The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[Pickle]

Check out the baptismal vows. The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. Sola scriptura.

The authority of the gift of prophecy amongst us is based on what Scripture plainly says.

If Adventists ever jettison the authority of the spirit of prophecy, they will by so doing be negating the vow that says that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian, since they will be denying one of the plain teachings of Scripture. Adventists will then no longer be holding to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

[Voktar of Zargon]

Pickle said:
Adventists don't practice this, and don't believe it. What is sola scritura? The bible and the bible only. That is not what we do. We do the bible and Ellen White. Self-deception what a marvelous thing...

Of course Adventists often don't practice the truths they preach. Because we often don't practice what we preach, does that mean we don't believe it? No. Does that mean we throw out the truth? God forbid. Does that mean that we stop striving for it? God forbid. Sola Scriptura was bequethed to us by the Protestants. Did they fully understand or practice it? No. The main reason they are in a fallen condition is because they abandoned striving for the principle.
Actually we should be going the Protestants one further and practicing Sola-Tota Scriptura. The whole Bible, and the whole Bible only.
"God will have a people on earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms."

[Clay]

Check out the baptismal vows. The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. Sola scriptura.

The authority of the gift of prophecy amongst us is based on what Scripture plainly says.

If Adventists ever jettison the authority of the spirit of prophecy, they will by so doing be negating the vow that says that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian, since they will be denying one of the plain teachings of Scripture. Adventists will then no longer be holding to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

They are not holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura now Pickle. Not in practice. You may say it but it is not true. Adventists use as their authority the bible and Ellen White, and not necessarily in that order. Likewise as SE pointed out we also throw in a good measure of tradition. What you are doing Pickle is similar to what the Mormons do when they come to study with you. They say they believe in the bible, but the first thing you know they are trying to get you to open the Book of Mormon.

BTW the spirit of prophecy is NOT EGW.

[Clay]

Of course Adventists often don't practice the truths they preach. Because we often don't practice what we preach, does that mean we don't believe it? No. Does that mean we throw out the truth? God forbid. Does that mean that we stop striving for it? God forbid. Sola Scriptura was bequethed to us by the Protestants. Did they fully understand or practice it? No. The main reason they are in a fallen condition is because they abandoned striving for the principle.
Actually we should be going the Protestants one further and practicing Sola-Tota Scriptura. The whole Bible, and the whole Bible only.
"God will have a people on earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms."

true VofZ. What we do is the bible, egw, tradition, and throw in some of "the pastor said" or "on 3abn they said....."

[Shepherdswife]

Check out the baptismal vows. The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. Sola scriptura.

Again, Bob, I think the two of you are using the same words but talking about different things. You are talking the official beliefs of the church. The others are talking about how it is actually practiced in the pew--by some, not all. But by far too many.

My first 20-some years, I would tell you that I believed sola scriptura, but when I read the Bible, I then always turned to EGW to see what the Bible meant--to give me permission to believe what I thought the Bible said. If the passage was confusing, I didn't study it out, I hit the red books. If I wanted to know more about the story than the Bible told, I pulled out the S of P. There was a greater light/lesser light mentality, and the Bible sure wasn't the greater one... And once "inspiration" had spoken, there was nothing more to be said--on any topic.

I am not proud of the way it was, and I am not "throwing out" EGW now. But my Bible has more wear marks than my EGW books now. Actually, I use the EGW CDROM now--great search capabilities! And sadly enough, I use it most often to look something up for a member who won't believe it unless she says it.

I had a member call me years ago and ask if EGW said it was ok to cook your veggies. They were being told by some nutburger (sorry--people who think like that really bug me!) that if you didn't eat all raw, you didn't deserve the name Christian. And she wanted to know what EGW had to say.

Now think about it, I told her. They didn't have modern refrigeration and storage or modern trucking back then. How would they have gotten a supply of fresh food all year round like we have? Cabbages, potatoes, onions, apples, carrots--from a root cellar. But would God have required them to eat only raw or be lost? I couldn't believe she was serious! But that is the mentality. Don't use your God-given brain--just find out what EGW says, then we are safe.

