Shut-door theology- Who came up with it and how?

Where and how did this idea form that held that as William Miller had given the final call for salvation, all who did not accept his message were lost. The door of salvation was shut, hence the term "shut door". Why did become so widespread and why wasnt it quickly seen as a man invented interpretation instead of guidance from the Holy Spirit and discarded, and do we have any 'Shut Door' or similiar false interpretations lurking about today.

Well from what I read it seems that after 1884 disapointment, some felt there was something which had to explain the delay. The understanding of the investigative judgment was given to the members when Hiram Edson felt he was given it after a night of prayer after the Great Disappointment to explain why Jesus had not come: the sanctuary needed to be cleansed and a review of the records in heaven needed to be completed before Christ would appear. Those believing in the Shut door theory did not believe it necessary or possible to reach out to the lost, who had rejected Miller's final call. Salvation was only open to those who had accepted the message of William Miller.

The groundwork for the theory came from a William Miller quote published in the December 11, 1844 Advent Herald: "We have done our work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God, in his providence has shut the door; and we can only stir one another up to be patient; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure."

Did you mean to say 1844 instead of 1884?

Look who's here! It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Richard. Out of the blue he shows up now and again.

Yes, the viruses must have affected my typing too........

Yes, and its good to be with the brothers and sisters in Christ, there are so many dark and evil corners where people have no hope, no vision, no connection to God....but as the lesson says 'Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy...think about such things'. Its good to be here........

Well, from what I remember, the basic point stands - still, but a wrong interpretation was held, once, I think.

The door leading in to the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary was closed as the door to the most holy place was opened, in 1844. This meant obviously an expanded intercessory ministry for Jesus, our great High Priest - including now the final atonement. A Gospel message limited to holy place intercessory salvation was false as incomplete from then on, drawing a clean line in the sand, for today.

A changed, expanded ministry for Christ in heaven, since 1844, renders teachers of a shortened, 'one phase and two, incorporated phases' gospel, false teachers, out of touch with the present truth of Christ's salvation for today. It's a harsh line to draw, maybe - as best as I can phrase it atm., that's the remnant message Gospel, which Adventism possesses and we should be sharing with others.

Any idea of being blocked from salvation isn't so accurate, but believing the wrong gospel for today is perhaps equally detrimental.

Colin, yes, I also believe Jesus' ministry was expanded in 1844 to include the MHP. The veil between the HP and MHP was drawn aside making, in essence, one apartment where Jesus now performs the functions of the HP and the MHP. In other words, we are still free to confess our sins, partake of the showbread, the candlestick, and the altar of incense. In reality, though, the ministry of the MHP pertains to the dead. It will not include the living until the USA forms an image to the beast and begins enforcing the mark of the beast.

...yet the living are the focal point of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, ulimately, of course!

That said, the "shut door" is thus a surviving truth, rendering, too, the sanctuary truth indispensible to Adventism and Christendom today, till the close of probation (when that truth is fulfilled).

The idea itself came from a vision, I seem to recall, of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.

He was seen to shut the entrance door of the holy place and open the door - closed till then - into the most holy place: get the message right, now, please, was the point, not limiting salvation to any more sinners who might come to believe.

Not sure how many held this limiting idea or for how long, but the original point may not be lost sight of.

The heavenly sanctuary was a reinterpretation of the initial millerite interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:10):

And who is to say with the government control coming on all aspects of our lives that it isnt set up right now.....

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:


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

As Colin said earlier, the Shut Door teaching was derived from a March 24, 1849 vision of EGW recorded in EW 42-45. In many ways it was partially fulfilled as stated because those who refused to advance in the sanctuary light following the 1844 disappointment were not able to understand the further, sanctuary-based messages, including the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath truths, all leading to the understanding of the 3 Angels Message. Most notably in all of this was William Miller.

I think was is throwing people off here is a false belief that all statements in a prophecy must be fulfilled or else the entire prophecy, namely its prior claimed fulfillments were all false. That is all rooted in a unbiblical understanding of ‘God and the Future’ which does not allow for God to begin to actually, literally fulfill a prophecy, but then halt this and postpone it or even completely reset it, if/when “non expected” circumstances occur “on the ground” (cf. Isa 5:1-7; see also this post for more on the Biblical ‘Foreplanning View of God and the Future’).

So EGW was right on track with her claimed fulfillments, (including the Shut Door), until the Advent believers morphed into a Laodicean state as cited by EGW in 1851 (see Letter #2, 1851 {7BC 966.5}). As she says, Final Events and the Second Coming could have occurred then had that generation been faithful in their Gospel duties. Indeed it is around 1851/1852 that a shift in the previous Shut Door understanding was beginning to manifest itself.

The two people who "came up with it" were George Storrs & Sam Snow. It was called "The True Midnight Cry and Shut door". As Mountain Man said - S.O.P. confirmed Storrs and Snow's schema.

Important to note that Sister White never invented any of our doctrines, others brought forth doctrines and Sister White was given the ability to define truth, where faith and morals are concerned.

Do you have a specific bibliographic reference for their findings (e.g., in the Words of Adventist Pioneers in the EGW writings CD-ROM). My search of “shut door” under the works of these two returned nothing.



Since, as pointed out and referenced earlier by Rosangela, the Millerites’ Shut Door teaching (Parable of 10 Virgins) was different from the Early Adventist’s one (Holy Place in Sanctuary) then, did this still applicable teaching not originate with EGW’s vision in 1849 (EW 42-45)?

Also, as stated here our understanding of the Third Angel’s Message revolving around the Sabbath was first revealed to EGW in a vision. Though not a “doctrine” per se, but a prophetic interpretation/understanding it is still quite close and the focal point of SDA eschatology. I personally that God revealed this understanding through in order to keep this faithful Remnant on the right course, as they had proven faithful in following the doctrine of the Seventh Day Sabbath. There is nothing Biblically illegal nor unlawful here. It may be unpopular with non-SDA Christians, but their opposing attitudes towards the Gift of Prophecy is not to determine, nor limit how God will make use of it.

It's in the October 10th issue of "Midnight Cry" ( 1844 )our brothers the Jehovah's Witnesses have much material on this time - hack. This is as much if not more part of our history as well and I for one think poorly of G.C. pretending the specifics didn't happen - it only tells me they do not understand the SOP.



William Miller initially said that Jesus would come in the spring of 1843 OR the spring of 1844 - both of those dates were called the 1st and 2nd disappointments. After spring of 1844 came and went many of the folks left Miller's movement. It was only after George Storrs and Sam Snow ( Sam being a prophet ) told Miller he was using the wrong calendar and needed to use the ancient Hebrew Lunar Calendar which calculated the great D.O.A. differently then the Gregorian calendar would. This adoption of the ancient lunar calendar gave the suffering Miller band the calculations of October 22, 1844 - the actual date of "the Day of Atonement".

The D.O.A. is the 7th month and 10th day & this is why the movement was called the "Seventh Month movement and TRUE midnight cry". SOP describes this to a "T". It's an amazing story of present truth.

Shortly after the "Great Disappointment" ( October 22, 1844 ) Miller and the majority of the Millerites left for their previous denominations & Miller and the leadership of the Advent movement actually fought against the SOP, attacking Sister White in print. Our Prophet ( Sister White ) actually gave up on the "shut door" and in fact her first vision was what breathed life back into the shut door. Unfortunately at that time the shut door only meant that salvation was forever closed to everyone who rejected the "true midnight cry" ( a period of appromimately 3 months prior to October 22 ) but this is where present truth kicks in and saves the day.








This also has to do with present truth - initially the 3rd angels message was already "in the past", SOP also confirms that but it was only true for a short time - God has power beyond anyones understanding and what was true became untrue by the method of present truth.

Below the S.O.P. describes some of these events.




Hey, an early "Happy Sabbath" to ya!

Interesting posts in that response cephalopod. Just a couple of comments/questions in regards to what you said:



How was “Sam Snow a prophet”?? That is a definite Biblical office that carries certain signs and proof of authenticity, as stated in the Bible and objectively manifest in the ministry of EGW.

I 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)?

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. Thus her “Lesser Light” was being used to guide to the “Greater Light” of the Bible. It is only true that EGW has not received a vision establishing a doctrine that cannot be also wholly proven solely from the Bible. So God was here solely facilitating the Bible studies of these early, non-scholars, for the most part. So ultimately all of our doctrines and prophetic understandings are proven from the Bible irrespective of how God first indicated them to us, i.e., through the prophetic gift.

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.

As for the quotes those are just a tiny sample of what's there.



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



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.







Our Prophet came to vindicate that which God vindicated through Michael. Michael ( God's Son ) came to vindicate God's holy law.







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.

Love your profile name. Looked it up online. Found this:

Thanks Mountain Man they are amazing creatures for sure.

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.



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.



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.



I’ll be glad to see your evidence.



[/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).



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.



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.

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.

For some examples of this see: e.g., Alden Thompson, Inspiration, (Review and Herald Publishing, 1991) pp. 290-295ff

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....

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.



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.



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.



No problem.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.)





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!





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???





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.



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.



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.



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.



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”??



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



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”.



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.



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.



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



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.

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?



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.



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?



If the following was your point;



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.



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





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



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.



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?



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".



6th paragraph, 3rd sentence NJK.



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?



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.



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



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



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



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.



Right here and in MANY other places.






Here ya go.



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.

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!

cephalopod, though my time is limited, I will reply to your comments as thoroughly as possible, though I’ll get right to the point.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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??





Guess what I still have not seen it...

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





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



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.)



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?



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.



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.



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



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




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.





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.





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.



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.

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)

Once a text or series of texts has been interpreted to mean something specicially it can't later be reinterpreted to mean something that causes a mutation of the original interpretation - so that it could be said "truth mutates". Truth is absolute so if I were to call my beliefs a creed this would be at the top of my theological list.



Official Church teachings ALWAYS start exactly the way you just described above and if not put down they naturally become official belief.



I will do my best to make it so you don't feel that way. I want to meet the issues full speed and take the strongest part of the issue into the ring.



I've considered the point you make about "the fall of man" & long ago became at peace with it. The Bible, in no uncertain terms claims that there was "no possibility" of failure in Christ - as in absolutely zero chance of failure. The eternal Son of God was a sure bet if ever there was one YET Sister White took great pains to provide us with the real truth of the matter - who knows what's happened to the Bible over the last 2000 years - we have a Prohet who actually witnessed the actual events just like she was there!

Example:

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you" Isaiah 35:4

If that was God talking He is saying He would come AND save us.

"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people" Luke 2:29

That indicates the Son was selected for this "before" the creation of the world, or, as Scripture puts it certainly prior to "people". There are MANY other such texts which affirm the same thing in that salvation was never a matter of "if" it was only a matter of "when". God would come and God would save.

As we both know Sister White told a different story - She was actually there while Moses "was not". How many times do you read where Moses said "I was shown" or "God shew me"? Moses talked with God for sure but as to the fine details or "specifics" in and around these huge events it was Sister White who was actually seeing it as it happened. Imagine the power of that!

So,in answer to your question if I've read the material you have suggested I have not yet looked it over. I will read it however I'm thinking it is a methodology which helps people deal with the ultimate goal accepting "truth mutates" so what was explicit in the past isn't truth today. What I consider to be a heretical view of "present truth".

Would you agree that Sister White, in no uncertain words REBUKED the Christians at the time of 1844 for ONLY pointing to the Bible where it said "no man knows the day"?



It is most evident that there were church leaders in and around that time who had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming but ONLY objected to the "definite time".

What does the Bible say about that:

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7


"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" Matthew 25:13

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". Mark 13:32

If that isn't enough Jesus' parables go even past that in warning about definite time YET Sister White was clear that 1844 was a test and those individuals who rebuked Scripture in favor of Sam Snow and George Storrs passed the great test while the bold ministers who were thumping the Bibe as the reason for not joining the 7th month movement and shut door FAILED the test. Given that the Sanctuary Truth would not be revealed to Sister White for over 13 years past October 1844 we should be able to be frank on exactly where the Bible stands in relation to Sister White.

