- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 127
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Since my last attempt at this was seriously derailed:
http://foru.ms/t6159041-some-honest-questions.html
I decided to post them again here where we can deal with them in more of a free manner.
Some honest questions
"There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors 1.) make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as 2.) an authourity on any point. It's motto has been, 'The Bible, and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.' Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. 3.) He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The revival of any, or all of the gifts, 4.) will never supercede the necessity of searching the Word to learn truth." (James White)
1.) Why, then does our church have included in the 28 fundamentals that the SOP is a continuing source of authourity for Adventists in all matters, including, it is assumed, doctrinal?
1.) Why, then, does our church include acceptance of the SOP in the baptismal vows?
1.) Why, then, do so many Adventists test all doctrine by the SOP and why does Adventist doctrine find its validity in being 'confirmed and verified' by Ellen White's visions?
2.) Why, then, do some in our church consider the SOP as equal in authourity with the Scriptures?
2.) Why, then, do some Adventists consider the SOP as canononically inspired as any of the books of the Bible?
2.) Why, then, does our church regard the SOP as authouritative in every area of study, including theology, education, history, medicine, science, geology, health, etc.?
3.) Why, then, do so many Adventists keep almost every aspect thier spiritual understanding, theological understanding and personal and public lives strictly in line with the SOP if we are not to learn our duty through the gifts?
4.) Why, then, does every discussion, Bible study and Sabbath School lesson study always end up refering to the SOP as the final and authouritative word on any matter?
4.) Why, then, is every doctrine and belief filtered through the SOP before it is accepted as valid (even if it is in conflict with the Scriptures) if the SOP should never supercede the Bible?
4.) Why, then, is traditional belief as laid out in the SOP always accepted by default over clear Scriptural teaching?
Either James White was blatantly deceptive with his position in regards to the SOP or the Adventist church has violated and broken every single known rule, principal and advisement of the pioneers with respect to proper use of EGW's writings.
The SOP has and is being grossly abused and misused and, unfortunately, many of Ellen White's own dogmatic proclamations have contributed, encouraged and aggravated such inane, cultish misuse of her works. She then further contradicts, muddles and confuses things by speaking out of both sides of her mouth in regards to Scripture vs. tradition, as we shall see in the quotes we are looking at.
Ironically, James White is virtually condemned by his own wife if his above position is true, as she claimed full and complete authourity in her writings by virtue of the same Spirit that inspired the Bible writers and prophets of old.
"The testimonies of Sister White 1.) should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. 2.) The testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. Let all prove thier positions from the Scriptures and substatiate every point the claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain 3.) the Bible, and the Bible only, as the only standard of all doctrine, and the basis of all reforms. 4.) Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support." (Ellen White)
1.) Why, then, is the SOP given primary importance on par with Scripture?
1.) Why, then, is the SOP given far more prominence than Scripture, even to the point that it is used to settle doctrinal disputes?
2.) Why, then, are so many behavioural/lifestyle restrictions imposed upon Adventist membership simply on the basis of 'thus sayeth the SOP' with not one shred of Biblical support?
2.) Why, then, when a doctrinal position cannot be supported Biblically, Scripture is trumped in favour of tradition and SOP endorsement?
3.) Why, then, does all Adventist doctrine have to have the SOP approval before it is accepted, even long after it has been supposedly proven from the Bible?
3.) Why, then, have so many segments of Adventism made it quite clear that the standard of all Adventist doctrine is the SOP first and formost?
3.) Why then, when a doctrine is proven to be Biblically indefensible (even by some of Adventism's own scholars!) the church refuses to relinquish her hold and would rather find solace in tradition?
4.) Why, then, when the true principal of Sola Scriptura is upheld, the church immediately goes on the defensive and condemns this practice as 'abandoning the SOP' or 'undermining the authourity' of E.G. White?
4.) Why, then, is the Bible and the Bible alone principal only tolerated in the Adventist church insofar as none of the 'pillars' are challenged?
4.) Why, then, if the church claims it has nothing to fear from close examination of its doctrines, do they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong when such close examination discloses serious flaws in some of its beliefs?
Sometimes I wonder who we think we are fooling as a church. We pay lip service to Sola Scriptura and yet I have not seen one ounce of evidence this has been practiced in its pure form in my 20+ years in the church! What else can we expect when we have EGW who on one hand heartily endorses making sure Adventist doctrine is Biblically sound, and then in the next breath dogmatically states that not one pin is to be removed from the doctrinal pillars that have been verified and confirmed through inspiration and the visions, and woe be to those who attempt it, thus stifiling, strangling, suffocating and murdering any future progression in theological thought.
So basically, no matter how often an Adventist doctrine is proven false it will never matter one iota, because it has the E.G. White seal of approval and that is all that will be considered thank you very much-and be damned with Sola Scriptura, we have the more sure word of the SOP.
I would also like to ask everyone this question: When Mrs. White was confronted with the pointed challenges to the Heavenly sanctuary doctrine brought on by A.F. Ballenger, how was his research refuted? Sound, honest, Biblical exegesis? Not quite. The final court of appeal was not to be Scripture at all, but the visions she had which 'confirmed' this doctrine. She appeals to her prophetic experiences as the final authourity for the teachings of the church. She is condemned by her very own counsel!
In the Adventist church today we need to have Scriptural integrity, Biblical fidelity and away with allegiance to tradition. However, it seems the final authourity will always be the SOP, no matter how much some might want to deny it. The church administration stands by and watches silently as men like Ralph Larson, Colin and Russell Standish, Doug Batchelor, Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson gleefully attack Luther's Biblically solid teaching of justification by faith.
http://foru.ms/t6159041-some-honest-questions.html
I decided to post them again here where we can deal with them in more of a free manner.
