One Discrepancy Can Discard the Rest?

[OntheDL]

I don't know you have observed. But your observations are inaccurate. I'd like to extend some grace to you since you are newbie here, but you made these inaccurate statements volunteerily then they need to be addressed.

I just came over from CARM, where I have a very good reputation. I say that not to brag, but to let you know that while I am a newbie here, I do know what I am talking about, for I have studied the SDAs from afar. BTW I an more apologetic in nature, so I will tone down things and be a good boy here

AK,

Your lament at the the way Ellen is treated is a common reaction, but those of us who push that issue due to the way the SDAs in general, and the official statements (Fund Bel 18) in particular say about her. It is almost like a veneration of Mary. Here's why.

Mary is considered sinless. I have seen no SDA on CARM or ChristiaNet criticize some of the wild things she wrote. ( (I choose not to list them or hijack the thread, but can we not all agree that there are things in her writings that cause controversy, and that do not conform to reality?) Why is that? I believe that it is because she is venerated as a SDA prophetess.

Here you began by making what I consider an offensive comparison.

First of all, no SDA says EGW was sinless. We consider her a prophet of God. As we consider her testimonies came from God, therefore the testimonies are in harmony with the bible.

Wild things? Do you know that the bible is considered a fable to the unbelievers?

Then we take the qualifications for prophet in the OT, and then apply them to Ellen, saying "if you guys say she is a prophet, then here are the rules for prophets" However, the SDA apologists say to us. "You can't do that!!" but provide no consistent hermeneutic principle for making the exception. To us, it sounds as if you say, "Just listen to us on this one, OK? We are right, and Ellen is also."

What specifics are you referring to? Or which tests of prophets from the OT was you referring to? And lastly whch SDA apologetic are you talking about? Give specifics, I can not answer hear-says.

Therefore to point out discrepancies is not ignorance, it is being a Berean, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and using more than the KJV or Clear Word.

And because FB 18 calls her writings "authoritative" and a "continuing source of revelation" it is a clear reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, we take the position that the official position of the SDA church is to make her writings equal to Scripture. Can you NOT see how irksome that position is to formers and nons?

Irksome to formers and nons? I don't think we have pointed guns to anyone or burnt anyone at stake. It's strictly volunteery.

If you don't believe her writings are the testimony of Jesus then you don't have anything to do with us.

Furthermore, what you said is false. We do not consider her writings equal to the bible. I challenge you to find an official statement on that.

Martin Luther also wrote some gross stuff, but calling him a drunkard and "not concerned with health or not a Sabbath observer" is over the top, and immaterial to the issue. Many of us, including me, see this as condescension to others because we do not follow the rules of EGW. Nor as another poster pointed out do Lutherans venerate him or his writings. They take the good stuff, laugh at the gross stuff, and ignore the irrelevant stuff. That does not seem to be the case with EGW and the SDAs. They seem to promote an all-or-nothing approach.

Hold on here. Luther did not claim inspiration. Not sure why you would argue that. There is a difference.

Your last paragraph is commendable. It asks the essential question, but unfortunately, it also lacks direction. Rarely have I seen a SDA affirm an inerrant autographa. That is crucial, for if you claim nothing is inerrant (again the OFFICIAL SDA statement on Scriptures limits infallibility to only "the revealed will of God, whatever that may mean) then you have no base on which to stand. And if you insist on using only KJV (it is not a perfect translation, sorry to say) or CW, then you are endorsing the teachings of Ellen as as authoritative as the Bible. Thus we see a faulty and circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not inherently evil if it has a firm premise on which to begin.

Therefore, because you guys do not play with the rules of Scripture consistently, especially as it pertains to EGW, we see you as hitting foul balls, and then trying to run the bases. The field of play is obvious, and there are definite rules.

Please do not balk.

Again, as a newbie, you should first read the forum specific rules. You can not call SDA doctrines false without giving examples. And you can not make condescending remarks on EGW. Those are not allowed here.

 

[JohnT]

On the DL

I appreciate your extension of mercy, and any offence I made was utterly unintentional. I am sorry, please forgive.

Nevertheless, I do believe that I was accurate, and that you may have misconstrued my intentions as well as my analogies.

While there are many things about mariolitry we can both agree is offensive, the comparison I was making was between the fact that I have seen no SDA on any blog state that they disagree with EGW on anything. A personal observation

I also stated that she wrote some things considered “wild” I could be specific, but hey, come on, we both know that she made some statements that are not in keeping with the Bible, nor are they sustained by medical science or any other science. I have lots of them book marked, but I did not elaborate in order to keep the discussion germane to the OP. Therefore it appears that you may not like a particular fact, no matter how gently I put it.

BTW in order to be consistent, I hope you also complained about AK’s OP when he wrote this about EGW”

I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible,

The conclusion to the paragraph was

Why is that? I believe that it is because she is venerated as a SDA prophetess.

I stated the basis for AK’s OP complaining was that she is venerated ( the dictionary meaning is uplifted) as a prophetess, and that there is nothing wrong with anything she wrote according to SDA apologists I saw on CARM and other blogs. Again, a personal observation.

Then you prove my assertion:

Here you began by making what I consider an offensive comparison.

