I came across the following which seems to be a very strong indictment of the brothers and sisters who have outright rejected anything from the SOP or that Ellen White voiced. Here is the quote:

Many who have backslidden from the truth assign as a reason for their course, that they do not have faith in the testimonies. Investigation reveals the fact that they had some sinful habit that God through the testimonies condemned. The question with them is, will they yield their idol which God condemns, or will they continue in their wrong course of indulgence, and reject the light God has given them, reproving the very things in which they delight? The question to be settled with them is, shall I receive, as of God, the testimonies which reprove my sins, and deny myself, or shall I reject the testimonies because they reprove my sins? p. 38, Para. 1, [26OT].

Can this really be the underlying reason of what is happening for those who have rejected the SOP.

Your question is not that clear Rick...

But of the many major areas of counsel given by Ellen White (Health reform, medical work, educational system, monogamy, investment, insurance, etc....) can you name even three where Silver Springs is leading out in obedience?
_______________________________

There are several reasons.

1. The misuse of her writings using sentences, often compiled together, to prove this or that has turned people off -- mainly those who have not read her writings in context.

2. The life style she presents as God's higher ground, is not appreciated or wanted.

3. The aims of the rebel in the Great Controversy as well as those working to bring his aims to fruition in a worship system that includes all under one head and cause the whole world to worship the dragon, the beast, and his image are too plainly exposed in EGW's writings.
The truth of how to escape this snare are also pointed out in her writings.
This type of information is thus a major fortress that must be knocked down for the counterfeit worship plan to move forward as the "answer" to the world's problems.

A. This quote is just wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
B. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit self serving (not to mention pointless) that one would use ones writings to condem those who don't believe...your writings. Ie: You have rejected God because you rejected my writings.

Why is it self serving?
The quote does not say "you have rejected God because you rejected my writings"
Nor does it give a strong indictment in rejecting EVERYTHING EGW voiced as a person. The issue is -- are the testimonies written to reveal something that God had shown concerning various problems, calls to repentance, or warning messages?

The quote is saying God sent a message to reprove sin, and rather than turn to Christ and forsake their sin they discounted the messenger.

That is the usual practice of the people even back in Bible times in how they respond when God sent a messenger to reprove their sins. They would get rid of the messenger rather than go to Christ in repentance.

There were other prophets (in scripture) who claimed their message of reprove was from God, and to reject that message was rejecting God.

I'm sure there are many reasons for so. Sadly what I've seen with many is their bitterness towards the Church. This bitterness is equally seen in those who claim to be reformers and uplift the original EGW writings. Anyway, this bitterness will lead to blindness also as it will corrupt their judgment and studies.

Coming from another perspective, I see the Church neglecting deligence studying of the law(the foundation of all truth) and refuse to test all things(EGW writtings, Church doctrines and beliefs, and etc...) against it. I think that is very serious that this basic Bereans type of work is not done and has never been done in our Chruch while not encouraging it and accusing and intimidating anyone that does. Then on the forums we see most use millions of EGW lines(which is not tested) to prove their belief rather than the Bible. These are strong signs that the Church has made an idol with EGW's writings.

In Eze 14:1-10 says that anyone that comes before the Lord to inquire with heart idols; the Lord will answer them according to the multitude of their heart idols; in another word He will feed your heart idols.("I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;"Eze 14:4)

I believe their are some inspired EGW writings but at the same time many that are not. My current focuss is to get familiar with what the Bible teaches. I'm not in the quest to disprove or test EGW writings. However, in many Bible studies, many have brought EGW to interpret scriptures that the actual plain scripture text doesn't say that. A lot of speculation and adding to scriptures is often done in EGW writings that often other scriptures is not in harmony with EGW interpretation.

I don't believe EGW was reveal all things nor did the Lord correct all errors in her or the pioneers belief system. Many of her writings is what she limitly understood which is fine, but should not be treated as truth.

Instead of studying the topic further with scriptures when shown some EGW quotes is not in harmony, most SDAs opt to ignore scriptures and accuse the other of not believing in EGW's writings and walk away. I think this type of phenomena happens a lot when anyone studies the Bible and are being honest when comparing with EGW writings. And being accused and condemned by other SDAs doesn't help the situation.

The day the Church will want to test all writings of EGW to take out what is not in harmony with scriptures, is the day more people will accept the writings that did come from the Lord.

The problem is everyone sets their interpretation of both scripture and EGW's writings above what God is really saying in HIS WORD.
The critical Bible interpreters have already claimed much of the Bible is not reliable, so we can expect people to do the same to EGW's writings.
Nothing is stable when people set themselves up to weed out what they think is not inspired.

I have found those who get really deep into the Jewish interpretation of the Torah tend to have a shallow appreciation of the NT. Those who throw out the OT as not profitable for doctrine also cut away the whole truth.

Those who think they can "take out" everything they think is not in harmony with scripture from EGW, will all take out different things, till nothing much is left.

Personally I have yet to find any writings that uphold both OT and NT in a beautiful balance flowing with truth based on scripture, like EGW's messages. I believe she is a messenger sent BY GOD to point us back to the truths of scripture especially as we face the crises of the last days.

I am in full agreement with you, dedication.

I have never been in the interpretation of Jewish Torah, but there might be a few things we could learn from Jewish archeology. For long I wondered what was the true meaning of



Now I understand that Jewish archeology shows us that the meaning of preparing a table in the presence of enemies means a full truce and forgiveness. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Quoting Ted Wilson at the current meetings:

Yes, it does.
And she says so in those exact words in other places.
And no, I'm not going to look up where for you. I don't no longer "study" Ellen White.

So...that begs the question "What IS God REALLY saying in HIS WORD?

Shall we take your interpretation or understanding, dedication? Or maybe we whould take APL's. Or Daryl's, perhaps, since he runs the forum. Your Church Elder's?, or Pastor's?, or the local Bishop's, maybe. Or the Pope's.

WHO has authority to interpret Scripture?

Yes, the Pope! Sam Bacchiocchi even got a gold medal from the Pope himself, and he was the first to introduce this headship theology in Adventism:

What are you riculing? I went through the whole SDA church school system before 1970 with many different Bible teachers who were firm believers in the Spirit of Prophecy and we never heard of this Headship Theology before Sam Bacchiocchi sneaked in into the church. This has been verified by many who studied the Bible in our schools prior to to 1970.

It seems the last two posts are off-topic.

The Scriptures interpret themselves.

That was just the point.
When people take it upon themselves to determine what was and what wasn't inspired, and throw out that which they think was not inspired, they end up tearing the Bible to shreds.

And the same happens to EGW's testimonies when people try to decide what was and what was not inspired. Either those testimonies were inspired or they were not, it's not a pick this paragraph, throw out that paragraph deal.

I've seen too much of that -- people pick out every sentence they can find to substantiate their idea of truth, and throw out as uninspired all the sentences and paragraphs that show the whole meaning of that same issue.

No, no, Johann. I loved your post about the pope. ****** INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT REMOVED ***** His "Headship" so-called theology is a pure fabrication created entirely to shore up the dominant male status quo.

That is a meaningless non-answer. What does that mean?

And, if we take that for our answer, then that makes YOU the interpreter of Scripture, because we are taking what you say as authoritative. This can get messy real fast.

So, which Scripture interprets which Scripture, and on what basis and who says so?