There were scores of people who died of old age and other reasons between the time they accepted the 7th month movement and the initial release of the Sanctuary Truth revealed in the Day Star Extra and those people didn't have a clue about the Sanctuary or 'The Personality of God' they rejected the Bible and were SAVED! The Bible said "no man knows" and the 7th Month movement said "WE KNOW". There was no other teaching offered at that time aside from "repent, Jesus is coming on a specific date" & here is our proof He is coming!

I've often thought WOULD I have had the courage to essentially urinate on the Bible and go directly against it and join the Advent Band? I shudder to think but knowing what I now know it would be a greater sin to burn Sister White's Testimonies then it would be to burn the so called Bible. Think about it for a minute the Bible held untold masses back from joining the 7th Month movement because of what IT ( the Bible ) explicitly said about people not being able to know the time.

This should be all the demonstration needed to convince a person who holds the Adventist faith that the Bible is worthless without a true guide to draw out the salvation issues. We have just that - a real Prophet raised up to illuminate the Truths hidden away in the Bible like a 100 ton juice press - if it mattered at all Sister White, by God's power, pressed it out and those who savor the nector have a sure road map to the promised land!



Yes, "Distinctive Doctrines" such as The Sabbath, The Sanctuary Truth, The Health Message and ALL the Testimonies.



That I believe in verbal inspiration would be a gross understatement: "I was shown", "said my guide", "said my accompanying angel","when a voice said to me", "one of authority said to me". Dude!!!

We are watching the great apostasy take place right in front of our eyes with making the Testimonies of none-effect - smooth large words which help people deal with the ongoing disaster of Q.O.D. and playing footsie with people who called us a cult until we drank the wine of Babylon directly from the cup our Church ripped out of their hand!



The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching from the start is that Theologically the Kingdom had come - it was started actually before Jesus was put on the cross. Ours is a unique position.



Truth NEVER mutates from a lie and vise-versa. Truth can develop and truth can be more fully understood but saying such and such happened then claiming it didn't happen is not truth. I see no problem with Scripture whereas it does agree with Sister White.



They were sealed, they had passed God's test by accepting the 7th Month movement - there was no other teaching around at that time they could accept or reject other than that. They rejected what the Bible said about definte time and accepted Storrs and Snow. Something happened and Jesus didn't come so after a time more 'tests' were added. This is how I understand "present truth".



Click this link and go to page 9, right side "man created in God's image" - it says right there that Adam LOOKED LIKE GOD in BODY. I can duplicate the same thing over and over again from the inception of the Advent publications up to about 15 years after Sister White went to sleep.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19031008-V80-40__B.pdf#view=fit



"But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet"

and what Jesus said directly after that

"This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

Sister White Prepares the way before Christ's 2nd Coming, the meaning can be nothing else.

I will start a thread about the Personality of God and how the Pioneers and Sister White understood the Sanctuary and "why" the Son came - I think you will shocked!

Hello cephalopod, here are the answers to your comments:

(By the way, I do not subscribe to the popular posturing of many of those I have discussions with of, effectively, “still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees”. So if a comment/response I had previously made is not answered back by a countering argument, I take it that no answer could be provided, hence I made my Biblical point. So in that sense I take it that e.g., you now accept that Paul was a prophet, among others proven corrections.

Perhaps you are one of those people who think that admitting an error will wholly discredit them or weaken their other positions. I instead only see this as a sign of prideful stubborn, which does not encourage discussion from me.

I also prefer a thoughtful and documented answer, than a quick one, so do not feel that merely providing a rapid response will help convince me of the validity of your view. Just a few heads up. [I do not usually make them.])




Indeed that is the textbook definition of “having a creed”. I can only wish you good luck with this view because early SDA’s and even EGW repeatedly “mutated” their interpretations of many texts. Truth is absolute only when it has been concretely, “absolutely established.” By the way, if you are a ‘KJV only person’ then you are exegetically-speaking, according to my summary observation, working from a translation that is 35%-40% [“inaccurate”]. The translators of the NASB have done a much better job of providing more original languages faithful (= “truthful”) translation of many texts which the ca. 1600 translators of the KJV, factually just did not scholarly know to do.



That is an overgeneralizing, gross overstatement. Official Church teaching can start from Religious departments such as mainly, the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews. I think the GC has done a most definite and decided job of “putting down” this false teaching of Theistic Evolution during the past World Church Session!

It would be interesting to hear what teachings you apparently ‘know’ to have so slyly found its way to the Official Position in the SDA Church??





I appreciate your effort, however having first read through your replies here, you just naturally do so again. Perhaps this is causally simply because the “proof” that you rely on for your views are themselves non-exegetical and thus naturally tangential and peripheral to the issues at hand. That’s just a proven/provable exegetical fact.



My point and the issue at hand is not simply that there was indeed was a possibility for Christ to fail, which indeed also explains this ‘hesitancy, doubt, perplexity, trouble and repeated pleading’ when it came time to make this redemption plan, (and that, quite significantly, only after Adam and Eve had fallen), but that (a) that plan was not thought of before and (b) the Godhead did not, as many people Theologically, unbiblically assume, know as an incontrovertible fact, from the ceaseless ages of Eternity, that Jesus would certainly triumph. Thus there should be no need for these converse emotions. Knowing what I Biblically now know about ‘God and the Future,’ that the future is not “known” but “planned” by God, I therefore see this passage for what it straightforwardly is: namely that the Fall of Adam and Eve, though always known by God as a possibility, still was not known as a certain fact. Similarly, while God the Father knew that Jesus could triumph in the only redemption plan that would work (i.e., the atoning death of God, the Lawgiver), that was never a certainty until it would come to pass. Hence this crisis when it came time to establish that plan.



To me EGW just related this vision just as God showed it to her. No “pains” or ‘extra effort’ on her part involved here. However, she never fully understood the Biblical teaching on God and the Future, as God allowed her to, in order to, as with the October 22, 1844 error, test the faith of those, and also current Adventists, to see how they would behave with a belief that ‘God certainly knows the future.’ However instead of them and those today acting in full faith under this “certainty” knowledge, they have instead acted in the utmost rebellion.



Not surprisingly, given the completely unbiblical understanding of the SOP, you shoot yourself in the foot here, because, according to your view, if the Bible was so corrupted and unreliable, then EGW for sure would have known about this. She therefore would not have been so reverentially supportive of it and its superior authority over her writings. You are, not coincidentally here, pulling a Joseph Smith, where his visions and writings are supposed to replace the “corrupted Bible”! Warning: That is the completely wrong spirit!

That SOP “Fall of man” vision should have served as a guide to SDAs in the seemingly ambivalent Theological debate on the Foreknowledge of God.



It really does not make a difference either way if that is God speaking directly or through the prophet Isaiah. As the Bible teaches that is could “declaring” in advance what He had planned to do. That is not synonymous with “knowing for a certainty what will happen in the future”. Instead it will come to pass if conditions are met, i.e., Jesus remains sinlessly faithful. In other cases God can always step in to sovereign make something happen even if conditions fail on earth with man, if He so chooses to, however in this case of the redemption of man, the sinless perfection and perseverance of Christ to the very end no matter what the obstacles (see the gruelling episode in the Garden of Gethsemane, also as related in DA), this was an all or nothing shot. Hence the great hesitancy to agree with this plan back in heaven at the fall of man. No only would man be lost eternally, but so would God the Son!



Come on do you really think/believe that “before” in (actually) Luke 2:31 has a temporal meaning here. The Greek word is prosopon (Strong’s #4383) which literally means “the face/eyes”. So the Greek phrase kata prosopon is rightly translated as “in the presence of” (cf. NASB, NRSV, also NIV “sight”). Even the KJV/NKJV are colloquially not in error here. It is your forced temporal meaning that is. So absolutely no notion of “before the creation of the world” but just that ‘Simeon had seen the promised salvation of God which He had now, finally made manifest in the presence of all of the peoples then living in the world.’



I would like to see your top 10 here. The salvation of man is spoken as a certain, most probable plan, but not a definitely foreknown result. The possibility of it failing was always most genuinely there. There was no play acting involved in this at all on the Father’s or Jesus’s sides.



Having a vision of a past event is not “being there”. As EGW says:

Moses Wrote Book of Job.–“The long years amid desert solitudes were not lost. Not only was Moses gaining a preparation for the great work before him, but during this time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the book of Genesis and also the book of Job, which would be read with the deepest interest by the people of God until the close of time (ST Feb. 19, 1880). {3BC 1140.3} Cf. PP 251.1)

In regards to “seeing” future events, both Moses (on Mount Nebo) and EGW had such vision. However, given the Theological truth on “God Foreplanning the Future,’ both were actually only shown most vivid representational views and not the actual future. This is clearly seen in the related visions of EGW where in many instances, things and people that she definitely saw, did not take place. Thus they only were possibilities, i.e., what could happen (if faithful) and not a definite view of a future event.

So Moses received the same type of past and future visions as EGW did and you do not find those “I was shown type of statements, as this was a given with him.” He did not feel a need to so “justify” his revelations, especially in those days were this was readily acceptable, particularly with Israel, whereas EGW living in the skeptical days of the 1800 A.D. had to do so. EGW`s visions, for pointedly here, the early Patriarchs and Prophets material, merely complimented the ones that Moses had had.

Also the fact that EGW only uses those “I was shown” type of statements sparingly shows that not everything she wrote came directly through a vision, revelation or impression from God and/or the Holy Spirit. In fact her early writings such as Spiritual Gifts, Spirit of Prophecy contain many of these “I was shown” statements, which do not later appear in her “finalized” productions of these works in e.g., the Conflict of the Ages series, shows that only in certain instances were her statements, mainly extra-biblical ones, supernaturally, directly revealed and not everything that she wrote around such revelations while composing her full books.

So self-evident this attempt to now make EGW greater than Moses is also completely unbiblical and also outrightly heretical.



Thompson’s examples just shows that EGW views also changed as her scholarly and/or revelation understanding advanced. Her truth improved as she came to, even scholarly and theologically, know more. It actually does not involve the notion of present truth, but more starkly, prior inaccurate understandings.



The problem here, that EGW rebukes as hypocrisy was that these ministers were ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ because they used the Bible caution against claiming to know the “day and hour” to also ignore the signs of the time and also the evidence for the year from their interpretation of the 2300 days. So really, these just did not want Jesus to come, and were making dismissively all-inclusive excuses here.



God was looking at the hearts here and saw the base reasons for rejecting this message. So it really was not whether or not preaching definite time was right or wrong. More than anything else we are all judged/held responsible for what we know to be true and how we are faithful to this known truth not necessarily on whether or not it is actually a full/accurate truth. E.g, the unreached pagan who know that certain things are right while others are not.



EGW had a vision showing that there was a temple/sanctuary in heaven as early as ca. Jan 1845 (WLF 12.8) and April 3, 1847 (EW 32ff). That understanding had already been directly revealed by God to Hiram Edson the morning after Oct 22, 1844. (See Loughborough’s account, p.193)

Also, according to Edson’s account, that Sanctuary Truth was divinely revealed to him by God. So here this truth, which indeed is concretely found in the Bible, came to Adventist Believers directly via divine revelation.



No one who “rejects the Bible” will be saved. These “may be saved” since you do not know this as a fact, because they past the test based on their faithfulness to what they believed was true and Biblically acceptable. Conversely speaking, EGW indicated that God showed her that William Miller will be saved however he rejected the 7-month movement, but not the more important belief that Christ would return, and in faith set his life in order for that belief, whereas others basely preferred to continue to hang out with the scoffers. Hence the reason for their failure.



Whatever.... In your false understanding that the SOP is Superior to the Bible you are only a victim of your own Theological misunderstandings and exegetical fallacies. If you would not have wanted Jesus to come back in 1844, you, like these other ones, would have chosen to ignore the year seemingly clearly given in the 2300 day prophecy, in order to wholly reject this movement. This was not an all or nothing issue here, but a matter of genuine faith and personal desire to see Christ return.



