mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,820
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
This is completely untrue.
Show me your documentation that backs up her claims and I'll show that it is not true.NO, your statements are completely untrue---show your documentation please!!
NO, your statements are completely untrue---show your documentation please!!
Show me your documentation that backs up her claims and I'll show that it is not true.
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you paid attention to what we have been discussing which has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine. My response was to the claim that Mrs White's history was accurate.You don't seem to understand. When someone calls another person a liar, they are the ones that provide the evidence for their stand. She wrote over 80 books, 200 fliers, and 5000 periodical articles! That's over 60,000 manuscript pages. Assuming that you have read all of them so that you know what you are talking about---you should have no problem in pointing out what she wrote that you are claiming she lied about as I have no idea. It an enormous bundle of work and I will say that I have read just about every page since I started out when I was 13 years old. I took a 30 year leave of absence while I was exploring the degradation of what the world calls fun---and found it wasn't. I also explored every other religion out there as I had gotten quite tired of EGW.
What most people do not know, and what I have frequently said is----we do not get our doctrines from her, we get all our doctrines from the bible. So, even if someone were to prove without a doubt that she is a liar---nothing about our doctrines would change.
I am an SDA not because I agree with what they say---but because they say everything that I believe in according to the bible. I've been on here for years and no one has shown me where she lied yet.
I came back to being SDA because I found no other denomination that was as biblically based. Every "former SDA" that has come one here, when I questioned them, they had not been an SDA and if they had been, they had no idea what our believes actually are and where we got them from. So you go right ahead and start telling us where we are wrong---you are not the 1st, nor will you be the last to show your lack of knowledge on our doctrines. I believe I've heard your theories for your doctrines before and you've not proven to me that mine are not biblically based. Most Protestants, in spite of their name, do not even know what their own founding fathers actually believed in!
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you paid attention to what we have been discussing which has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine. My response was to the claim that Mrs White's history was accurate.
There is a lot of truth in this - I think the SDA members here should consider this point carefully before responding on this thread.
Everyone has free will and can choose as they wish - and SDAs have absolutely no doctrine saying that someone should accept Ellen White as stating truth without first working through the Bible statements related to what she said and making a conclusion there, so the starting premise for the thread is a step in the direction that we don't recommend. Why would anyone consider a prophet favorably when the starting point is that the prophet under discussion differs with their own view of Bible doctrine. It is pointless.
Actually, that is not the starting premise of this thread - I should know because I wrote it. The premise is, I am looking to understand which books of EGW are less popular among members of the SDA and what books of hers tend to be disliked by Adventists.
Well good luck with that -- I am one of those that does not know enough details about what books Adventists don't like to have the answer to it.
I don't believe that God has a Spirit of disagreement.
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3
There may be differences among us, but we must have the same Spirit, faith and truth.
"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all." 1 Corinthians 12:4-7
As long as we have the same truth, there is no disagreement.
"Thy word is truth." John 17:17
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20
"For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
'One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Ephesians 4:5
"Let the Testimonies be judged by their fruits. What is the spirit of their teaching? What has been the result of their influence? “All who desire to do so can acquaint themselves with the fruits of these visions. For seventeen years God has seen fit to let them survive and strengthen against the opposition of Satan's forces and the influence of human agencies that have aided Satan in his work.” 5T 671.1
“God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work ... bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil.” 5T 671.2
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you paid attention to what we have been discussing which has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine. My response was to the claim that Mrs White's history was accurate.
All Seventh-day Adventist believe in the authority of the Bible above everything else. No one follows Ellen G White, we follow the Word of God, the Bible. Enjoying a book like Steps to Christ which magnifies the Bible is not the same as following a human. We follow God. If anyone is really curious about what SDA’s believe in, its not a secret, you can find it on our official website. Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Church God bless
Actually, that is not the starting premise of this thread - I should know because I wrote it. The premise is, I am looking to understand which books of EGW are less popular among members of the SDA and what books of hers tend to be disliked by Adventists.
My interest is not in a statistical overview of Adventists as a whole but the individual experience of people like you.
