measure if something is true or not?

Let me give you another example: EGW is against intermarriage between the races, white men can labor for the colored, but colored cannot labor for the whites, white men should always be leaders (colored never). She definitely said that.

Now, if somebody is an EGW purist he will stick to that even though times have changed dramatically and 'colored' people can even become presidents of the US.

One might argue that EGW made the above statements because of her times and it was best then. In this regard, one might say none of her teachings might be valid for today.

That intermarriage thing is not necessarily a problem of mine, but that doesnt mean that this puts me into a position of overlooking it.

Casting a shadow on EGW is definitely not the aim of such posts, its rather an invitation to reason, and the only thing that for example you are doing is defending her (and that not really convincingly, it I may assert that).

One might debate over the bible, its prophets and what they meant when they said a certain thing, why cant we do this with EGW? Can we really believe that EVERYTHING she wrote was inspired and true? In regard to the above statements then in what way is it still binding today? Are we supposed to view certain people as inferior? Are we to make a difference at all?

Questions are meant to raise doubt. A question being raised by someone who isn't looking for truth, doesn't serve any purpose outside of raising doubt in the minds of those who do believe. Nothing said about what she did or didn't mean will change your mind about her being a prophet, so that is the reason why I asked my question, and ECRs response was right on point.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I don't debate or defend SOP or the Bible... I believe them through faith. If debating the merits of the Word of God brings you peace, then you are more than welcome to it.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Questions are meant to raise doubt. A question being raised by someone who isn't looking for truth, doesn't serve any purpose outside of raising doubt in the minds of those who do believe. Nothing said about what she did or didn't mean will change your mind about her being a prophet, so that is the reason why I asked my question, and ECRs response was right on point.

But wouldnt that mean something like circular reasoning, like I know the truth because I dont question it?

Have you ever realized that all denoms do the same? If you meet somebody from another church and come up with your concepts it might cause the other person to doubt. Thats perfectly OK I guess but why not scrutinze ones own beliefs? If we are not allowed to do that and ask question, what is this then?

I guess its questions and answers that bring us closer together, isnt it? In the middle ages people believed the earth was flat, somebody asked question and came up with something new, was causing doubts, I guess so, was it bad?? maybe,.,. maybe we were better off without it and the native americans were still ruling the US...

 

[Stryder06]

But wouldnt that mean something like circular reasoning, like I know the truth because I dont question it?

I know what I have is the truth because I've tested it. I don't question it because spiritual matters are played out on a plane higher then we can imagine. Satan will always find a way to turn doubt into disbelief if we continue to question things that the bible has already made clear.

Have you ever realized that all denoms do the same? If you meet somebody from another church and come up with your concepts it might cause the other person to doubt. Thats perfectly OK I guess but why not scrutinze ones own beliefs? If we are not allowed to do that and ask question, what is this then?

Asking questions when seeking an answer is fine. Scrutinizing ones own beliefs is fine. But when you seek to ask questions to discourage others, knowing full well that you're not actually looking for an answer, then there's a problem. It would even be ok if you just accepted the answers given, and agreed to disagree.

I guess its questions and answers that bring us closer together, isnt it? In the middle ages people believed the earth was flat, somebody asked question and came up with something new, was causing doubts, I guess so, was it bad?? maybe,.,. maybe we were better off without it and the native americans were still ruling the US...

Bible already stated that the world was round. And what do the Native Americans have to do with anything? You used to be Adventist, and you're not anymore. That's sad, but it is what it is. You don't seem to be searching for answers to questions in hopes of finding out where you may have gone astray. You're asking questions in an attempt to show fault with what we believe. And that only bothers me because THIS forum is not the place for that. This is the only place on here where I can get a breather from being called a heretic cult member. I'd like it to stay that way without these seemingly false pretenses of fellowship and brotherhood.

 

[Cribstyl]

​

The question asked in the Original post (OP), was resolved when the OP conceded to ECR that his question is debatable whether EGW ever wrote that statement. His research shows that the poineer responded to that question back in the 1800's, saying that this claim was made by a traitor after he left the church.

Questions are being classified as a witch hunt by those who follow without question. Tag-teaming against the OP and playing the victim role does not explain all the questionable statements in the writings.
Many questions are reasonable if all "THE WRITINGS" are considered prophetic words.
JohnMarsten is learning and realizing who will claim insults and cry foul to derial thread topics rather than provide reasonable dialog and answers to questions.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Well, its true, people get annoyed when their 'faith' is questioned. The funny thing was, that when I was an active SDA I realized people from other denoms got angry at me when I showed them that I was right and they apparently wrong as they didnt see the things I saw in the bible.

When I started to openly adress questions that nobody could really answer I realized the same thing is going on that was quite funny in a way, cause as I was pretty sure about SDAism I thought that there will be definite answers to be found. Unfortunately that was not the case and I had to realize SDAism is based on some shaky ground.

I highly value honesty, and the more or less dishonesty that SDAs displayed over time, well it kinda struck me.

Example: I had a talk during a campmeeting with an SDA professor. I told him I had some doubts but didnt tell him right away how much I know. At first he came up with the standard answers that people write bad things about the SDA because they got offended. When I came up with facts the conversation changed a little and I realized he didnt treat me like a dumb sheep anymore but took the matter serious. He was of course unable to provide any sound answers, he said that people (we) made more of EGW that she/it was supposed to be made and well... I guess he wasnt a true believer in EGW, even his preaching sounded much more liberal or even evangelical compared to the standard stuff that goes around... At that time I knew I had uncovered some shaky ground...

---

What is faith?

Is faith saying yes to certain creeds and thats it? Is faith to be shaken if one stops saying to yes?

Has faith the power to move mountains? If I cant move mountains, have I said no to something I should have said yes? why didnt the Lord correct it?

---

Look guys, the stuff that we are talking about, my questions etc. they all have a deeper meaning.

Question:

Have you ever realized that something is missing in the church? Something that a certain mage would have paid serious money for... I guess it wasnt something that was based on saying yes or no...

Maybe all of you are in a state of being trolled...

 

[someguy14]

Is our love meant to be conditional?

Love is limitless.
Jesus came to be a final sacrifice for all.
Joining all to one body, in Love.
God is the judge of all. Vengeance belongs to God alone.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess. God is all power. Patience is our part.
Love is our command. Love unconditionally. God doesn't fail. Wait upon the Lord, wait.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Love is limitless.
Jesus came to be a final sacrifice for all.
Joining all to one body, in Love.
God is the judge of all. Vengeance belongs to God alone.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess. God is all power. Patience is our part.
Love is our command. Love unconditionally. God doesn't fail. Wait upon the Lord, wait.

thats some words of wisdom

Amen!