Should McDonalds be allowed to erect stores in Adventist areas?

[tall73]

She also said not to take her words above the Bible.... there are obviously some discrepencies that we cannot reconcile. For these, I take the Bible's stand... I'm not saying that what was given to sister White was not light, but until convicted, I will stick to what the Bible says. I see no harm in that...

You certainly will not get an argument out of me if you go with the Bible over Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

With all due respect and no offense, but when I have a look at some answers by certain people on this forum I get the impression that no matter what bible verse you show them they will always find a more or less (rather less) convincing way to stay with EGW.

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}


So because she is convinced of her own experience in the Advent movement, she cannot permit others to test the "pillars" even by bringing a "mass" of Scriptures.

The context of this quote is a controversy in Ellen White's time over the sanctuary doctrine. She notes that folks has already come to them for the past 50 years with scriptures that call into question the "pillars", but that folks are not to receive them.

 

[Stryder06]

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}


So because she is convinced of her own experience in the Advent movement, she cannot permit others to test the "pillars" even by bringing a "mass" of Scriptures.

The context of this quote is a controversy in Ellen White's time over the sanctuary doctrine. She notes that folks has already come to them for the past 50 years with scriptures that call into question the "pillars", but that folks are not to receive them.

Funny you see it that way. I've seen people pull up a "mass of scripture" to prove to me that the dead aren't dead, that you don't have to pay tithe, that the law isn't applicable to believers, that you can have faith without works/works without faith, etc, etc. So it would seem to me that people will take Sr White's words to mean what they want them to mean, as they attempt to invalidate her messages.

 

[Pythons]

A question: Does that mean that Ellen's voice on a Doctrine is the FINAL voice & terminus of any argument against it?
...As I understand it others interpreted the Bible to mean such and such.
...THEN Ellen came and gave prophetic utterance to one teaching over the others.
...And THAT is how SDA doctrine was established.

Is that the way you see it Tall? It would seem if it was just a "human" view people in the SDA church had issues with....
...It would be no problem to bring a mass of Scripture - however it appears if SDA's question Ellen.
...They are insulting God because they believe God told Ellen to say what she did.

 

[Stryder06]

A question: Does that mean that Ellen's voice on a Doctrine is the FINAL voice & terminus of any argument against it?
...As I understand it others interpreted the Bible to mean such and such.
...THEN Ellen came and gave prophetic utterance to one teaching over the others.
...And THAT is how SDA doctrine was established.

Is that the way you see it Tall? It would seem if it was just a "human" view people in the SDA church had issues with....
...It would be no problem to bring a mass of Scripture - however it appears if SDA's question Ellen.
...They are insulting God because they believe God told Ellen to say what she did.

Adventist doctrines were formulated during hours of bible study and prayer. This is more then your church can account for...no offense.

 

[tall73]

Funny you see it that way. I've seen people pull up a "mass of scripture" to prove to me that the dead aren't dead, that you don't have to pay tithe, that the law isn't applicable to believers, that you can have faith without works/works without faith, etc, etc. So it would seem to me that people will take Sr White's words to mean what they want them to mean, as they attempt to invalidate her messages.

Stryder, I think you missed the whole point.

We have all seen people use scriptures to promote the things you have talked about. And we have seen people bringing masses of scripture to say the opposite. No one denies that people bring various scriptures to try to assert a number of things.

Here is the difference--Ellen White says that you should not even receive them, or hear what they have to say, no matter how many scriptures they present.

I agree people take different positions on the Scriptural passages. But most are also willing to look at other scriptures to see if their view is correct. Not here. Here we have Ellen saying that we should not even consider what they say, no matter how many scriptures they bring, if it goes against the Adventist Church's historical experience.

That is putting experience above the word of God.

 

[tall73]

It would seem if it was just a "human" view people in the SDA church had issues with....
...It would be no problem to bring a mass of Scripture - however it appears if SDA's question Ellen.
...They are insulting God because they believe God told Ellen to say what she did.

Essentially she was saying that the Adventist experience was proof of their position, rather than any Bible text.

If it was the Bible text that proved it then one could not ignore biblical arguments against it. However, it was their experience first that proved it to them. Therefore anything that called into question their experience during the Millerite movement, dissappointment and early sabbath movement had to be wrong. You could dismiss it without looking at the Bible texts presented.

 

[tall73]

Adventist doctrines were formulated during hours of bible study and prayer. This is more then your church can account for...no offense.

Prove or retract.

 

[tall73]

She also said not to take her words above the Bible.

Think about that for a moment.

If her writings are not above the Bible, and are a lesser light pointing to the greater, and if folks studied the Bible they wouldn't need her writings, etc. then why not just read the Bible?

You don't need a lesser light if you have a greater light.

If her writings were to point to the Bible, then why not take the lesson and just read the Bible?

If you take time that you could be reading the Bible and instead read Ellen White are you not taking second best?

Why read this much second-best stuff when you could just read the Bible?

 

[tall73]

Problem: Not enough people read the Bible.

Solution: Write a 29,000 page introduction to the Bible to get them to read it.

 

[JohnMarsten]

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}


So because she is convinced of her own experience in the Advent movement, she cannot permit others to test the "pillars" even by bringing a "mass" of Scriptures.

The context of this quote is a controversy in Ellen White's time over the sanctuary doctrine. She notes that folks has already come to them for the past 50 years with scriptures that call into question the "pillars", but that folks are not to receive them.

It was only wise for the pioneers to provide for such a quote, making people disbelief even the bible,

 

[JohnMarsten]

Funny you see it that way. I've seen people pull up a "mass of scripture" to prove to me that the dead aren't dead, that you don't have to pay tithe, that the law isn't applicable to believers, that you can have faith without works/works without faith, etc, etc. So it would seem to me that people will take Sr White's words to mean what they want them to mean, as they attempt to invalidate her messages.

So is this egw thing infallible, unquestionable? how can you test it if not by using the scriptures?

 

[JohnMarsten]

Adventist doctrines were formulated during hours of bible study and prayer. This is more then your church can account for...no offense.

that was tough... sda style! keep it coming on...

 

[JohnMarsten]

Problem: Not enough people read the Bible.

Solution: Write a 29,000 page introduction to the Bible to get them to read it.

thats the point, IMHO people are lost in EGW, they read and read and I doubt they ever gonna read the bible again without the glasses of EGW, words can no longer mean what they mean, nothing can be taken at face value...

 

[tall73]

I hope you get my point... there is much blessing from the pen of inspiration, imo, and it saddens me that people will refuse to read any of it because of little understood or even erroneous statements made (which make up far less than 1% of everything she wrote)

Well speaking for myself I held your view for a while. At first I held on to everything Ellen White said. Then I found a few of the statements I couldn't understand or that just seemed wrong. I put them on the back burner as they really didn't matter much. I wanted to figure them out, but they were not earth shaking.

On the other hand, once I began to see issues with the investigative judgment doctrine not matching with the Bible, then I could no longer just consider it minor points. This doctrine throughout the history of the Adventist church has been challenged again and again from WITHIN the movement, because it just doesn't match up.

And it was the central doctrine of the movement during its early years. Ellen White endorses it again and again.

That is what made all the little things not so little things any longer.

 

[Contented]

As I have said before, a person does not need a torch light to see the moon.

 

[JohnMarsten]

As I have said before, a person does not need a torch light to see the moon.

based on the amount of EGW writing one might come and say she is the moon/sun and the bible the torch light...