Everybody picks and chooses which Scripture they want to believe and which they don't.

But was it because they like L.R. Conradi wanted to continue in a sin or what was harmful, so they rejected Ellen White and the testimonies she wrote because it pointed it out. By rejecting the SOP it led to even greater sin and damage to the church that it has not recovered fully even to this day.

Here is a little background and what happened with L. R. Conradi....Louis R. Conradi, 1856-1939, was leader of SDA work in Europe but he caused damage which was not apperant in the begining. "...In 1910 a missionary to the Turkish mission, Z. G. Baharian informed W. C. White and W. A. Spicer of increasing doubts concerning the spirit of prophecy. These doubts, according to Baharian, came largely from L. R. Conradi.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hal-4.htm

Baharian traced the roots of the differing positions to about 1898 when the question of health reform began to be introduced to Europe. He directly broached the question of the spirit of prophecy in a council meeting in Constantinople in October, 1910, at which Conradi was present. According to Baharian, Conradi spent some time seeking to prove that the Ellen White writings could be divided according to varying degrees of inspiration, consisting largely of two parts: testimonies which were largely revelations from God and other works that, while the subject matter was guided by the Holy Spirit, the content could contain errors and Conradi affirmed that he himself had corrected some of these "errors."..." With Conradi leading them from believing in the work of Ellen White, he did much damage which to this day still lingers. But the story gets worse.

The leadership of the Adventist church in Germany with Conradi leading them persecuted and reported any Adventist who would not support the war effort for the Kaiser in World War I. They went after any Adventist who stood up for the Sabbath or refused to enter the army and reported Adventist to the government. After the war the General Conference sent Spicer to check on what had occured but Conradi was not taken out and the results showed itself when Nazism again lured many Adventist in Germany a few years later.

During the rise of the Nazi Party, the Seventh-day Adventist church in Germany and Austria, was described as "a small sect which bent over backwards to accomodate National Socialism." (Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" a biography in two volumes. Vil.1, p 541)

The support by the Adventist church in Germany of Hitler is well documented and in 2005 the Austrian, North German, South German Union Conferences, published an apology for their actions during Hitler's era, which included urging young Seventh-day Adventist men to serve in the German army, even saying that it was dishonorable not to serve. There were brave Adventist youths who refused to violate their consciences and were executed by the Nazis.

Here is from the Adventist Review...

". In Europe, however, during the era of the two world wars, noncombatancy as a normative ideal suffered irreparable damage.

As World War I neared, Germany had the largest Adventist membership of any European nation. Ludwig R. Conradi, who played a major role in establishing Adventism in Europe, led the German church. Drawing on Ellen White's favorable comments from Basel in 1886 about Adventist participation in military drill exercises, Conradi basically repudiated noncombatancy. Under his leadership, the German church took the position that during wartime, Adventist draftees would not only bear arms, but also not make an issue of Sabbath observance. Conradi insisted only on Sabbath keeping by Adventist military personnel during peacetime.34

The General Conference condemned the German course after World War I, though Conradi argued that he was only following guidelines given him by church leaders. At a meeting in Gland, Switzerland, in 1923, European church administrators agreed upon a statement close to the American position, affirming that Adventists should refuse all combatant service as well as any non-humanitarian Sabbath work. The German church leaders admitted they had erred....."

http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1535/story5.html

The Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement came about as a result of the actions of L. R. Conradi and certain European church leaders during the war, who decided that it was acceptable for Adventists to take part in war, which was in clear opposition to the historical position of the church that had always upheld the non-combative position. Since the American Civil War, Adventists were known as non-combatants, and had done work in hospitals or to give medical care rather than combat roles.[3]

The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists sent Seventh-day Adventist minister and General Conference Secretary William Ambrose Spicer to investigate the changes, but was unable to change what L. R. Conradi and the others had done during the war.[4][5][6] After the war, the Seventh-day Adventist church sent a delegation of four brethren from the General Conference (Arthur Daniells, L. H. Christian, F. M. Wilcox, M. E. Kern) in July 1920, who came to a Ministerial Meeting in Friedensau with the hope of a reconciliation. Before the 200 Pastors and the Brethren from the General Conference present at this meeting, G. Dail, L. R. Conradi, H. F. Schuberth, and P. Drinhaus withdrew their statement about military service and apologized for what they had done. The Reformers were informed of this and the next day saw a meeting by the Adventist brethren with the Reform-Adventists. Daniells urged them to return to the Seventh-day Adventist church, but the Reform-Adventists maintained that the church leaders had forsaken the truth and the reconciliation failed.

So just because Conradi didn't want to accept the Health Reform, he found ways to reject the SOP and it led to a even greater impact on the church and its work in Europe. One man...much destruction of others faith and the work of the church...

"The Scriptures interpret themselves."


Jak--"That is a meaningless non-answer. What does that mean?

And, if we take that for our answer, then that makes YOU the interpreter of Scripture, because we are taking what you say as authoritative. This can get messy real fast.

So, which Scripture interprets which Scripture, and on what basis and who says so?

Everybody picks and chooses which Scripture they want to believe and which they don't."


GsLL-- This subject is very very important to know and understand, for if we don't understand how Scripture is to be understood, we may fall into "private interpretation" which is denied by Scripture Itself.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."(2 Peter 1:20-21)

"Affirmatively stated ALL Scripture (not merely a part of it) is inspired. Negatively stated, none of It is privately interpreted, for the reason that It did not come of men but of GOD. And It can be interpreted by men ONLY as and when God's Spirit decrees. Accordingly, every jot and title of Scripture and Its interpretation are of Inspiration, and thus wholly profitable to guide the man of God doctrinally, to reprove and to correct him, and righteously to instruct him, unto perfection of faith and works." (SC, vol. 8, no.1-12, p.2)

So we know that once men reject SOP, they are indirectly rejecting Scripture as well. For there is only ONE "Spirit of Truth"(John 16:13) that guides us. SOP, as we SDA know and believe is beautiful Truth illuminating the Bible.

We did a post that may help understand this more clearly called "Help I Can't See" Understanding Scripture

You must read EVERYTHING the Bible says about a given subject in order to reach a right conclusion about that subject. This was Jesus' method:

Mat 4:5-7 Then the Devil took Him up into the holy city and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple. And he said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. For it is written, "He shall give His angels charge concerning You, and in their hands they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a stone." Jesus said to him, It is written again, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

Luke 24:27 Jesus then explained everything written about Himself in the Scriptures, beginning with the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets

In the second place, we must be guided by the Holy Spirit:

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth

Picking and choosing which Scriptures one wants to believe will only lead to destruction:

2 Peter 3:16 There are some things in them [the writings of Paul] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

As I have previously mentioned elsewhere, 2 Peter 1:20 is referring to the manner in which prophecy was given. It is NOT making a comment on how or who should interpret it.

Not that it makes any difference, because the question still remains of WHO SHOULD interpret it, all of which is pointless because I INTERPRET 2 Peter one way and you INTERPRET 2 Peter another way.

So you see that EVERYONE interprets. To say that Scripture is "not of any private interpretation" is meaninglessly stupid. It also means that each private individual must leave the interpretation of Scripture to someone else, something which we both know EGW speaks strongly against.

To say that Scripture interprets itself is equally fruitless, because my understanding of Scripture leads me to use text A to interpret text B in one way, while yours leads you to use text C to interpret text B in a totally different way.

