Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[BobRyan]

Okay, so far I see two parts to the test:
What they say must not contradict the scriptures, though it may expand upon them.

They must produce good fruit.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Is that the complete test that SDA's use in your experience?

From that same post:

If that was all you knew about me, have I passed the test for being a prophet? I did not add to the scriptures, and I showed good fruit by showing compassion for others.

Good question

1. Did you claim that God has personaly affirmed in dream or vision anything you have every said from a doctrinal POV? (as I pointed out God specifying in Numbers 12) I don't recall you doing such a thing.

2. Are your doctrines that you claim God has personally spoken to you about in a dream or vision - found to be in harmony with scripture? I have not heard you make any such claim...

So then so far - you don't fail the test of a prophet rather you pass the test that says you are not even a prophet at all rather than a failed prophet or a false prophet.

I think Tall73 would also have known this much on that topic so I don't think this is a case where we differ.

 

[BobRyan]

Do a prophet's writings have to be published in order to be testable?

The whole point of a prophet is to publish the message given to them by God. The Bible never claims that "everything a prophet says at the breakfast table while talking to family and friends - is also a direct vision from God". There are some x-SDAs on some boards that like to "play that game" with non-SDAs but I usually just cut-to-the-chase when I see it.

That is not even remotely a bible teaching on the topic.

Prophets get to have family and friends and get to write to them. off duty.

If the gift of prophecy is an identifying mark of the remnant church, then I think it would be critical to identify who is and is not a prophet, .

well then we agree on something. But we do not agree that the Bible claims every word a person utters comes straight from a vision or dream - if they are a valid prophet.

 

[BobRyan]

But Satan is not the evil opposite of Christ.

In Rev 12 that is how he is depicted - as Christ's direct enemy. Not as Christ's equal but as His enemy "Satan and his angels" not "some obscure unnamed demon and Satan's angels against Christ"

That's putting Satan and Jesus in the same category imo.

Your argument is "with the text" in that case. you have free will and can choose that path if you wish.

 

[Leaf473]

His is from chapter 27 of the GC on page 461.

The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 27: Modern Revivals


One of the Scapegoat comments in chapter 28 on Page 486

The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 28: Facing Life's Record

Try reading both chapters, and see if it clarifies anything for you.

Or read the whole book if you like, and see if it clarifies anything for you. The last chapter also has reference to the scapegoat.

Thanks for the details and the references.

It looks like you are caught up now! That is a lot of reading.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to add much, but I think you got a good general view of the issues.

I think that was a record day for me, something I'm not planning to repeat!

 

[Leaf473]

But if you want her most direct statements try reading Early Writings. It also refers to the scapegoat.

Early Writings, by Ellen G. White. Table of Contents


But if you do read the Great Controversy you can also check out the changes they made from the first edition to the second. This relates the discussion Prescott, an Adventist academic, and Ellen White and her staff had regarding use of sources, wording, etc.

Ellen G. White® Estate: W. W. PRESCOTT AND THE 1911 EDITION OF GREAT CONTROVERSY

Thanks for the additional links.

It seems like kind of a pattern in similar groups.

There were changes made to the writings of Joseph Smith. Details about things like his first vision, I can't remember exactly.

Jehovah's witnesses today largely want to disown Charles Russell, their nominal founder.

 

[Leaf473]

Not really. All @Leaf473 posts have done is ignore the post content that has been shared with him stating he disagrees without showing why he disagrees while simply repeating what he said that is addressed in detailed scripture responses that disagree with everything he has said which is why I have not bothered responding to be honest.

He said it was a lot of reading, which it was. Over 150 posts, I think.

I didn't respond in detail in some cases because I previously had responded to those same points in detail.

It's fine if you don't want to respond, it's up to you.

If you want to continue our discussion, I'd recommend picking a particular point such as:
What happens to the sin that Satan takes with him into the abyss, in your view?

 

[Leaf473]

I hope to be everyone's friend.

I extend friendship to you. Do you accept it? Are we friends?

The question should rather be are we the friends of Jesus according to John 15:14?

That is a great question! But my being friends with Jesus doesn't preclude my also being friends with my other Christian brothers and sisters here on CF.

Thanks for your posts Leaf.

You're welcome!

I decided not to respond to them.

That's entirely up to you, of course. You're always welcome back, as far as I'm concerned.

All you have done in your posts here is to repeat your self, provide an opinion unsupported by evidence or scripture while ignoring all the posts that have been shared with you and misrepresenting what I have said to you even after clarification was provided through the scriptures in the posts you were quoting from. As I said in the beginning, to me that is not the type of discussion that I have any time for to be honest.

