HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested $20 or Higher Donations Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
Shout Box

Newest Members
Fred88, Christian G, The Wanderer, aarjona, phineas
1289 Registered Users
Forum Stats
1289 Members
118 Forums
8527 Topics
182293 Posts

Max Online: 1283 @ 05/14/17 03:59 PM
Who's OnIine In
Chat Room #1?
Right Click Here & Select "Open in New Tab or Window" to Enter Chat Room #1 or Just Simply Click Here
Join the following presently in Chat Room #1:

Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

Top Posters (30 Days)
Gary K 113
Alchemy 67
The Wanderer 43
dedication 43
Elle 38
Nadi 34
kland 23
June
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Featured Member
Registered: 07/16/16
Posts: 128
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Happy Sabbath To All!!
Springtime
Lessons from The Smallest Of Creatures
Who's Online
4 registered (Nadi, Daryl, dedication, 1 invisible), 336 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#130815 - 02/12/11 07:31 AM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Because Snow was also known as "Incarnation of Elijah" & Elijah was a prophet. The present truth of that being that while Snow was not Elijah in the ultimate sense he was absolutely correct about 22 October 1844.


First of all, there was nothing, by Biblical definition “prophetic” about the 7-month correction that Samuel Snow made in regards to the reckoning of the 2300 days. It was out of scholarly observation and not from a revelation from God (as with Agabus (Acts 11:28, 21:20). According to such an indiscriminate application, anyone who makes a scholarly or exegetical correction is a prophet. Sure Snow’s clarification help to correct a prophetic event, but that does not, “reverse-engineeredly,” make him a prophet as the Bible defines it.

Secondly, unlike with Agabus, there is no substantively witnessing contemporary statement that stated that Samuel Snow was a prophet. If his peers had observed the Biblical manifestation of the prophetic gift in him then they would have affirmed this. Claiming that one is Elijah does not make him Elijah. One first has to be a Biblical prophet, before they can be “Elijah”.

It also is quite normative for Believers to ‘hear from God’ on various matters, however that does not defaultly translate into being a Biblical prophet. (Cf. Num 12:6). EGW fulfilled this as concretely as it Biblically should be when valid. Snow’s mere interpretational correctness is not a sign that one is a prophet.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
As for the quotes those are just a tiny sample of what's there.


I am not sure what you are answering/referring to here. So please be more specific. And if possible, do list at least the references of those quotes.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
We don't know everything Snow did in the same way we don't know everything Agabus did however we accept agabus was a prophet and given nothing in the S.O.P. contradicts Scripture combined with Sister White's confirmation of both Storrs and Snow I take it to the bank Snow ( at least at that time ) was certainly a prophet.


I think I can assume that we know all that is significant about Samuel Snow. And if there were the manifestation of signs for the prophetic gift, I am sure it would have been related especially given the felt urgency of that time.

That is all not a valid argument, circular at best. Given this reasoning, J.N. Andrews was a prophet since, EGW endorsed him and (to my knowledge) never opposed/contradicted him and his scholarly findings.

By the way, the SOP is not infallible/inerrant and in many ways, what has been written by EGW is limited to what wanted her and her generation of Adventist believers to know. So don’t be shocked if further Bible study reveals that EGW did not have the full and final light in many Biblical matters. They just were not “present truths” for her days. That is why she recommended to us the Bible as our final authority in matter of Doctrine and Faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
find you “present truth” explanation plausible, however it does not conclusive resolve the issues here.

First of all, what is your reference that shows that the Early Adventists considered the Three Angels messages, particularly also the Third in the past prior to EGW 1846 vision (LS 95, 96)?


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I'll post that for you once I get home, it's absolutely certain - it's right there in black and white.


I’ll be glad to see your evidence.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

Secondly, a comment, I think this issue is more congruously resolved when it is understood that in these indicative vision God was merely using EGW to guide these early Adventist believers in their Bible studies.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Yes, I agree with you! Michael came to vindicate God's holy law and Sister White was also used for this purpose - a co-vindicator of God's holy law.
[/quote]

I do not see how you sequiturly make a leap from what I had actually said into a Michael and EGW vindication of God’s law. So while your ‘law vindication’ SOP quotes are interesting, I think they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.

You had said the our doctrines came from the Bible and not EGW. I however have pointed out two cases where our understanding stemmed directly from a vision of EGW, which led to the searching out of the Scriptures and indeed revealing that this had always been found in the Bible. However God used the prophetic gift to guide these early, and for the most part, scholarly lacking believers into what the Bible contained as a teaching. So that is the issue that you would need to disprove to maintain the claim that non of our teachings/understandings were started by a revelation to EGW. That is the common, defensive assumption in SDA circles, however the evidence in many cases speaks to the contrary.

I also think EGW would be quite uncomfortable with making her an, effectively, divine ‘co-’ anything. Jesus vindicated God’s law by bring out the Spiritual aspects of it, i.e., magnifying it and making it honourable (or “great and glorious” - NASB). (e.g., Matt 5; Isa 42:21).

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Our Prophet came to vindicate that which God vindicated through Michael. Michael ( God's Son ) came to vindicate God's holy law.


I think that what Jesus did in regards to “vindicating” the law was sufficient. Only the giver of the Law can do this. Like Ezra of old, (Neh 8), EGW was merely used to guide, instruct and remind Christian believers who were coming out of the Prophetic, Church History “Babylonian Captivity” of the still binding claims of this already “vindicated” Law in this New Covenant context. So again, I substantively cannot see a justification for effectively putting EGW on the same level as Jesus Christ in this Law regard.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Like our enemies are fond of saying - a person does not need a flashlight to find the sun therefore neither do we need to pretend there is any contradiction between the SOP and the Bible as the author of each is identical.


As the Bible repeatedly shows in many ages, not having the full and complete light on a matter, especially a prophetic one, does not indicate a contradiction of even error. Once again, the inspiration of EGW was a “thought” inspiration and not a “word for word” one, as that Biblically does not exist unless a prophet is verbatim quoting what God had said in a revelation. And just looking through the editorial evolution of many passages in the SOP, you will see that EGW repeatedly, even corrected herself in regards to earlier statements which she had made but later better, especially exegetically, understood. Contrary to “our enemies” the prophetic gift of EGW does not rise or fall with any such “incomplete knowledge” mistakes she has made, but rather if what she finally taught is in harmony with the overall and/or specific revelation of Scripture.

By the way I do not follow your “flashlight to find the sun” = “no contradiction between SOP and Bible” association. Please clarify.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#130816 - 02/12/11 07:39 AM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Thanks Mountain Man they are amazing creatures for sure.


Thus far, factually speaking, in the non-sequitur, non pertinent and tangential answers that are being posted by you, “cephalopod”, thus far, I can see that: “cephalopds can change color faster than a chameleon. They can also change texture and body shape, and, and if those camouflage techniques don't work, they can still "disappear" in a cloud of ink, which they use as a smoke-screen or decoy. ... they have three hearts that pump blue blood...” and how they inspire legends and stories throughout history and are thought to be the most intelligent of invertebrates.” and how some can squeeze through the tiniest of cracks.”

Anyway, hope you will prove me wrong on this initial substantive observation.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#130817 - 02/12/11 10:35 AM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: NJK Project]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And just looking through the editorial evolution of many passages in the SOP, you will see that EGW repeatedly, even corrected herself in regards to earlier statements which she had made but later better, especially exegetically, [also theologically] understood.

For some examples of this see: e.g., Alden Thompson, Inspiration, (Review and Herald Publishing, 1991) pp. 290-295ff
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#130822 - 02/12/11 05:08 PM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: Mountain Man]
Rick H Offline

Group: Admin Team
Very Dedicated Member
Registered: 01/25/08
Posts: 1989
Loc: Florida, USA
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Richard, I see you changed your profile name.