More belief fallacies and assumptions based upon your incorrect Theological/Exegetical foundation. The converse is the truth, if the SOP does not agree with the Bible then it is worthless. God only uses the SOP to lead believers back to the truth already contained in the Bible. That was all a gift of God for a generation that were for the most part not Biblical scholars. Today this work can easily be done through the SDA seminaries, if they actually properly engaged in this great task. Nonetheless the SOP will always be available to help confirm/guide these Bible studies and not to replace or oppose them.



-The Sanctuary Truth came from God to Edson; So that leaves e.g, 26 out of 28 fundamental beliefs. The Testimonies are not fundamental doctrines but practical counsels in regards to Christian living. As such they can all be included under the fundamental belief on Sanctification and/or the Newest FB on Christian Growth.



Seriously, though no offense was taken, don’t “Dude” me. It does not affect/influence anything in this issue, especially as you are the one who is out in left field on this matter, no matter how stubbornly you want to believe this. You need to thorough study out this topic of prophetic inspiration and correct your “creed”. Your view has not Biblical, nor SOP support, but, indeed like a creed, is just what you want to believe about the SOP. Sure it makes Bible study and Prophetic Interpretation much easier instead of engaging in exegetical studies, but that is not to be the Final Authority for an SDA Believer.

Also the fact that EGW makes “I was shown statement” instead of working from a default basis that ‘she was shown everything she wrote’ is incontrovertible proof from the SOP itself against such a verbal inspiration belief. Even the things that EGW was “shown/told” only qualified as “verbal inspiration” when she recorded them word-for-word as she was “told them”. In fact, in regards to things that were merely “shown” to her, many times she says that ‘words fail me to relate what she had seen’. What happened to “verbal” inspiration there?? You are improperly overgeneralizing a corpus-wide, comparatively few “direct revelations” to mean every single word that EGW penned. Have you ever looked at the manuscript of her published works or letters?? They contain many editorial corrections both by her and or her assistants, which she approved. What happened to “verbal inspiration” here, especially when she turned over these manuscripts to these secretarial assistants to “improve” then as the need is??!



The greatest harm and apostasy will occur when the writings of EGW are thus misused and no longer lead to the Greater Light, but replace it. We are not going to convince the world by preaching the writings of EGW, but accurately teaching what the Bible says and through the contribution of the SOP God has greatly facilitated this task. However, as EGW said, it will be the Bible that will be the final authority and judge of everything.



Well the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church was completely wrong, as easily disproven by many statements of Jesus as he later fully understood that God would not be able to establish the Kingdom of God with that unfaithful generation of Israel. If by ‘our unique position’ your are meaning, a post-cross Kingdom only after the Second Coming, then that certainly still does not resolve the clear issue in Matt 10:23 that Jesus had expected the Kingdom to be established before these sent out disciples returned from their missionary efforts. Again here, stick to the actually issue at hand instead of here irrelevantly veering off!



That was not at all what I said. The unfaithfulness of Israel does not make truth a lie. The fault is with the people and not the word of God. It however forces a postponement and by necessity spiritualized fulfillment of a previous truth that was initially intended to have be literal fulfilled.



Again that is the converse of what EGW recommended. She is the one to be judged by the light of Bible.



Nothing “unforeseen” happened, God was just never intending to effectuate the Second Coming on October 22, 1844. The Millerites interpretation of Dan 8:14 was at fault here. God instead used this as a test to have a most faithful group of Believers with which to work with after the passing of that time to restore many other Biblical truths in this newly form, Apostolic Remnant Church. So while these faithful Millerites may have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, that did not include such truths as the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Sanctuary, etc, simply because they then did not know of them.



No “rejection” actually took place here, they simply continued in faith based upon the wider truth of the year 1844 revealed by the chronology of 1844. Also God had not other option but to work with the Dan 8:14 understanding error of William Miller, as he fully expected given the way He foresaw that Satan would use the Catholic Church to completely obscure the Heavenly Ministry of Christ.




No wonder why I could not find it on my EGW Complete Writing CD-ROM... Contrary to what you stated, EGW did not says this as it was S.N. Haskell who wrote this “Personality of God Article in the Review and Herald!!

Most seriously stated, though Adventist Pioneers were well-intentioned, their works are not a final authority and does contain many various Biblical deficient understanding errors. T This further highlights the need of the Prophetic gift amongst them to keep them on track, though many times, they ignored the advice of EGW and published their own views. Indeed that was a major source of conflict between EGW and various Church leaders who preferred to follow their own course. So just because an article of an SDA Pioneer appears in the Review next to an EGW article, it does not mean that she endorsed it. In fact she may never have seen that submission before it was published in the paper.

I have looked up the phrase “Personality of God” in her writings and it seems clear to me that she had a less literal understanding of this than e.g., S.N. Haskell. She seems to understand this as we also colloquially do today, as God’s Character, whereas Haskell and others wanted to have a more literal/bodily (i.e., hand, eyes, ears, etc) view of this. So I rather side with EGW’s understanding here. Notwithstanding, I still could see that a “bodily personality” could be strictly referring to Jesus/Michael God the Son, who apparently is the only member of the Godhead to have a physical, bodily form.




Preparing the way for Christ’s Advent is indeed the ultimate task that any prophet could be given, however that only makes them more than a prophet, because of the on the ground, reform work that this commission entails as seen in the work and ministry of both John and EGW. However that does not mean a superior prophet than others but only a prophet who also had another and great task in addition to being a prophet.



Frankly speaking, if your thus far manifested trend continues, only in its factual lack of exegetical soundness. which by then would not be a shock. Proper exegesis will result in the taking into full account and consideration all points on an issue, rather than selectively considering and presenting only those that are favorable to your view. So if you really want to shock me then do this!

NJK, I'll answer your post in the order I feel has the best chance of helping you see where I'm coming from. As per your request I will take more time in my answers.



"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, "PROMISED" before the world began". Titus 1:2
That's #1 - and it states God promised eternal life before the world began.

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:8
That's #2 - The Lamb slain is Christ because He was ALWAYS the Christ - See #1.

"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame". Zeph 3:5
that's #3 - God does not "fail" in His "purposes".

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". Isa 35:4That's point #4 - which says the same thing as #3.

"Who verily was foreordained "before" the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you". 1 Peter 1:20
That's #5 - which says the same thing #1 & #2

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins". Matt 1:21
That's #6 - Which repeats #1 through #5, "he SHALL save"

"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people". Luke 2:29
That's #7 - Simeon was told by the Holy Ghost he would not die until he witnessed "THE" Christ - Simeon said he had seen THE CHRIST and it was Baby Jesus.

The word "Christ" itself means: Victor, Healer, annointed one, deliverer.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" Hebrews 13:8
That's #8 - if Jesus is God - God does not fail and He certainly does not participate in "iniquity". See #3.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death". James 1:13
That's #9 - A man is ONLY tempted when the lust within him draws him toward the sin being offered, PERIOD.

Examples:

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof". Romans 6:12

If you are NOT into beastiality then someone who tempts you to engage in beastiality can be said to have "tempted you" YET at the same time you, within yourself were NOT TEMPTED because that particular sin was NOT a part of YOUR "lust" - A MAN IS ONLY TEMPTED WHEN HE IS DRAWN AWAY OF "HIS OWN LUST" - then when that "lust" ( described as baby in the womb ) comes out i.e. CONCEIVES it brings forth the internal sin and when it's completed it brings death. This is why Jesus said to look at a woman with lust was the same thing as SIN.

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man". Mark 7:21

If a person has ANY of those things within his or her heart and is "tempted" to participate in sin they will deny themself the pleasure of sin and resist the temptation that is pulling them toward "their own lust" OR they will simply COMPLETE THEIR OWN INTERNAL SIN so that it gives birth.

The following is HOW you, I and everyone else walking around today were born.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me". Psalm 51:5

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one". Job 14:4

The above is a huge difference from what the Bible said about Jesus, no?

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". Luke 1:35

This brings us to point #10 & I would urge you to pay close attention to it.

"Jesus said unto her, I AM THE RESSURRECTION, AND THE LIFE: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25

Jesus said prior to his death that he WAS THE RESURRECTION and THE LIFE...
...The Sister of Lazarus said Jesus was "THE CHRIST.
...Siemon who held the baby Jesus said Jesus was THE CHRIST.
...The Bible says many times that Jesus was ALWAYS the Christ before the world was created.
...The Bible says God would come and SAVE His people.

Like I said it was only a matter of WHEN God's Christ would come....
...It was NEVER & I mean never a matter of IF Christ could "pull it off".

Do me a favor NJK, read the above over so it's fresh in your mind then watch as Sister White reveals the truth about the above tampered with Scriptures.








http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST19330124-V60-04__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=5




http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/STAUS/STAUS19050911-V20-37__B.pdf#search=%22 god risked %22&view=fit

You caught that right? God "RISKED EVERYTHING" & "Had CHRIST failed in the obedience that the holy law of heaven demanded". And you thought I was just messing around and not really looking into these matters.



If you would like to see more I have a whole slew of them. I honestly think I've found most of them but will continue to look. I would very much appreciate your "exegesis" on the Bible verses I've offered and how they could be incorporated into what Light Sister White has given to us in this area.

The Bible seems very explicit that Christ was the Christ LONG prior to the Incarnation and given what the name Christ means it seems outlandish to suggest that Christ could have sinned and fallen when it was Christ himself ( prior to his death on the Cross ) who said of himself "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND I AM THE LIFE".

Now, you don't think the Bible has been tampered with at all when it says the Holy Spirit told a man who held Jesus as a Baby that he was in reality "LOOKING AT SALVATION ITSELF" when God's final Prophet, Sister White tells you in black and white that "Christ" could have sinned and fallen and the Pioneers in keeping with Sister White generated statements over and over again, such as God "RISKED" everything and had "Christ" failed God would have had to forfit the worlds to Lucifer for his plunder!



The KJV is essentially the DR Bible. I have nearly every version and I use them all. I'm NOT by any means KJV only. I've taken care to get as original EGW Testimonies as I can afford. My GC has Jesus with wings on the cover. The new EGW writings have been edited and altered greatly. Satan was working against Michael in the SDA Church as he always has worked against God's people so I only accept the truth that has "developed" and rightly reject mutations where a teaching is later said to be a mistake subjequent to the death of God's holy Prohet.



We will see about that, we will also see how they treat the Prophet in the near future but I'll not hold my breath on that.



You've missed my whole point - and that is the Bible is only good whereas it agrees with Sister White. In the case of God "risking everything" with "Christ" and the Bible saying Christ was salvation itself prior to Jesus' death what are you going to go with here? The Bible or Sister White's infallable interpretation of the Bible - I don't know about you but as for me and my house we will follow the Lord.

Perhaps you could tell me just 'when' it was that Jesus became "The Christ"? From my only two years of education past high school it appears to me that the Bible makes the claim that the pre-Incarnate Word was ALWAYS the Christ yet that can't be because ONLY the REAL Christ could save and Sister White has told us in so uncertain terms that Christ could have sinned and fallen and had he done so the wrath of God would have been brought to bear against him. So, when, in your understanding did Sister White accept Jesus finally ( in the ultimate sense ) became the Christ, for certainly he logically couldn't be the Christ before he actually was.

was it when he died on the cross? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this but I want to know and I have looked all over for this answer.



You need to go back and read Verse 25...
...And the text says before "ALL" people.
...As in the following.









Are you starting to get what I'm getting at NJK? What 'Christ' other than the REAL Lord's Christ would Simeon have declared to be God's salvation if Simeon was REALLY under the direction of the Holy Ghost? The Bible just said God's holy Ghost told this guy he wouldn't die UNTIL he saw 'The Lord's CHRIST'

Sister White was explicit that had Christ not vindicated God's holy Law the stone would NEVER have been rolled away. Simeon said he witnessed God's salvation and Jesus had not even started to talk yet! Sister White says NO,NO,NO game NOT over yet! seriously NJK, would the Lord's Christ be anything or anyone OTHER then the REAL CHRIST. I think even you would agree that a Christ which didn't make the grade would be generally understood to be a FALSE CHRIST.



