Adventist Online

For Adventists in these last days just before the close of probation we need the Spirit of Prophecy, what about those Adventists that reject Ellen White? Will they be included in the remnant? Will they recieve the seal of God or the mark of the beast?

2Ch 20:20 Believe in the LORD your God, so shall you be established; believe his prophets, so shall you prosper.

There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.-- Letter 40, 1890. {1SM 48.4}

Where do you stand?

Views: 624

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No.

This is not the point of the thread.

You asked for people to give you honest answers, ANCF did exactly that and I am not going to condemn him for it. Neither am I going to participate in warfare against other SDAs just because they don't phrase their beliefs in the same way that I do. I have approached this thread consistently trying to answer what I have assumed are genuine questions (questions that I think are important questions) and to do that I have had to cut through a tremendous amount of dross. I am certainly not going to start getting sidetracked now.

If that is what you were expecting/wanting then I am glad that I disappoint you. I have stated my position on this and it is not the same as ANCF's as I have clearly laid it out.

As SDAs we should be able to discuss this in a mature way. We *all* subscribe to the FBs of this church and therefore we *all* accept EGWs writings as being inspired by God. What is under discussion should not be whether we accept her writings as being inspired but what place we afford her writings in the grand scheme of things.

By my answers I have shown where I stand. No-one has attacked me for my position and I don't expect anyone to. After all we are seeking opinions rather than concensus of truth or weight of numbers to force a position, right?

As far as attacks on you... what does that have to do with this thread? Just because others have abused you does that meean that I have to? If you want me to I can tell you exactly what is wrong with claiming to be a member of (and therefore representing) any organisation whose beliefs you do not subscribe to but as far as I am aware that is not the purpose of this thread.

There are too many in here that see these discussions as competitions to be won or lost. I prefer to use the opportunity to speak with others of diverse beliefs within the SDA church to gain knowledge and challenge my own position.
Michael Corbel said, That's fine. Just make sure that premise applies equally to both Charles and ACNF alike. That's all I am saying.

Michael, I don't have an intention, as I wrote above, it isn't the purpose of this thread. However, if I were to I would not tailor-make it to apply to any specific individual. Neither would I address it in any other than a general fashion. It would be my opinion on the concept of belonging to a church whose beliefs you do not subscribe to, not my judgement on fellow-believers. Whomsoever it would apply to would be up to each individual's conscience.
JohnB, we believe the course of action you describe above is perfectly in tune with
Christ's example. Christ's example is what we try to follow here at Adventist Online.

"But there was one of the Twelve to whom, until very near the close of His work, Christ spoke no word of direct reproof. ... Jesus, seeing that to antagonize was but to harden, refrained from direct conflict. The narrowing selfishness of Judas' life, Christ sought to heal through contact with His own self-sacrificing love. In His teaching He unfolded principles that struck at the root of the disciple's self-centered ambitions. Lesson after lesson was thus given, and many a time Judas realized that his character had been portrayed, and his sin pointed out; but he would not yield."
Education, p. 91, 92 -Ellen G. White
I gets better and better as we move the goal post wider and wider, John B did you read my quote "Further no one was asking you to condemn ANCF as a person, but if you think that the sentiment is wrong you have a duty to condemn it as a seeker of truth." The forum regulation allows for views to condemned etc etc etc but not the person, deal with the post and not the poster. I have shared many opinions on the forum and at various times you came attempted to correct my views according to the knowlege that yu have. You ave even call me to reassess my conduct when you thought I was not being Christ like.

Whenever Michael and Myself make a statement that is persceived to be out of harmony with SDA beliefs our statements are scrutinised and attempts are promptly made to show us the errors of our ways. Bible verses are thrown at us SOP are thrown at us to bring us back on track. Now since ANCF made a statement that flies in the face of SDA teachings, I would have thought that the defenders of truth brigade would have seen fit to explain that as a church the SDA's do not believe EGW to be on par with the bible. But it was not forthcoming and that was surprising. To that end I believe that my sentiments that SDA's behind close doors do believe that EGW writings to be on par with the bible.

