The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[Pickle]

Hmm. Perhaps.

While the 28 Fundamental Beliefs stop short of explicitly saying that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy, they speak of the remnant in #13 and #18 in a way that leads to the same conclusion. And the "optional" vow requires acceptance of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

[Clay]

Yet we have been saying that we are the remnant church since about the beginning of our history, and Ellen White's usage of the term harmonizes with that understanding.

For example, see page 11 of the Aug. 14, 1883 Sup. that is reachable via a link from http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=15869, after installing the required plugin. Read the entire second paragraph in the second column of GC President G. I. Butler's article on that page. His comments are insightful.

Did you have a Bible verse that would say that we are not the remnant church, and thus that our baptismal vows should be changed which require all new members to acknowledge that they believe that we are the remnant church?

just because it was said, didn't make it true. There was a prophet who lamented to God that he was the only one left. God corrected him and let him know that his perception was incorrect. You believe the church is the remnant, I don't share that belief, so no need to belabor the point as neither of us will be persuaded otherwise.

[Johann]

just because it was said, didn't make it true. There was a prophet who lamented to God that he was the only one left. God corrected him and let him know that his perception was incorrect. You believe the church is the remnant, I don't share that belief, so no need to belabor the point as neither of us will be persuaded otherwise.

I have baptized quite a number of people because they confessed faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they were also baptized because they therefore desired to join HIS remnant church on Earth. Is this not how you were baptized? Should that be refuted now?

[awesumtenor]

According to Scripture, inspired writers that are not part of the canon can add non-contradictory details to biblical stories, and can point out obviously correct interpretations of biblical passages.

And what about when those details are contradictory or unsupported by the exegete?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

You believe the church is the remnant, I don't share that belief, so no need to belabor the point as neither of us will be persuaded otherwise.

The only way I wouldn't be persuaded otherwise is if you cannot presently find a biblical basis for saying otherwise.

RH 8-22-93, 8-29-93, 9-5-93, and 9-12-93 was a four-part series by Mrs. White entitled, "The Remnant Church Not Babylon." Paragraph 6 of 8-29-93 lets us know that she is talking about "the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

"I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. ... The name, Seventh-day Adventist, is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world" (4bSG 54).

"Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus, who are exalting the standard of righteousness in these last days. God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God" (TM 58).

Ellen White's understanding was that Rev. 12:17's remnant is a specific church, and that the name of that church is "Seventh-day Adventist." Other quotes than the above only reinforce these ideas.

Thus we are left to consider whether Ellen White might have been mistaken in some way, whether there are other peoples that also keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, have the testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy, and are giving the three angels' messages.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jul 10 2007, 06:25 AM

[Pickle]

And what about when those details are contradictory or unsupported by the exegete?

In His service,
Mr. J

Good question.

A classic example given by critics is when Ellen White said that Eve was not with Adam when Eve ate the fruit, but Gen. 3 says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was with her. Thus, though Adam was stupid enough to eat the fruit when he was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), the critics would have him be a complete idiot by standing there watching her talk to the serpent and eat the fruit.

Now when faced with a question like that, I think we should approach it in an attitude of faith looking for an answer. We tend to find what we are looking for.

1Sa 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

Mt 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Thus, if we are going to accuse Ellen White of contradicting Scripture on this point, if we are consistent, we have to accuse Jesus of doing the same thing. But the answer is simple: David's men weren't by his side, but they were somewhere in the vicinity, even as Adam was not by Eve's side but was somewhere in the garden.

So I giess the first question one must ask is if the apparently contradictory details are really contradictory after all.

[awesumtenor]

Good question.

A classic example given by critics is when Ellen White said that Eve was not with Adam when Eve ate the fruit, but Gen. 3 says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was with her. Thus, though Adam was stupid enough to eat the fruit when he was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), the critics would have him be a complete idiot by standing there watching her talk to the serpent and eat the fruit.

Now when faced with a question like that, I think we should approach it in an attitude of faith looking for an answer. We tend to find what we are looking for.

1Sa 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

Mt 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Thus, if we are going to accuse Ellen White of contradicting Scripture on this point, if we are consistent, we have to accuse Jesus of doing the same thing. But the answer is simple: David's men weren't by his side, but they were somewhere in the vicinity, even as Adam was not by Eve's side but was somewhere in the garden.

So I giess the first question one must ask is if the apparently contradictory details are really contradictory after all.

