Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

[BobRyan]

I stated that SDA official statements indicate her writings carry divine authority for doctrine, and that that they CORRECT inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

Folks can sort that out pretty easily.

Better yet -- actually read the first six posts here and see for themselves.

Question for Seventh Day Adventist

This just isn't that hard.

 

[tall73]

That does not matter since there is zero logic/motive/reason to do it in the first place.

It's like saying "Ellen White told Adventists not to avoid drinking water" - there is no reason to do such a thing. So nice that she said it - but this is not exactly rocket science since our denomination is already committed to testing all doctrine sola scriptura. Which means all of our doctrinal presentations are ... wait for it.... sola.... scriptura

Bob, people can read. The SDA church is quite open about saying that Ellen White's writings carry divine authority for doctrine. And they indicate she corrects inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

And we saw an example of that in pastor Wilson.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

A Statement of Confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy

As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that "in His Word God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience" (The Great Controversy, p 7). We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

You state he is an administrator and did not edit or change doctrine. I did not claim he changed doctrine. I stated that it is an example of the use of Ellen White's writings by the church.

What you called "Pastor Wilson" in your reference to one of the church's late administrators is not an example of setting doctrine, establishing practice, or a church vote on any particular statement. spin it as you will - the facts speak for themselves in this test case as we see in the first six posts - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

Bob, people can read.

I am counting on it

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA church is quite open about saying that Ellen White's writings carry divine authority

But we don't claim our doctrines are based on her prophetic statements - as we both know.

the facts speak for themselves in this test case as we see in the first six posts - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

 

[tall73]

You yourself claimed on this thread that God's prophets speak with prophetic authority. Are you wanting to study the doctrine of prophets and the gift of prophecy - from the Bible now? is that the new direction?

Indeed. However, since you are putting Ellen White's writings in the position of correcting interpretations of Scripture, you are in fact doing it backwards.

And while Ellen White said to go by Scripture, not her writings, when it came down to actual application she said the opposite.

She pointed to the experience of the Adventist people and told them not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of the SDA faith.

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]

And they indicate she corrects inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

as you already admitted - a heated debate in the 1800's in the SDA church was over the LAW in Galatians 3. And as I stated it was the topic of her claim that the LAW in Galatians 3 is primarily the moral law of God that condemns someone until they come to faith in Christ - but that in a secondary sense it is the ceremonial law pointing to the sacrifice of the Christ.

Leaving his part of our discussion out - leaves the reader with a less than accurate impression of what we have already posted on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed. However, since you are putting Ellen White's writings in the position of correcting interpretations of Scripture, you are in fact doing it backwards.

This is me posting for the zillionth time:
the facts speak for themselves in this test case proving sola scriptura testing for all doctrine as we see in the first six posts regarding future judgment - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

 

[tall73]

What you called "Pastor Wilson" in your reference to one of the church's late administrators is not an example of setting doctrine, establishing practice, or a church vote on any particular statement. spin it as you will - the facts speak for themselves in this test case as we see in the first six posts - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

I am counting on it

As much as you would like your six posts to be the test case, rather than the official statements of the church which were voted, and the example of the president of the GC, the reality is the church official statements are the evidence.

And Ellen White's own statement not to entertain Scriptural arguments that go against the special points of the SDA faith is the test case.

And of course, you only want them to read the 6 posts, and not the various responses where it is pointed out that you inject things never stated in Daniel 7 to try to fit Ellen White's scheme.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
You yourself claimed on this thread that God's prophets speak with prophetic authority. Are you wanting to study the doctrine of prophets and the gift of prophecy - from the Bible now? is that the new direction?

Indeed. However, since you are putting Ellen White's writings in the position of correcting interpretations of Scripture, you are in fact doing it backwards.

And while Ellen White said to go by Scripture, not her writings,

Again you inject Ellen White into a doctrinal discussion???

That was me in the post above asking if you had interest in the Bible study on the Bible doctrine of prophets and the gift of prophecy.

My point to you has repeatedly been that your "all Ellen White all the time" approach is not very compelling.

 

[BobRyan]

As much as you would like your six posts to be the test case, rather than the official statements of the church

There are zero official statements from the church rejecting sola scriptura testing of all doctrine -- rather the official statements insist on it.