I disagree, I did much more than that.

If I remember right, I also raised new points.

Perhaps you can pray about it.

Certainly! And I'm sure you will as well.

Take Care.

You too, my friend!

 

[Leaf473]

Well everyone has free will. You can believe as you wish.

But Eph 4 does not seem to support that idea. In Eph 4 we are told that it continues until the 2nd coming.



The New testament speaks of the offices of teachers, pastors, prophets and Apostles. It does not say all these have "ceased".

But there is a case for Apostles "ceasing" made in Acts 1.

15 At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together), and said, ....21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

So then not very many people could be qualified as "Apostle" by that criteria. By contrast that is not at all the Criteria that the Bible uses for prophets - so then the Bible calls Anna in the Temple a prophet, it calls Agabus a prophet and Paul says everyone in 1 Cor 14 had the gift of prophecy which could only have happened after Christ went to heaven since there were no Christian evangelists in Corinth before that.

But that is just the Bible as some might say - so they may not agree with me on that point.




Not according to scripture (Note 1 Cor 14 follows after 12 and 12 specifically puts it as an office like pastor and Apostle - as does Eph 4.) - but as I said you have free will and can believe as you wish.




Rev 12:
17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest (the remnant) of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 19
10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brothers and sisters who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Rev 22
9 And he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

If the office of apostle has ceased, then how can you use Ephesians 4:11 to say that the office of prophet must continue on?

If the scriptures teach that people in the office of prophet are an identifying mark of the remnant church, who are the people in that office today?

 

[Leaf473]

All the work of blotting out happens in the sanctuary -- the scapegoat is not there for blotting out sins, is not there as the sin offering of Lev 16:15 and plays no part at all in the sanctuary service of Lev 16.

From whom are the sins blotted out?

 

[Leaf473]

I think Tall73 was quoting from Early Writings in the post you replied to - and my reference above shows that I am quoting from Great Controversy - page 461.

As I remind everyone in my exchange with Tall73 -- dragging non-SDAs through his endless all-Ellen-White quotes is not the right way to go. Stick with the Bible and stick with the actual voted Fundamental Beliefs because non-SDAs do not have the years of experience reading through all of Ellen White's material.



I understand - but I don't recommend that approach because it is backwards. You save yourself all the trouble simply by looking at the published doctrines and comparing them to scripture - if you differ at that point - there is no point in doing anything with Ellen White's writings because even SDAs would say not to accept her as a prophet if you feel the Bible does not support the doctrines of the Adventist church that she claimed God was in favor of. IT is very simple that way and cuts through Tall73's habit of trying to find obscure Ellen White quotes.

Now when you say:

You save yourself all the trouble simply by looking at the published doctrines and comparing them to scripture...

Is it only her published works that speak with prophetic authority?

 

[Leaf473]

Not true. Satan never returns to the camp of the saints once he is sent away. He ends up alone on Earth for 1000 years - and even when the wicked are raised in Rev 20 at the 2nd resurrection - he has only the wicked with him - those already doomed to the lake of fire, he never gets access to the saints again.

In the story in Leviticus 16, the goat stays in the wilderness. That's the last we hear of it.

Satan does not stay in the abyss. That's the difference I was talking about.


Also, this seems to indicate that Satan does return to the general area of the camp:
Revelation 20:9 They went up over the width of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city.

 

[Leaf473]

The birds come from the sky - Jesus did not come from the sky. Birds are used as substitutes for lambs in the temple service.. Jesus did not come from a mother or father sheep. Jesus' father was God not someone on par with His mother - but the lamb's parents were equals to each other - both of them sheep. You can take any of the symbols extend it beyond the point it is depicting and reach all kinds of odd guesswork.

I would never challenge the argument that doing such things is very possible.

Yes, exactly. And, imo, that's what happens when we try to make Satan the scapegoat and extend Leviticus 16 into Revelation 20.

 

[Leaf473]

According to Rev 12 the war is specifically between Christ and Satan - and no angel of Christ or angel of Satan is mentioned as leading one or the other group "instead". I choose to stick with the Bible and in Lev 16 the good goat represents Christ and the evil counterpart can only be Satan.

You have free will of course and can reach for any sort of idea that you wish.

It's Michael who is warring against Satan in Revelation 12. Of course, a person can interpret Michael to be Jesus.

I also choose to stick with the Bible.

Yes, we both have free will and can reach for any sort of idea that we wish.

 

[Leaf473]

The sins are put on the goat - making the goat defiled and anyone who touches it defiled.