EGW != Jesus. The moment you start making that comparison you are on the same slippery slope that the catholics are on in naming Mary co-redemptrix and attributing to her not only the qualities of God but also the power and authority of God as well.

My question presupposes your pattern of inquiry and said inquiry has determined what she said and what the bible said cannot both be true. You, when faced with the prospect of what to do when she is wrong, keep trying to prove she cannot possibly be wrong and in doing so you evade answering the question... not to mention giving a prime example of an Adventist who makes her out to be inerrant, in spite of your claiming to have never known such an Adventist to exist...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Voktar of Zargon]

EGW != Jesus. The moment you start making that comparison you are on the same slippery slope that the catholics are on in naming Mary co-redemptrix and attributing to her not only the qualities of God but also the power and authority of God as well.

My question presupposes your pattern of inquiry and said inquiry has determined what she said and what the bible said cannot both be true. You, when faced with the prospect of what to do when she is wrong, keep trying to prove she cannot possibly be wrong and in doing so you evade answering the question... not to mention giving a prime example of an Adventist who makes her out to be inerrant, in spite of your claiming to have never known such an Adventist to exist...

In His service,
Mr. J

Methinks thou dost protest too much. There is no way you can take Pickle's comments to be equated with the concept "EGW=Jesus." To say that his comments are on the path to making EGW "co-redemptrix" is simply preposterous. I don't think I ever remember hearing an Adventist comparing EGW to Jesus on the level you are proposing. I have heard her compared to John the baptist. The prophet David was of course compared to Jesus in th Bible on numerous levels - but no one would hazard to say that this was a slippery slope to making him a co-redeemer - especially in light of his sordid history (a history that does make EGW look like a saint).
When speaking about Jesus C.S.Lewis said, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.--C.S. Lewis
There is a parallel with this challenge and the controversy over EGW's prophetic authority. This was a woman who claimed to be more than a prophet. Who claimed to have had numerous close encounters with the highest angel in heaven. Who claimed to have been taken to heaven in vision. Who claimed to have had personal conversations in living technicolor with Jesus Christ. Either she was a lunatic on the level of a poached egg - or else a devil posessed imposter. You must make a choice. Either she was a prophetess of God or a demonically decieved fraud. There really is no middle ground. If she was who she claimed, then we better listen up to what God inspired her to say. If she wasn't, then it's time to look for a different church.

This post has been edited by Voktar of Zargon: Jul 10 2007, 07:38 AM

[Clay]

I have baptized quite a number of people because they confessed faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they were also baptized because they therefore desired to join HIS remnant church on Earth. Is this not how you were baptized? Should that be refuted now?

because you baptized them that way does not make what you said true either.... however I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree....

[awesumtenor]

Methinks thou dost protest too much. There is no way you can take Pickle's comments to be equated with the concept "EGW=Jesus." To say that his comments are on the path to making EGW "co-redemptrix" is simply preposterous.

When Pickle said "if we are going to say EGW is wrong, then we must say Jesus is wrong" he either was lifting her to Christ's level or reducing Christ to hers.

Once one accepts certain attributes that are the sole province of God being assigned to a human not born in a stable circa 4BC in Bethlehem, there is little to prevent their continuing that line of presumption until they believe that EGW is, alone and in and of herself, sufficient to getthem to heaven... that is an argument that has been made here in BlackSDA by an Adventist in "good and regular standing"... so it's not nearly as far fetched as you would like to think.

I don't think I ever remember hearing an Adventist comparing EGW to Jesus on the level you are proposing. I have heard her compared to John the baptist. The prophet David was of course compared to Jesus in th Bible on numerous levels - but no one would hazard to say that this was a slippery slope to making him a co-redeemer - especially in light of his sordid history (a history that does make EGW look like a saint).

I have... on more than the one occasion noted above by more than one Adventist.

When speaking about Jesus C.S.Lewis said, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.--C.S. Lewis
There is a parallel with this challenge and the controversy over EGW's prophetic authority. This was a woman who claimed to be more than a prophet. Who claimed to have had numerous close encounters with the highest angel in heaven. Who claimed to have been taken to heaven in vision. Who claimed to have had personal conversations in living technicolor with Jesus Christ. Either she was a lunatic on the level of a poached egg - or else a devil posessed imposter. You must make a choice. Either she was a prophetess of God or a demonically decieved fraud. There really is no middle ground. If she was who she claimed, then we better listen up to what God inspired her to say. If she wasn't, then it's time to look for a different church.