Therefore, the argument that 2 Peter prohibits private interpretation fails on itself.

I see no one is willing to tackle this issue, and I suspect that the reason is that, if you really believed that Scripture is not of any "private interpretation", you would also have to give up participation on this forum, because EVERYBODY HERE is interpreting Scripture.

(Which is a GOOD thing.)

I don't believe it is a GOOD thing. Each one of us should be on guard that we do often interpret scriptures with our own understanding and without personal revelation from above. Even when comparing scriptures with scriptures are subjected to our own understanding and interpretation. On top of that, we often give a blind eye to the scriptures that contradict or challenge our interpretation.

We can speculate on an interpretation, however we shouldn't be calling it truth. It needs to be pondered upon and a thorough study should be conducted on a subject.

Nor should we, even upon personal revelations from above, want or encourage anyone else to swallow our interpretation without themselves having plenty of time to chew on the matter and receive their own personal revelation before swallowing any interpretation or “truth”.

This is based on the fundamental principle found in Lev 11 and that we all should be taught by the Holy Spirit personally (1Jn 2:27) and never by man. "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

Teachings of man can comes from yourself or others or past teachings our church or our society has adopted. My understanding of this is we can read others thoughts or hear a brother share what Jesus may of taught him and etc…. Hearing from others is important for the Lord gives revelation not only to one, but to many members in the body that needs to be shared to one another. But whatever thoughts(or interpretation) you may have, or whoever you hear it from, or read, or even reading the pure word of God -- all needs to be chewed upon over time with the leading of the Holy Spirit and the Lord needs to established the matter by two witnesses. This is based on the law of unclean and clean spiritual foods found in Lev 11.


Lev 11: Law of Unclean and Clean Spiritual Foods

It is ironic that this discussion started with the supposition that the rejection of SOP for many is based on not following the health reform when we SDAs do not even understand the basic law of unclean and clean spiritual food found in Lev 11.

Paul says "the law is spiritual: but I am carnal" (Rom 7:14).

Lev 11 is not about what PHYSICAL foods to eat or not to eat, but about SPIRITUAL foods. For sure we have health benefits from reframing from unclean "flesh" and even more from abstaining from all flesh foods altogether. However, this law really talks and teaches us about what clean spiritual foods a child of God should eat and how to avoid the unclean spiritual foods and not swallow it for it defiles us. Swallowing unclean spiritual foods has a more serious effect on our life than eating pork. Actually, many of us are spiritual "pigs" or "chamels" by the way we eat our spiritual foods. I know I often am for I'm not always patient enough to wait for two witnesses or give it the meditation time.

Lev 11:3 says animals that chew their cuds(meditate) and stand on separate split hoofs(with two witnesses the matter are establish); these are the spiritual foods that are clean and we can swallow(accept).

As mentioned above, if you swallow food(even the pure word of God) without chewing it thoroughly (meditate upon it) or having it stand on two witnesses coming from the Lord; then it is unclean and you are defiled in the sight of the Lord.

In application, you can hear someone's study or read a book -- that is fine; but whatever is read or heard from man has to go through an extensive process of chewing and waiting on the Lord to establish the teaching with 2 witnesses. That's only when you can swallow it.

The fact the food was chewed (meditated with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and stands of 2 separate witnesses(hoofs) from the Lord is what makes the food pure teachings(or interpretation) from the Lord and not from men. When you are taught by the Holy Spirit in this ways, that's when you become the living word of God yourself and are crumbling bread in the Lord’s hands that He can feed others with.

There's more that can be expounded on Lev 11 that teaches us how we can differentiate clean or unclean spiritual foods. But the above is the main one.


Heart Idols distorts the Word of God

A word of caution is given in Ezk 14:1-10. The Lord tells us if you come to him for answers (an interpretation or searching truth or for directions) with heart idols, "I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;" (Ezk 14:4). Meaning, he will feed your heart idols and everything you read or see, it will support your heart idols. We all have heart idols. Ezekiel shows that heart idols are teachings of men. Some we are aware of, others we are not. There's many things we think is truth but it never have been established by the Lord or was not really meditated upon long enough, nor was it studied in a thorough Bible study on the subject. So the key here, is to put everything aside and come to the Lord with nothing with open ears to hear what He has to say. What He says may contradict your pre-conceive ideas. It often does. Also, many of our interpretations or views needs refinements.

Heart idols will twist everything the Lord says: from His word in scriptures, His voice to you, or even mis-interpretating potential signs-witness He has given to you.


Interpretation will be according to the LAW

Besides those two principles above, another one is that the Holy Spirit will not teach anything (interpretation or revelation) against the Law of God(Is 8:20, Deut 13:1-5, Deut 18:15-22, Acts 17:11). AV Isa 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them." Meaning, the law is the Lord's righteous character defined with His ways and His plan of salvation put on paper. This is what the Lord is fulfilling today, in the future or in the past. The spiritual aspect of the law is what the Holy Spirit is teaching everyone and aims to write on each of our heart tablets once it is learned.

So even though you think you disagree with me you are actually agreeing, since you think people should "receive their own personal revelation" before they agree with what you say.



That's because there is NO SUCH LAW. I have rarely read such unsupported hog-wash. (I'd use a different word than hogwash but Daryl will censor it.) Creative, but absolute BS.







So now four times you have engaged in exactly what you (and others, to be fair) said one should not do, namely interpret Scripture.

Nor have you (or anyone else, to be fair again) answered the question of just who SHOULD interpret Scripture, if we are not allowed to come to our own conclusions.

Oh, are we agreeing? That’s great.

But really, the goal is not to agree with one another but to come in agreement with the Lord’s interpretation. Then this is the way we will be in agreement among each other.

Often we think we are in agreement with Him when in reality we differ quite widely. So how is the Lord going to teach us the truth if we are set in our pre-conceived ideas and seek comfort in others that have the same?

Teaching someone that think they already know and that cannot hear become a real big problem for the Lord to teach us His interpretation of scriptures. When an individual learns to hear the Lord’s voice and has learned to put all pre-conceived ideas aside when asking question -- only those can be taught by the Lord and receive the proper correction of their erronous interpretation or views that we often need.


I can only shared with you what I came to understand. I can be full of prunes or it may be truth or somewhere in between. The only way to know is to enquire with the Lord yourself. He is the only one that knows.

Dismissing something without verifying in scriptures and asking the Lord His opinion is fine for now and it has its place too. There's a time for everything and it could be not your time to learn this or that.


These I have chewed on for years and I have received my two witnesses from above on these to confirm these are true. I do know from experience the Lord confirms His word to us personally. But that’s my personal revelation. It is not yours and it cannot be yours by just taking my word for it. It is something that all must experience to know.

Again, I can be full of prunes or it can be the correct interpretation. Only the Holy Spirit knows the truth and can teach someone the correct interpretation.

Tell me Jak how can someone be taught by the Holy Spirit? How can someone know if the voice they hear is the Holy Spirit or just your own thoughts? Lastly, how and where do you get your interpretation of scriptures?

I cannot see any other way for someone to know the voice of the Lord apart from our own voice then by receiving a double witness to confirm His word personally spoken to us with an event or whatever else He will brings in our life that confirms without any doubts that it was Him that spoke.

The principle of double witness is all over the Bible and applied in different various things.



I could be wrong but it appears to me that you are not really looking for any answer or you already had one to start with.