First of all, no SDA says EGW was sinless. We consider her a prophet of God. As we consider her testimonies came from God, therefore the testimonies are in harmony with the bible.

Now my personal observation is empirical.

Then you throw this in:

Wild things? Do you know that the bible is considered a fable to the unbelievers?

I was writing about EGW and the way SDAs look at her. That is extraneous to the thought of the post.


Since this was my sixth post on this forum, I could not be specific as to this site, and to ask you to comment on a post on another site is wrong. Thus, I summarized over 800 posts on CARM

What specifics are you referring to? Or which tests of prophets from the OT was you referring to? And lastly whch SDA apologetic are you talking about? Give specifics, I can not answer hear-says

Again, I was stating my personal observations.

When I said

Then we take the qualifications for prophet in the OT, and then apply them to Ellen, saying "if you guys say she is a prophet, then here are the rules for prophets"

I did not supply book, chapter and verse. I assumed that stating that they are in the OT was sufficient. Besides, the point was not to cite that, but to answer the OP and then tell AK a reason why he asks about the difference of opinion about is “justified or ignorance” The ENTIRE point of my post was to write a dignified case saying that it is justified. All I am doing is answering his question.

For some reason, you choose to distort a statement about the formers and nons have about official SDA documents,

Can you NOT see how irksome that position is to formers and nons?
[/quote[ and turn it into a totally warrant less attack on SDAs in particular.

Irksome to formers and nons? I don't think we have pointed guns to anyone or burnt anyone at stake. It's strictly volunteery.(sic)

Again, as AK asked in the OP I was answering his request for an opinion> What is wrong with offering a personal opinion, and giving reasons for it when the OP asks for it?

Here is another example of distortion of intent:

Furthermore, what you said is false. We do not consider her writings equal to the bible. I challenge you to find an official statement on that.

From the viewpoint of a former or non, and to answer the request for opinion, I wrote

And because FB 18 calls her writings "authoritative" and a "continuing source of revelation" it is a clear reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, we take the position that the official position of the SDA church is to make her writings equal to Scripture.

It is not an attack, and the part beginning with “we take...” shows the OPINION that the official writings of the SDA church give to us.

This quote seems to be the crux of the matter, and according to a post on CARM by Sophia7 to ric-b there. You write

If you don't believe her writings are the testimony of Jesus then you don't have anything to do with us.

On the public forum, she wrote

They've changed the rules, so now anyone can debate in the Discussion and Debate sub-forum and the Progressive SDA sub-forum. Just don't debate in the main SDA forum or the Traditional SDA sub-forum or the "Bible Study" sub-forum. So you're welcome there, Rick, but you will see a lot of hostility from the Traditional SDAs toward Progressives and formers.

on CARM.../v/showpost.php?p=2176868&postcount=79

Yet you did not bother to excoriate AK when he wrote the OP. Why was that? He was inviting "those on the other side" to put forth opinions that are CONTRARY to SDA dogma. Do you not think that his post was inviting people who DID NOT "believe her writings are the testimony of Jesus " to chime in with opinion ? Do you now also tell him " then you don't have anything to do with us"?

From what I read, this is a progressive SDA sub forum. Seems that you may not like what I said, although there was no error in fact, judgment nor casting aspersions on anyone. Nor did I do as you falsely allege, call ANY SDA doctrine false with giving examples. I stated what is commonly understood by many people,answered the OP, and I colored within the lines.

If you do not like that, I an sorry, but deal with it or play in another sandbox.

 

[reddogs]

As a Lutheran I will say that Martin Luther is admired by us, but not considered infallable or a prophet or anything like that. He didn't say he had countless visions directly from God, etc.

Mr. Luther did drink beer, as most Germans did, but calling him a drunkard is maybe a little harsh.

He did mention the Sabbath issue. This is just one thing he wrote:
God bless! Ricker

Martin Luther was led by God, but he was still a sinner like the rest of us, but following God does a great work within us, as in Martin Luther.

 

[ricker]

Martin Luther was led by God, but he was still a sinner like the rest of us, but following God does a great work within us, as in Martin Luther.

You are entirely correct, good sir!

Do you hold Ellen White to the level of Martin Luther, or do you consider her writings as more authoritative than his? Just curious.

 

[asiyreh]

Ellen White was most probably more well studied in the bible and connecting literature (by a long shot) than most of the people who visit here will ever hope to be.

Now I don't necessarily accept say for example Newton's views on Christian theology. He did have some but not he was a better scientist than theologian by a long stretch. When Newton talks about gravity I listen.

When Ellen White talks about scripture and health matters, all of you, would do well to listen.

 

[ricker]

Ellen White was most probably more well studied in the bible and connecting literature (by a long shot) than most of the people who visit here will ever hope to be.

Now I don't necessarily accept say for example Newton's views on Christian theology. He did have some but not he was a better scientist than theologian by a long stretch. When Newton talks about gravity I listen.

When Ellen White talks about scripture and health matters, all of you, would do well to listen.

What say you about Luther?

Anyway, considering that knowledge is continually increasing about Biblical matters, would you not say that people such as John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul would be persons we should surely be listening to closely? Surely they are at least as studied as Mrs. White was over a hundred years ago and certainly have a better theological education to start out with than EGW did.

 

[maco]

Have a blessed day in Jesus...\o/