What do you mean by "set up right now"? Do you mean to say the USA has already formed an image to the beast? Ellen wrote:

Quote:
In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends. {GC 443.2}

It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy--the beast. Said Paul: "There" shall "come a falling away, . . . and that man of sin be revealed." 2 Thessalonians 2:3. So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast. {GC 443.4}

The "image to the beast" represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. {GC 445.2}

But in the very act of enforcing a religious duty by secular power, the churches would themselves form an image to the beast; hence the enforcement of Sundaykeeping in the United States would be an enforcement of the worship of the beast and his image. {GC 448.3}

It appears that the USA will fulfill the "image to the beast" prophecy when she begins enforcing Sunday Laws.


I have gone by my nickname(s) since I can remember, only my wife uses my 'legal' name and usually it means she has a 'task' for me.... back
Top
#130823 - 02/12/11 06:07 PM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: NJK Project]
cephalopod Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Registered: 02/11/11
Posts: 252
Loc: Washington, USA
NJK, I'm ok with your understanding on Snow, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it and perhaps I should not have mentioned it.

Originally Posted By: NJK

By the way, the SOP is not infallible/inerrant and in many ways, what has been written by EGW is limited to what wanted her and her generation of Adventist believers to know. So don’t be shocked if further Bible study reveals that EGW did not have the full and final light in many Biblical matters. They just were not “present truths” for her days. That is why she recommended to us the Bible as our final authority in matter of Doctrine and Faith.


God IS infallible and God's Holy Spirit came upon Sister White so that she that she was able to CLEARLY define truth from error.

Originally Posted By: Sister White

We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. {GW 302.2}

As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.



Many people brought forth what they believed the Bible to teach & of course they used 'the Bible' so that isn't the issue at all from what I can tell. The whole issue was interpretation of the Bible so yes, our doctrines came from the Bible and it was ONLY certain interpretations of writ that the SOP defined as "truth". Sister White was very clear that she wasn't a Bible expert - she in fact described herself as a dullard where this is concerned. Our Prophet tells us in our own language exactly how our faith was established and that was the Bible interpreted through Ellen White who while only a human spoke directly for God.

As far as Sister White having the final say I can assure you in her was no error simply because the identical Spirit ( God's own holy Spirit )that inspired the writers of the Bible was the very same Spirit who inspired Sister White. Sure, I would agree that some things the Church is dealing with now she didn't directly address but I choose to error on the side of caution.

There is no darkness in the area of the Personality of God nor in the Sanctuary or Sabbath and these three things are indeed the most bright of lights.

Originally Posted By: NJK

I’ll be glad to see your evidence


No problem.

Originally Posted By: R&H December 1850

All Advent believers are compelled, by matters of fact, in their ownexperience, to acknowledge that we have. To establish this important " way-mark" wo do not have to refer to old
musty volumes of history, but to a holy, living experience, wrought in our very beings by the Holy Spirit, and the plain word of God. We heard, felt and proclaimed the cry ourselves, and in obedience to the voice from heaven, " Come out of her my people" we came out from the sectarian churches.

" And the. third angel FOLLOWED THEM, &c." Here we learn that
the third angel FOLLOWS the other two, that is, does not go on his mission with the others, but follows, after they have finished their work. Now if the first has been sounding for some dozen years up to this present time, and is to continue, as some teach, until the Advent, then we ask them, to show us when and where the second and third angels are to deliver their solomn messages. No one will say in immortality. Then they must give up their error, that the first is to continue until the coming of Christ, and give the second and third angels their proper places. Then OUR past experience and present position is a perfect harmony "here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus". THUS CLOSES THE SOLEMN message of THE THIRD ANGEL. By the patience of the Saints we understand to be meant their trying and waiting time, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE 2300 days. The burden of the second angels message was delivered PRIOR to the fall of 1844.


it's on page 7 should you care to pull it up for yourself.

Originally Posted By: NJK

First of all, there was nothing, by Biblical definition “prophetic” about the 7-month correction that Samuel Snow made in regards to the reckoning of the 2300 days.


"And he will think to change times and laws" - since when did that slip from prophetic area?

Originally Posted By: NJK

I do not see how you sequiturly make a leap from what I had actually said into a Michael and EGW vindication of God’s law. So while your ‘law vindication’ SOP quotes are interesting, I think they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.


The Sanctuary existed in heaven LONG prior to the earthly one. Sister White was very clear and blunt in that the Personality of God means everything to the Adventist people. God has a "body" and when Sister White speaks of the "personality of God" she is saying ( exactly like the Pioneers ) that the Father has a nose, eyes, ears fingers and all the other body parts - the Sanctuary proves it without any doubt.

See the Review and Herald October 8, 1903 and read the article which directly follows Sister White's "GO FORWARD", it's called "The personality of God" as it relates to the 2300 days and the Sanctuary. God's law was defiled and God sent His Son to vindicate His holy Law - this is the very litmus test of the true Sanctuary truth - I'm in actual shock you asked what you did. To spark your interest.

Originally Posted By: RH 1903 Personality of God

Of late the question has repeatedly come to me, Dies it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, it depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualists, the Christian Scientists, the Universalists, or from the standpoint of any other "ISM" it makes but little difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.


What follows in that article is the very truth confirmed by Sister White as to the Personality of God, right down to the ears, nose and fingernails of God. The Sanctuary truth can not be understood without a proper understanding of the personality of God and this most certainly includes why God sent His Son and the reason is as simple as it is clear - to vindicate God's Holy Law.

Originally Posted By: NJK

You had said the our doctrines came from the Bible and not EGW. I however have pointed out two cases where our understanding stemmed directly from a vision of EGW, which led to the searching out of the Scriptures and indeed revealing that this had always been found in the Bible.


They come from Bible ONLY after truth is separated from error ( unless ones just gets lucky ) I've already quoted Sister White where she says exactly how the Adventist Faith was established - it does not get much more simple then that.

Originally Posted By: NJK

However God used the prophetic gift to guide these early, and for the most part, scholarly lacking believers into what the Bible contained as a teaching. So that is the issue that you would need to disprove to maintain the claim that non of our teachings/understandings were started by a revelation to EGW. That is the common, defensive assumption in SDA circles, however the evidence in many cases speaks to the contrary.


Prophets in the Bible call people back from their errors and rebuke them for not following established teachings while Ellen was the human foundation of the actual establishment of the Adventist faith - No wonder she herself said she was MUCH MORE THAN A PROPHET - Indeed, she was.

Originally Posted By: NJK

I also think EGW would be quite uncomfortable with making her an, effectively, divine ‘co-’ anything. Jesus vindicated God’s law by bring out the Spiritual aspects of it, i.e., magnifying it and making it honourable (or “great and glorious” - NASB). (e.g., Matt 5; Isa 42:21).


Did Ellen not say she continues to vindicate that which God vindicates?

Originally Posted By: NJK

I think that what Jesus did in regards to “vindicating” the law was sufficient. Only the giver of the Law can do this. Like Ezra of old, (Neh 8), EGW was merely used to guide, instruct and remind Christian believers who were coming out of the Prophetic, Church History “Babylonian Captivity” of the still binding claims of this already “vindicated” Law in this New Covenant context. So again, I substantively cannot see a justification for effectively putting EGW on the same level as Jesus Christ in this Law regard.


I'm not saying that what Jesus did wasn't sufficient for it was. I'm saying that God used Ellen to Vindicate His holy law by the words God put in Ellen's mouth. Sister's White's words are eternal in the same way the words of the Bible are eternal. It's the same Author in both.


What I mean by that is that Sister White does not contradict the Bible any more then the Bible contradicts the Bible. Ellen White was simply a sock puppet only the hand controlling it was God. God could have selected anyone to pour His holy Spirit into - he selected a young girl who was by her own admission not very bright. God works this way.