In all the rounds of questions I have asked regarding the relationship between Bible and SOP and the apparent contradictions and confusion. It is quite apparent that the only way the contradiction/ confusion to be eradicated is infact if EGW and the bible is indeed on apr and equal.

So I will repeat I did not ask anyone to condemn ANCF my post stated "ANCF made his statement and no one has condemned his statement even though it goes against published SDA sentiments".

So deal with the issues and stop trying to wriggle out the issues by trying to comment on what I did not say.

As for me being disappointed with John B, (LOL) actually means laugh out loud.
Charliebwoyo said, I gets better and better as we move the goal post wider and wider, John B did you read my quote "Further no one was asking you to condemn ANCF as a person, but if you think that the sentiment is wrong you have a duty to condemn it as a seeker of truth." The forum regulation allows for views to condemned etc etc etc but not the person, deal with the post and not the poster. I have shared many opinions on the forum and at various times you came attempted to correct my views according to the knowlege that yu have. You ave even call me to reassess my conduct when you thought I was not being Christ like.

(i) I have no idea what you mean about moving the goalposts wider. I don't see how the basis for discussion has changed in any way.

(ii) This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with forum rules on my part.

(iii) The SDA church has always allowed diversity of thought and belief within certain parameters, as laid down in the fundamental beliefs.

(iv) I approached this thread with the intention of sharing and learning. I don't subscribe to this adversarial form of discussion which others seem to delight in.

(v) I am upset by some of the attitudes shown here in regard to those who take an opposing view. Statements like "the defenders of truth brigade" are belittling, demeaning and add nothing to the subject under discussion other than to set oneself up in a superior and adversarial position.

(vi) ANCF said very clearly, "The SDA church has its official position on EGW writings, but I have my own position." That is his personal opinion and he has made that very clear. He is not saying that all SDAs do believe this, should believe or even that a percentage of SDAs believe this. He is stating a personal view. I felt that there was no need for me to personally condemn his view. He is just as capable as anyone else of reading what I have written and he can easily see that I put forward a different position. There is no need for me to be confrontational with him over his view.

(vii) Charliebwoyo said, So deal with the issues and stop trying to wriggle out the issues by trying to comment on what I did not say. Speaking personally, I believe I have been trying to deal with the issues. I don't see how accusing anyone of trying to "wriggle out of the issues" is really going to further your cause. As you have not responded to my posts when I have dealt with the issues I can only conclude that you have not seen them or that you have no comment to make.

I will repeat again, I came to this thread to learn. To be honest I am struggling hard to learn anything from these posts as it has become one-sided. IIRC you and Michael, for example, have not laid out exactly what you believe in regard to this question. There has been challenge, denial and even ridicule of the positions taken. But I have not seen alternatives explained or explored. I did not come into this post to have a fight with anyone and everyone who disagrees with my view. I came to understand what others think and believe on this subject and by so doing my own beliefs are tested.

I read, and understood the "LOL" at the end of your post. In context all it said to me was that you were laughing at being disapppointed with me. In no way did it serve to change the sentiment that you had expressed.
I throw my hands up in despair. I was being sarcastic when | said John I am disappointed hence the LOL. Also the issue is not what I believe or what my thoughts are on the topic. The issue is a statement/question was made/ ask "Is rejecting EGW the same as rejecting the Holy Spirit. That question is an open and close question either Yes or No. So naturally there are going to be two sides to the debate. The initial poster seem to indicate that it is the case that to reject EGW meant to reject the Holy Spirit. And so we set about ascertaining the role of EGW. Most argued that she was indeed a prophet of God, with the same inspiration as the biblical prophets. Others agreed with FB18 that her writings are authoritative for the believer. I noticed however that the official SDA stance on EGW DO not equate her writings to the bible. I then asked the questio how can she have all the qualities of the biblical prophets but her writings not be on par/equal to the bible. All sorts of arguments/ quotes were cited none really answered the question. Folks talked abou she was prophets, others said she was messenger but no one could clearly state why her writings were not equalled to the bible or on par.