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

You have been pretty consistent in not quoting this statement in your representations

 

[tall73]

But we don't claim our doctrines are based on her prophetic statements - as we both know.

the facts speak for themselves in this test case as we see in the first six posts - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

No, you just state that her statements on doctrines others came up with are the correct interpretation, and claim to correct interpretations of Scripture by it, in the officially voted statement.

And of course Ellen White said not to entertain Scripture arguments against the special points of the Adventist faith.

 

[BobRyan]

No, you just state that her statements on doctrines others came up with are the correct interpretation, .

I claim Ellen White was a Seventh-day Adventist and I claim that just as our Belief #1 states - the Bible is the standard for all doctrine - we test all doctrine "sola Scriptura" -

the facts speak for themselves in this test case proving sola scriptura testing for all doctrine as we see in the first six posts regarding future judgment - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

 

[tall73]

as you already admitted - a heated debate in the 1800's in the SDA church was over the LAW in Galatians 3. And as I stated it was the topic of her claim that the LAW in Galatians 3 is primarily the moral law of God that condemns someone until they come to faith in Christ - but that in a secondary sense it is the ceremonial law pointing to the sacrifice of the Christ.

Leaving his part of our discussion out - leaves the reader with a less than accurate impression of what we have already posted on that point.

I admitted she called incorrect a view of Waggoner Sr. that she later accepted in Waggoner Jr. which Uriah Smith called her on.

Anyone reading already saw the conversation.

But the official statement voted was the one talking about correcting inaccurate doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

And of course Ellen White said not to entertain Scripture arguments against the special points of the Adventist faith.

" all Ellen White all the time" is not a compelling form of argument. You are free to go to an SDA forum and try to make that case stick - as if we do not already engage in sola-scriptura discussions with a great many folks today -

There are zero official statements from the church rejecting sola scriptura testing of all doctrine -- rather the official statements insist on it.

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

You have been pretty consistent in not quoting this statement in your representations

 

[tall73]

This is me posting for the zillionth time:
the facts speak for themselves in this test case proving sola scriptura testing for all doctrine as we see in the first six posts regarding future judgment - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

So your posts on one thread are more representative of the Adventist church than their own official statements?

I don't think folks will buy that Bob.

And of course, folks should read more than your six statements. They should also read how you try to inject words not there into a number of Scriptures to uphold her view.

 

[tall73]

Again you inject Ellen White into a doctrinal discussion???

No Bob, I did not inject this statement. The GC session did:

Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

Her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture are the position of the Adventist church, voted in GC session.

Nor did I set this rule. Ellen White Did:

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]

No Bob, I did not inject this statement. The GC session did:

No GC session is posting on this thread - I simply asked if your post was indicating that you wanted a Bible study on the gift of prophecy.. you then came back with yet another "all Ellen White" response which seems very limiting for you at this point.

 

[BobRyan]

So your posts on one thread are more representative of the Adventist church than their own official statements? .

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) - about establishing all doctrine - by the Bible, are what we do in practice and if you ever gave even one Bible study as an SDA pastor to someone wanting to join the church - you probably did that as well "sola scriptura". But it is difficult to be certain of that given your strong inclination to go "all Ellen White all the time" in each of your posts recently.

 

[BobRyan]

And of course, folks should read more than your six statements. They should also read how you try to inject words not there into a number of Scriptures to uphold her view.

They would need to read your posts to get "her view" since mine quote the Bible. But I do agree with you on the point that they should read each of my posts.

 

[tall73]

That was me in the post above asking if you had interest in the Bible study on the Bible doctrine of prophets and the gift of prophecy.

My point to you has repeatedly been that your "all Ellen White all the time" approach is not very compelling.

A. I have discussed Scripture with you on many topics repeatedly.

B. It is in fact not my approach to take anything Ellen White says as authoritative. I do not believe Ellen White has ANY authority doctrinally. Your church does, by their official statements.

C. I do point out what she says on some points Adventists would rather not discuss. I am very aware you don't want to discuss it. But you still include her in your doctrinal statements. And you still will take her interpretation 100 percent of the time.

D. And I use her statements to note the Adventist belief when discussing with Adventists precisely because they will not disagree with her.

When the Adventist church talks about using her writings to correct Scriptural interpretations, and when she herself says that Scripture arguments against the pillars upheld by their experience are not to be entertained, then it is in fact the Adventist church that has an Ellen White problem, not me.

Because you cannot claim to go by Scripture as the test, but then say not to entertain Scripture arguments against your special points of faith.