A) We're way off topic. But since no one else is on this thread it doesn't really matter.

B) You have no idea what you are talking about, or what you are actually saying. You seem quite comfortable contradicting yourself repeatedly. This leads directly to "I have no idea what your position is or what you are trying to say."

C) You don't see the irony of a whole forum set up to debate and discuss Scripture, all the while claiming that Scripture is not of any "private interpretation"?

I'm trying to understand you. I would like to get to the bottom of this challenge you laid out.

I agree with Rosangela and another commenter that said any interpretation should comes from the Holy Spirit. Since I agree that's why I quoted 1Jn 2:27. I don't know if you agree with this or not, but I believe this is SDAs understanding and also most Christians. However this is often a cliche and the how to put this in application is where it gets gray.

So in an attempt to shed some light, I have brought out how to put this in application with 1) the double witness principle, 2) setting aside the heart idols 3) testing interpretation against the law(Is 8:20). You disagreed with this and saying it was my interpretation of some scriptures.

So the 3 questions I ask you in my previous post is a tentative to know what you understand. If you don't understand any of the questions, do let me know.

1. Tell me Jak how can someone be taught by the Holy Spirit? (1Jn 2:27)

2. How can someone know if the voice they hear is the Holy Spirit or just your own thoughts?

3. Lastly, how and where do you get your interpretation of scriptures?

It's not a challenge at all; I'm simply trying to come to an understanding of WHO INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE? If one claims (and so far everyone on this forum seems to agree) that Scripture is "not of any private interpretation" (meaning that one does not come to one's own conclusion regarding the meaning of Scripture) then that leads DIRECTLY to:

A) Who does?

and

B) What is the purpose of this forum?

I believe that God is responsible for leading us into all truth.

This means that I do not look to the pastor, the teacher, my parents, friends or anyone else, including Ellen White, for the meaning of God's Word. God Himself will give the meaning. (Philippians 3:15)
This is not to be understood that we CAN NOT get help from them, but that the final decision of what we believe ultimately rests with the individual.

Therefore, each individual MUST interpret Scripture for themselves.

(NOTE: There are pre-existing conditions that apply to the above which I have not enumerated, but will if you ask for them.)

I believe that the Judeo-Christian Scripture is the Word of God to man, and as such constitutes the "last word" on any argument.

This means several things, one of the most important being that the words of Scripture mean exactly what they say, in a literal sense, unless there is compelling evidence to interpret them in a spiritual or allegorical sense.

For example, 1 John 2:27 does not mean that we should not be taught by men, but that the group John was addressing did not need to be because:
1) they had previously received instruction. (1:5: 2:24)
2) they had received an anointing.

Also, the dietary laws in Lev. 11 are just that--dietary laws. They do not apply to methods of interpreting Scripture nor constitute some "double witness principle"




Very good question.

So, I am now out of time, and this post is way too long.

I agree with the bolded and underlined above.



I would of reworded that last sentence but I understand what you are getting at. The interpretation doesn’t come from us for we seek it from the Lord who will give us personally the meaning/interpretation.


Please do elaborate.



Here we differ. I came to understand that the Bible is mainly a literal account in the exception in areas where it is obvious that it is a parable or symbolic language. However all obvious literal accounts are at the same time have all spiritual meanings (interpretation) that surpasses the effect and importance of the literal.

Also, some historical accounts could have some words here and there that could be figurative(symbolic) in describing the event. For example did King Nebuchadnezzar eat literal grass like a beast for 7 years? I don’t know if this is even scientifically possible. I think he may or he may not. I do believe in the literal account that the king was beastlike in some form and did lose his mind for 7 years as there are some historical data showing this. Whether he ate literal grass or not; or a little or only grass in his diet …. I think is missing the point of the prophesy laid.

What I see is the Lord has always set up literal events to establish TYPES and Patterns of the things to come since the garden of Eden. What happened to Nebuchadnezzar was an additional piece of the puzzle that further pieces about the beasts kingdoms prophecies were shown later to Daniel. The fact that Daniel used the word “grass” to describe the incidence is significant because that’s the word(symbolic language) the Lord gave Daniel to describe the incidence. These literal event set as TYPES, their objects have symbolic meanings of the spiritual realm to come in the future. Often these TYPES reoccur in another event later in time at different levels (corporate and individual) with different players. At times a TYPE or Pattern can reoccur many times adding to the revelation until the last fulfillment comes to past to accomplish His full purpose and plan. I could list many examples of this if you request some as this is His form of communication spiritual things of His Plan to us since the beginning of time. Learning the Lord’s language in these symbols is one step to learn to recognize His voice and providential hand.

To continue back with Nebuchadnezzar eating grass as an example, we have the following objects : 7 times(Lev 26:18,21,24,28); Beast Kingdoms(main object/players in Daniels & Revelation); grass(1Pet 1:24 says “All men are like grass”). So a simple interpretation of this could be the beast kingdoms will rule over the earth and eat grass(the lives of man) for 7 times(360x7=2520years).

In Number 12:1-9, God says Himself that He speaks to prophets in “dark Speeches”(chiydah, puzzle or riddle) via vision and dreams(v.8). In this incidence quoted below, Aaron and Miriam was claiming equal authority as Moses. The reason they believed this is because the Lord had spoken through them also! The Lord came to settle this authority dispute between them quickly and clearly established Moses over Aaron and Miriam.

“AV Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, [I] the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches(chiydah, puzzle or riddle); and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? “

In this verse, I see two principles:

1. In this incidence the Lord establish the Pentateuch(aka law given to Moses) as an authority over prophets including Jesus who will speak and do according to the Law. It is the foundation laid to test all prophets and doctrines and teachings and interpretations (Is 8:20; Deut 13; and Deut 18);

2. Num 12:8 says that the Lord speaks in symbolism to prophets or anyone else that have dreams or visions.


Something to note is Jesus, the law-giver, continued to speak in symbolism via parables to the people that His disciples required further private explanation(interpretation) of the meanings of these symbolism in the parable.

This tells me that, at the least, that the prophets are spoken in symbolic language and all of the parables are symbolic and the book of revelation is obviously symbolic that these shouldn't be read literally.



I differ in my understanding and experiences. We are both taught by the same Holy Spirit and He teaches one truth to this. What shall we do?



That’s a crucial question to my opinion as we can all be easily deceived if we cannot recognized His voice apart from our own. Would you agree having the Lord confirming that He spoke to us by giving us a sign(double witness) would be a way that we would know that He spoke to us and it’s not our own imagination or thoughts?


I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your views above and pondering on this question further.

The statement assumes several points, including, but not limited to:
1) The individual desires a relationship with God.
2) The individual is open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
3) Scripture is approached in a reasonable and logical manner, and the methods of interpretation are legitimate, recognized exegetical methods.


I would reject that approach to Scripture. Although I believe that a spiritual lesson may be drawn from any point of Scripture, the primary meaning of a passage is derived from the actual words used, ie: the words of Scripture mean exactly what they say.
There are passages that are intended to be symbolic/allegorical, but the meaning of these passages is derived from either other Scripture, or possibly history. In other words there is always another passage of Scripture to interpret the one in question.
When we start randomly interpreting Scripture symbolically or allegorically based on our "years of study" or "the Lord has shown me" or our past history as a rock musician we rapidly get into trouble.


