| Author | Message | ||
| Stevew Registered user Username: Stevew Post Number: 30 Registered: 2-2010 |
Hi all. I sent the Rose Publishing document to my nephew, who is studying Theology at our nearest SDA Uni. I've been wanting to do so for a while, but this is his now his second year there, so I figured it was about time I got his thoughts. I'd be interested in ways I could respond to his comments, below: Some of the stuff is a bit of an exaggeration on sda beliefs, but was still interesting. i didn't know we had our own Bible! the church is a human organisation, which as we both know is FAR from perfect. The same goes for Ellen White, she was human, and her writings were'nt perfect. Though i do believe that a lot of her work is taken out of context. She never raised herself to be equal or better then the Bible. She viewed her purpose as bringing people "back to the word they have neglected to follow". "a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light [Bible]". I reckon she'd be sick to see the pedestal we've put her on today. I think somewhere she also said that she should'nt be quoted in sermons. she said "In public labour, do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written, as authority to sustain your positions...Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God." (3 Selected Messages p29,30). If you want to check out a decent book on it, check out "Reading Ellen White - George R Knight". Basically talks about what I was just saying and putting her into context. The plagarism thing, I don't really know much about. Think she did use ideas of others at the time. But could have been common practice back then? have to look into it a bit more. On Trinity, think we believe the same thing as most other Christians. To be honest, i don't think anyone can understand the Trinity. It'd almost be an insult to be able to understand God. He's outside of our knowledge. Eternal hell, I'm a bit sketchy on at the moment. Could probably argue for both sides. But as far as body and soul. I think theyre very connected. Its a greek philosophy idea that the soul is eternal. As far as the Sabbath being the seal of God, i think its a probably likely. But if/when it happens, I think it will be obvious to everyone which is right. It will be a decesion everyone will have to make, and everyone who's right with God will be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. At the moment, i don't think its an issue. The Sabbath is a gift, not a burden. A gift to everyone, not just Adventists Remnant is a bit of a dirty word i think. Just learnt in class yesterday about the use of the word in Jeremiah 31:7. Was a very humbling term because it refered to those who stood strong through all the trials during the exile. Nothing to be proud of! Its no rite of passage to be part of the 'remnant' I think most of the perceptions of adventists are taken from the ultra conservative guys, who are the minority. Just remember, you can pick apart any church, or business if you wanted to. and also ask yourself if its even constructive to anyone to pick apart the church. Thats what i have to keep reminding myself!! hope that helps! God bless | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2700 Registered: 5-2007  |
Since he didn't use biblical arguments but instead used resorted to well worn human logic along with hedging his position on the key points there really isn't much that needs to be responded to. As a theology student he has a long way to go. Phil | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2079 Registered: 6-2006  |
I agree with Phil. He rationalized every point with opinions instead of scripture. Perhaps you can respond with "Can you back that up with Scripture?" At any rate, you probably planted some good questions in his mind, Steve.  Leigh Anne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13684 Registered: 12-2003  |
I also agree with Phil and Leigh Anne. He didn't give you any rebuttals that "count". He misses the point that the pamphlet is derived from current SDA citations that are listed on the pamphlet. He's rationalizing Adventism the same way he rationalizes Scripture. I doubt there's anything he believes is absolutely accurate and reliable. And by the way, I'm SOO tired of the pre-packaged dismissal, "It's a Greek philosophy idea that the souls is eternal." Why would they side-step what the Bible says about "spirit" and blame the Greeks? Just because Greeks believed "spirit" represented a true reality of which "material" was a shadow (sort-of the inverse of Adventisms' physical material being reality and "spirit" being only a concept) doesn't make the biblical teaching untrue, that "spirit" is something that exists apart from "body". God, after all, is spirit (Jn. 4:25). Just sayin' Colleen | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 497 Registered: 2-2011  |
I know it should go without "say'n"! PRAY~ the "scales" will drop of the eyes~ ~mj~ | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1691 Registered: 7-2003  |
I'm with you Colleen! The Greek concept is NOT the same as the Biblical/Christian concept. Dismissing the Greek concept does not deal with the very different biblical teaching on the matter. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 2080 Registered: 6-2006 |
Do SDA's not realize that they picked up the soul sleep concept with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1800's? Or do they think that the majority of Christendom was wrong (about the state of the spirit) all that time before EGW's "revelations"? Am I off base? Leigh Anne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13689 Registered: 12-2003 |
Leigh Anne, I think they thought the traditional understanding was wrong. The founders were not Christian; they were anti-trinitarian and Arian or semi-Arian, including James White and Joseph Bates. That perversion had to coexist with other perversions. For Jesus to be "just like us" and primarily an example, the implications of their "soul sleep" were necessary. No spirit erases the reality of actually being made alive while still in a mortal body. And if salvation is NOT about being made literally eternally alive while still in a mortal body, they had to do something with the human spirit and with Jesus Himself. Scripture tells us He was God in flesh; Adventism tells us He was our example, showing us how we, too, can keep the law by praying and meditating. NO! Jesus didn't come to show us how to keep the law. He came to die for our sin. Adventism had a non-eternal demi-god for jesus; this belief necessitated some sort of accommodation for humanity that didn't not involve a spirit. Colleen | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 833 Registered: 5-2002  |