God bless.
Top
#130838 - 02/13/11 01:08 AM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
I appreciate your effort to substantively respond to all of my questions and objections to your claims, however I must be frank/truthful with you that you do not seems to be using proper exegesis (including topical and contextual exegesis among other elements). You also seem to be (defensively) working from a sort of creed which tries to just irrelevantly spin anything that comes to substantively challenge you view. Here are my replies, and until you demonstrate proper exegesis, I have to keep them succinct for the sake of my time.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
NJK, I'm ok with your understanding on Snow, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it and perhaps I should not have mentioned it.


From what I have read up on, Samuel Snow declared himself to be Elijah. His followers then enjoined him in that self-proclamation. Anyone can make such claims, especially before an anticipated Second Coming. However Samuel Snow does not substantively fulfill that prediction as He did not do the reform works of Elijah, i.e., “turning the hearts of descendants (post-“Babylonian” captivity Christians) to their forefathers (Apostolic Christians). (cf. this post). That would also involve reestablishing all of the Apostolic doctrines that were lost during the destructive rule of the little horn power.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
God IS infallible and God's Holy Spirit came upon Sister White so that she that she was able to CLEARLY define truth from error.

Originally Posted By: SOP
Originally Posted By: Sister White

We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. {GW 302.2}

As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Many people brought forth what they believed the Bible to teach & of course they used 'the Bible' so that isn't the issue at all from what I can tell. The whole issue was interpretation of the Bible so yes, our doctrines came from the Bible and it was ONLY certain interpretations of writ that the SOP defined as "truth". Sister White was very clear that she wasn't a Bible expert - she in fact described herself as a dullard where this is concerned. Our Prophet tells us in our own language exactly how our faith was established and that was the Bible interpreted through Ellen White who while only a human spoke directly for God.


This is a perfect example of you again not remaining on topic but veering off in a tangential, circular truism which does everything but address the actual issue at hand. What you have stated and quote about EGW is entirely true and I already both know and agree with this. My point was that, as shown in the two examples I have cited, many later points of Biblical understanding, i.e., later than this early sessions right after the disappointment, were used by God to directly place these advent believers on the path of truth even before they thought to study out the topic.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
As far as Sister White having the final say I can assure you in her was no error simply because the identical Spirit ( God's own holy Spirit) that inspired the writers of the Bible was the very same Spirit who inspired Sister White.


That view of yours is obviously based upon an incorrect understanding of inspiration. As shown in Thompson’s book, EGW understanding of even Theological truths clearly “evolved” and improved as she studied more into them and also as she later received other visions which mostly indirectly elucidated those matters. Nonetheless, the actual issue here is not “error” per se, but completeness/fullness of knowledge and understanding, and even “inspired” Bible authors had shortcomings (and again, not “errors”) in this regards, particularly, as with EGW, in regards to prophetic matters. It just was not a present truth for them to know and understanding these things.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Sure, I would agree that some things the Church is dealing with now she didn't directly address but I choose to error on the side of caution.


Unfortunately this “erring on the side of caution” instead is taking the form of ‘building a camp arond EGW’ something which she did not at all endorse nor recommend. She instead recommend the study of the Bible, and in her day, not much in terms of profound exegesis was done with Bible study, which in itself caused many Biblical teaching to remain lacking vs. the fullness of truth that they actually contain.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
There is no darkness in the area of the Personality of God nor in the Sanctuary or Sabbath and these three things are indeed the most bright of lights.


Personality of God - I do not see any Bible or SOP emphasis on having a bodily understanding of God (cf. John 4:24). So you’ll need to post some more explicit references on this topic. From what I have copiously and explicitly seen, the Bible and SOP instead emphasize the Glory and Character of God.

Sanctuary - While the framework of the Sanctuary doctrine was made quite clear through the guidance of the SOP, much more can be learned by more deeply studying its services and the deliberate typological elements therein.

Sabbath - The SOP help to confirmingly establish the Sabbath Truth and its prophetic implication, however much more is invovled in the “full” Sabbath truth, which correspondingly also extends into its prophetic/eschatological understanding. (Cf. e.g, in this post and (prophetically i.e., the Mark of the Beast implication) also this one.)

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

I’ll be glad to see your evidence


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
No problem.

Originally Posted By: R&H December 1850
[....]
it's on page 7 should you care to pull it up for yourself.


Most succinctly said here due to resulting mootness: The EGW vision I stated was giving in November of 1846. This SOP statement was made 4 years after that revelation!

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

First of all, there was nothing, by Biblical definition “prophetic” about the 7-month correction that Samuel Snow made in regards to the reckoning of the 2300 days.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
"And he will think to change times and laws" - since when did that slip from prophetic area?


That Biblical reference refers to the work of the little horn, particularly against the Law of God and the Sabbath. I far as I know, I am quite certain that it was not a Catholic teaching that the 2300 would end in the spring of 1844, so how would Samuel Snow be correcting, even “prophetically” this non-teaching???

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

I do not see how you sequiturly make a leap from what I had actually said into a Michael and EGW vindication of God’s law. So while your ‘law vindication’ SOP quotes are interesting, I think they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
The Sanctuary existed in heaven LONG prior to the earthly one. Sister White was very clear and blunt in that the Personality of God means everything to the Adventist people. God has a "body" and when Sister White speaks of the "personality of God" she is saying ( exactly like the Pioneers ) that the Father has a nose, eyes, ears fingers and all the other body parts - the Sanctuary proves it without any doubt.


This response was just further irrelevant to the question and issue on the floor. So, quite seriously, if possible, please try again with something that is pertinently relevant.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
See the Review and Herald October 8, 1903 and read the article which directly follows Sister White's "GO FORWARD", it's called "The personality of God" as it relates to the 2300 days and the Sanctuary. God's law was defiled and God sent His Son to vindicate His holy Law - this is the very litmus test of the true Sanctuary truth - I'm in actual shock you asked what you did. To spark your interest.

Originally Posted By: RH 1903 Personality of God

Of late the question has repeatedly come to me, Dies it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, it depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualists, the Christian Scientists, the Universalists, or from the standpoint of any other "ISM" it makes but little difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.


I looked up that article and did not find what you are supposedly quoting here. Also search in the EGW writing for some of the key phrases in that “quote” returned nothing of the sort. (Since that “quote” contains a spelling error (i.e., “Dies” instead of “Does”, it is clear that, at the very least, you were not copying an pasting from an electronic EGW source.) So please provide the specific reference if it actually exists.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
What follows in that article is the very truth confirmed by Sister White as to the Personality of God, right down to the ears, nose and fingernails of God. The Sanctuary truth can not be understood without a proper understanding of the personality of God and this most certainly includes why God sent His Son and the reason is as simple as it is clear - to vindicate God's Holy Law.


Once that “quote” has been confirmed those claims can then be verified. However the emphasis on ‘the body of God’ does not ring as Scriptural nor Biblical to me, and that includes the explicit teachings of EGW.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
They come from Bible ONLY after truth is separated from error ( unless ones just gets lucky ) I've already quoted Sister White where she says exactly how the Adventist Faith was established - it does not get much more simple then that.


This was already responded to, notwithstanding, again, you still need to respond to the November 1846 vision which established the Sabbath = Seal of God = Third Angel’s Message major understanding and well as the 1849 vision which led to the Sanctuary (and not 10 Virgin Parable) Shut Door teaching.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Prophets in the Bible call people back from their errors and rebuke them for not following established teachings while Ellen was the human foundation of the actual establishment of the Adventist faith - No wonder she herself said she was MUCH MORE THAN A PROPHET - Indeed, she was.


Not the full story here. Prophets in the Bible are also responsible for all prophecies which most apply to our day and they also established many doctrinal teaching. E.g., Paul’s writings.