I disagree. The Lord has sometimes set up types and patterns, but if you approach interpretation thinking that He always does you will be creating types and patterns where they do not exist.


Philippians 3:15


John 10:4,5,27 - "My sheep know my voice, and listen to it."

People are rejecting Ellen White's writings so they can interpret scriptures for themselves, yet obviously everyone interprets it differently.

Does this make truth "relative"?
Everyone hears and follows a different voice?

Yet, EGW does not conflict with Biblical truth --
How many times when we come to a passage that's difficult to understand does a hint from her writings clarify the passages and bring them all together in perfect harmony?


Her writings expose the snares of the last days that will entrap and deceive many. Reject her inspired writings at your own risk.
The Bible is the great map of truth, while her writings are like a "harbour" map, in full agreement with the great map, yet marking the reefs and dangers in greater detail so they will be recognized as we near the end of the time.

Maybe it might be an eye opener to hear what another writer (who channels demonic spirits) preparing the way for the "coming masters" had to say:
Alice Bailey in the section on "Religious Organizations in the New Age" declares:
"Eventually, there will appear the Church Universal....the prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained, Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated." Externalization -501-512

When someone pointed those things out to me it made me realize more fully that satan would use SCRIPTURE (the misuse of it) in a powerful way to deceive people to accept his kingdom.


EGW warned:


As I see the things revealed to her coming to pass, it amazes me how people can now toss her writings out so they can adjust their understanding of the Bible more closely to the new age ways.

We are facing serious times in which we aren't just dealing with men's ideas, but against evil spiritual powers that appear as "angels of light" working through humans, and who are bent on promising everyone some sort of earthly "kingdom" and making them unready for the real Christ's coming in the clouds of glory.

God sent His message for these last days that we might have a Bible truth bulwark against the many false interpretations.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:


People reject things for many reasons, and I fail to see the authority by which you ascribe motive.

Matthew 7:1


It may surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people who find that EGW in fact IS in conflict with Biblical truth, and can demonstrate it.

If you "interpret" the Bible from an EGW perspective, she will naturally never be in conflict with it. If, however, you read Scripture for what it actually says, always demanding a clear and logical rationale for your understanding, you will come to an entirely different conclusion.

If you want to pursue this topic revive the "Re: Why or why not accept Mrs. White as a prophet?" thread.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=169984#Post169984

JAK: Mrs. White told us how she wanted to be used and how she did NOT want to be used. I have seen many of these so called places of "Conflict with the Bible" but they are all in ways that she says she does NOT want to be used.

There appears to be 3 correct ways to use the Bible. First is exegesis or what it meant to the original audience. Second is a reapplication of the principle to a similar situation. Third is a more loose way where you are not using the text in a specific application of the text but using the words since it fits the situation well.

Prophets tend not to do exegesis. Mrs. White would over and over again tell us that this was our job. She would say comments such as "My writings are not to answer questions like 'what is the meaning of the daily?'" She would only use exegesis if it was required for the specific topic she was discussing.

What Mrs. White tended to do was make applications of the Biblical principles over history and to what the church was dealing with. Then at times Mrs. White would build her arguments then conclude with the words of a text that fits. Thus Mrs. White usually does the second and third of the 3 ways to use the text. But too many (from both her supporters and defectors) try to use her for exegesis. They do not see what she is saying and how she is using the text. Even though she warns us that if we use her writings that way we will get into trouble.

Also, Mrs. White was NOT a fundamentalist. She and her friend Elder Haskell would go around and around on this. Then there was also a group of pastors who she kept complaining that they were using her words but not understanding her message. That they were using her words as authority but they were spreading their message through her words. In 1923 most of the church followed Elder Haskell's understanding. But also these pastors who she complained about using her words but to spread their message and not hers has become very popular among a lot of people.

Dale Ratzlaf and Desmond Ford and others have gotten into trouble because they read the words of Paul, but are reading into these words the ideas from the Church Fathers from around the year 135 AD when the Church and Synagogue split, the views of St. Augustine, and the views of the reformers, especially Martin Luther and thus have missed Paul's message.

But many of us who love Mrs. White are reading her words as interpreted by this group of pastors who she and Willie were complaining that they did not understand her message and were using her words to spread their message.

Pretty sure I'm not following what you are trying to say here...?

The misuse = "they were using her words but not understanding her message"

People who use EGW in a "proof texting" method, will lift a sentence or two to "prove" their idea even though that was not the message in which the sentence was located.

People who criticize EGW will lift a sentence or two to "prove" she is contradicting the Bible when a fuller reading of her message shows she was not.

People who study the Bible and arrive at conclusions that are opposed and condemned in the SOP are more likely to reject the SOP as uninspired.

People who enjoy lifestyle choices that are opposed and condemned in the SOP are more likely to reject the SOP as uninspired.

You are GREATLY mistaken. You do not need EGW.

John said, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)

The book of John bears testimony that Jesus of Nazareth is the way, the truth and the life; and that your hope in Him (that is, Jesus) is now and will forever be your salvation. Please, do not add to the word of God, lest you be found wanting.

///

JAK wrote;

"This means that I do not look to the pastor, the teacher, my parents, friends or anyone else, including Ellen White, for the meaning of God's Word. God Himself will give the meaning. (Philippians 3:15)
This is not to be understood that we CAN NOT get help from them, but that the final decision of what we believe ultimately rests with the individual.

Therefore, each individual MUST interpret Scripture for themselves.

(NOTE: There are pre-existing conditions that apply to the above which I have not enumerated, but will if you ask for them.)" (bold emphasis mine)

If I may clarify; Each individual must learn how to interpret Scripture correctly. Each of us is responsible to accept Christ and His word in accordance with God's will. If we get it wrong or follow the wrong people, we can lose our souls.

If I may mention a few principles;

1) Divinely Inspired writings are always "thought inspired", and not "verbally inspired". Jeremiah 36:31-32

2) Always take into account the context in which the Bible verse is written.

3) Always study in the context with the whole of Scripture. (word or phrase comparisons)

4) Always allow the Bible to interpret itself.

5) Always take Scripture to mean just what it says unless it is shown to speak symbolically or prophetically.


I have found these principles to be invaluable in understanding Scripture properly.

That's a no-brainer.

Sometimes stating the obvious is painful - but necessary.

There's a lot of SDA that does not practice the health message and accepts the SOP. I would even say that most SDAs(80% or more) does not practice the health message at home. I think this reason is false. I'm one of those odd ones that is a strong supporter of the health message, but my interpretation of scriptures now differ from the Church. And it is not because I wanted to differ from the SDA or bitter at the Church or whatever reason you want to use. I came where I am because I started to seriously study scriptures for I was seeking life directions from the Lord. I haven't received my life direction yet, however the studies went in places I wasn't looking for.

One main problem that I see for rejecting the SOP is the Church and some members are using her writings as authoritive and as source of interpretation by which Ellen and James both disagreed of using her writings as such. We are suppose to be a scripture and Holy Spirit alone kind of people.

I think the Overcomers of the end are people that hears and follow the voice of Jesus and receives scripture interpretation from the leadings and teachings of the Holy Spirit.

SDA have lost their bearings and have become the image of the papacy. Their mantra is "what does EGW say?" And having a different viewpoint is exposing yourself like a sore thumb to be marked and watched.

///

Agreed MM. We don't want to avoid or ignore the obvious.