Same woman came looking for proof that mixed race marriages were wrong when her brother was dating someone not of his race. My husband told her what EGW said, but also the historical background. Also told her that if they asked him to marry them, (which they hadn't and didn't) that he would hesitate, but it had nothing to do with race, but with other family factors. What did she hear and take back and spread? That EGW said it was wrong. So my husband was labeled as racist and some people quit coming to church over it. What a mess! (Oh, and I hope I learned not to be the EGW guru--if someone comes to me, I will encourage them to study it out for themselves)

So you can see, this issue is personal for me. Again, as I stated in another section, I think that those who are raised SDA--especially conservative SDA--get a different slant drummed into them than those who convert. Also, there are still little rural family churches out there that reflect the above philosophy more than the larger churches.

shepherdswife

This post has been edited by Shepherdswife: Jul 7 2007, 06:48 AM

[Brick Step]

It would be wrong to forget the facts, wisdom, restraint and kindly sentiments expressed here. I'm recalling the “blotting out” of the memory of many years of good works that were done by Linda and others at 3ABN, and I am remembering this quote:

“Love, courtesy, self-sacrifice,—these are never lost. When God’s chosen ones are changed from mortality to immortality, their words and deeds of goodness will be made manifest, and will be preserved through the eternal ages. No act of unselfish service, however small or simple, is ever lost. Through the merits of Christ’s imputed righteousness, the fragrance of such words and deeds is forever preserved.” Manuscript 161, 1897. Emphasis supplied.

What Jesus says in the parable of the sheep and the goats bears out this thought. When He comes and we are changed from a mortal state to an immortal one, our physical body and sinful nature will go, to be replaced by a glorified body and nature. Memory of our sins will also be blotted out. A big halleluliah for all of that!

But our character will go unchanged into eternity, and that character, inescapably, is associated with memories of good deeds. This is the essential “me.” “I know you,” Jesus will say, “I was sick and you visited me. I was hungry and you brought me food. I was in prison, and you came to me. I was abused and falsely accused, and you pled my cause. I was forgotten, and you remembered me.” I believe Christ will speak of works specific to each person. It will be how He affirms each person’s identity. The “sheep” will themselves have forgotten about their good deeds, not seeing in them anything worth remembering. But Jesus brings them to memory, showing that He treasures each remembrance as though the deed were done in love for Him personally.

God in love forgives all things, blots out all memory of sins for which repentance has been made, but NEVER blots out the memory of deeds prompted by the Holy Spirit and done in simple faith in and love for Jesus. To blot out the memory of a person’s good deeds along with his or her bad deeds, is to blot out that person, totally. Only God can determine that a person has committed the unpardonable sin and passed the point of no return.

“Love, courtesy, self-sacrifice,--these are never lost.” That thought as well as the one that the memory of my sins is blotted out, is part of what makes me want to fall on my face in worship of my Saviour, and determine to treasure forever all that He has done and is doing for me, often through the lives and witness of other persons right here on earth, and sometimes in surprising places.

Sorry if this is off topic. I’m just in reflective mood.

[LaurenceD]

Adventists use as their authority the bible and Ellen White, and not necessarily in that order. Likewise as SE pointed out we also throw in a good measure of tradition. What you are doing Pickle is similar to what the Mormons do when they come to study with you. They say they believe in the bible, but the first thing you know they are trying to get you to open the Book of Mormon.

I agree with this SoP = BoM parallel.

BTW, re Sola Scriptura, and EGW...which bible, and which EGW? The reason I ask is because your bible may contain 15 entire verses, and a couple dozen ½ verses that mine doesn't, and an additional 8 verses that have been changed (reinterpreted). And if your bible is the Clear Word...well, we'd better not go there! And, if we go back far enough, some EGW books may contain more chapters, paragraphs, and sentences than others. Right?

[Reflection]

Again, Bob, I think the two of you are using the same words but talking about different things. You are talking the official beliefs of the church. The others are talking about how it is actually practiced in the pew--by some, not all. But by far too many......

.....So you can see, this issue is personal for me. Again, as I stated in another section, I think that those who are raised SDA--especially conservative SDA--get a different slant drummed into them than those who convert. Also, there are still little rural family churches out there that reflect the above philosophy more than the larger churches.

shepherdswife

I agree with you. As a fellow shepherdess, I can totally relate to your experience. I have mostly been in those small rural churches, and the variety of Adventist never ceases to amaze me. All the way from one who agonizes because he wants to be one of the literal 144 thousand, or one who thinks it's a sin to wear ties, to the gun-toting thousand acre survivalist who thinks the guns will protect him during end times . I'd say that it may be true that a pastor's evangelistic work is more difficult within the church than outside of it. (Easier to teach non-Adventists than Adventists. I say "may be" because my experience is somewhat limited.)