Also the “Adventist Faith” is actually (more than less) most of what the Apostolic Church believed and taught. So in reality it was EGW who did the work of ‘calling people back from their (mostly Catholic) errors to the faith thought by the inspired writers and prophets of the Bible.’ In fact, contrary to what you have comparatively claimed, Jesus clearly said to EGW that: “in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. . . . My Spirit and My power shall be with you.” {UL 160.5}

I am seriously beginning to worry that you have ascribed to some sort of EGW cult where she is greater than the Bible writers?!

EGW said, though early in her experience, that she did not consider herself a prophet, but rather a messenger. (UL 160) Where exactly do you read that ‘EGW said of herself that she was “much more than a prophet”??

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Did Ellen not say she continues to vindicate that which God vindicates?


Never read that claim... you tell me (i.e., specific quote)!

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I'm not saying that what Jesus did wasn't sufficient for it was. I'm saying that God used Ellen to Vindicate His holy law by the words God put in Ellen's mouth.


Such “Verbal Inspiration” vs. Thought inspiration (except in direct revelations and vision e.g., “I was shown...”) statements, is not a Biblical teaching. You really need to read Alden Thompson’s book. As well as Hebert Douglass: Messenger of the Lord. They both deal with this pivotal issue.)

Also “vindicate” is the improper Theological expression here. As I stated Christ did this “vindication of God/His Law. EGW merely reminded people of the Biblical teachings in regards to its binding claim for Christians, indeed all in the light of Christ’s magnification, glorification and “vindication”.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Sister's White's words are eternal in the same way the words of the Bible are eternal. It's the same Author in both.


Since EGW is, relatively speaking, copiously, provedly not infallible, nor inerrant, her words are only “eternal” as they harmonize with the ever brightening light of God word.

Also many of the prophetic understanding given to and by EGW had a literal, present truth application for her day/era and mostly only have a spiritual/symbolic application in our day. Many examples can be cited here and these are the fodder of those who oppose and reject her writings and inspiration. Only Biblically understanding this prophetic fact can avoid such a wholesale dismissal pitfall. Conversely, obliviously/stubbornly ignoring them does nothing positive to the cause of Biblical truth.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
What I mean by that is that Sister White does not contradict the Bible any more then the Bible contradicts the Bible.


Incomplete understanding, which repeatedly occurs in the Bible, is not a contradiction. That is the same for such cases in the 70 years of SOP Theological, Doctrinal, Prophetic and Counselling evolution.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Ellen White was simply a sock puppet only the hand controlling it was God.


Completely Unbiblical and easily disproven by how EGW produced her works.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
God could have selected anyone to pour His holy Spirit into - he selected a young girl who was by her own admission not very bright. God works this way.


He certainly did. However she still had to do much reading and research in producing her works. Interestingly enough, as shown in this post, much, if not most of what EGW seems to extra-biblically stated can be ascertained through proper and indepth Biblical Exegesis. So God mostly used the SOP as a fast track to help early SDA arrive at these truths and understandings.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#130848 - 02/13/11 04:06 PM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: NJK Project]
cephalopod Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Registered: 02/11/11
Posts: 252
Loc: Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJk

I appreciate your effort to substantively respond to all of my questions and objections to your claims, however I must be frank/truthful with you that you do not seems to be using proper exegesis (including topical and contextual exegesis among other elements). You also seem to be (defensively) working from a sort of creed which tries to just irrelevantly spin anything that comes to substantively challenge you view. Here are my replies, and until you demonstrate proper exegesis, I have to keep them succinct for the sake of my time.


I'm guilty of what you say NJK, I'm working off a creed ( if it could be called that ) & my creed says what has happened to the "remnant church"? Evolution being taught within our schools, "Formation" classes being offered & nearly every Landmark that made the Advent faith what it is has been erased.

Irrelevantly spin anything that challenges my view??? I'm not sure I get that, I thought I met the questions you asked me head-on. Perhaps I missed something?

The Sam Snow issue I've already come full circle on - I feel Mr. Snow was a prophet while you don't. I don't have any "proof" he was a prophet that's just what I said ( along with me saying I shouldn't have mentioned anything about Mr Snow ). Aside from that what do you want me to say?

Originally Posted By: NJK

This is a perfect example of you again not remaining on topic but veering off in a tangential, circular truism which does everything but address the actual issue at hand. What you have stated and quote about EGW is entirely true and I already both know and agree with this. My point was that, as shown in the two examples I have cited, many later points of Biblical understanding, i.e., later than this early sessions right after the disappointment, were used by God to directly place these advent believers on the path of truth even before they thought to study out the topic.


You did say that the SOP is "not INFALLABLE/INERRANT in many ways"". In what cases was the SOP in error? That's why I posted the quotes I did that showed how our doctrines were established.

A bunch of people came together to sort out Doctrines and several people each have a different interpretation of the Bible with all appearing to be valid. The power of God swells inside of Sister White until she is forces to determine truth from error and THAT is how our Doctrines were established. I believe 100% of that with everything she said.

SOP = God's holy Spirit speaking through Ellen and while a sock puppet might seem crude to you and others the fact remains that the cloth is not the thing that makes mistakes in a sock puppet show - it's the hand inside of the sock puppet and I'm not prepared to say God made a mess of His sock puppet.

Do you think Jesus made any "mistakes" in his teaching? The exact same keeping power that filled Christ is what enabled Sister White to define truth from error and anything Sister White wrote was for our edification - the information itself was directly from the throne of God.

Originally Posted By: Sister White

It has been presented to me that, so far as possible, I am to impart instruction in the language of the Scriptures; for there are those whose spiritual discernment is confused, and when their errors are reproved, they will misinterpret and misapply what I might write, and thus make of none-effect the words of warning that the Lord sends. He desires that the messages He sends shall be recognized as the words of eternal truth.--Letter 280, 1906, p. 4. (To "My Brethren and Sisters in Denver and Boulder," August 27, 1906.) {5MR 151.1}


Is the above speaking about people who believe everything the SOP says or is it talking about people who think in some things the SOP didn't have the full light?

Originally Posted By: NJK

My point was that, as shown in the two examples I have cited, many later points of Biblical understanding, i.e., later than this early sessions right after the disappointment, were used by God to directly place these advent believers on the path of truth even before they thought to study out the topic.


If the following was your point;

Originally Posted By: NJK

Most succinctly said here due to resulting mootness: The EGW vision I stated was giving in November of 1846. This SOP statement was made 4 years after that revelation!


After October 1844 past God shew Sister White in December of 1844 that the people who always rejected the True Midnight Cry and Shut door ( along with the Adventist who had given up the message for good ) were LOST.

Ellen's husband James describes what had happened to Ellen and how she almost lost her salvation over this issue.

Originally Posted By: Word to the Little Flock p.22

When she received her first vision Dec 1844, she and all the band in Portland Maine had given up the midnight cry, and shut door as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision to the band, and about 60 confessed their error and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God


October 22, 1844 Ellen along with everyone else was waiting for Jesus to come. By December 1844 Ellen. along with the believers in Portland Maine had given up the midnight cry and shut door. It's was God shewing Sister White the grave error she had fallen into by "giving up the shut door".

William Miller said the following on November 18,1844

Originally Posted By: William Miller

we have done OUR work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence has SHUT THE DOOR;
we can ONLY stir "one another up" to be patient; and be dilligent to make our calling and election sure


Originally Posted By: Word to the Little Flock p.2

From the ASCENSTION, to the SHUTTING OF THE DOOR in October 1844 Jesus stood wth widespread arms of love, and mercy
ready to receive and plead the cause of EVERY sinner, who would come to God by him.


Now, here is Sister White herself speaking of this time frame and her part in it.

