Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

[tall73]

In fact the bit at the end that I added - does not quote Ellen White at all - and only says her name once in the form " I don't enjoy the all-Ellen-White-All-the-time" theme that some folks have.

Now Bob, a few points:

a. I do not talk only about Ellen White, and we have discussed Scripture many times. So you again misrepresent.

b. I don't talk about Ellen White with anyone but Adventists or those familiar, because they are the only ones who care.

c. I am sure you do not enjoy mention of some of Ellen White's statements.

d. If you don't want to discuss Ellen White, and want to focus on Scripture, you need not participate in discussions about Ellen White. Your participation in these threads is voluntary.

 

[BobRyan]

But I am not running from the statement in the fundamental. I am saying it is not true in practice.

You have yet to prove that all the sola scriptura defense of the Dan 7 judgment (in the example you gave us) -- - did not exist.

 

[BobRyan]

d. If you don't want to discuss Ellen White, and want to focus on Scripture, you need not participate in discussions about Ellen White. Your participation in these threads is voluntary.

True - but your thread title is " Seventh-day-Adventist general conference statement" - which at least had the promise of not resorting to "All I want to do is talk about Ellen White".

The fact that you bring up Bible doctrine on this thread - had the promise of an actual interest in the "sola scriptura" case.

And hence my interest in this thread.

 

[tall73]

1. If you can imagine a scenario for us of no Bible testing of anything - just "quote Ellen White and that is the end" - as the practice of all Adventist scholars in the formal debate over Dan 7's pre-advent Judgment - you would still be very challenged to show that such a thing happened "in real life".

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

2. If you claim that any input an approved prophet of God might have on any disputed Bible doctrine should be ignored - according to the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy - then you are making a claim about a Bible position -- that you have never taken any effort to actually show is a real Bible teaching about inspiration and the gift of prophecy.

Now Bob that is the point. You consider her inspired, so you consider her view of any disputed bible doctrine to be the correct one.

So then anyone who brings Bible evidence gets this treatment:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

That is not testing by Scripture.

3. If you are going to ignore all the sola scriptura Bible defense of the Dan 7 judgment by all SDA scholars - well you have free will and can ignore anything you wish. But how in the world is that a compelling argument for an SDA to take seriously?

I have not ignored them, and have read many of them.

But the problem is that the church can't entertain arguments to the contrary, because of their experience.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[tall73]

You have yet to prove that all the sola scriptura defense of the Dan 7 judgment (in the example you gave us) -- - did not exist.

Bob, Ellen White did not say you cannot post Scripture. She even told you not to post her writings in public labor. But she did say:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[tall73]

True - but your thread title is " Seventh-day-Adventist general conference statement" - which at least had the promise of not resorting to "All I want to do is talk about Ellen White".

Too bad GC statements talk so much about Ellen White then. Think how much time you could have saved avoiding Ellen White conversations if they didn't.

The fact that you bring up Bible doctrine on this thread - had the promise of an actual interest in the "sola scriptura" case.

And hence my interest in this thread.

Well now that you know that it is about the Adventist church indicating that Ellen White has doctrinal authority, and her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture, you have still participated.

I guess you lowered your standards to talk about Ellen White. But it was your choice. Perhaps you should take it up with the GC to see if they can stop making statements about Ellen White so you are not fooled into participating in discussions of their statements.

 

[BobRyan]

Well now that you know that it is about the Adventist church indicating that Ellen White has doctrinal authority, and her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture, you have still participated.
.

At some point you might get around to showing that your test case of the Dan 7 judgment was a case of all SDA scholars at Glacier View rejecting the Bible teaching in Dan 7 on that doctrine and just saying they would believe whatever Ellen White said. Which clearly to this point you have failed to do.

you keep giving me open opportunities to remind you of it.

 

[tall73]

At some point you might get around to showing that your test case of the Dan 7 judgment was a case of all SDA scholars at Glacier View rejecting the Bible teaching in Dan 7 on that doctrine and just saying they would believe whatever Ellen White said. Which clearly to this point you have failed to do.

I do not in fact have to show the nuanced details of what each scholar found. And we have no records of that in any case.

But we are talking about what was used as a test. Here is what Cottrell, one of the participants, indicated was the test:

In August 1980 115 leading administrators and Bible scholars from around the world (at an administrator's estimated cost of a quarter of a million dollars) were summoned to Glacier View in Colorado, to serve as the Sanctuary Review Committee. They were specifically instructed not to evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and theinvestigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already determined to be normative. THE "SANCTUARY DOCTRINE" – ASSET OR LIABILITY?

So an updated version of the previous rule when the issue came up:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[BobRyan]

I do not in fact have to show the nuanced details of what each scholar found.

You have to at least show "Something" to justify your false accusation that they were not doing as they claim - regarding Bible doctrine in Dan 7 as FB #1 States.