If you differ fundamentally with the SDA Church it stands to reason you are rejecting fundamental portions of the SOP.

SDA members and leaders pledge to live in harmony with the biblical truths contained in the Bible and reinforced in the SOP and conveniently presented in the 28FB. Members and leaders who reject these biblical truths and/or refuse to live in accordance with them would do themselves and the church family a favor by withdrawing themselves and worshiping with like-minded believers elsewhere. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Are they lost or damned? Only Jesus knows the conscience. Only Jesus can read the heart and discern motives. If they are living up to the light they truly, genuinely believe is right and true, then yes, of course, they are in a saved state (they will be resurrected when Jesus returns). However, they cannot proclaim the 3AM. Why not? Because their views of truth are incorrect. During the final movements, if they are truly sincere, they will embrace the 3AM as proclaimed by faithful SDA believers. They will abandon Babylon and join the SDA Movement. The only believers who will be translated alive when Jesus arrives are those believers who embrace the 3AM as proclaimed by faithful SDA believers. Everyone else will receive the mark of the beast and perish with the unsaved.

Sorry, MM, but I abandoned that fanatical position a long time ago. Scripture has zero support for that idea.

MM wrote;

"SDA members and leaders pledge to live in harmony with the biblical truths contained in the Bible and reinforced in the SOP and conveniently presented in the 28FB. Members and leaders who reject these biblical truths and/or refuse to live in accordance with them would do themselves and the church family a favor by withdrawing themselves and worshiping with like-minded believers elsewhere. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?""

I find nothing fanatical about MM's position! I find it very sound and simple.

The seventh-day Adventist Church was raised up for a very distinct purpose! And if someone really doesn't agree with that purpose, that is fine. But, they should look for like-minded believers to worship with and leave our church to be like-minded believers.

People insist on changing this church from within and the changes are unBiblical and dangerous to the purpose for which we exist! We should be left to our purpose without these distractions and interruptions.

He also wrote:

an idea which:
a) has NO Biblical support whatsoever.
b) is elitist, arrogant, and just plain stupid.
c) demonstrates an alarming lack of understanding of God and the mission of Christ to the world.

Alchemy, amen! Well said. Thank you.

JAK, you are rejecting a fundamental belief of the SDA Church. Do you disagree with the 3AM as practiced and proclaimed by the SDA Church? If so, please explain.

MM, how do you know that the SDAs fundamental beliefs are the same as Jesus's? Or even have the correct understanding of the 3AM?

You are beginning to sound alarmingly like the Inquisition.

There are certain of the FB that I would like clarification on, such as but not limited to #12 as per our PM discussion, but the closer one examines the SDA belief system the more one realizes that the answers are shoddy and superficial.

Because I have studied them in the Bible and in the SOP and I have no doubt they are true - the truth as it is in Jesus.

JAK, you are free to believe as you choose. This in not the Inquisition. But you are not free to retain membership in good and regular standing as a SDA if you reject one or more of the 28FB or refuse to live in harmony with them. You are also free to reject the SOP as an authoritative source of insight and inspiration. However, will not do so if you agree with the 28FB.

Blessings JAK,

You are wrong on all three points. The 3 angels messages demonstrate to a huge degree the mission of Christ in this world at this time. Remember, Revelation is a revealing of Jesus Christ.

(bold emphasis mine)

Such as JAK? Could you elaborate?

I agree with Jak. Would like to hear Jak's answer, but have one of my own. There's many discussion I partaken to TEST our doctrines and interpretations. Not that I'm out to prove the SDAs wrong. That is not my goal nor my interest. But I came here to study what I was taught in the Church with what the Bible actually says. I am sorry to say that I found that there's a lot of errors and refinements needed in our understanding.

For an example check out the current study that Alchemy started Who is the fit Man in Lev 16. In this study we see that SDAs lays all responsibillity for sin on the devil, however according to the laws of liability ultimate responsibility goes to the Creator and owner of all things. Also SDAs based their interpretaion on a severely mistranslation of Lev 16 where 4 errors are found in the text when comparing to the source text.

This is just one example of were our beliefs is "shoddy and superficial". I could list many more discussion here.

Why should this be a surprise or a shock? Hasn't the Lord told us that our Church is Laodicean? He said we are blind, poor, and naked. Our blindness is thick. We say we SEE(know the truth) but in reality we are blind. The Lord said in Jn 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." Let us not despair for it is the Lord that made us blind for His good purpose.

Isaac was the first blind servant. He was a TYPE as following Israel was made blind and now the whole Christiandom. AV Isa 42:19 Who [is] blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger [that] I sent? who [is] blind as [he that is] perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? Blinding His servant was in the Lord's plan so He could fulfill His plan without us hindering it.

Elle, I am sorry you believe certain FB are "shoddy and superficial". In so saying it implies you are right and the pioneers are wrong - including the SOP. Yes, truth is progressive. However, new light does not undermine old light.

Possibly. However, your response did nothing to demonstrate that, so they stand.

Since you never substantiated your three points, no, they don't stand.

It is true what I said about the 3 angels messages.

Good point.
However:

A) Under the category of "This idea has not Biblical support whatsoever:
1) Scripture does not specify conditions for "[being] translated alive"
2) SDA's are never mentioned in Scripture.
3) "the 3AM as proclaimed by faithful SDA believers" is not a Scriptural concept and is not specified as a qualifying condition for any action or event.
4) By what criteria and on who's judgement is one to determine who is a "faithful SDA" and who is not?

B) Under the category of "This idea is elitist, arrogant, and just plain stupid:

This is my opinion, and as such cannot be argued against.

C) Under the category of "This idea demonstrates an alarming lack of understanding of God and the mission of Christ to the world:

Again, this is my opinion and as such cannot be argued against.

So, YES, my points stand.

Who? Quite simple, actually. The same who determines whether someone is in violation of the 28 +/- FB, reading into them things not stated. MM, of course.

What two translation texts are you comparing?

Touche

ROFLMAO

On your last two points, it is true you have a right to your opinion, but, that doesn't make your opinion right! In this case, you opinions are both wrong.

Mostly because the Gospel message of the everlasting Gospel, the Law of God and the Judgment taking place in Heaven all directly impact the salvation of every living soul on earth. Except Jesus, of course.

As far as A) is concerned; It is true SDA or Seventh-day Adventist is not mentioned directly in the Bible, the messages the Bible places such importance on are mentioned, and these are taught and proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists. Since we are thought inspired, this is how we know Seventh-day Adventists will be carrying these messages, namely the three angels messages.

Which is your opinion.
Which is wrong.

A)There is biblical support for MM's statement:

1)To be "translated alive", one would firstly, have to be alive at the coming of Christ (unless you are a proponent of the Secret Rapture?), secondly, one must be saved (forgiven/justified) by faith in Christ and obedient to all Ten Commandments (sanctified) by faith in Christ.

"Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
Revelation 14:12


2) I am aware of only one denomination (SDA) that (in principal, if not always in practise) teaches the observance of all Ten Commandments and demonstrably, possesses the Spirit of Prophecy.

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
Revelation 12:17

"...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Revelation 19:10


3) "the 3AM as proclaimed by faithful SDA believers": the key here is "as proclaimed by..." Not necessarily belonging to the SDA denomination, rather delivering the same message. It is the message that is primary here, not the messenger. I do not claim that the entire SDA denomination is, or will be, proclaiming the 3AM, or indeed that only bonafide SDA members are doing so; however, those who are "faithful (to Christ) SDA believers" are doing so.