Originally Posted By: SOP Letter to Bates July 13, 1847

After I had the vision and God gave me light, he bade me to deliver it to the band, but I shrank from it. I was young,
and I thought they would not receive it from me. I disobeyed the Lord and instead of remaining at home, where the meeting
was to be that night. I got in a sleigh in the morning and rode three or 4 miles and there I found Joseph Turner. Here merely inquired how I was and if I was in the way of my DUTY. I said nothing, for I knew I was not. I passed up chamber and did not see him agan for two hours, when he came up, asked if I was to be at meeting that night. I told him no, He said he wanted to hear my vision and thought it DUTY for me to go home. I told him I should not. He said no more but went away.
I thought and told those around me if I wnt I would have to come OUT AGAINST his views, THINKING HE BELIEVED WITH THE REST. I had not told any of them what God had shown me,
and I did not tell them in what I should cross his track. Very early the next morning Joseph Turner called, said he was haste going out of the city in a short time, and wanted that I should tell him all that God had shown me in vision. It was with fear and trembling I told him all. After I had got through he said he had told out the same last evening.
I REJOICED, for I had expected he was coming out against me. for all the while Ihad NOT HEARD ANY ONE SAY WHAT HE BELIEVED


Sister White was afraid to tell Joseph Turner that God had confirmed everyone who had never accepted as well as everyone who had initially accepted then rejected ( and continued to reject ) the shut door was lost PERIOD. She thought Turner was of the same mind set SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN prior to God shewing her in holy vision. It turned out that Joe still believed everyone was lost who rejected the Midnight cry.

Again, here is the SOP in 1848.

Originally Posted By: SOP Letter to Hastings

I will now write you the vision God gave me on the sabbath, the 24th of march. We had a glorious meeting. I was taken off in vision. I saw the commandments of God and the shut door could not be separated. I saw that as God worked for his people Satan would also work. My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of the souls for sinners as USED TO BE. I looked but could not see it for the TIME FOR THEIR SALVATION is PAST. Dear brother and sister, I have now written the vision God gave me. I am tired sitting so long. Our position looks very clear. WE KNOW WE HAVE THE TRUTH, THE MIDNIGHT CRY IS BEHIND US, THE DOOR WAS SHUT IN 1844 and Jesus is soon to step out from between God and man


So, the vision you mentioned in November 1846 IS THE SAME TRUTH reflected in RH 1850 - the door was SHUT, the third angels message was already delivered and the little flock was only WAITING for the Lord. Is this what you were asking me about or did I not understand your question?

Originally Posted By: NJK

This response was just further irrelevant to the question and issue on the floor. So, quite seriously, if possible, please try again with something that is pertinently relevant


Look, the whole point of the Sanctuary message was that Michael was sent to try to vidicate God's holy Law. I've already provided you with the SOP on this in several ways and if the SOP says Michael came to attempt to vindicate God's holy Law and then also says that she was also sent to vidicate God's holy Law what seriously do you think that means other then what I said it did?

Sister White was very clear and took great pains to make sure everyone understood that Michael could have FAILED, he could have sinned and could have fallen and had he fallen the wrath of God would have been exercised against Michael. The end result IF that would have happened would be that God's holy Law would NOT have been vindicated - this has everything to do with the Sanctuary and God's "Personality".

Originally Posted By: NJK

I looked up that article and did not find what you are supposedly quoting here. Also search in the EGW writing for some of the key phrases in that “quote” returned nothing of the sort. (Since that “quote” contains a spelling error (i.e., “Dies” instead of “Does”, it is clear that, at the very least, you were not copying an pasting from an electronic EGW source.) So please provide the specific reference if it actually exists.


6th paragraph, 3rd sentence NJK.

Originally Posted By: from THAT article

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he Him; male and female created he Him Gen 1: 26,27. Man bore the image of God both morally AND PHYSICALLY. We read that Adam begat a son in his own likenes, after his image; and called his name seth. Here is an explanition of the words image and likeness. As Seth bore the physical and moral nature of Adam, so Adam bore the PHYSICAL and moral likeness of God.


Have you ever tried to copy and paste something from the Archives? The software does the best it can but there will be many spelling errors. My apologies for that.

If that isn't enough I can produce literal VOLUMES of documents from the Pioneers which say that is exactly what the whole body of Adventism believed and I can link them directly with SOP. Like I said I'm shocked the church has sunk to the level it has compared to where it "was"! Why do you think Sister White was so concerned with how we were to accept the Personality of God? Do you believe she intended another belief then what was promulgated over and over again?

Originally Posted By: NJK

Once that “quote” has been confirmed those claims can then be verified. However the emphasis on ‘the body of God’ does not ring as Scriptural nor Biblical to me, and that includes the explicit teachings of EGW.


Do you accept the quote as a valid quote? I will let you verify it and then perhaps we could start a new thread in the proper area and discuss what the Pioneers as well as Ellen White understood the "Personality" of God to mean and why it meant everything to SDA's as a people - we could discuss in what way this affects ones understanding of the Atonement and the Sanctuary as we read the Pioneers statements which were indeed confirmed by our Prophet.

Originally Posted By: NJK

Not the full story here. Prophets in the Bible are also responsible for all prophecies which most apply to our day and they also established many doctrinal teaching. E.g., Paul’s writings.


Paul was NOT a prophet. List a prophet who "established doctrines" then rebuked people for falling away from them.

Originally Posted By: NJK

Also the “Adventist Faith” is actually (more than less) most of what the Apostolic Church believed and taught. So in reality it was EGW who did the work of ‘calling people back from their (mostly Catholic) errors to the faith thought by the inspired writers and prophets of the Bible.’


We certainly don't see eye to eye on that at all. God revealed through Sister White secrets NO ONE had ever imagined.

Originally Posted By: NJK

In fact, contrary to what you have comparatively claimed, Jesus clearly said to EGW that: “in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. . . . My Spirit and My power shall be with you.” {UL 160.5}


Familiar with that one which is why Ellen was MUCH MORE then just a Prophet.

Originally Posted By: NJK

I am seriously beginning to worry that you have ascribed to some sort of EGW cult where she is greater than the Bible writers?!


I wouldn't go so far as to say that of myself but am happy to share the truth with you that Sister White's writings ARE Scripture in the same context that the Old and New Testament is Scripture. Most who fail to realize how the Canon was forumlated are in terror when they hear that however once one understands what Scripture is ( and isn't ) the reality is that Ellen White was a Biblical writer as much as Paul was.

Originally Posted By: NJK

EGW said, though early in her experience, that she did not consider herself a prophet, but rather a messenger. (UL 160) Where exactly do you read that ‘EGW said of herself that she was “much more than a prophet”??


Right here and in MANY other places.

Originally Posted By: Sister White

Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. {1SM 32.4}



Originally Posted By: NJK

Never read that claim... you tell me (i.e., specific quote)!


Here ya go.

Originally Posted By: Sister White

Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of anyone to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God. God has spared my life that I may present the testimonies given me, to vindicate that which God vindicates, and to denounce every sophistry [intended] to deceive if possible the very elect.--Ms 126, 1905, pp. 3, 7. ("A Warning Against Present Dangers," typed December 29, 1905.) {5MR 144.1}


Sister White more than anyone said over and over again that Michael came to try and vindicate God's holy Law - that's exactly why he came.







Edited by cephalopod (02/13/11 04:11 PM)
Top
#130863 - 02/13/11 09:32 PM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
cephalopod Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Registered: 02/11/11
Posts: 252
Loc: Washington, USA
Last year I put together a neat packet of information and went out to do some witnessing at local churches on Sunday ( always best to catch people on their way in ). I identified myself as Seventh-day Adventist and with a smile distributed these packets to dozens of people as they walked into their Church. At least three of the pastors of those churches actually came out ( someone gave them my material ) and spoke kindly with me, invited me to their Church service and Bible study group and didn't say anything negative about my material.

I give the packets out a few SDA Churches and before Sabbath School even starts I'm getting freaked out on! Even the priests at the Catholic churches I witnessed to were actually kind to me and didn't crumple up the documents I paid for out of my own pocket.

I'm not the only one that has notices some terrible things going on within our "main body" - people are getting more and more embarassed about Sister White and specicially about the Personality of God.