Well, there's the way it's supposed to be, and there's the way it is. Unfortunately, the variety of "the way it is" is much more numerous than what we're supposed to be about! Reflection

[Brick Step]

Of course Adventists often don't practice the truths they preach. Because we often don't practice what we preach, does that mean we don't believe it? No. Does that mean we throw out the truth? God forbid. Does that mean that we stop striving for it? God forbid. Sola Scriptura was bequethed to us by the Protestants. Did they fully understand or practice it? No. The main reason they are in a fallen condition is because they abandoned striving for the principle.
Actually we should be going the Protestants one further and practicing Sola-Tota Scriptura. The whole Bible, and the whole Bible only.
"God will have a people on earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms."

AMEN, provided the "Sola-Tota" part is not used to negate the Bible doctrine on the gifts of the Spirit, including the prophesied endtime manifestation of the gift of prophecy. Decades of controversy have done nothing but confirm more deeply that this gift was manifest in the life and teachings of Ellen White.

Just last evening I received a phonecall from an Adventst friend who was visiting a sick relative in a public institution. The head nurse noticed this friend was reading the Bible, and commented she had just bought several interesting books at a secondhand store. "They are by a lady writer called Ellen White," she said. "Have you ever heard of her?"

My friend's heart skipped a beat, and she replied, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I have."

"I've never been so moved," the head nurse continued. "These books have answered so many of my questions -- especially a book called, The Great Controversy. I'll lend it to you."

"As a matter of fact I have one of Ellen White's books in my handbag right now," responded my friend, trying not to kill the conversation by betraying the excitement she felt. "It's called Patriarchs and Prophets."

"I have that one," said the nurse. Just a coincidence happening? Never. This is the leading of Providence, for the guidance and encouragement of both the nurse, my friend, and her sick relative.

While some Adventists are busy throwing away Ellen White's books, there are many others catching the books and running with them. I believe the same God who inspired holy men of old to write the books of the Bible, inspired Ellen White to give guiding counsels for the encouragement and guidance of "the remnant of her seed" who must avoid the deceptions of the final crisis of the great controversy during probationary time. I have to say I have seen too much unattractive fruitage in the lives of Adventists who have become antagonistic towards Ellen White's writings, fruitage that does not impress me to follow where they have gone.

Yes, sad to say, some Adventists quote her when they should be quoting the Bible. But this is something Ellen White counselled us not to do, and it is interesting we can point to some powerful evangelists and soul winners today, whose public lectures are taken entirely from the Bible, but who themselves found Jesus and developed their love for the Bible by first reading The Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, The Great Controversy, Ministry of Healing, Education, or another of Ellen White's books.

It's not a sin to quote Ellen White sometimes. She points like no other, to Christ and the Bible. I've lost count of the number of times I've read some of her books. But for all my love of them, it is my Bible that shows the most wear and tare.

[Brick Step]

AMEN! It would be true, though, wouldn't it, that the words "the spirit of prophecy" apply not merely to the prophesied endtime gift seen in the life and teachings of Ellen White?

Check out the baptismal vows. The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. Sola scriptura.

The authority of the gift of prophecy amongst us is based on what Scripture plainly says.

If Adventists ever jettison the authority of the spirit of prophecy, they will by so doing be negating the vow that says that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian, since they will be denying one of the plain teachings of Scripture. Adventists will then no longer be holding to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

[Pickle]

They are not holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura now Pickle. Not in practice. You may say it but it is not true. Adventists use as their authority the bible and Ellen White, and not necessarily in that order. Likewise as SE pointed out we also throw in a good measure of tradition. What you are doing Pickle is similar to what the Mormons do when they come to study with you. They say they believe in the bible, but the first thing you know they are trying to get you to open the Book of Mormon.

BTW the spirit of prophecy is NOT EGW.

First, let's define terms. "Spirit of prophecy" is a term that was widely understood by those of all persuasions in Ellen White's day to mean the gift of prophecy through whomever it was manifested. And I believe that was our pioneers' understanding of the term as well.