"Emmanuel which is interpreted GOD with us" which would logically bring up the question of how it could be that 'GOD' continued to exist ONLY because He met the conditions? What you just suggested is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE within the doctrine of the Trinity because Trinitarianism maintains that God is IMPECCABLE. It looks as if you might have just discovered what the Pioneers and Sister White have always said, i.e. Christ was NOT God in the ultimate sense.



Exactly what I've been saying, Moses was inspired in a LESSOR way then Sister White. Did Moses see the heavenly Jerusalem and take a tour of the Planets and universe? Did Moses get to talk to Aliens from other worlds and get to have a sit down with Enoch? Did Moses get to see the angel who led him through the desert get Vested with authority by the Self existent one and only Eternal God? Moses longed to see God's Christ and only got to see him on the other side of the grave when Michael Resurrected him.

I realize that Moses did some amazing things with the red sea and also realize the Bible says there was no greater prophet before or after - again NJK, did Moses get to fly with angels from planet to planet and speak to unfallen worlds? Sister White did all that and more. We seriously need to stop kidding ourselfs as to what kind power God vested in Sister White. This is far from childs play.



I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Oh my word - you are not attacking Sister White in reality you are attacking the Self Existent One - the one who sent Sister White, the hand inside the puppet.

I'm come back at a later time as I need to go cool off. I hope you will come to see that God's power came into Sister White and there are no errors within her. I'm sitting here with my mouth hanging open reading what you just said.

God Bless.

Hello cephalopod, I have read through your post and had planned to answer it but after having no more clearly seen your “exegetical” methodology, theology, Christology, etc, along with other view, I just cannot invest more of my time and effort in such a discussion. Your views are completely haywire. You seem to just spout things off without even listening to yourself because you repeatedly contradict yourself. Also I think I greatly understated the my previous perception that you are involved in some sort of EGW cult. If you really want to know the truth with your statements then invest more time in doing the real exegetical work. Nonetheless I will give you the following sound bite answers to some of your points.

-Your 10 verses need to be exegetically studied in order to accurately understand them. They do not contradict EGW. In fact if you have a scriptural index look up what EGW says on each of these verses. You be shocked how she fully supports them.

-Possibility is an integral part of “planning” so no contradiction between what the Bible really teaches and EGW.

-Read e.g., DA 51-58 and see how many times EGW refers to Jesus as Christ during this Dedication. In fact do this search for all of DA, nay all of her writings, even those covering the OT. To her Jesus was always “The Christ”.

-If EGW knowingly was correcting the Bible, then why did she consistently quote it verbatim. There are some examples where when she had more accurate light, she altered the reading of the Bible version she was using, as with John 20:16 (see this post). So when she didn’t that means she fully agreed with the Scriptures as it read and also had no further light on it, as advanced exegesis has since provided more accurate translations for most of these texts she quoted in her works.

-Don’t expect the SDA Church to make a cult of EGW, like you have because she told them not to.

-There is not a problem with the word “all” in Luke 2:31 but with your forced temporal understanding of “before”!

-Did EGW spend 40+ days in the immediate, physical presence of God??
-Did God speak to EGW mouth to mouth (vs. dreams or visions)??
-Did God appear to EGW in various physical manifestations??
-Was EGW resurrected from the dead??
-Was EGW ascended to Heaven??
-Did EGW meet with Jesus Christ in Person??
-Do you have any idea what Moses has been doing for the past 3500+ years in the Heavenly Realms, how many Galaxies and Unfallen Worlds He has visited??
-Etc, etc.

-What God in part did through EGW through dreams and vision, He physically and in person did with Moses, ergo, Moses is much greater than EGW!! You’ll have to correct your creed.

-Reading EGW’s own self-correcting statements and changing theological understandings in Thompson’s will be preventively good for, manifestly, your mental, physical and also Spiritual health!!

Although I do not view this whole thing as a “who is the greatest” competition, do read Numbers 12:6-8 to see how much Greater Moses was in His experience with God than EGW! As God asks in this dealing with someone who wanted to be considered as ‘just as great as Moses’ (vs. 2), let alone “greater” as you baselessly are endeavoring for EGW: “Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?" (vs. 8)”

Then it should be easy for you to exegetically show how the 10 verse I offered demonstrate what Sister White so clearly does - we both know they don't.



I have and what I've been telling you is that the Bible claims in no uncertain terms that the 'real Christ' OF God has always been the Christ - you do realize that Christ is a "title" with specific meaning, right? Well, then be so kind as to demonstrate how the view of Sister White ( that God's "Christ" could have fallen and had he God's wrath would have annihilated "Christ" with the view which is now found in the Bible which is much different. You've obviously done all this work already so why not share it with me - according to you I'm haywire and involved in an Ellen G. White cult of sorts.



Why did the anti Trinitarian Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church say Christ was the 'eternal son' & also say 'Jesus was the fullness of the godead bodily' & also say 'in Jesus was life eternal'? You claim that Bible teaches these things and so did the Pioneers of our Faith however the Pioneers interpreted those texts to mean something vasting different then the Church does today - that's not development of doctrine it's absolute mutation of doctrine and I'm fairly sure you know this.



Sister White said if we reject her testimonies we reject the one who sent her - that's pretty blunt. Sister White CONFIRMED aka determined true or false those doctrines which were brought in by the Pioneers - we have a record of what the Pioneers brought in - it's there for anyone to read.



Are you sure you want the Bible to interpret itself NJK?

"she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him" Luke 8:47

"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" Col 1:17

I could go on and on with this - the text says salvation was prepared before the face of ALL people which sounds identical in meaning to "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and identical to "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world". Show me your exegesis Sir.







How long did Sister White continue to live after her initial vision? Count the years and tally over 2000 visions directly from God - Moses or any other prophet can't even can't even hold a candle to that. There must have been a reason God gave Sister White hundreds of times the visions He gave anyone else - I have meditated on these things and the spirit has spoken.




Does it really matter if we accept the communication was DIRECTY caused by the Self Existent One? "I would be taken off in vision". "WHO" took Sister White off in vision?



Yes, the manifestations were themselves 'manifestations of God'

Daniel was guided through his vision by a “certain man, clothed in linen” (vs. 5, 6). Ellen spoke of her “guide,” and “the angel” or “angel messenger” or “young man,” who led her through her visions.

Daniel was “left alone” (vs. 8), unaware of his surroundings, in a trance-like state. Ellen was “utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her.”

Daniel was first weak, but then strengthened to stand (vs. 8, 11, 18). Ellen would often lose her strength temporarily and sit, but then later stand.

Daniel said, “neither is there breath left in me” (vs. 17). Ellen did not breathe while in visions, which lasted up to three hours!



No.



Jesus winged his way to heaven holding Sister White by the hand - she witnessed the tree of life. In your view did this require a bodily visist to be valid?








Neither of us have any idea about Moses has been doing but that's really not the point. How many visions did Moses have prior to his death?




Right! Moses was slopping down flesh meats, drinking wine and a whole host of other things he didn't have the true light on and I mean no insult to Moses here when I say the light Sister White brought to the people of God corrected the world as to what Moses should have said.

Exactly according to the stipulations of Pro. 26:4, 5 I will deservingly answer your statements (I’ll just omit the haywire parts - you can take the time and efforts to first rebundle and secure those points on your own) :

-Knowing all that is exegtically required and involved in transparently showing the precise meaning of these verse, I optionally choose not to invest more time than I already had in doing this. I instead forcus this work and effort on the writings involving my other exegetical studies. Does it really matter to you since you believe the Bible is irreparably corrupt. I.e., How can whatever I say from a corrupt book/manuscript ever be conclusively proven to be true/genuine. So live with your creedal tenet!

-Ellen White also counseled to reject her writings/testimonies if it is shown that the Bible teaches otherwise. But of course, you, also living ca. 100 years after EGW, know more about herself, her ministry and her writings than she does.

-I most certainly want to Bible to interpret itself. That is known as exegesis which you actually also do when expedient.

-ignoring your conflated understanding of “before” (temporally) and “before the presence of’ (spatially); -where is the word “before” (Greek “pro”) in the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world” i.e., either the Greek text or the English Translation. Proper exegesis places the original text above the translation.

-EGW needed to see 2000 because she saw in vision what, in major parts, Moses lived through. Also since Moses lived in the Egyptian palaced since he was weaned at 2 or 3, no doubt since then engrossed in Egyptian education and culture in addition to the special education and training to possibly be the next Pharaoh, he was not instructed in the oral stories of God since Creation, if that was actually still done among the now 400-year enslaved Israelites. And if he was, in his young age, it at best as some Uncle Arthur type of stories. So he probably God all of the books of Job and Genesis solely and entirely through visions, and probably for the most part of these 40 wilderness years. I believe it was just like with EGW.

-When God speak directly to you mouth to mouth, thus while you are fully awake, you (1) do not need to be induced into sleep or a trance, to have a dream or vision. So Moses’ superior experience cannot be compared to EGW lessor one.

-EGW got all of these visions and dreams, which mostly dealt with past Biblical and Church History, and very little with the Future, not because she was superior to any other prophet, but because, given her lief time period of the 1800 A.D. she had more History to be made aware of. Number of visions does not mean superiority and this is not a competition.

Visions and dreams vs. the real life and mouth to mouth experience do not compare. It’s like being at the General Conference Session or watching it on TV or the Internet. God is clear as to what is the superior experience in Num 12:6-8.

Visions are not the physical reality of going to heaven in person to stay with God. Moses was also instructed to build the Sanctuary according to what He had then seen and probably visited while in Heaven.

According to God in Num 12:6-8 Daniel prophetic experience, which was indeed comparable to EGW, was inferior to what Moses experienced. Furthermore unlike EGW and Daniel, I do not recall Moses saying he was confused about what God had “straightforwardly” told him. (Num 12:7)

A reliable SDA source, David Asscherick by name, stated in a sermon that in DA, EGW said that God sent Michael to resurrect Moses shortly after His death because He suddenly missed Moses. Obviously God did not so “miss” EGW.

All of EGW experiences were non-physical, I.e. no matter how enrapturing the revelations were, she did not get an inch off the ground. There’s nothing not to get here, unless you just can’t allow yourself to get it.
-Moses 3500+ year experience is indeed the point since you wanted to claim that seeing planets in a vision made EGW superior to Moses. God raised Moses so he can also have such experiences in person and real life.

-Quality is more significant than quantity. Would you prefer to have 100 conventional cruise missile in your arsenal or one suit nuke. In a similar way, God’s unknown direct revelations to Moses, probably to frequent to be limited to the time of sleep or visions, singelhandedly established God’s Israel through eternal principles as seen in the Book of Genesis-Deutoronomy. EGW literally had to do, for the most part, a work of getting up to speed on what Moses had said and experienced.

-EGW ate meat for a long time after she became a prophet (i.e., as late as 1896), even after her 1863 health reform vision, and that even unclean meats. Look it up, e.g., through the internet which will lead you to her own statements!

-What “whole host of other (unbiblical) things did Moses knowingly do???

-Where do you think EGW got her dietary reform principles, e.g., clean vs. unclean meats???

Again I have repugnantly engaged in this work of prophetic comparison solely to dispute your EGW Cultism and not because I think it is worthwhile nor important.

By your selective responses here and thus knowing omissions, I see you have nothing to say for these other questions/comments. E.g., Have you ever seen the amount of post typing editing and correction in an EGW manuscript. Someone was verbally-deficient, if not in error, in the past!!

And don’t be fooled by the relative length of this response, it is many time much less taxing and time-consuming to me to make such non-deep and off the cuff responses than exegetical ones. Your obliviously stubborn, unbiblical and contra-SOP stance, to say the least here, is not worth such a “costly” investment from me. As right as you obviously are convinced you are, you sound more and more unreal to me with your increasingly wild, spurious bombastic statements!

So in case you are sincerely honest cephalopod:

EGW herself categorically refutes the claim that she was verbally inspired (1 SM 24-26) For more see George Knight, Reading Ellen White pp. 104-112 (Ch. 17).