The cover of my packet in bold said Christ could have fallen and lost his Salvation!

Anyway people can make fun of me all they want but I will go down swinging!
Top
#130868 - 02/13/11 11:57 PM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
cephalopod, though my time is limited, I will reply to your comments as thoroughly as possible, though I’ll get right to the point.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I'm guilty of what you say NJK, I'm working off a creed ( if it could be called that ) & my creed says what has happened to the "remnant church"?


By “creed”, which SDAs speak against, I meant a set of previously formed belief that does not even allow the Bible itself to challenge or correct it.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Evolution being taught within our schools, "Formation" classes being offered & nearly every Landmark that made the Advent faith what it is has been erased.


I think that was is academically thought in SDA College, though in certain areas wrong, does not actually become the teaching of the Church. As far as I know, Evolution is being taught only in LaSierra (if it actually still is, following the GC 2010 resolutions affirming Theistic Creation). I’ve heard of “Formation” but I’m not familiar with it. I do not think however that it has become a general teaching/belief of the Church. Overgeneralizing here won’t help. These teachings are indeed evil, but they are not official Church teachings.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Irrelevantly spin anything that challenges my view??? I'm not sure I get that, I thought I met the questions you asked me head-on. Perhaps I missed something?


Perhaps “peripherally or tangentially” spinning would be more specific here, for, as also done in these replies, you do not always address the pointed issues at hand, but take off into other ones that are only remotely related.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
The Sam Snow issue I've already come full circle on - I feel Mr. Snow was a prophet while you don't. I don't have any "proof" he was a prophet that's just what I said ( along with me saying I shouldn't have mentioned anything about Mr Snow ). Aside from that what do you want me to say?


You are fully entitled to believe what you want about Samuel Snow. For me to accept someone as a prophet of God, I first need to see the many Biblical validations of this Spiritual Gifts as well as the clear substantive fulfillments for an “Eschatological Elijah” claim.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
You did say that the SOP is "not INFALLABLE/INERRANT in many ways"". In what cases was the SOP in error? That's why I posted the quotes I did that showed how our doctrines were established.


Did you read the Alden Thompson reference I gave earlier?? Several examples are cited there. I also have many others of not necessarily “errors” but ‘incomplete understanding statements’. As time as been prolonged since EGW days, some of the things she said, like postponed OT, literal Israel prophecies, have shifted to a spiritual and less literal fulfillment.

Also, try this one, EGW believed that God knew the Future perfectly, as God allowed her and her peers to believe so, however her “fall of man” vision in EW 149-153 (1882) (cf. written in ExV54 46ff (1854) & 1SP 44ff (1870)), however in the vision great hesitancy, “perplexity”, “trouble/doubt” and “pleading” are said to have transpired between God the Father and Jesus when the plan of redemption was to be accepted. Also this plan seemed to have been drawn up only after Adam had sinned. (See in this blog post for more). Many other examples, especially from eschatological applications of the Bible’s prophecies can be also cited. The reason for this is that those were not “present truths” for the EGW generation of SDA’s but became so after time had to be prolonged due to their failure in finishing the work.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
A bunch of people came together to sort out Doctrines and several people each have a different interpretation of the Bible with all appearing to be valid. The power of God swells inside of Sister White until she is forces to determine truth from error and THAT is how our Doctrines were established. I believe 100% of that with everything she said.


Not all SDA Doctrines, just certain ones. And this only occurred in cases where there was an “impasse” in properly understanding what the Bible was really teaching. As I said before, this was only done to fast track the study of these teaching for a group of young adults who had no formal Biblical education if any advanced education at all.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
SOP = God's holy Spirit speaking through Ellen and while a sock puppet might seem crude to you and others the fact remains that the cloth is not the thing that makes mistakes in a sock puppet show - it's the hand inside of the sock puppet and I'm not prepared to say God made a mess of His sock puppet.


You obviously want to believe in verbal inspiration. I once again recommend that you study out the topic, particularly as it is established with Bible prophets. The prophet was always free to relate what God had revealed or impressed to them in their own words. And as in the case of EGW she at times had to study up on a topic to best present the general thought/idea she had recieved.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Do you think Jesus made any "mistakes" in his teaching? The exact same keeping power that filled Christ is what enabled Sister White to define truth from error and anything Sister White wrote was for our edification - the information itself was directly from the throne of God.


I do not think that Jesus made mistakes in his teaching, but as with EGW, Matt 10:23 shows that an incomplete understanding at that point led him to have an expressed expectation that would not be fulfilled. I.e., when Jesus started his ministry, he fully believed that all would be restored with that generation of Jews. Through my Biblical Theological understanding of God and the Future, I also believe that God the Father allow him to believe so as this was indeed a possible development. However the opposite, i.e., Christ’s rejection by the Jews, was the planned probability. (I believe that Jesus came to fully understand that that generation of Jews would not pass this test around the time of the transfiguration (cf. Matt 16:21ff). As the statement in Matt 16:28 may have been an inaccurate/incomplete understanding of what was to take place in the transfiguration, if that was announced in advance to Him. It may also have been God’s way of providing an applicable fulfillement of what Jesus had expressed some 6 days before in Matt 16:28.

My belief in Jesus Christ, His teachings and Divinity does not rise and fall with such clear episode because I also “healthily” understand that Jesus, as an incarnate man was most prominent a prophet and also how the prophetic gift Biblically works, including in Jesus Earthly Life. And like the proper understanding of God and the Future, I have no doubt in all of what Jesus has said and prophesied because He and God have the All Mighty Power to make them happen just as they were said.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Originally Posted By: Sister White

It has been presented to me that, so far as possible, I am to impart instruction in the language of the Scriptures; for there are those whose spiritual discernment is confused, and when their errors are reproved, they will misinterpret and misapply what I might write, and thus make of none-effect the words of warning that the Lord sends. He desires that the messages He sends shall be recognized as the words of eternal truth.--Letter 280, 1906, p. 4. (To "My Brethren and Sisters in Denver and Boulder," August 27, 1906.) {5MR 151.1}

Is the above speaking about people who believe everything the SOP says or is it talking about people who think in some things the SOP didn't have the full light?


The specific fact of the matter is that “eternal truth” and “full light” are two separate things. An eternal truth can find a fulfillment in a different form that what was first expressed. E.g., When OT prophets spoke about the Glorious future of Israel, they meant ethnic Jews living in Palestine. However that was not the full truth as it later came to include only certain ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles who also accepted the Messiah. The “eternal truth” was that God would have a glorious Israel in the future, the “full light” (i.e., hidden truth) was that this would also include Gentiles from all over the world. God first needed to lay a solid foundation with Ethnic Israel.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
If the following was your point;


Again getting back to the specific issue in the November of 1846 vision on the Seal of God. How could the Millerites/Early Adventist be preaching the truth on the Third Angel’s message when they did not believe in the 7th Day Sabbath until late 1846. Once they accepted that teaching, God then showed then how it applied in the Third Angel’s message and as Loughborough says, from that time on they began preaching that truth.

They may have believed that the third Angel message applied just after 1844, as cursorily and logically as 3 follows 2, but that also clearly was merely for it “patience of the saints” statement (Rev 14:12) and not for its Sabbath|Seal of God truth. They would understand this until the November 1846 vision.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
After October 1844 past God shew Sister White in December of 1844 that the people who always rejected the True Midnight Cry and Shut door ( along with the Adventist who had given up the message for good ) were LOST.

Ellen's husband James describes what had happened to Ellen and how she almost lost her salvation over this issue.

Originally Posted By: Word to the Little Flock p.22

When she received her first vision Dec 1844, she and all the band in Portland Maine had given up the midnight cry, and shut door as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision to the band, and about 60 confessed their error and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God


October 22, 1844 Ellen along with everyone else was waiting for Jesus to come. By December 1844 Ellen. along with the believers in Portland Maine had given up the midnight cry and shut door. It's was God shewing Sister White the grave error she had fallen into by "giving up the shut door".