Because of Rev. 12:17's application of that term to a manifestation of the gift of prophecy in the end of time, and because Ellen White had that gift, the term quite appropriately was applied to her writings. Again, such a usage is in harmony with the usage of the term by those of all persuasions in her day.

As for the Mormons, they will flat out tell you that the Bible has been miscopied and mistranslated, and that you cannot understand it without latter-day resolution. So the Mormons test the Bible by their prophet, while Adventists test their prophet by the Bible. (I'm talking about theological positions.)

Now here are two points:

1) Some of our critics accuse Ellen White of contradicting the Bible and in support of that position cite examples where Ellen White adds non-contradictory details to the biblical stories. According to the Bible, is this quibble of our critics valid?

"And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake" (Heb. 12:21). Search all of Exodus, and all of the OT, the only Bible available at the time Hebrews was written, and you won't find any such description of what Moses said on Mt. Sinai. Is Paul, who had the Spirit of prophecy, contradicting the OT? Not at all. Is there anything wrong with Paul adding such a detail under the Spirit of inspiration? Absolutely not.

2) Another inspired book that was circulating prior to the complete assembling of the NT was the book of Acts.

"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ" (Acts 4:25, 26, quoting from Ps. 2).

The next verse is the key.

"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together" (vs. 27).

Thus Acts 4:27 illuminates Ps. 2 by identifying the king as being Herod, the ruler as being Pilate, the people as being the Jews, and the heathen as being the Roman soldiers who were responsible for crucifying Christ. If I had read Ps. 2 ten times a day for three years, I doubt I would ever have come up with that.

In other words, according to Scripture, a lesser light, a later inspired writing, can be used to illuminate and explain a biblical passage, and without that aid we might never arrive at the obviously correct understanding of the text, thanks to our denseness.


Thus, I presently contend that anyone who says that Ellen White under inspiration could never add a non-contradictory detail to a biblical account, or who says that it is wrong to ever allow her writings to aid us in arriving at an obviously correct understanding of a Bible passage, that individual is taking an unbiblical position.

Because Adventists base their beliefs on Scripture, we simply cannot go there.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jul 7 2007, 07:52 PM

[Clay]

First, let's define terms. "Spirit of prophecy" is a term that was widely understood by those of all persuasions in Ellen White's day to mean the gift of prophecy through whomever it was manifested. And I believe that was our pioneers' understanding of the term as well.

Because of Rev. 12:17's application of that term to a manifestation of the gift of prophecy in the end of time, and because Ellen White had that gift, the term quite appropriately was applied to her writings. Again, such a usage is in harmony with the usage of the term by those of all persuasions in her day.

As for the Mormons, they will flat out tell you that the Bible has been miscopied and mistranslated, and that you cannot understand it without latter-day resolution. So the Mormons test the Bible by their prophet, while Adventists test their prophet by the Bible. (I'm talking about theological positions.)

Now here are two points:

1) Some of our critics accuse Ellen White of contradicting the Bible and in support of that position cite examples where Ellen White adds non-contradictory details to the biblical stories. According to the Bible, is this quibble of our critics valid?

"And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake" (Heb. 12:21). Search all of Exodus, and all of the OT, the only Bible available at the time Hebrews was written, and you won't find any such description of what Moses said on Mt. Sinai. Is Paul, who had the Spirit of prophecy, contradicting the OT? Not at all. Is there anything wrong with Paul adding such a detail under the Spirit of inspiration? Absolutely not.

2) Another inspired book that was circulating prior to the complete assembling of the NT was the book of Acts.

"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ" (Acts 4:25, 26, quoting from Ps. 2).

The next verse is the key.

"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together" (vs. 27).

Thus Acts 4:27 illuminates Ps. 2 by identifying the king as being Herod, the ruler as being Pilate, the people as being the Jews, and the heathen as being the Roman soldiers who were responsible for crucifying Christ. If I had read Ps. 2 ten times a day for three years, I doubt I would ever have come up with that.

In other words, according to Scripture, a lesser light, a later inspired writing, can be used to illuminate and explain a biblical passage, and without that aid we might never arrive at the obviously correct understanding of the text, thanks to our denseness.


Thus, I presently contend that anyone who says that Ellen White under inspiration could never add a non-contradictory detail to a biblical account, or who says that it is wrong to ever allow her writings to aid us in arriving at an obviously correct understanding of a Bible passage, that individual is taking an unbiblical position.