I have to confess that I am finding this thread deeply troubling, because I am not finding Adventists saying “I am an adventist, and I admire EGW, but I disagree with her on this issue, and on that issue,” and so on. If the writings of Ellen White are regarded as an infallible interpretation of scripture I think it undermines the claim of the SDA to adhere to a Sola Scriptura approach along the lines of traditional Protestantism. To put it another way, I don’t know any Lutherans who do not have at least some criticism of Luther (I haven’t found any apologist willing to defend for instance the very disturbing and grotesque anti-Semitic tracts he wrote, illustrated in a vile way by Lucas Cranach the Elder); I don’t know any Anglicans with a particular devotion to Archbishop Cranmer, and John Wesley, while widely beloved among Protestants, is hardly regarded as infallible among Methodists; indeed most UMC churches preserve only a fraction of his teachings. In the same way, because the early church fathers frequently disagree with each other, the Eastern Orthodox do not tend to regard any of them as utterly infallible, and even in the case of Roman Catholicism, it is easy to find, very easy to find, Roman Catholics of conservative or traditional views who accept without question the idea of Papal Infallibility while simultaneously expressing extremely severe criticism of Pope Francis.
Benjamin G. Wilkinson is not a Historian, thus anything he wrote about history is not worth reading. He is part of the KJV only myth. Benjamin G. Wilkinson - Wikipedia
I think you are mistaken on what it is people believe here to be honest. I cannot speak for everyone but I do know for a fact that the SOP or EGW writings never ever state to take her writings over the scriptures. She only says of her own writings that she is a lessor light pointing to the greater light in Jesus and God's Word (the bible) and that is where we should find the prayerful truth of Gods' Word. This is where I spend most of my time.
Now what is it that you disagree with in making this thread and let's talk scripture bringing everything to the light of God's Word? Your whole thread here falls down I believe because you seem to be claiming that God's Church does not have the gift of prophecy. This premise is not biblical and goes against the teachings of the scriptures as shown in the new covenant that God's Church has spiritual gifts one of them of course being prophecy as shown in *Acts of the Apostles 2:17-19; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 13:9; 14:31-39; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Peter 1:19.
In fact one of the signs of God's true Church in the last days is that they have the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy, and that they know end time events according to John in Revelation 12:17 who says God's people have the "testimony of Jesus" defined in the scriptures in Revelation 19:10 as the "Spirit of prophecy". Now these of course are God's Words not my words.
Now dear friend let's talk scripture and look at the premise of your thread here. Are you saying that Gods' Church does not have the spiritual gift from God of prophecy? It is this premise that has been shown through this thread that is disturbing in my view as it is not biblical to claim that Gods' people do not have God's Spirit or spiritual gifts of prophecy when the scriptures clearly show that they do.
Look forward to your response.
What is a Historian? You do know that many Historians are used in our beliefs right from all different sources and places and not one? Please do not make out that this guy is our only source of History when it is not. Do you consider people like Edward Gibbon; or Jean-Henri Merle d'Aubigné capable Historians and their works credible sources of unbiased History?
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one I think. You do know Gibbon's Historical works on the Rise and fall of the Roman Empire are classics classified as Historical master pieces right? I do not think your link to someone Blog that you have provided above does not take away from this. I have not seen that Gibbon's is stating that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to it's embrace of Christianity and have never used any of His Works to teach such things so not really relevant to me and your quote from Wiki does not mean much either as I have never seen all scholars agree on all things either. I do know however that this work was considered by Historical scholars as a master piece and he is an unbiased source that I have used in the past fro information in regards to the Roman Empire. There is no other Historical references that I am aware of that are unbiased that have the same credibility as this set of books in regards to History in regards to the Roman Empire.The Partial View: Review: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-88) by Edward Gibbon - Everyman's Library, 1993-4, 6 vols.
"Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman Empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today."
Edward Gibbon - Wikipedia
Gibbon's work is horribly outdated.
I think personally it is a pretty big call to say any of the celebrated Historical classic like those from Gibbons or those from d'Aubigné are outdated which is only your opinion in my view. What makes them outdated? They are still celebrated Historical classics and while no large works like these will ever be perfect there are no Historical references that I am aware of that are perfect from what I have ever seen with all works always having critics for whatever reason. As mentioned earlier we draw from a wide range of Historical references not a few and this was the point I was trying to make earlier. What your opinion is of different Historians are does not really matter to me as there is no such thing as a perfect one. Thanks for sharing your view though but it is not one that I hold.I read Jean-Henri Merle d'Aubigné five volume history of reformation. It is also way outdated too. try reading, Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought Perfect Paperback – January 1, 1970 by David Hackett Fischer (Author)
Histories and Fallacies Problems Faced in the Writing of History By Carl R. Trueman
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?