William Miller said the following on November 18,1844

Originally Posted By: William Miller

we have done OUR work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence has SHUT THE DOOR;
we can ONLY stir "one another up" to be patient; and be dilligent to make our calling and election sure


Originally Posted By: Word to the Little Flock p.2

From the ASCENSTION, to the SHUTTING OF THE DOOR in October 1844 Jesus stood wth widespread arms of love, and mercy
ready to receive and plead the cause of EVERY sinner, who would come to God by him.


Now, here is Sister White herself speaking of this time frame and her part in it.

Originally Posted By: SOP Letter to Bates July 13, 1847

After I had the vision and God gave me light, he bade me to deliver it to the band, but I shrank from it. I was young,
and I thought they would not receive it from me. I disobeyed the Lord and instead of remaining at home, where the meeting
was to be that night. I got in a sleigh in the morning and rode three or 4 miles and there I found Joseph Turner. Here merely inquired how I was and if I was in the way of my DUTY. I said nothing, for I knew I was not. I passed up chamber and did not see him agan for two hours, when he came up, asked if I was to be at meeting that night. I told him no, He said he wanted to hear my vision and thought it DUTY for me to go home. I told him I should not. He said no more but went away.
I thought and told those around me if I wnt I would have to come OUT AGAINST his views, THINKING HE BELIEVED WITH THE REST. I had not told any of them what God had shown me,
and I did not tell them in what I should cross his track. Very early the next morning Joseph Turner called, said he was haste going out of the city in a short time, and wanted that I should tell him all that God had shown me in vision. It was with fear and trembling I told him all. After I had got through he said he had told out the same last evening.
I REJOICED, for I had expected he was coming out against me. for all the while Ihad NOT HEARD ANY ONE SAY WHAT HE BELIEVED


Sister White was afraid to tell Joseph Turner that God had confirmed everyone who had never accepted as well as everyone who had initially accepted then rejected ( and continued to reject ) the shut door was lost PERIOD. She thought Turner was of the same mind set SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN prior to God shewing her in holy vision. It turned out that Joe still believed everyone was lost who rejected the Midnight cry.


It seems clear to me that the “shut door” view focusing on the “Midnight Cry” event did result in lost people straightly because they had refused to, in faith, advance in further light. They therefore “locked themselves out.” As with the foolish virgins, they no longer received light from God’s spirit by having chosen to remain outside of his advancing light.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Again, here is the SOP in 1848.

Originally Posted By: SOP Letter to Hastings

I will now write you the vision God gave me on the sabbath, the 24th of march. We had a glorious meeting. I was taken off in vision. I saw the commandments of God and the shut door could not be separated. I saw that as God worked for his people Satan would also work. My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of the souls for sinners as USED TO BE. I looked but could not see it for the TIME FOR THEIR SALVATION is PAST. Dear brother and sister, I have now written the vision God gave me. I am tired sitting so long. Our position looks very clear. WE KNOW WE HAVE THE TRUTH, THE MIDNIGHT CRY IS BEHIND US, THE DOOR WAS SHUT IN 1844 and Jesus is soon to step out from between God and man


I am not sure where you are getting this letter but I found a similar letter to Hasting dated March 24-30, 1849 which is recorded in 5MR 94.1-2 apparently in full, but does not contain much of what you have stated and emphasized here. And as stated there it spoke of the Shut Door view given in the March 24, 1849 vision which is recorded in EW 42-45. Clearly their this view that the Shut Door was in reference to the doors between the apartments in the sanctuary and not the “wedding hall door in the parable of the 10 virgin and the Midnight Cry. So it is in that sense that I see that this Shut Door view was distinct than their previous view/understanding and also revealed directly/first by God to EGW. So a vision here, as with the above Sabbath Light in the 3rd Angel’s Message, also served to established a key new teaching amongst these Early SDA.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
So, the vision you mentioned in November 1846 IS THE SAME TRUTH reflected in RH 1850 - the door was SHUT, the third angels message was already delivered and the little flock was only WAITING for the Lord. Is this what you were asking me about or did I not understand your question?


Again your effort to link these various revelations lacks verified evidence as well as factual content. The Midnight Cry Shut Door, the Sabbath & Seal of God Message and the Sanctuary Doors Shut Door are three distinct teachings and not linked as you claim here.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Look, the whole point of the Sanctuary message was that Michael was sent to try to vidicate God's holy Law. I've already provided you with the SOP on this in several ways and if the SOP says Michael came to attempt to vindicate God's holy Law and then also says that she was also sent to vidicate God's holy Law what seriously do you think that means other then what I said it did?


I saw it from a more law-giving aspect where Jesus established the Spiritual meaning of God’s law through his binding teachings.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Sister White was very clear and took great pains to make sure everyone understood that Michael could have FAILED, he could have sinned and could have fallen and had he fallen the wrath of God would have been exercised against Michael. The end result IF that would have happened would be that God's holy Law would NOT have been vindicated - this has everything to do with the Sanctuary and God's "Personality".


Obviously you also see a soteriological implication to this. How then does EGW fit in this. If she failed does that also affect our salvation since she, according to your understanding, was to vindicate God’s law??

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

I looked up that article and did not find what you are supposedly quoting here. Also search in the EGW writing for some of the key phrases in that “quote” returned nothing of the sort. (Since that “quote” contains a spelling error (i.e., “Dies” instead of “Does”, it is clear that, at the very least, you were not copying an pasting from an electronic EGW source.) So please provide the specific reference if it actually exists.


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
6th paragraph, 3rd sentence NJK.


Guess what I still have not seen it...

This is what RH October 8, 1903 paragraph 6 “Go Forward” article actually says:

Originally Posted By: SOP
But now, as the Egyptian host approached them, expecting to make them an easy prey, the cloudy column rose majestically, passed over the Israelites, and descended between them and the armies of Pharaoh. A wall of darkness interposed between the pursued and their pursuers. The Egyptians could no longer discern the camp of the Hebrews, and were forced to halt. But as the darkness of night deepened, the wall of cloud became a great light to the Hebrews, flooding the entire encampment with the radiance of day. {RH, October 8, 1903 par. 6}


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Originally Posted By: from THAT article

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he Him; male and female created he Him Gen 1: 26,27. Man bore the image of God both morally AND PHYSICALLY. We read that Adam begat a son in his own likenes, after his image; and called his name seth. Here is an explanition of the words image and likeness. As Seth bore the physical and moral nature of Adam, so Adam bore the PHYSICAL and moral likeness of God.


Is the above a direct quote because I am also coming up blank on earches of some key phrases here?

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Have you ever tried to copy and paste something from the Archives? The software does the best it can but there will be many spelling errors. My apologies for that.


What is the exact Program/Software, Physical Location (e.g., Andrews Estates, GC Estate, etc), and/or Website of this archive you are using. Either it contains many elsewhere unreleased documents or it is partially, if not completely bogus (not you, but those who have put it up). (That may explain the many spelling errors because copying and pasting does not result in the transposition or replacement of letters, but merely completely omitted ones.)

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
If that isn't enough I can produce literal VOLUMES of documents from the Pioneers which say that is exactly what the whole body of Adventism believed and I can link them directly with SOP. Like I said I'm shocked the church has sunk to the level it has compared to where it "was"! Why do you think Sister White was so concerned with how we were to accept the Personality of God? Do you believe she intended another belief then what was promulgated over and over again?


What primarily matters most to me is what the Bible actually teaches, so producing a volume of quote from SDA Pioneers would not be authoritative to me, nor also (primarily) SOP quotes, [especially from your archive source].