Becomes Adventists base their beliefs on Scripture, we simply cannot go there.

and I say that your long explanation still supports my contention that adventists do not support sola scriptura, if anything your explanation supports my position. We don't believe it and we don't practice it. If you believe you do you my friend are in denial, and I am not speaking of the river in Egypt. As I said, adventists believe in the bible and EGW and not necessarily in that order.

As for your definitions, tenuous at best. EGW was not/is not the spirit of prophecy, though I believe she had the gift of prophecy.

[Pickle]

Neat story, Brick Step.

As far as abuses go, I could tell a few myself. Like when the guy interupted my sermon a second time, this time saying that Ellen White said in the new earth that the houses would be up on poles, and that he guessed that that was because the ground was damp. Kind of unsettling trying to get out of that one and go on with the sermen hoping that the non-Adventist visitors are going to come back. "No, what she saw was the houses supported by pillars as part of the architecture, not up on poles. And the ground won't be damp."

The day came when he called me up and told me that so-and-so ought to be disfellowshipped because they were Our Firm Foundation people. So I told him that from what his pastor told me, he should be disfellowshipped because of something serious he had done.

Probably it was a different call in which he said that so-and-so needed to pay him back for something. He had paid so-and-so lots of money. So I asked him to bring his checkbook. "Why?" Because I wanted to see how much he had really paid.

Sure enough, he really had. He'd written checks for food, food he'd already eaten, and he wanted a refund. "Why?" "Because the food was no good. It gave me gas." And he said that in front of others, including the cook he was referring to, after we were done with potluck.

So I got him out of the fellowship hall and into the sanctuary, and we talked some more. But when he started cussing, I showed him the door.

He also told me how folks were out to kill him, how, though, each time when the vote was taken, the Protestants outvoted the Catholics, and that's why he hadn't been murdered yet.

His pastor told me that the fellow just wouldn't take his meds like he was supposed to.

It just would have been so much better if he didn't keep pulling out that little black book out of his shirt pocket and quoting something from Ellen White he had written down, or quoting something from her writings that he didn't have a clue where it came from.

In Capernaum Satan brought a demoniac to the synagogue to distract everyone. Satan still brings unbalanced minds in to distract, and we have to be kind to such. Yet it is unfortunate that the abuses of the unbalanced are then blamed on the message or the messengers, as it was in the days of Luther.

[Pickle]

and I say that your long explanation still supports my contention that adventists do not support sola scriptura, if anything your explanation supports my position. We don't believe it and we don't practice it. If you believe you do you my friend are in denial, and I am not speaking of the river in Egypt. As I said, adventists believe in the bible and EGW and not necessarily in that order.

As for your definitions, tenuous at best. EGW was not/is not the spirit of prophecy, though I believe she had the gift of prophecy.

I didn't say that Ellen White was the Spirit of Prophecy. I said that the term is applied to her writings. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are disagreeing with?

If you feel that my explanation supports your position, then I may not be correctly understanding your position either. If the Bible teaches that later inspired writers can add non-contradictory details to biblical accounts, and that later inspired writers can illuminate Bible passages, then a truly sola scriptura position mandates that such be so. Correct?

[Observer]

They are not holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura now Pickle. Not in practice. You may say it but it is not true. Adventists use as their authority the bible and Ellen White, and not necessarily in that order. Likewise as SE pointed out we also throw in a good measure of tradition. What you are doing Pickle is similar to what the Mormons do when they come to study with you. They say they believe in the bible, but the first thing you know they are trying to get you to open the Book of Mormon.

BTW the spirit of prophecy is NOT EGW.

Clay:

The fundamental issue that you bring up is: What/Who is a Seventh-day Adventist.

There are many (I am included in this.) who believe that the SDA Church today is composed of several distinct groups of people. One has suggested five groups. Others have suggested either more or less groups.

I will agree that there are some SDAS who place the writings of EGW above that of the Bible.

Others place her on the same level.

There are those who place her on several lower levels.

So, I agree that you comment is true as it applies to some SDAs and inaccurate as it applies to others.

Now the question comes: What is our offical teaching? I am willing to say that officially, the majority teaching is that the Bible should take priority over EGWs writings. But, in the mouths of some people that may not be clear.

This post has been edited by Observer: Jul 7 2007, 08:08 PM