I concluded a long time ago that contrary to the official SDA stance most SDA's secretly believe her writings to be on par with the bible but were just not brave enough to state it openly.

ANCF the stated his opinion publicly, going against the official stance of the church and no one said a thing. However whe others like myself state our personal opinions people are on us like a tin of bricks. (Ps I am not trying to be a vicrtim) just showing you tha it's one rule for Peter and another for Paul.
How can you say that nobody said anything about ACNF's belief? Plenty of people said they disagreed with it.

I think that this is just a typical debate. I haven't seen any evidence of anyone actually learning anything, just ruthlessly fighting for their ideas.
Charliebwoyo, sarcasm whilst not just being "the lowest form of wit" is also a very hard concept to convey using the written word unless one is adept at it. It is best to avoid it as it is so often not understood unless it is very clearly flagged as being such.

You state that none have answered your questions. I dispute that. In particular I have answered your question and pointed to the answer on two occasions in case you had missed it. I have also pointed you to EGW's own testimony in regard to being a messenger rather than a prophet. If I were to judge by appearances it would seem that you have studiously ignored any responses which do not give the answer that you want. You appear to confirm this by stating, "I concluded a long time ago that contrary to the official SDA stance most SDA's secretly believe her writings to be on par with the bible but were just not brave enough to state it openly."

If that is so, that you have already come to your conclusion a long time before entering in to this discussion, then I understand your responses within this thread. Your use of select phrases, for example, refering to those you see in opposition to yourself as "coming out of the woodworks (sic)" is not only insulting but in normal use would be calculated to offend and confirm your purpose as being to fight over the issues rather than engage in enlightening debate.

I prefer to think that others, like myself, come into a discussion like this with an opinion but that the opinion is liable to change as the discussion progresses. If one's mind is closed to any other alternative conclusions than that which the mind has already reached then I don't see what point there is to any discussion.

Once again, I ask you to read my recent posts on this topic and the reference that I gave you to where EGW herself describes her role. In particular, you asked me personally to answer questions from you. I have done this and, as there has been no response from you, I assume that you have no problem with what I have written. Yet you insist on claiming that no-one has answered your questions.
I was led to listen to this presentation by Ivor Myers today. It answered a lot of questions I also had Re: Ellen G White.http://www.thefinalgeneration.org/index.cfm/media/sermon/Ellen%20Wh...

I Was BLESSED.
JohnB is right on the money. Since Charlie in my view expressed unmitigated disbelief in the Lord's prophet/messenger, I entertain no doubts you miss his input.

Are we on a search for truth, or a mission to attack and cause confusion?
I agree with you MIchael. Good Advice. But the key here Mr. Billiter ... is your words "in my view". Does this entire forum have to operate under YOUR view? Can't we have views "other" than your's. This is the issue here. Charlie was chased out because he didn't met "your view" and the view of an isolated few here. But those 'few' carried a big stick. That is for sure. I want to hear dissenting voices. I want them here. I don't want them silenced and kicked out just because they 'view' things differently.
You call it confusion when ideas other than your's are presented. I call it insight. And I want to weigh all the insight I can get against God's word. I take God's word as my guide ... not your ideas and not Charlie's.
No matter what ... Truth WILL stand TALL. No matter how many you drive out of here.
I suppose you would have kicked out James White:

"Let the gifts have their proper place in the church. God has never set them in the very front and commanded us to look to them to lead us in the path of truth, and the way to heaven." James White in the RH Feb. 25 1886

"The Bible is the perfect and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice." " True visions are given to lead us to God and to His written word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God and should be rejected." James White in the RH Oct. 16 1855

"There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors made the view of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. It may be duty to notice these persons on account of the part they are acting. which is calculated to deceive some.

What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been "The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty" Then why should these men charge the Review with being a supporter of Mrs. White's views?" Jame White in the RH Oct. 16 1855

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service