Otherwise it is surmising with no evidence at all.

 

[BobRyan]

But we are talking about what was used as a test. Here is what Cottrell, one of the participants, indicated was the test:

That is an odd "one off".

I prefer the actual study done by the "Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists" in a 700+ page research document called "the Sanctuary and the Atonement" with scholarly review of many Bible chapters (including Dan 7) on the subject of the judgment and the Atonement.

What is more - I hold in my hands the actual Aug 15, 1980 document "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary".
The document that came from GlacierView - handed to me by the Editor of "The Signs of the Times" (called "These Times" back then) upon his return from that meeting.

I have a pretty good idea of just how much "Ellen White all the time" was NOT going on there.

 

[tall73]

You have to at least show "Something" to justify your false accusation that they were not doing as they claim - regarding Bible doctrine in Dan 7 as FB #1 States.

Otherwise it is surmising with no evidence at all.

In fact, I quoted one of the participants who relayed what they tested it against, rather than Scripture.

And of course, we saw Wilson referencing that Ford did not accept Ellen White as evidence earlier in the thread.

 

[tall73]

That is an odd "one off".

An odd one-off that mentioned the standard they used?

What is more - I hold in my hands the actual Aug 15, 1980 document "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary"
document that came from GlacierView - handed to me by the Editor of "The Signs of the Times" upon his return from that meeting.

I have a pretty good idea of just how much "Ellen White all the time" was NOT going on there.

Yes, we have discussed some of it in one of the threads on the sanctuary. And they make some interesting concessions in there to Ford's view.

From another participant who notes the consensus statement was drafted by a hand-picked committee:

It seems to me that those statements of consensus were essentially political. Because these were consensus statements, it doesn’t follow that every attendee agreed with the viewpoints buttressed therein. Rather, the statements indicated the possibility that, given certain presuppositions, the positions enumerated therein could be rationalized. Agreeing to these statements of consensus didn’t mean agreeing with them. Fact is, the meetings at Glacier View did not satisfactorily resolve the issues addressed by Ford. Much remained to be considered. Perhaps those statements of consensus should have been called statements of concession. Glacier View: A Retrospective

In fact, per Spangler, Ministry editor, and witness to the meeting described, this was Ford's thought on the consensus statement, published in Ministry magazine, October, 1980

Editorial perspectives

He professed to be able to feel very comfortable preaching under the umbrella of the consensus paper just voted at Glacier View.


Here is Ford's own statement in the correspondence:

Parmenter-Ford correspondence

I am greatly encouraged by the consensus statement, "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," and the honest, frank acknowledgments it makes. In harmony with its essence, as I understand it, I can gladly teach and preach such to the same extent as the majority of my fellow teachers present at Glacier View.

 

[BobRyan]

But we are talking about what was used as a test. Here is what Cottrell, one of the participants, indicated was the test:

In August 1980 115 leading administrators and Bible scholars from around the world (at an administrator's estimated cost of a quarter of a million dollars) were summoned to Glacier View in Colorado, to serve as the Sanctuary Review Committee. They were specifically instructed not to evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and theinvestigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already determined to be normative. THE "SANCTUARY DOCTRINE" – ASSET OR LIABILITY?

So an updated version of the previous rule when the issue came up:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

that is an odd "one off" - Ford was a scholar in the church that went off the rails in his theology and they took a vote to see if the church wanted to follow him off that cliff. The church leaders which included scholars - voted "no".

I found enough reason in Ford's own book on the sanctuary to "vote no" for my own reasons - having nothing to do with "politics".

An odd one-off that mentioned the standard they used? .

Well if you think that we spend millions of dollars and invite everyone to GlacierView for a world wide leadership vote " as the standard " then I think you missed a few details.

In local churches all over the world - it is "the bible" and it is not "leading scholars in the church that have gone off " that we are talking to - but regular members or guests who have sincere interest. And of course "the standard' we use is the Bible - along with the guidance to "give objections their full weight" and respond with the Word of God.

The point remains... those "special" scenarios not withstanding.

 

[BobRyan]

That is an odd "one off".

I prefer the actual study done by the "Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists" in a 700+ page research document called "the Sanctuary and the Atonement" with scholarly review of many Bible chapters (including Dan 7) on the subject of the judgment and the Atonement.

What is more - I hold in my hands the actual Aug 15, 1980 document "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary".
The document that came from GlacierView - handed to me by the Editor of "The Signs of the Times" (called "These Times" back then) upon his return from that meeting.

I have a pretty good idea of just how much "Ellen White all the time" was NOT going on there.

says it all

I don't know of any SDA scholar today who read and agreed with those two documents above and yet claims it is right to then reject SDA doctrine on the sanctuary and the Judgment of Dan 7 and Romans 2.