The job description of a Prophet is not merely one who predicts future events, but also, and more importantly, he or she is one who speaks to the people on behalf of God. Since the Spirit of prophesy is possessed by and actively engaged in proclaiming the 3AM, through numerous "faithful" SDA members, this is in fact a "scriptural concept" and accepting the 3AM is a "qualifying condition" for salvation after the Mark of the Beast is instituted. Without the third Angel's Message, no warning concerning the Mark would be given:

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
Revelation 14:9-12


4) The "criteria" of the Bible and the judgement of God, "determine who is a 'faithful SDA' and who is not?" The criteria is: do they "keep (all) the commandments of God"? The judgement of God gazes into the heart to determine if the fruit of "Faith" truely motivates and dwells therein.

"Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
Revelation 14:12




B) JAK said: "This idea is elitist, arrogant, and just plain stupid"


At first glance, Matthew 7 seems quite exclusive. Does this mean your opinion is that Jesus is "elitist" and "arrogant"?

"Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Matthew 7:14


Calling a brother's sincerely held belief, "just plain stupid" does not seem to manifest the Spirit of God?

"...and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, (vain, empty, worthless) shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22




C) Mountain Man's idea demonstrates an abundance of understanding of God and the mission of Christ to the world!

That is my opinion.

So, as a brief warm-up exercise, let's try FB#12, which contains the phrase "The church is God’s family; adopted by Him as children, its members live on the basis of the new covenant." (page 134 in the old Seventh-day Adventists Believe...27, R&H, 1988)

1) What is the "new covenant"?
2) what was the "old covenant"?
3) What conditions and/or requirements are in the NC?
4) What conditions and/or requirements are no longer valid from the OC?
5) Why did we need a new one?

If we "live on the basis of the new covenant", we should know this.

I thought this would be a dead simple clarification. Turns out there are as many answers as people I ask.

Blessings JAK,

You have far more questions than answers. You need to study out a lot of these questions for yourself.

As far as the covenants, God's people have always lived under the New Covenant! Many of God's professed people insisted on doing things their way and that is the Old Covenant. This God allowed as a test to prove to all humanity that created beings can not help or save themselves and needed God for everything in life. God ended the test at Calvary.

Where the hell do ya think those questions came from, idiot.
From studying.

Don't tell me to go "study it for myself". I did. Now I'm asking the questions, which, by the way, no one can answer. Including you.

One scrawny paragraph with not a Biblical references or support material does not constitute an answer.

Paul says the first covenant was growing old and ready to vanish because God, "finding fault with [the Jews]", deemed it necessary to renew it.

///

(bold emphasis mine)

Blessings JAK,

Well, you obviously didn't study well enough!

Exodus 20:18-21; And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. (bold emphasis mine)

This is the beginning of the Old Covenant! The people told Moses to tell them what God said and they would do it. Impossible! But, God allowed this to test Israel and teach them that they can't do it. They can't obey and honor God without direct help from God Himself.

Where Moses went into the darkness where God was, the people stood afar off. God wanted a direct personal relationship with His people, but they completely missed the point. This test ended at Calvary with Israel failing to get the point.

I hope and pray we don't make the same mistake.

JAK, my personal situation is such that I no longer attend organized church and there are no home based churches where I live. I joined this forum a short time ago in order to have some form of interaction and fellowship with brothers and sisters who share a similar worldview.

I see this site as a place where we can help one and other grow toward the Light: a place to safely discuss that which the outside world does not comprehend; at times a place of passionate, even heated discussion, perhaps. Still, a place where we can reach past our differences and learn to see the Spirit of our Lord hard at work, perfecting each precious soul. It is in this Spirit of fellowship and love that I reach out to you now.

My Gandolfian friend, observing many of your posts has led me to believe that you are highly intelligent and extremely observant, but also quite bitter and filled with anger...
Though, your frustration is directed at members of this site, I wonder if it might be the image of God in their hearts that you are truely upset with?

As one who has been forced to deal with anger and its consequences all of my life, I recognize that spirit and know the hold of its stubborn grip all too well. You are not alone! I urge you with all of my heart, my Brother, do not give up the battle. Cast yourself upon the Rock. Broken, you will find Peace and realize at last you have brothers and sisters who understand and care...


"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
Galations 5:22-23

"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples."
John 15:8



How incompatible these two spirits are!



"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca', (vain, empty, worthless) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Matthew 5:22



By the way, here is the answer to all of the questions you asked Alchemy:


"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Jeremiah 31:31-33


No one, whose conscience is not seared, can fail to be moved at the sight of the innocent Lamb of God, The Face of Infinite Love made flesh, writhing in agony on the cross to tear us from the rising flames. It is in this moment of Love and Pain, that the crude reflection of animals and altars vanishes, and we come face to face with the true meaning of Sacrifice.

At that moment of awsome insight, the crushing weight of sin and the terrible import of the Law are written by the Father's finger, not in cold dead stone, but within our warm, beating, heart. And at last we know that He is our Savior, He is our God.



Now JAK, I have one question for you.
It is the most important question you will ever be asked.
How do you and those around you, know that you follow Christ?







"By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
John 13:35

This is a good example and I agree with you that SDA's answer to these questions is very superficial and lacking.

From your questions I can see where your study brought you. These are very important questions. These question I have faced many time as I study the law(OC) and trying to understand the NC application of it. If anyone in this forum wants to further discuss this topic, I certainly would be interested in knowing what you (JAK or others) have understood. I would be interested to also share what would be my understanding of this up to now. As any man cannot claim, I do not claim that my understanding is complete or full. That's why its good to discuss here and see what the Lord has taught others.

Besides FB#12 relating to the new covenant; can you give me two other example to sustaintiate your statement that SDAs doctrines are "shoddy and superficial". I'm only curious but it's not necessary that I know.


I second Prodigalone reply to this. Let us be patient towards one another.

JAK, there is no reason to involve FB #12 in this. Whatever the view one holds about the OC/NC, it is unquestionable that all those who are under Christ's blood are under the NC. The Bible is clear about that:

Luke_22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1 Cor_11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

2 Cor_3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Heb_12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant...

So, if the Bible view or the position of the SDA Church about the OC/NC is not yet clear to you, please start a specific thread about this, where the subject can be discussed at length.

Thank you to all those who aluded to Christian courtesy. This is a virtue especially necessary in forum discussions.

It is unfortunate insult and slander are slung around so freely on this forum. I'm surprised more effort isn't devoted to policing this forum. Especially is it offensive when members bash people for sharing fundamental SDA beliefs. The rules of the forum forbid it. This is a SDA community site. Nobody here should feel attacked for believing the 28FB.

I agree, but may I extend the scope a little bit....

Nobody here should feel attacked for believing OR NOT belieaving the 28FB.

Amen!

I agree with you Elle. Nobody should feel attacked here. But as Mountain Man says, this is an SDA site. It seems natural that people with non-SDA inclinations will feel uncomfortable here. We teach that even heaven itself would be a place of "supreme torture" to those that question the ways of God.

But if "strangers" come into another man's house, thinking that they are at full liberty to question and criticize, then that house is quickly made into a house of debate and conflict. The "debate" mind-set has destroyed most of the online discussion sites, and the meek and lowly , when they come looking [and inquiring,] are suddenly repulsed by the almost continual aggression.