It also seems clear to me that you are not taking into consideration that Jesus Christ/Michael was always part of the Godhead. So bodily references to “God” may all be specifically referring solely to Him. As John 4:24 says, the Father may only be spirit dwelling in unapproachable light. So the Son served to bodily represent the Godhead and execute functions that necessitate this bodily form. Have you considered that Biblical fact?

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Do you accept the quote as a valid quote? I will let you verify it and then perhaps we could start a new thread in the proper area and discuss what the Pioneers as well as Ellen White understood the "Personality" of God to mean and why it meant everything to SDA's as a people - we could discuss in what way this affects ones understanding of the Atonement and the Sanctuary as we read the Pioneers statements which were indeed confirmed by our Prophet.


This topic may also be a teaching that EGW did not fully understand, thus never expressed it as so in her writings. So her “Personality of God expression are likely solely in reference to God the Son. No slighting at all of God the Father is done in this distinction.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Paul was NOT a prophet.


Frankly that borders on outright heresy! (The things you say and do to “safeguard” EGW at any costs, as if she needs or even demands this, are becoming to me mindbogglingly legendary). As the Bible states (e.g., Num 12:6) from the time that Jesus appeared to Paul and began to show him what he must do and teach in his name, Paul most fully became a prophet. Paul relates many prophetic visions (Acts 9:12; 16:9, 10; 18:9; 22:17, 18; 23:11; cf. 27:23, 24) and direct Divine (teachings) revelation (Gal 1:12; 2:2; Eph 3:3). The great, seemingly bodily vision, recorded in 2 Cor 12:1-4 may have been so glorious (probably just like EGW visions where she was taken to Heaven) that many, including EGW (see AA 469.1) believe that he chose to self-effacingly refer to himself in the third person (vss 5, 6). Indeed it was because of all of these prophetic revelations that he says he was given a thorn in the flesh (Cf. 2 Cor 12:7ff). So if anyone was a prophet in the Bible and NT is surely was Paul. In fact His overall work which established the NT Gentile Church which still exists today in over 2.1 Billion adherents, greatly surpasses the accomplishment resulting from the work of EGW, as of today. All this to say, not that it really matters actually, that I consider Paul to not only be Much more than a prophet as EGW but also a greater prophet as all that EGW taught is for the most part first stated in his writings.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
List a prophet who "established doctrines" then rebuked people for falling away from them.


Uhhh.... easy (when you want to see it): Paul (e.g., Gal 3:1-5ff).

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
We certainly don't see eye to eye on that at all.

Nonetheless the facts of Church History followed by the reform work of the Remnant Church led by EGW are transparently clear on this.

[quote=cephalopod]God revealed through Sister White secrets NO ONE had ever imagined.


I’ll like to see these “secrets” so do state them!


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Familiar with that one which is why Ellen was MUCH MORE then just a Prophet.


That is because like Moses, Elijah, Paul, John the Baptist, she also had other tasks to do which went beyond just receiving and relating vision of God. (E.g., Pioneering reformatory work amongst the Remnant Believers. So EGW was certainly not unique in this Biblical multi-faceted leadership office.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

I am seriously beginning to worry that you have ascribed to some sort of EGW cult where she is greater than the Bible writers?!


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I wouldn't go so far as to say that of myself but am happy to share the truth with you that Sister White's writings ARE Scripture in the same context that the Old and New Testament is Scripture. Most who fail to realize how the Canon was forumlated are in terror when they hear that however once one understands what Scripture is ( and isn't ) the reality is that Ellen White was a Biblical writer as much as Paul was.


You previous statements and methodology in regards to the SOP clearly speak otherwise. EGW most explicitly never placed her writings on the same level as the ones in the Bible. She easily could have, but for some reason that she clearly understood she strongly cautioned against this. In her own words she is the Lesser Light while the Bible is the Greater Light. Both are indeed “Light (from God)” but as she clearly says, not either ‘one and the same’ nor on the same level. Her writings indeed point us back to the Bible to establish all our teachings and understandings.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK

EGW said, though early in her experience, that she did not consider herself a prophet, but rather a messenger. (UL 160) Where exactly do you read that ‘EGW said of herself that she was “much more than a prophet”??


Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Right here and in MANY other places.
Originally Posted By: Sister White

Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. {1SM 32.4}


Again this does not mean a “Super Prophet” or “Biblically Superior Prophet” as you seem to emphasize, but, as EGW straightly says here, merely a person who has more task to do than just received and relate divine revelation as it was also the case with many others in the Bible.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
Here ya go.

Originally Posted By: Sister White

Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of anyone to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God. God has spared my life that I may present the testimonies given me, to vindicate that which God vindicates, and to denounce every sophistry [intended] to deceive if possible the very elect.--Ms 126, 1905, pp. 3, 7. ("A Warning Against Present Dangers," typed December 29, 1905.) {5MR 144.1}

Sister White more than anyone said over and over again that Michael came to try and vindicate God's holy Law - that's exactly why he came.


Granted that the phrase “vindicate that which God vindicates” appears in that statement and that it is indeed said elsewhere in the SOP that Jesus vindicated God’s Law. However it seems to me that you are using a mere surface word association to express a whole different and much deeper Spiritual understanding. It seems to me that EGW did not mean that she would also do what Jesus did when He authoritatively and soteriologically vindicated God’s Law but merely that she would uphold what God/Jesus had already/previously upheld. With your far-reaching understanding, anyone who similarly upholds God law through e.g., sermons, teachings, writings would also be doing a “vindication” on the same level as Jesus, while all that they, and EGW would be doing is restating/relating this prior vindication of Jesus. So I personally see that you are reading too much into what seems to be a mere word choice commonness and which does not have such a Theological Implication. The study of the SOP also requires exegesis controlled by the teachings of the Bible.

So in conclusion, I think our difference here stems from the unbiblical position you are religiously giving to the writings of EGW. Something that she strongly spoke against. I clearly am more “faithful” to her writings than you in this fundamentally crucial regards.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#130869 - 02/14/11 12:04 AM Re: Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how? [Re: cephalopod]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
[...] Anyway people can make fun of me all they want but I will go down swinging!

I know I am not trying to make fun of you but just chidingly encouraging you to be more factual and exegetically accurate in your claims and statements. As you can see in this blog post on David Gates, that is a most irking spiritual pet peeve of mind, particularly with SDAs who should know and do much better. So the key is to improve where that is factually necessary and not pridefully be stubbornly dismissive of all reproof and criticism. There will be no “going down” if you follow these (cf. Pro 16:18)
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 >

Moderator:  asygo, Green Cochoa, Rick H 
Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
(Not Refreshing Immediately)
Is the Investigative Judgement Biblical?
by dedication
Today at 04:44 AM
Protestants renounce Protestantism
by dedication
06/26/17 11:21 PM
Christian school told it must stop using specific scriptures
by Gary K
06/26/17 09:17 PM
A new Global Economic Restructure in 2012
by The Wanderer
06/26/17 05:26 PM
Rejection of the Testimonies Foretold.
by The Wanderer
06/25/17 01:54 AM
Daniel 9 and the 144,000
by kland
06/23/17 02:02 PM
The Euphrates & Kings of the North, South & East
by His child
06/19/17 06:17 AM
Ping kland
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:17 PM
The Political Pope
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:05 PM
Left wing financial lunacy
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:04 PM
Vandals alter road sign
by Gary K
06/16/17 03:39 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y
06/16/17 11:38 AM
There is more than one way to look at the economy!
by Gary K
06/15/17 12:25 AM
Is there a Biblical/Divine calendar?
by dedication
06/11/17 10:44 PM
When The Clouds Go By
by The Wanderer
06/11/17 03:12 PM
Real economic numbers for the US
by Gary K
06/08/17 02:50 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
What happens during the seventh seal? Revelation 8:1
by Alchemy
06/11/17 08:16 AM
Will Pope Francis I Apologize to Canadians?
by dedication
06/02/17 07:56 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter

Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com
WELCOME!
� 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.


"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!

Website Ranking