Some honest questions
"There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors 1.) make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as 2.) an authourity on any point. It's motto has been, 'The Bible, and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.' Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. 3.) He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The revival of any, or all of the gifts, 4.) will never supercede the necessity of searching the Word to learn truth." (James White)
1.) Why, then does our church have included in the 28 fundamentals that the SOP is a continuing source of authourity for Adventists in all matters, including, it is assumed, doctrinal?
1.) Why, then, does our church include acceptance of the SOP in the baptismal vows?
1.) Why, then, do so many Adventists test all doctrine by the SOP and why does Adventist doctrine find its validity in being 'confirmed and verified' by Ellen White's visions?
2.) Why, then, do some in our church consider the SOP as equal in authourity with the Scriptures?
2.) Why, then, do some Adventists consider the SOP as canononically inspired as any of the books of the Bible?
2.) Why, then, does our church regard the SOP as authouritative in every area of study, including theology, education, history, medicine, science, geology, health, etc.?
3.) Why, then, do so many Adventists keep almost every aspect thier spiritual understanding, theological understanding and personal and public lives strictly in line with the SOP if we are not to learn our duty through the gifts?
4.) Why, then, does every discussion, Bible study and Sabbath School lesson study always end up refering to the SOP as the final and authouritative word on any matter?
4.) Why, then, is every doctrine and belief filtered through the SOP before it is accepted as valid (even if it is in conflict with the Scriptures) if the SOP should never supercede the Bible?
4.) Why, then, is traditional belief as laid out in the SOP always accepted by default over clear Scriptural teaching?
Either James White was blatantly deceptive with his position in regards to the SOP or the Adventist church has violated and broken every single known rule, principal and advisement of the pioneers with respect to proper use of EGW's writings.
The SOP has and is being grossly abused and misused and, unfortunately, many of Ellen White's own dogmatic proclamations have contributed, encouraged and aggravated such inane, cultish misuse of her works. She then further contradicts, muddles and confuses things by speaking out of both sides of her mouth in regards to Scripture vs. tradition, as we shall see in the quotes we are looking at.
Ironically, James White is virtually condemned by his own wife if his above position is true, as she claimed full and complete authourity in her writings by virtue of the same Spirit that inspired the Bible writers and prophets of old.
"The testimonies of Sister White 1.) should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. 2.) The testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. Let all prove thier positions from the Scriptures and substatiate every point the claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain 3.) the Bible, and the Bible only, as the only standard of all doctrine, and the basis of all reforms. 4.) Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support." (Ellen White)
1.) Why, then, is the SOP given primary importance on par with Scripture?
1.) Why, then, is the SOP given far more prominence than Scripture, even to the point that it is used to settle doctrinal disputes?
2.) Why, then, are so many behavioural/lifestyle restrictions imposed upon Adventist membership simply on the basis of 'thus sayeth the SOP' with not one shred of Biblical support?
2.) Why, then, when a doctrinal position cannot be supported Biblically, Scripture is trumped in favour of tradition and SOP endorsement?
3.) Why, then, does all Adventist doctrine have to have the SOP approval before it is accepted, even long after it has been supposedly proven from the Bible?
3.) Why, then, have so many segments of Adventism made it quite clear that the standard of all Adventist doctrine is the SOP first and formost?
3.) Why then, when a doctrine is proven to be Biblically indefensible (even by some of Adventism's own scholars!) the church refuses to relinquish her hold and would rather find solace in tradition?
4.) Why, then, when the true principal of Sola Scriptura is upheld, the church immediately goes on the defensive and condemns this practice as 'abandoning the SOP' or 'undermining the authourity' of E.G. White?
4.) Why, then, is the Bible and the Bible alone principal only tolerated in the Adventist church insofar as none of the 'pillars' are challenged?
4.) Why, then, if the church claims it has nothing to fear from close examination of its doctrines, do they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong when such close examination discloses serious flaws in some of its beliefs?
Sometimes I wonder who we think we are fooling as a church. We pay lip service to Sola Scriptura and yet I have not seen one ounce of evidence this has been practiced in its pure form in my 20+ years in the church! What else can we expect when we have EGW who on one hand heartily endorses making sure Adventist doctrine is Biblically sound, and then in the next breath dogmatically states that not one pin is to be removed from the doctrinal pillars that have been verified and confirmed through inspiration and the visions, and woe be to those who attempt it, thus stifiling, strangling, suffocating and murdering any future progression in theological thought.
So basically, no matter how often an Adventist doctrine is proven false it will never matter one iota, because it has the E.G. White seal of approval and that is all that will be considered thank you very much-and be damned with Sola Scriptura, we have the more sure word of the SOP.
I would also like to ask everyone this question: When Mrs. White was confronted with the pointed challenges to the Heavenly sanctuary doctrine brought on by A.F. Ballenger, how was his research refuted? Sound, honest, Biblical exegesis? Not quite. The final court of appeal was not to be Scripture at all, but the visions she had which 'confirmed' this doctrine. She appeals to her prophetic experiences as the final authourity for the teachings of the church. She is condemned by her very own counsel!
In the Adventist church today we need to have Scriptural integrity, Biblical fidelity and away with allegiance to tradition. However, it seems the final authourity will always be the SOP, no matter how much some might want to deny it. The church administration stands by and watches silently as men like Ralph Larson, Colin and Russell Standish, Doug Batchelor, Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson gleefully attack Luther's Biblically solid teaching of justification by faith.