By contrast - no one is defiled that touches Christ. The goat is representing an evil being- and not representing "another goat" nor Christ. It is the counter-part to the "Lord's Goat" the counter-part to the "sin offering". It is in fact not a blood sacrifice at all and so it plays no part at all in the sanctuary work. In fact the antitype event has not even happened yet to this very date.



You keep struggling with "the type" - as pointed out the blood going into the sanctuary is not Jesus dumping gallons of blood in heaven - rather it is the act of claiming his blood sacrifice on behalf of the one whose sins are being confessed and forgiven at that moment. This gets said many times in this thread so far.

When you talk about

By contrast - no one is defiled that touches Christ.

Are you referring to the person who drove the scapegoat into the wilderness has to then take cleansing steps?
But not the person who touches the Lord's goat?

Leviticus 16:26 And he who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.

 

[Leaf473]

Good question

1. Did you claim that God has personaly affirmed in dream or vision anything you have every said from a doctrinal POV? (as I pointed out God specifying in Numbers 12) I don't recall you doing such a thing.

2. Are your doctrines that you claim God has personally spoken to you about in a dream or vision - found to be in harmony with scripture? I have not heard you make any such claim...

So then so far - you don't fail the test of a prophet rather you pass the test that says you are not even a prophet at all rather than a failed prophet or a false prophet.

I think Tall73 would also have known this much on that topic so I don't think this is a case where we differ.

I believe I specified, "If that was all you knew about me..."
And it sounds like it's not enough.

I think you are responding to an earlier post there. You have since given a much fuller test that I have since responded to.

 

[Leaf473]

The whole point of a prophet is to publish the message given to them by God. The Bible never claims that "everything a prophet says at the breakfast table while talking to family and friends - is also a direct vision from God". There are some x-SDAs on some boards that like to "play that game" with non-SDAs but I usually just cut-to-the-chase when I see it.

That is not even remotely a bible teaching on the topic.

Prophets get to have family and friends and get to write to them. off duty.



well then we agree on something. But we do not agree that the Bible claims every word a person utters comes straight from a vision or dream - if they are a valid prophet.

It doesn't look to me like the fundamental beliefs specify only published writings.

If some of her early, unpublished writings don't speak with prophetic authority, I think it would be good to clear that up.

 

[Leaf473]

In Rev 12 that is how he is depicted - as Christ's direct enemy. Not as Christ's equal but as His enemy "Satan and his angels" not "some obscure unnamed demon and Satan's angels against Christ"

Your argument is "with the text" in that case. you have free will and can choose that path if you wish.

We weren't talking about direct enemy, I believe it was "evil opposite".

I think my dispute is with the interpretation that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

I fully agree that Michael and Satan are in the same category.

 

[tall73]

Now when you say:

Is it only her published works that speak with prophetic authority?

The analysis offered in post 796 demonstrates that this was not the case with this letter for several reasons. I will re-post some of that here.

Lt 8, 1850

Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

a. The letter references a vision, and states that the Lord showed her x, y, and z. She recounts that she interacted with an angel, etc. She did not seem to think that the letter was therefore incapable of relaying information she considered inspired, whether it was widely published or not.

b. The letter also contains advice directly to the recipient, along with exhortation to endure, to keep separate from the world, to be diligent, directions as to what to do "if you would come off victorious", etc.

Ellen White not only said her books and articles were not her opinion, but indicated when she wrote letters to people she was telling them what God wanted them to know, often warning, etc .

You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me.
{5T 67.2}

C. Bob alleged that we placed value on this unpublished letter. However, it was actually the White Estate who published this letter to their website. And they were the ones who posted them in an article analyzing Ellen White's statements regarding the scapegoat.

Ellen G. White® Estate: The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White

And the statement was referenced in Ministry Magazine which goes to Adventist ministers.

Ministry Magazine | The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White¹

So the question is why did Bob want to downplay this statement?

Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

Perhaps because it strikes people as outrageous to pray that your sins be confessed over satan.

 

[BobRyan]

We weren't talking about direct enemy, I believe it was "evil opposite".

It is the same contrast we see in Rev 12 - the war between Christ and Satan. We see it also in Job 1 and 2 -- so again in Lev 16 we see them in opposite roles ... one that cleanses those who come in contact with it - and the other that contaminates..

 

[BobRyan]

Is it only her published works that speak with prophetic authority?

The "point" of a message from God given to a prophet - is to convey it to people.

By contrast - we do not believe that everything said at the breakfast table - came straight from a vision or inspired dream.