As with the trinity her statement in that area was not meant to be taken in the ultimate sense of the word.



Sister White and Christ were ONE like the Father and Christ were ONE. To reject Sister White is the same thing as rejecting the Lord.

Cephalopod, I think the weight of evidence speaks for itself here. When EGW was questioned point blankly about the degree of her inspiration, she made it clear that it certainly was not verbal. I go by her words vs. your “creedal” and quasi-fanatical post-fact assumptions.

Just a Jesus clearly made this Oneness statement Himself in John 10:30; 17:21; I’ll need to see a similar explicit statement from EGW herself instead of, again here, going by your “creedal” and quasi-fanatical, post-fact assumptions.

Seems clear to me that, on this fundamental issue, you’ve chosen to go down the “dishonest” path...

Back to the original topic at hand, seems to me that the Shut Door view involving the Sanctuary apartments and its doors, (distinct from the Midnight Cry view) was directly given to EGW by God Himself (EW 42-45 - March 24, 1849), as a sort of a head start for the Bible studies and research that would concretely and transparently establish it. (The same occurred with the understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary with Hiram Edson on Oct. 23, 1844 and the Sabbath=Seal of God implication in the Third Angel’s Message in 1846 (LS 95, 96))

Sister White's writings are "insider books" and I don't mean that in a Gnostic sense.



This is what our Prophet said, it reflects perfectly the Pioneer position as well.



The reality of the situation is that the Pioneers brought forward doctrines ( some false and some true ) and it was WHEN those teachings were being vetted out that THE POWER of God came upon Sister White and "SHE" was given the ability to DEFINE truth from error from those teachings. Without Sister White we would have been no different then the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians or the World Wide Church of God (7th day). They didn't have an "Infallible" rock which was ONE with the Rock upon which was built the Church.

What’s with the "cephalopodic" hoodwinking switch???? You’re not fooling me. I was asking you to substantiate your “Sister White and Christ were ONE” claim with SOP quotes.

God use of the prophetic gift to help resolve Bible Study “impasses” among early Adventist was for expedient reasons. Show me where that occurs again in e.g., the formal SDA Church era (i.e., 1863) which had many interpretational differences and disagreement. The only thing I can recall was around the 1888 Jones-Waggoner and Righteousness by Faith debate.

Hang on NJK, I'll do it for you ( or should I say Sister White will do it ). I'll just point you in the right direction. I'm busy with a job related issue but I will get to it - I just have to go through my file box and pull them.

Ok, I'm fairly certain you are already familiar with them however I'm happy to point them out again.



Personality = that God has a "body" with arms, legs, etc and is "ONE PERSON" - Christ being made in the image of the Father also had a "body" ( prior to being born of mary ). Sister White has just said Christ was ONE with his disciples in the same way that he was ONE with "God".

Now, the question then becomes was Sister White ONE with Christ to a greater degree then the disciples were ONE with Christ. The answer of course is a resounding YES.



You claim "thought inspiration" ONLY for Sister White when both she and the Pioneers knew it was BOTH.



Jesus said His words were "eternal" and according to Sister White ( better said according to "God" )God's messages sent through her was also eternal.





Let's compare what happens to those who reject the Apostolic Authority with those who reject the Testimonies Sister White gave.







The power we are talking about here is the same keeping power as when God traced out the Ten Commandments and a rejection of the prophetic power of Sister White is no different then Korah rebelling against God. Many think it was Moses Korah rebelled against not understanding Moses was God's sock puppet EXACTLY as Sister White was God's sock puppet.

Sister White is also clear that there was NEVER a time previous to "HER" that God more earnestly warned His people.



Compare that with the Bible.






Go back to the first quote - the one where it said Christ was ONE with his disciples in the same way that God and Christ were "ONE" ( Remembering "personality" = real body )and realize that Sister White was ONE with Christ in a greater sense than the apostles. That's exactly what she said.

Brother Loughborough walked and talked with Sister White and wrote a great deal about her. Here are a few of them I've taken out of the Review and Hearld, November 5, 1914.







The article goes on to demonstrate how Ellen was exactly like the ancient prophets and exactly like the Apostles of Christ.

cephalopod, I honestly appreciate your detailed and documented attempt to substantiate your view of EGW, (which does not necessarily mean I agree with your conclusion or the methodology used to arrive at it. To me it is both too subjective, selective and loosely linked - thus eisogetical), however that is all both a discussion that is really off topic to the pertinent issue at hand and thus also an issue that I cannot afford to invest time in. (Perhaps someone else will follow up on this here, or in another thread.) You can believe what you would like about EGW. Either way, the distinct and independent question of this topic still need to be addressed and towards this pertinent end, I repost below my priorly resuming post:

“It seems to me that the Shut Door view involving the Sanctuary apartments and its doors, (distinct from the Midnight Cry view) was directly given to EGW by God Himself (EW 42-45 - March 24, 1849), as a sort of a head start for the Bible studies and research that would concretely and transparently establish it. (The same occurred with the understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary with Hiram Edson on Oct. 23, 1844 and the Sabbath=Seal of God implication in the Third Angel’s Message in 1846 (LS 95, 96)).

NJK, only it wasn't my idea that led to it, it was the Pioneers and given Sister White never corrected them on it and her texts can be read to support those same Pioneers the simple way to understand this appears to be the right way.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6434097767490329654#

Just reading about the many disagreement EGW had with those pioneers and Church leaders, even to the point where she often felt slighted, ignored, rejected and alone ([I cannot presently relocate a statement where she lamentably makes this pointedly clear), I do not see that the Pioneers (nor EGW for that matter) felt that her writings were the final and authoritative word. Case in point the ignored counsels and warnings before the fires at the Review and Herald Publishing House and Battle Creek Sanitarium. So I would not based my view of EGW’s Inspiration on what others may even have claimed about her because that is clearly and naturally open to private opinions.

(I’ll be watching the video. Thanks).

Any comment for my question/comment on the pointed topic at hand here?

Those were more business disagreements then anything else except for Kellogg's Trinity problem. I'll dig up the Pioneer teaching on your question and compare it with Sister White.

Seems to me that, as you state, they believe EGW was verbally inspired, authoritative, inerrant and infallible, that they would heed all of her “Testimonies”, even in regards to business decision because; “God would have directly spoken to them,” and that for Denominational Institutions and in regards for the work of the Church. Also there were several sharp Bible interpretation, understandings and view differences between EGW and the Pioneers, various Authors, Preachers and Church Leaders. So this all shows to me that they did not have the view you have claimed.

Yes, and those "adventists" who rejected Sister White's confirmation on Doctrine were classified as being 'apostate'. The publications went so far to state as Sister White goes so goes the 3rd angels message, Sanctuary & Sabbath Truth. Sister White "confirmed" all of those to include the "Personality of God".




There has always been and will always be what you described in every church - I'm speaking of "the main body" as in the head controls the body and the human head of our Faith is absolutely Sister White. Are you talking about "Holy Flesh movement" and things like that or do you have evidence that Sister White held views apart from the main body whereas the Landmarks or Pillars of the faith are concerned? I would be interested to see anything you can point me toward.

Question: What do you understand as being different between Sister White's confirmation of the shut door (Midnight Cry) in December of 44 and her vision EW 42-45 in 1849?

Not to belabour the actually off-topic point of the Views of Inspiration of EGW but, although I do not have the exact quotes, but the record of EGW disagreement with various writers and leaders for and in the Main Church, to the point where she was “banished” to Australia for a while, are amply copious.

As already stated, the Shut-Door View before the 1849 vision was the “door” to the “Midnight Cry” wedding hall in the Parable of the 10 Virgins, while the Shut-Door View after that 1849 vision referred to the Sanctuary apartment doors as she saw in that vision.

This White Estate article may be helpful in this Discussion of these two different “Shut Doors”. (See also this Appendix (H) in “Messenger of the Lord”.

The other two parts of my point showing that two other key SDA teachings expediently came directly from God through a revelation are also important to this understanding of the SOP’s role.

Ahhh, the Midnight Cry / Shut door was ONLY that...
...It didn't mean anything other than that.
...The marriage was a mechanism subsequent to 1844 used to justify why the 2nd Coming hadn't yet taken place.

I do not understand your answer here.
You seem to be slighting, even dismissing, EGW “confirmation” vision of the Midgnight Cry Shut Door view, as you yourself had just upheld.

Could you most straightly restate and elaborate your answer here.

The "True Midnight Cry / Shut door" promulgated by George Storrs and Sam Snow ONLY meant...
...That the period of time from the Campmeeting to 22 October 1844 ( approx 3 months ) was the "cry".
...& that the world MUST repent and accept this teaching OR BE LOST.
...That was it - there was NO other teaching.

I'm saying Sister White explicitly affirmed Storrs and Snow's message via the Power of God...
...I thought we covered this initially w/ the mechanism of present truth.

Remember when I was saying that Sister White trumps the Bible? Well, the Bible is very clear...
...That man could not know the hour, the day or even season of the Lord's Coming.
...Sister White formally admitted that the ONLY problem many people had who didn't join the 7th Month movement.
...Was the Bible texts which said man could not know the day or hour.

Now, knowing that AT THAT TIME there was NO other message within the 7th month movement / shut door...
...Other than repent because Jesus is coming.
...People had a choice to make.

A) The 7th month movement as presented by Incarnation of Elijah & Storrs.

OR

B) The Bible says no man knows so this must be false teaching.

Sister White was loud and clear that the people who didn't join the movement and used the Bible as the reason...
...Failed the test of God - which was accepting Incarnation of Elijah.

I'm looking at the time hack between the Spring of 1843 through 22 October 1844....
And as Sister White says in no uncertain terms: those who followed the Bible failed the test.
I thought we covered this already.

I fully support Sister Whites Visions???

Now I see again how we had gotten on this actually irrelevant sidetrack in regards to the actual and pertinent topic/issue/question at hand. So here is the question point blank: To you, are EGW two Shut Door visions name the 1844 Midnight Cry one and the 1849 Sanctuary the same? Please try to stay focused and, literally, “on track” in your response. The issue is not at all whether the previous Midnight Cry movement and Shut Door Teaching was of God/True or not.

To me, they clearly are not and that is why I say that the Sanctuary Shut Door Message came directly from God to EGW, whereas the first was indeed brought forth by other people and later confirmed by EGW’s vision.

Yes, they are both equally valid and absolutely accurate. They were both equally from "God".

Again, for some reason, you are actually not at all answering the pointed and pertinent questions/issues/topic at hand:

1) Where the two shut door identifications one and the same? “Equally valid” implies that they indeed were distinct understandings and contradicts your previous “Yes” answer for this question.

2) Was not the second (and distinct) Shut-Door identification directly from God, in that, in relation to this topic, it was not other people who first came up with it from the Bible and then this was supernaturally confirmed by a vision., but that God Himself explicitly first told/indicated to them this teaching/understanding, as he had pivotally and crucially done with Edson for the Heavenly Sanctuary and then EGW for the Sabbath = Seal of God prophetic understanding in the Third Angel’s Message?

For those people alive who heard the messages they were identical in that they were required to follow the Testimonies of God's holy Prophet.

At the time of the first vision Sister White "had given up" on the shut door and midnight cry - she believed it to have been a fasle message.

Remember, Miller's message of 1843/44 was ONLY to repent because Jesus was coming. When Spring 1844 came and went Storrs and Incarnation of Elijah were able to convince Miller and a large number of Advent followers that Miller was RIGHT in the event but wrong in the time - due to a calendation issue.

Therefore Incarnation of Elijah's "message" was IDENTICAL to Miller's message with the ONLY difference being the timing.

Sister White participated in the sorrows of Spring 1843 and Spring 1844 coming and going with no Jesus THEN also participates in the Great Sorrow with Jesus not coming on 22 October 1844.

It's important that you take note of this - that there was NO OTHER MESSAGE beside 1) REPENT -- because 2) Jesus was Coming in Spring 1843/44 THEN finally 22 October 44.