It could argued that you just made the comparison you just said you never heard made... that said... at no time has EGW's prophetic gift and calling been the issue...for anyone in this conversation and it's disingenuous at best and bearing false witness at worst to continue to reply to posts as if that is the issue. For the record... again... I accept her prophetic gift and her calling; what I cannot and will not accept is the continuing presumption of her inerrancy... because it's not and never was part of said prophetic gift and calling... *according to EGW herself* which is something the inerrancy camp continues to ignore. She said she made mistakes, that she was God's penman and not His pen and she was fallible. The problem is, the whole superiority bent this church seems bound and determined to take requires an inerrant and infallible prophet to God's end-time remnant... and by her own admission that was not the adventure signed up for and it only became entrenched among the rank and file in the church after she was dead beause she rebuked it when she saw it rise up while she was alive.

So the "choice" you present above is fallacious in it's implication...at best.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

The only way I wouldn't be persuaded otherwise is if you cannot presently find a biblical basis for saying otherwise.

RH 8-22-93, 8-29-93, 9-5-93, and 9-12-93 was a four-part series by Mrs. White entitled, "The Remnant Church Not Babylon." Paragraph 6 of 8-29-93 lets us know that she is talking about "the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

"I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. ... The name, Seventh-day Adventist, is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world" (4bSG 54).

"Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus, who are exalting the standard of righteousness in these last days. God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God" (TM 58).

Ellen White's understanding was that Rev. 12:17's remnant is a specific church, and that the name of that church is "Seventh-day Adventist." Other quotes than the above only reinforce these ideas.

Thus we are left to consider whether Ellen White might have been mistaken in some way, whether there are other peoples that also keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, have the testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy, and are giving the three angels' messages.

Pickle, thanks for your comments, but you believe what you believe my brother, I choose to believe differently. Your proof texts do not support your position, but that's your belief and its working for you. As I said, the sda church cannot say it is the remnant church, at best it can say it is a part of the remnant. Your comments are simply apologist propaganda for the church... I ain't feeling it.....

[Johann]

because you baptized them that way does not make what you said true either.... however I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree....

So, would you go to those people telling them they are baptized into the wrong fellowship, and they should be re-baptized into your kind of fellowship?

[Clay]

So, would you go to those people telling them they are baptized into the wrong fellowship, and they should be re-baptized into your kind of fellowship?

they should be baptized into the body of Christ... plain and simple.... not sure what you mean by "your kind of fellowship" but it doesn't sound good... care to unpack that for me?

[watchbird]

I have baptized quite a number of people because they confessed faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they were also baptized because they therefore desired to join HIS remnant church on Earth. Is this not how you were baptized? Should that be refuted now?

I do not recall the emphasis being put on THE remnant church... even though we used the term without the emphasis that implies exclusively the only remnant church.... until fairly recent years. I have not problem with baptism being both an entrance into the "invisible" church of Jesus Christ... AND an entrance into membership in the SDA church. I do have a problem with the way we are currently emphasizing the exclusivity of the SDA church in the way we currently are. Church leaders recognize this as a problem and even attempted to recognize the prevalance of this misuse of the phrase ... and to correct it... some years ago when they attempted to introduce a resolution at GC Session that would specifically deny that we used this in an exclusive way and officially affirm that the correct phrase to be used as a discriptor would be "part of the remnant church". This failed, as I understand, only narrowly... and that failure was seen largely as the result of emotional oratory by Sam Pippim and those he incited to oppose it.

So, would you go to those people telling them they are baptized into the wrong fellowship, and they should be re-baptized into your kind of fellowship?

Not at all... but I think it would be well to alter the phrase as you continue to baptize, and that you should make it clear in private and public ministry the true meaning of "remnant".

[watchbird]

they should be baptized into the body of Christ... plain and simple.... not sure what you mean by "your kind of fellowship" but it doesn't sound good... care to unpack that for me?

I disagree as to baptism being only "into the body of Christ". I think scriptures are plain that Christ wants his members to belong to a specific group rather than being unattached to any human like-minded believers. This is the general consensus among all denominations, and I agree that it should be so. But I do think we should strike from our vocabulary those phrases which tend to foster "spiritual pride and exclusivity".