As a people, I think we have opened our doors too widely to outsiders, and have made the house of God a den [a stronghold] of debate. There was a time when many of our people really knew our teachings regarding the time-prophecies, etc., but that time is now long past.

Sadly, I have to agree with you StewartC.
I just joined this site a couple of months ago, after a seemingly endless journey from one, so called SDA site, to another. I am not in a position to attend any regular church services or even a home church at this time, so finding online fellowship was extremely important to me.
Without exception, every single site I tried was one horrible, endless, extended argument.
The simplest, most basic, doctrines were questioned over and over. It was such a blessing to find this site. It can get pretty bad here from time to time, but it's generally a good place to be. I attribute this to the fussier standard and wait time for enrollment required here. Every other site seems to only ask for an email address and you're in.

I have heard theories of infiltration into SDA sites by certain organizations. Sometimes, I wonder if there could be some truth to it. I pray this place does not succumb to such influence.

Steward...I'm not an outsider nor is JAK. We are both SDAs. Forum is a place of discussion, testing, if what we believe is in line with scriptures. Ellen & James White said this was our Christian DUTY.

If the SDAs 28FBs are in line with the scriptures, then there's nothing to debate about. But the problem is it often conflict with scriptures.

So what do we do as SDAs? close our eyes, don't investigate the scriptures, and bashe others in the Church that dare point these out?

And if they talk too much "in the house" then discipline them like MM recommends. And if they continue to talk too much....then kick them out of the house? Is that the way you want to deal with the problems?

Steward, thank you. So true.

Elle, yes, the biblical course of action is discipline. Paul was to the point - "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." People who study the 28FB and then conclude one or more of them is unbiblical should do the decent thing and find somewhere else to be a church member - especially people who reject the SOP.

Rather, it is you who should "go the whole way and emasculate [yourself]!" (Gal. 5:12) You burden the GOOD NEWS of salvation with your 28FB, whereas, as Paul says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (verse 14)

And that is enough.

///

Let's see what Paul says next:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galations 5:19-21

"Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness,(that almost sounds like one of God's Ten Commandments)? "Thou shalt not commit adultery". "Envyings", (sounds like another Commandment)? "Thou shalt not covet". "witchcraft" (sounds like another Commandment)? "3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. "murders" (sounds like yet another Commandment)? "Thou shalt not kill". "And such like".

"they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

It almost sounds like Paul is suggesting that "loving your neighbor as yourself". Means obeying God by keeping His Law of Love, The Ten Commandments?

"[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Galations 5:16

It almost sounds like Paul is saying that "walking in the Spirit" will help you obey God's Law of Love, The Ten Commandments.

James Peterson, are you familiar with rule one of this forum? Did you read it when you signed up?


Membership rule #1

1 - You must either be a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or a friend of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to become a member of Maritime Advent Believers OnLine.

I see from your profile that you are not a Seventh Day Adventist and after hearing your animosity toward our Fundamental Beliefs, it is difficult to believe that you are a friend of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

We're you being dishonest when you joined this forum?

I'm wondering what your motivation is for being here?

Prodigal - surely you are familiar with the fact that most of the Adventist Pioneers could not accept the 28FB and MM would not allow them to be members because of this, right?

This is not about a moral Decalogue, but about SDA endeavouring to throw a denominational wet blanket, i.e. its 28FB, over the conscience of its members and have it so sealed. Your mind is sacred, and no one should ever tell you what you ought to believe or not believe, with the intent of policing your heart.

OR are you in league with the Popes of the Dark Ages?

///

Luke 4:16-30, and for good measure Mat. 21:33-46

///

James Peterson wrote;

"This is not about a moral Decalogue, but about SDA endeavouring to throw a denominational wet blanket, i.e. its 28FB, over the conscience of its members and have it so sealed. Your mind is sacred, and no one should ever tell you what you ought to believe or not believe, with the intent of policing your heart."

Galatians 5:19-21 is a short enough passage to read, and it directly mentions adultery and idolatry which are directly covered in the Ten Commandments. So, I believe ProdigalOne's post made sense Biblically.

James, the 28FB are biblical. Each one of them is sound doctrine. It is the official beliefs of the SDA Church. They are verified in the Spirit of prophecy - the writings of Ellen White.

As I said, THIS THREAD "is not about a moral Decalogue, but about SDA endeavouring to throw a denominational wet blanket, i.e. its 28FB, over the conscience of its members and have it so sealed. Your mind is sacred, and no one should ever tell you what you ought to believe or not believe, with the intent of policing your heart."

///

Nevertheless, that does not give you the Divine right to police the mind of others. Do you long for the dark ages? Does your heart quicken at the thought of a Spanish Inquisition? Is your mouth salivating before pictures of torture instruments?

///

Your own quote says you are talking about "the entire law".

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (verse 14)


In any case it is interesting, I just read through the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. They all seem to agree with God's Word. They are all summed up nicely in the first statement:

Holy Scriptures FB- #1

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

All of the remaining 27 agree with Scripture. They are merely clarifications of what is clearly stated in the Bible, in much the same way as Paul clarifies God's Word in Galations 5:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

He could have just said: "Obey the Ten Commandments, but knowing the hearts of human beings and the wiles of Satan, he spelled it out for them, so there could be no misunderstandings.

As for being in "league with the Popes?" I don't think our leaders are going to put anyone to death for leaving the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

In fact the Fundamental Beliefs are a method of assuring that someone who does not believe the teachings of the Bible does not join a church in which he or she would not find spiritual unity.

Is it really Fundamental Beliefs in general to which you object? Perhaps it is just the SDA Fundamental Beliefs you have a problem with?

You have no objection to number one, I'm sure. I mean would you really want to join a church that does not believe:
"The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God..."

I wonder which of the 28 you don't like?

Are you here to free us unfortunate Seventh Day Adventists, who choose to acknowledge and accept the power and grace of the Spirit of the Living God: He who gives us the strength to live righteous, obedient, lives as He has promised?

If you directed me to Luke 4:16-30, because you believe: "The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon" you, (Luke 4:18), why then do you manifest such a different "spirit"?  

You suggest Mountain Man should "castrate" himself!  
You suggest that I am "in league with the Popes of the Dark Ages?"!  (a rather hefty insult to direct at a Seventh Day Adventist, as I assume you know)
You suggest that Mountain Man: "longs for the dark ages", that his "heart quickens at the thought of a Spanish Inquisition", that his "mouth salivates before pictures of torture instruments"

Mountain Man and I do not agree on every interpretation of every Scripture, but I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt that he possesses a remarkable love for God and cherishes freedom, especially religious freedom!

James Peterson, your personal, ad hominem, attacks, seem designed to humiliate and provoke to anger.  If this is what you believe to be "the Spirit of the Lord" (Luke 4:18), then I humbly and prayerfully beg that you read the rest of Paul's words in Galatians, 5:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Galatians 5:22-23


"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."

Luke 6:43-45

The SDA Church will never torture its members or leaders. Everyone is free to believe as they wish. They are not, however, free to claim to be a SDA in good and regular standing and attack its fundamental beliefs. Membership doesn't work like that. This thread is about the SOP. SDA members and leaders accept the witness and testimony of the SOP. They do not reject it.