This was the state of things when a little girl became God's Mighty Sock puppet. It was then the hand of God operated the husk which was Sister White.

Without any further information people were in their right mind by 'giving up' after all Sister White had 'given up' on the shut door. The Bible itself said loudly and clearly that "no man knows the season, day or hour" - and like others Sister White also felt safe in this false Bible security - at least she did until God got her attention.

The first vision was specifically used to show Sister White she was in grave danger in giving up the Shut door and Midnight cry - she accepted what God had said and under Inspiration of God's holy Spirit taught that God was "testing" His people by seeing if they would put the words of the Bible OVER His own Prophet!

That was it - that was the TOTAL of the message. i.e. the people who rejected the Millerite and Incarnation of Elijah's shut door and midnight cry because the Bible said "no man could know the day or hour" FAILED the test and the people who rejected the Bibe in favor of God's prophet ( at that time Incarnation of Elihah ) passed - this is a most majestic teaching and allows a peace that money can't buy!

Ellen was only a little girl of few years - she was terrified to tell her 1st vision to Sam Snow because she thought he would be like most of the others who had rejected the shut door as error.

I'm here to tell you that the Shut door was NOT error and the people who sided with the Bible will realize this on the last day. God's sock Puppets have the authority to bind and loose and when Ellen made the prophecy known what she had bound on earth became bound in heaven - later when it was realized that God's people had not attained a "perfect character without spot or stain" the door had to be opened again Ellen "loosed what was bound" - or better said God did it through Sister White.

The people who initially rejected Incarnation of Elijah's October 22, 1844 message were toast and pointing to the Bible as it what it said about date setting did them no good at all. Sister White was SHOWN by God Himself that they were LOST. This is the point I made previously- the Bible is as worthless as a heap of fish wrap without a "necessary guide" to interpret when certain parts of it are in or out of force, or perhaps tampered with. It's as simple as that.

I've quoted Sister White's FULL and untampered Vision from 1849 on the shut door which included the Sabbath. In both the first message and the last the shut door was equally in effect and because the people who appealed to the Bible for rejecting Incarnation of Elijah were already done for - the time for their Salvation was PAST and since they were out of the way God continued to TEST His people - this time on the issue of His Holy Sabbath. I've taken care to highlight the part that boldly says that rejecting God's sock puppet is not a crime against the sock puppet - it's a crime against God Himself.

Interesting rehash of all of what you have said before, but, as before, that does not make either relevant or pertinent to the issue at hand. Moreover you claim to know more about EGW prophetic gift that she ever stated or knew. Anyone can see that the 1844 Midnight Shut Door and the 1849 Sanctuary Shut Door were distinct messages. And the spiritual reason is: The first was given for, and applied to, the pre-1844 group of people. For them the “door” in that message was shut. The 1849 message applied to people who later rejected the sanctuary message. The first was for the First angel’s message and the second was for the Second Angel. So here God had two flock triaging messages. And guess what... there is now another “door” for the 3rd Angel’s message involving prophetic and spiritual implications in Rev 3:7, 8ff; 20 & Rev 4:1, but that is a topic for another discussion. (You would do yourself a great favor if you would understand the human reality that is involved in God working through a human instead of adhering to this unbiblical “Sock Puppet” idea.)

But back to the real issue at hand. Again... the 1849 Sanctuary Shut Door message can directly from God. As did the Heavenly Sanctuary hinting Knowledge with Hiram Edson and the 1847 Sabbath = Seal of God understanding. So if you can focusely deal with this issue, even though they go against what you want to “superimposedly” believe about the SOP, address those clear historical facts.

NJK, other then "repent, Jesus is coming in Sping of 1843/44" & "repent, Jesus is coming on October 22, 1844" - What other message do you know of that was promulgated?

If the above was the ONLY message that was presented ( and it certainly was ) AND it went directly against what was in the Bible that specifically dealt with that topic AND we are told that the people who rejected the Millerite and Incarnation of Elijah's message FAILED God's test then how do you see it?

An individual can't test a teaching that does not exist, they can only test teachings that exist and we are clearly told the people "at that time" who rejected the definite time ONLY did so because of what the Bible said about setting dates - again, there was no other teaching the message was ONLY Repent, Jesus is coming in Spring of 43/44 then for sure in October 44. The little flock of which Sister White writes was saved because they rejected the Bible.

Then, when time passed and many people gave up on the Shut Door midnight cry ( t0 include Sister White ) it was God's provided Vision to Sister White that re-confirmed the shut door midnight cry.


Imagine yourself there, take the period from 1841 to 1845 and tell me what the ONLY message of this movement was "at that time" - What would you have done NJK?

What I've said is most relevant and pertinent to the issue at hand and instead of sticking to the original deposit of the Advent faith our church has made a huge departure from it - watered down what Sister White has said to the Church and pretended like she needed to be studied no different then the Bible - what a Joke! prophets came to talk to people in their own language and time and that's why - so there would be no question whatsoever at all.

you want to convince me? Show me what "other message" was presented by Miller, Incarnation of Elijah and Storrs then show how THAT ONE and ONLY message passed the Bible test and how it could be that the people who accepted that message "passed God's test" while the people who said they agreed with preaching the Second Coming and living a holy life but were against saying exactly "WHEN" Jesus would come FAILED GOD'S TEST.

If you understand that simple basic element of this issue what I've been saying will become very clear to you - it will make perfect sense and then you will know what you have to do.

The Door was shut in BOTH visions, for Pete's sake an angel tells Sister White the people who could have been saved by re-affirming the shut door message were lost because they rejected God in the person of Ellen White - did you not read that vision and see the bolded parts? The Sabbath was simply an additional test to weed out the none hackers.

The first test was gave to see if man would accept God or what is currently in the Bible - those who went with the Bible were done for.

The second testing was to establish the metal of those who rejected the Bible and to see if they would walk in God's law or not - very similar to another group of people we read about who left Egypt.

What other "prophet" can you point me toward who said if you rejected them then they rejected "God"?


All the visions of Sister White came directly from God - God and Jesus are who "sends the angels".

cephalopod, I think we’ve been down this road before. I did not agree with the angle for your rationale then and still do not because it is unbiblically spiritually limited by your overzealous EGW bias, especially in this ‘discrediting of the Bible for her views,’ something which she never recommended. So I have no problem at all with the SOP, but with your selectively unbalanced view of it.

As I said before, and as clearly stated by the SOP, the people who failed the Midnight Cry test, failed not because they wanted to believe the Bible, because God clearly saw that this was only a pretext. They did not love Christ soon appearing. So they were “shut out” under this first angel’s message test - God’s Judgement Hour. This door was the door to the Sanctuary/Temple Courtyard where the sacrificial offering, representing Christ’s death was offered. It thus applied to every Christian. And those who were shut out were left out in the camp, with no opportunity of this sin pardoning salvation. That is why they were lost.

The Second Shut Door shut out post October 22, 1844 people who truly did not want to be purified from “Babylonian” teachings and practises with God’s Sanctuary message and ministry. For them, they were left out in the courtyard and the door of the first apartment shut them out of the Holy Place. So they never came to understand restored truths such as the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Sanctuary, etc. This is clearly seen in the many surviving “Adventist” groups still existing today in various denominational forms, e.g., Jehovah Witnesses, Churches of God, Christadelphians, Advent Christian Church (George Storrs’s Church), etc.

The Third Shut Door, as I mentioned before, involves the Most Holy Place Separating Door. And those who refuse to understand God’s Full Sabbath teachings of not only observing the correct day in the correct way, but as Isa 58 teaching, meeting the vital needs of all those in need, and that thoroughly (Matt 25:31-46), and that by preferring to remain in the current lukewarm Laodicean state by refusing to heed Christ’s voice and accepts His prescribed remedy (Rev 3:17-20) will likewise be “shut out” of this distinct sanctifying apartment in God’s Sanctuary complex, which unlocks the full and practical beauty of God’s Ten Commandments and Everlasting Covenant. As such ones left in the dark, they will not see realize nor enjoy the many blessings that were first given through EGW under the Philadelphia Church message. (The Laodicean Church is really an unwanted aberration of God’s expectation for His Church. Philadelphia has always been its ideal.) So for them, that Davidic open door, which indeed fulfills all of God’s Triumphant promises in regards to Israel through Davidic-type victory and leadership, (Rev 3:7ff) will only be an unopenable “shut door”. And the Great, now Eschatological “Triumphant” future that God has for His Church. However for those who refuse this Laodicean remedying message, they will not partake of these “things to come, which are beyond this eschatological “opened door” (Rev 4:1ff). In fact they’ll not even see/understand these things as this door will also be a “shut door” for them. All of these themes are further discussed throughout my blog, which you can read up on starting in this post. As stated and implied in that post from the Spirit of Prophecy, the revelation and more complete understanding of God’s truths was not to end with passing of EGW. God’s Great and still unfolding Work has and will move forward until its perfect completion.

My main point in saying this, which you seem to want to ignore, was that contrary to your previous claim that ‘all our doctrines came first from the Bible and was only then confirmed by EGW’ (which I now also do not understand, given your expressed view that the Bible is irreparably corrupt), I have shown you here 3 examples where our Biblical teachings and understandings first came directly from God through a prophetic revelation, including Edson.

Ye ere, in that ye know neither Scripture nor EGW. This is a totally RC position, one against which the Reformers of the Protestant Reformation fought. EGW herself rejects it.

I reject it outright, no discussion.

I fully second that Biblical rejection.

I'm not the one who discredited the Bible - God did when He explicitly said those who used it to test the Shut Door message and rejected it "failed" God's test. We need to be crystal clear on that.



Then logically one would assume that provided an individual loves Jesus and "really" wants him to return fully validates rejection of the Bible. That's what you just said. I've been saying the same thing.

The thing you've not grasped is that the ONLY MESSAGE at that time ( and for years past that date ) was Jesus was coming at a definite time so repent.

It would be like:

Cephalopod: Hey NJK Jesus is in Las Vegas come with me to go hang out with him!

NJK: The Bible says we are NOT to do that so I'm not going with you.

Cephalopod: The reason you are not coming is because you really don't want to see Jesus - you've sealed your fate!

It's then stated that going to see Christ in Las Vegas was a "test" and the people who didn't go to Vegas failed, not because the Bible said that it would be a false Christ but because they really didn't want to see Jesus - While the people who went to Vegas violated the clear warnings of the Bible but because they REALLY wanted to see Jesus they passed the test! Think about it, that's about as foolish as it gets. NJK, in your descriptive of the "why" you've invalidated the Bible in the same way I have - I'm just honest and up front about it.

So, the people who rejected ONLY the "definite time" part of Incarnation of Elijah's message were "shut out" because they didn't love Jesus near? You REALIZE that proves exactly the point I was making, right? That provided a real prophet speaks for God the actual message can violate the Bible like a pedophile does a child. You've just made the whole point better than I could have.



You need to review the history again. The "first vision" Sister White had in relation to the Shut Door was at the very time SHE HAD REJECTED it as error. The vision confirmed the Shut Door to Sister White and after she promulgated this holy teaching around 60 other people who had ALSO rejected the Shut door again accepted it as truth.

The ONLY thing the shut door meant was that the possibility of salvation had TERMINATED for ALL who had always rejected the shut door as well as for the people who had initially accepted the Shut Door then 'gave it up PERMANENTLY'.

The "Shut Door" ONLY meant one thing, that was all it ever meant. Sister White was CLEAR that the people who had accepted the Shut Door and Midnight Cry as promulgated by Incarnation of Elijah and had fallen asleep were SAVED - they were safe in Jesus without the Sabbath or Sanctuary.

When Sister White says "God's People" within that time hack it ONLY meant the Advent believers as the others were LOST and no possibility of salvation existed for them. As God spoke through Sister White other "tests" were applied thus God's people were culled or SIFTED out for eternal destruction. The Door was Shut in 1844 and what was sealed on earth was sealed in heaven and what Sister White loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. This is the ultimate meaning of Present Truth.






Jesus first "SHUT THE DOOR in the holy place" THAN opened the door to the M.H.P. The door to the H.P. was SHUT. Sins get to the M.H.P. via the H.P. therefore shut the door to the H.P. ONLY the sins which had already passed even make it to the M.H.P. You know this.




The early SDA Church was already Laodicean by 1850!



http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PT-AR/PT-AR-Part3-EX/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2







I'm going to have to read that several times over - it sounds nothing like what the Pioneers detailed under the direction of God's holy Prophet. I'll get back to you on this.



There is zero doubt that the Bible teaches Impeccability of Christ and also there is zero doubt that the Bible also teaches that the Apostolic Church would always be the one true Church - there is also zero doubt that the Bible teaches immortality of the soul and that the Apostles met and observed Sunday. None of these things we agree with so while the Bible does indeed lead MILLIONS upon MILLIONS to believe in these doctrines our Pioneers without any training in the ancient languages pulled a few texts and claimed they taught something else THAN Sister White affirmed that's exactly what those texts the Pioneers used taught - therefore the Bible teaches what Sister White has confirmed it to teach which I've said from the start. Edison's was so much a worthless suggestion UNTIL Sister White CONFIRMED it and that's what you will find with each and every one of our distinctive teachings.

You continue to astound me with your claims. Makes me cringe at what is at the end of your belief line. However, I cannot do this anymore cephalopod. Without the Greater Light of the Bible, rightly studied, which you need to discredit, anything can be said and claimed as you are doing. So I cannot waste my time in such vain discussions. Good Luck! You’ll need it.

I thank you for your conversation NJK, it meant a lot to me.

Eventually, when you are ready to face the fact that the people who heard William Miller and Incarnation of Elijah promulgate the True Midnight Cry and Shut Door only had THAT message to test against the Bible.

Only message being:

A) Repent now
Because
B) Jesus is coming on 22 October 1844

Perhaps you will eventually be able to imagine yourself back at that time and imagine constrasting the message from Incarnation of Elijah, George Storrs and William Miller with the Bible, UNDERSTANDING the ONLY thing people had to go off of was the ONLY message which existed at that time:



Vs.





Vs.



The fact remains that Sister White WAS given the day AND the hour. The Apostles were not given such information, Jesus wasn't given such information yet our Prophet was.



Once the reality of the above sinks in you will understand it's not logical or reasonable to offer apologetics for a teaching that didn't exist for some 13 years AFTER 22 October 1844. Attempting to reverse engineer 'WHY' and 'HOW' the True Midnight Cry and Shut Door was faithful to the Bible when it obviously wasn't makes a laughing stock out of our Church far more then just coming to terms with the fact that no greater Prophet ever walked the earth then our dear Sister White! She clearly had binding and loosing power for how else could she have directly rebuked the so called Bible AT THAT TIME ( the time long previous to Sanctuary Day Star Extra )!

If you think I've gone off the deep end just remember this conversation the next time you see a news report saying Jesus is in the desert or Jesus is in Las Vegas - why is it NOT ok for someone to say that and you go with them when it was ok for our initial message to reject the Bible just as much if not more? I've thought deeply on these things and it may shock you to find out there are many more people who see it very similar to the way I do.

There is a group of "me" in nearly every Church and we are gaining in numbers for the glory of Father and His holy Prophet.

The best of all wishes to you NJK.

This is precisely what I was increasingly cringing to ultimately hear from you:



Have you ever considered that Jesus, at the very least, came to know this day and hour upon His first one on one meeting with the Father following His ascension to heaven after and EGW came to know and made to forget this, some 1800+ years later because Jesus then told it to her. So in any way, Jesus knew this 1800+ years before EGW, and the reason why He was not fully made aware of this on while on Earth was, as I understand it, the fate of Israel had not been fully sealed, i.e., until 70 A.D., yet still more things had to first be accomplished by God’s Israel.

In your group’s “infiltration” of the SDA Church, I can only wish that you will meet with people who know their Bible and properly understand the SOP.

And in any future responses, you do not need to restate your view, I read/heard it the first time and it increasingly made no since to me, especially seeing that it must be based upon unfounded claims. So, using the SOP recommended arbitrator of Truth, the Bible, I see absolutely ‘no light of dawn’ in what you have claimed. (Isa 8:20). When you turn of this Greater Light, you actually also turn off the Lesser Light and in such a situation, I indeed can only wish you and yours “luck” as you try to wade into the spiritual darkness of this World and its multi-faceted Deceptive Age.

Quite tellingly interesting cephalopod, that in this discussion you did everything but answer the actual issue at hand!

Yes I've thought of that. And that we don't see the Apostles claiming they were told should help demonstrate exactly the level of Prophet Sister White was. She herself said she "was more then a Prophet". She was either crazy or that statement proves what many within Seventh-day Adventism have always known. My Grandfather died at the ripe old age of 100 back in the 80's and I can assure you he knew this from any angle as did the majority of his close friends.



Israel had it's fate sealed prior to the death of Christ, Judaism is the ultimate "whore of Babylon" according to the Bible - if we intend to allow the Bible to interpret itself.



It's not infiltration at all - we have always had a voice, it's just since the death of the prophet we have been pushed under the carpet in the corner - that's changing. Soon we will have mailers ready to send to literally every denomination that's considered Orthodox Christian in belief with powerful statements from the Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church bolstered by our Prophet all backed up by rock solid dates so that no one will have to wonder if it's not legit.

If I had the money I would fly down and personally hand one to John Ankerburg and hope he puts it on t.v.! Big things are happening in the world right now and the Personality of God as taught by Sister White needs to get out there while there is still time.

People need to know Christ could have lost his salvation, people need to know where the so called Bible's place really is. We have special revealed truths that no one else has, that no one else ever could have unless they accept Ellen White as God's messenger. It's time SDA's get with the program and think for a minute what Sister White meant when she said she was the lessor light.

What that means is that Ellen draws out the truth of what the Bible means in simple terms. The impeccability of Christ is only one such maggoty horror that without the lessor light correcting our thinking the Bible absolutely teaches from the first book of it to the last. Your lack of answers to my list of texts showing the Bible ( without an infallible guide ) teaches Christ could have never sinned demonstrated that to all of us loud and clear.

Page 6, last two paragraphs - Ellen White IS the final court of appeal for God's people.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19710603-V148-22__B.pdf#search=%22 when will the people of God %22&view=fit

I hope you see the light.

Still anything else but an answer to the pertinent issue of this discussion...

I really hope for your sake that your fundamental belief of yours in this view is not dependent on whether or not I chose to take the needed time to rightly address your list of texts. It just was not worthwhile to me to expend such effort to answer you, given your general stance against the testimony of scripture, not to mention that answering your claims would be like trying to disprove a non-existent negative. Not worth my time... nonetheless you are indeed free to take this in which ever way you need to.

Like I've said NJK, theologically you couldn't have got where you are at without ignoring the initial mechanism which incepted it...
...That being a categorical rejection of Scripture's authority when it's pitted against a real Prophet.

We would not even be having this discussion w/out that initial rejection of the Bible...
...How you can continue to ignore that simple fact is beyond me.
...Perhaps it's better for you to continue ignoring what every student of the time hack knows.

I already responded to that spurious argument of yours: God looked at the heart of those who rejected the Midnight Cry and saw that they were not really rejecting it because of the ‘not knowing the day or hour’ text which they were claiming but really because they did not want to see Christ return. EGW makes this clear so deal with her understanding of it. No “rejection” of the Bible took place here at all! That is only your private view which also rejects EGW’s statement, as at other “convenient” times, to uphold it. You claim to be such a staunch believer in the SOP, but what you are actually doing is selectively upholding passages that agree with your general tenure of things and ignoring the others! And that is a repeatedly, concretely demonstrated fact!

You just made my point again NJK. There was NO OTHER MESSAGE apart from repent, Jesus is coming on a specific time....
...So, according to the Bible the message itelf was a LIE.
...Did Jesus come in the Sping of 1843 or 1844? Did Jesus come on October 22 of 1844?

The message itself was a LIE if you are going by the Bible...
...How would the people hearing the message test THAT message if not by the message they were given.
...And you know exactly what the message was.

When you can show me where a group of people in the Bible openly reject God's previously established teaching and on account of their rejection are said to have "passed God's test" by rejecting the light they had already been given then I will listen to your reasoning - until then just deal with the fact that in this case I'm 100% right.

Using your logic how could you claim I'm wrong when it's been demonstrated our founding Pioneers were saved because they rejected the Bible in favor of a message, that was a total lie? Please, don't say I'm wrong because the Bible says I'm wrong - that's a total joke given you position on this issue.

Put yourself on the gound AT THAT TIME - you hear the message that you need to repent because Jesus is coming on a spefific date THAT is the ONLY message - you pass the test because you reject what the Bible says about date settings. Get it?





She indeed did make it clear - she herself made it clear there was only two parts to the message ( repent, Jesus is coming on x,y then z ). The ONLY problem the masses had with "the message" was DEFINITE TIME, Sister White said that herself.

So, do the math - a person promulgates a message and part of that message is AGAINST the Bible - the people who ACCEPTS the message fully PASSES THE TEST while the people who rejected the message and listed the Bible failed. The Bible stood in their way, deal with it.

What you seem to fail to realize is that the people who passed the test STILL REJECTED the BIBLE so it does little good to point at the hearts of the people who rejected the message because of what the Bible said.

That's like saying right is wrong and wrong is right - up is down and down is up. Despite the people who accepted the message having pure hearts they STILL REJECTED a fundamental teaching of the so called Bible.

Seriously cephalopod, your reply is, all contextual things considered, “whatever” you need it to be...

I am guided by the full beams of the Greater and Lesser Lights, so your “spinning” strobe light show is neither impressing nor deceiving me.



EGW clearly got her convict and understand of this experience solely from Scriptures as did others and furthermore, she clearly says that it was flawed but was used by God as a sifting test of professed Christian Believers then. I’ll take her words over your suppositions every time!

And what’s with the mantra like repetitions... trying to hypnotize me. It just looks to me, given that you skirt the actual issues at the pointedly issue, that you are desperately trying to convince yourself. For your own good, you might want to change this approach of yours and rather substantively and focusly deal with the issues at hand. Otherwise you just give off the impression of someone who cannot rationally function or think outside of a selectively set “creed”.

Good, I'm glad you see at least that much. Now, WHAT is your understanding...
...Of the mechanism a "professed Christian" is to use to TEST?
...What does that so called Litmus test say about knowing definite time?

The Bible I'm reading says this;





Incarnation of Elijah, Sister White, George Storrs and William Miller all were seeking after signs...
...The so called Bible is pretty plain in what it says about doing that.

Do you seriously believe IF the Bible is what the so called Churches claim it is...
...That Father, in His infinite power would be reduced to using a lie that required rejection of the Bible.
...As a means to SIFT true Christians out from false?

If a "true Christian" tests everything by the Bible and only holds fast to that which is good...
...Then a "good Christian" would have rejected difinite time.
...And according to Sister White, by default rejected the Midnight Cry.

Of course it ( "the test" ) was flawed if the Bible is what you seem convinced it is...
...I'm also glad you at least see that.
...So, The infinite God uses a lie to teach an ultimate truth.
...I'm glad we agree on things thus far.

Sister White was EXPLICIT that "definite time" would NEVER be used as a test again...
...What theological premise could you share with me as to why she said that?
...A flawed sifting test which went against the very Bible which was used to generate the message.
...Was executed by Father to sift out the false sheep.
...Who were required to urinate on the Bible to pass God's test.
...No wonder the evangelicals laugh at us.

Instead of standing on the ground we previously did by upholding our holy Prophet...
...We attempt to develop a new theology of apologetic for Sister White!
...She needs NONE, she is the Spirit of Prophecy, the very Word of God.

As the Pioneers so boldly proclaimed, the Remnant Church WILL have The Spirit of Prophecy...
...For without the S.O.P. there is NO Remnant Church.




Sister White IS the Spirit of Prophecy in as MUCH as Paul, Peter, James and John.







Satan is wroth because of Sister White.









I'm going to assume you still believe the S.O.P. was fully "manifested" in the Person of Ellen G. White, do I have that right?

So no, I have no mantra NJK I'm just willing to accept the facts that we indeed do have a mighty Prophet because the Faith of Jesus IS SISTER WHITE - unless you want to try to hose that teaching into the drain as well.

Instead of telling me that God used a mistake why don't you tell me how faithful Christians who tested EVERTHING by the so called Bible could have accepted the Incarnation of Elijah's message of definite time. And WHY, if that was not important would THAT test never again be used to sift the people of God again?

Take it as you will cephalopod, but I am not going to reply to any of your self-contradicting, non-exegetical, wild and haywire posts until you make rational, sequitur and most importantly, Biblical sense. Your call!! And don’t put word in my mouth!!

Baby steps NJK & it's your call.

Cephalopod,
I agree with NJK on his point where you are putting words in to his mouth, I have seen you do this on different topics, and it's already rubbing me the wrong way.
Manipulation is something I take very seriously and I am not really looking forward to any cliche' rhetorics, if you cant discuss something without putting words into people's mouths and twisting things, then just take the road less traveled and either say "I have no response" or just don't reply at all.
Its pretty simple, and takes a God fearing man to lead by example.
First and last warning, next I will just lock up this topic.
God Bless,
Will

Dear Rick H,

You can find this Post on page 1, #130589, dated 2 February 2011.

i have been fortunate to read this through. This Topic has been a problem in the experience of many Believers, including myself, as in the 1950's it re-emerged as Close of Probation or The Unpardonable Sin.

However Rick H's very clear exposition of the History and the logical reason for the beginning of this belief, gives me a starting point for a small search of historical sources.

i am reassured that since the 1950's (about the time of the Coronation of the present Queen Elizabeth of England) i have not heard this doctrine preached from the pulpit. And let me assure you i have never heard "Shut door" preached at all.

But as a nine year old i did hear Close of Probation and Unpardonable sin excercised in long arguments between my fore-bears. Died in the wool Believers, who joined the Church in the 1890's.

And as a bee-keeper, in the 1990's i listened to two faithful Sabbath keepers, who manufactured my bee-boxes, try to teach me from well worn copies of Ellen G White, that we were all lost, and nothing we could do to be saved. Which is an extension of the Un-Pardonable Sin argument. They fed me beautiful fresh fruit, as they were both avid Health followers of standard Church teachings, but both seemed to believe they were eternally lost. And wanted me to believe i was lost too. Can someone explain this abberration to me? Please.

As expressed in this Post i find the Introduction of this discussion factual and helpful. Giving me an opportunity of happiness that the church feels secure enough to no longer feel the need to preach it, but today allows all who come to Jesus, free opportunity to repent of our sins and find full forgiveness kneeling at Jesus feet.

Thank you for this excellent Post.

God bless,

johannes.

That's generally what happens when there is not a solid apologetic to refute the other's position...
...The topic gets locked.

I've made my case well enough and answered the question as to why the reason given for 1844 was only half the answer...
...It's no shock that many would rather pound their head into the sand on this issue.
...It makes them face their actual faith or lack thereof.
...And many simply prefer to not do that.

Thanks for the warning, I appreciate it Will.....
...Perhaps another member will show where my view is wrong.
...By dealing directly with my points.

Page 4 of this thread and post #130896 is where the discussion was actually moving...
...Anyone that can read can see what happened shortly after that.
..Those points prove what I was saying and one will either have to face their faith or realize they have someone elses faith.

Cephalopod,
We are all entitled to believe what we want to believe, and we all need to be convinced in our own mind.
THe way a message is presented also makes a difference. Personally I am not in the mood or have the time to go and explain where your view is wrong if indeed it is wrong, do you know what I mean?
Lets not take our eyes off of Christ especially in these scary times where the stage is set for the final scene.

I personally can't stand when people tell me EGW is this, and you better believe that, BUT when I read EGW's writings for example COL, I really understand things and what she was saying vs someone explaining their interpretation of what she said.
All we can do is prove all things and take that which is good.

God Bless,
Will

That's honest, thank you Will. I find it horrific at what has happened over the years since Sister White went to sleep...
...The things going on in our schools especially - this is the future of our Church we are talking about.



Satan like sports and urges his children to participate in such heathen activities....
...Sister White was given detailed instructions into this evil species.
...And goes on to say that angels disapprove of such idol worship.

Yet today most of our schools have all types of sports and stress that the kids 'join in'...
...It's this sort of stuff that makes me wonder why others can't see what's been going on.
...We have the proof in front of us - can we now pick and choose what to accept that God revealed to us via Sister White?

Hello Will,

i like to approach the Bible each day, to see if God has a message for my heart. i need an heart of flesh so God can write His commandments there. [Ezek 11:16 to end of chapter, which also includes Ezekiel being given a vision of God, to comfort the scattered Israelites of the captivity.] God has promised to be a little Sanctuary for us.

The church now has the Fundamentals, which i believe are a good basis or framework for study. i know a retired Pastor who introduces them one by one when introducing a new interest to the Truth.

Generally if someone gives me a text as a proof for some point i like to read the whole chapter, to get the sense. Personal views i think are for the person who has them. i do not have to convince anyone else. But i think it is OK to share. But i agree with you Will, it is pretty pointless insisting any-one must agree with any one Believer's view. Particularly as Holy Writ is interpreted only after reverent prayer.

Other people's views are of interest, but i need to be saved. In a sense we are in a captivity and are scattered, [as in the story of Ezekiel] for who knows we should have been in the Kingdom before this. For Jesus might have come before had we been more diligent in telling the glad news.

God bless,

johannes.

I know what you mean Cephalopod the world is upside down, and I keep thinking about 2 verses:
1: The love of many will wax cold
2: All of creation groans

We have those 2 conditions at the very minimum existing today, and I feel frightened every day at what is going on around me, but am comforted knowing these things must happen before Christ comes

I know what you mean about sports, at least taking it all the way and being hardcore about it as it is pretty much idolatry.
Playing ball with your friends is a bit different

God Bless,
Will

Hi Johannes,
Recently, well maybe not so recently but for a while now I ask God to just feed me spiritually, and that I may know more about Him cause I want to be closer to Him and share with my son His love through Jesus Christ.
I do have a couple of topics I do love to read about especially the Sanctuary Services and how it represented Jesus Christ, and the throne in heaven believe it or not. Its one of my favorite things to study when I have time.Other wise I read to my son a chapter a night from the book of John, and that is a challenge in itself as he is so eager to turn the pages hahaha



I think it's great to share cause we never know what someone may get from what was shared with them. The seed is planted and needs to take root, and it may be a while until it starts to grow.

Thats a good analogy of being scattered and in captivity, never thought of it that way, and the verse in Romans I think that mentions that what happened to the Israelites should serve as an example to us.

God Bless,
Will

Yes, and even worse then that is what we read in the so called Bible....
...I'm sure you witnessed the quotes I provided that proved the Faith of Jesus "IS" Ellen White.
...Luke says when Jesus comes will he find anyone who believes in Sister White any longer.



The faith of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy...
...And the Spirit of Prophecy is Sister White.
...Or at least that's what the Church taught while Sister was alive.

Back in Sister White's day she was describing "her students", i.e. 'our schools'...
...Young people who were going to school - playing tennis as 'exercise'.
...The violation is the actual game.

It's just since the Prophet died things have started to descend...
...Pastors within the Church are taking collections for 'The Big Game'.

http://www.goallpower.com/superbowl/


Imagine that - he has a football right on the website...
...If the angels didn't approve of cricket and tennis.
...What in all mercy of Michael do they think of the biggest hardcore game in the world????
...Our Church might as well pay for mini adds about the Sabbath on porno tapes.
...If cricket is a species of Idol would not pornographic material be another species?

Regarding the identity of the "Spirit of Prophecy," perhaps the following analogy would be a good comparison.

All ducks are birds. But not all birds are ducks.

Ellen White's writings are of the Spirit of Prophecy. But not all of the Spirit of Prophecy is Ellen White.

In fact, John the Revelator gave us a clear definition of the "Spirit of Prophecy."



So John gave us the testimony of Jesus, and the angel told him that this testimony was "the spirit of prophecy." From a strictly Biblical perspective, therefore, the book of Revelation cannot be reasonably excluded from the "Spirit of Prophecy." Nor do I suppose that other books of the Bible should be excluded either. The entire Word of God is a portion of the "Spirit of Prophecy."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Luke isn't talking about Sister White, he is quoting Jesus talking about the condition of the earth and people departing from God e.g. not believing in Christ.

Just like all the prophets Ellen White had the gift of prophecy, that same Spirit is demonstrated in the prophets of the old and new testament, it is God using them to spread the Gospel.
That is what I firmly to be the truth.

As a side note I don't need to be proselytized into the early SDA purported Adventist belief.

I know exactly where your post is going, and your intent, as I said people have a hobby horse they just can't give up, and I personally am not interested in entertaining such thoughts, life has changed and so have the times.
It's all about doing God's work and bringing people to Christ, not anyone else.
There are plenty of other forums that cater to the ye olde time of Adventism and all I got was in-reaping, not much about testifying to the world about Jesus Christ and loving your enemy and praying for those that curse you.
You and you alone are responsible for your own salvation, not anyone else, be strong in Christ.

God Bless,
Will

Luke was asking if Jesus would find faith when he comes again...
...I take that to mean will he find faith in the people.
...Our Church identified the Faith of Jesus is Sister White.
...I provided the quotes where this was taught.

When I show the quotes in context pulled directly from our archives...
...It's not purported Adventist belief, it WAS Adventist belief.

If the sports of tennis and cricket existed in Isiahs' and Daniel's time hack...
...And they each spoke out against those things as a species of idol worship.
...Would not their teaching be an 'eternal teaching'?
...Or because we cherish those sports could we justify playing them?

I realize I'm a laughing stock to many people but the teachings of Sister White are either of authority...
...Or they are subject to an individuals interpretation and can be accepted or rejected.
...I wouldn't be shocked if the SDA church in the future dumps the Sanctuary and I.J.
...After that the Sabbath will fall.

May God Bless you Will...
...Through His Son Michael the archangel.
...Our mutable christ.

Will.

i looked for the Throne of God by concordance at first, then it seemed to locate itself in various passages, and surprise me! In

a way it reminds me of Air Force One, the armoured Boeing 747 used by the US Presidents; as it is fully mobile, and built for flight upon four mighty Cherubim.

You express an interest in the heavenly throne, Will? Does it appear again in the passage, where we need our stony hearts taken away? Is it a tiny window into Ezekiel? which i find a hard book. i will re-read through your Post, and look for thoughts and attitudes you have left there for me. You were so kind to Reply.

God bless,

johannes.

Will,

Basically scripture, as you say Will, is a form of daily bread. My thought is the blessing only comes after reverent Prayer. The intention of prayer is to first seek, in my view, to ascertain the direction of God's Way, to ask to meet needs of interest to Him ...

You mention an interest in the throne in heaven, Will? At first i looked for it by concordance, but now it seems to pop up just around the corner, as if God is happy to be near us. The passage where we have stony hearts, might be another occurrence? If so it might give me a window into Ezekiel, which i find a hard book.

The Sanctuary Service, another of your beloved topics, speaks to me of Forgiveness. Of which we need much. And my unique Dad, basked in the book written by John, which you are apparently interacting with your son.. John was perhaps the youngest, most emotionally vulnerable Disciple. So i have much to ponder on in your very kind Post, Will.

God bless,

johannes.

I do not see that Rick H’s explanation really answered the issue here, namely Spiritually/Prophetically given the fact that God later confirmed in a vision that there had been a form of a “Shut Door” in EGW first vision. I have posted an 8-page study on this Shut Door issue on my blog which further examines this Divine approval issue and also why God later showed that there were not only one more, but two shut Doors (i.e., in the Sanctuary) (See here). This study expands what had been first advanced in this previous discussion post.