If Ellen White's writings aren't perfect, by definition they are not from God. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture. It is true down to the individual characters written in the words themselves. The Adventist position is that Ellen White's writings were inspired by the same Spirit, in the same way, on the same basis, as the writers of Scripture (but they're not Scripture - go figger that one out and get back to me). Your nephew's acknowledgement that her writings aren't perfect might be a good place to start. Ellen is the kickstand holding up Adventism's bike. When she collapses, so do all the SDA distinctives. | ||
| Truman Registered user Username: Truman Post Number: 143 Registered: 1-2012 |
Freeatlast, With respect, I would caution against the "every individual character is perfect" statement, for the following reasons: 1. Many of the authors of the books/letters (which were eventually voted in as NT canon) were not the ones who physically wrote the characters on scrolls/parchment/clay, etc. 2. There is no way of knowing (to my knowledge) whether any of the manuscripts available are the originals - but in all likelihood, none of them are original. The old manuscript copies were written by hand... 3. There are countless translation issues. While I believe you were referring to the original manuscripts, most readers can not read the original languages - much less, as noted above, the original manuscripts. I believe scripture can be trusted. However, there are many minor discrepancies; none of them, in my opinion, involve salvation issues. But I am concerned that some may lose their faith if they believe that everything they are reading is supposed to be perfect. Again, I know that is not what you are saying, but I'm just sounding a note of caution. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1887 Registered: 7-2004  |
Truman,
This matters a great deal if you share the SDA understanding of inspiration, that the person is inspired and then conveys the information as accurately as possible. If you believe that God inspires the writing process (i.e. God-breathed writing), then God can inspire the words of any person putting the final words on to paper.
This issue is less than many people would imagine. Experts can tell what branch of the "famiy tree" different documents belong to, and there is often an extrodinary degree of agreement even between documents from completely different branches. If documents from multiple sources agree, the odds of this being accurate to the original is high. Furthermore, when Paul builds his argument for salvation by faith for all people he bases one entire argument on one word being singular rather than plural. If we can't trust the individual words of Scripture, but only the general message then Paul was wrong in how he used Scripture.
Yes, there are challenges translating a dead language that, at times, doesn't have the same word used in other literature to help verify the meaning. People with great experience and expertise come to different conclusions about the most accurate way to translate a few passages. But we have easy access to multiple translations allowing us to compare. | ||
| Starlabs Registered user Username: Starlabs Post Number: 164 Registered: 5-2011 |
Reading this brings me to a question. How do we refute the claim the SDA have about the misplaced coma in Luke 23:43 when the original manuscripts didn't have punctuation like we do? (Message edited by starlabs on May 11, 2012) | ||
| Truman Registered user Username: Truman Post Number: 145 Registered: 1-2012 |
Rick, I agree with your points. My only point was that there are known, minor (IMO), discrepancies in the English versions that we read. As discussed in other threads, this may be due to translation, transcription, or other unknown reasons. So I am concerned that someone may interpret Freeatlast's statement to mean that every character they read in the KJV is perfect...only to discover that is not the case. (Admittedly, most would not assume our English versions are perfect.) Starlabs, I believe Colleen (and perhaps Rick, Chris, and others) have covered this in some depth in a recent thread. You may be able to find it with the Search function, but in a nutshell: --Jesus never said "I say unto you today...." He always said "I say unto you..." | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1888 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks for the clarification, Truman. I certainly agree that no translation is word for word accurate, although I think by comparing several good translation we can be confident about what is said. I don't think any doctrine should rely on one particular translation but should be able to be found clearly in all good translations. I say "good" to rule out paraphrases and sectarian translations. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 662 Registered: 7-2005 |
"I say unto you" in greek is either amen lego soi or amen soi lego, and constitutes an introduction formula, a way of emphasizing the importance of the content found in the sentence following the introduction. Without exception, every time Jesus utters these words, the expression stands alone and is not accompanied by any qualificative word, be it an adverb or something else. If adventists would be right about Luke 23:43, this would make this place the only exceptional case. Their argument for a special reading of the text is theological, they have to defend their view of soul, and they try to level the field in order to make it appear that the text doesn't favor a certain reading. Gabriel | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 149 Registered: 4-2005 |
Interesting that they quote EGW when she said not to quote her in sermons, yet if you read any of the letters or memoirs of early members it was expected that her latest testimonies would be read to the congregation. Often there were quite a few to be read by multiple people. They were accepted, then and now, as the direct words of inspiration from God. To argue otherwise, as Knight does, is misleading and deceitful. The points about her being human and that we should not put her on a pedestal are also completely unbelievable (also from Knight). All you need to do is read her first vision in Early Writings about Satan occupying Jesus' throne in the Holy Place and answering believers prayers to know that she is not from God. Jesus said He would NEVER leave us or forsake us. This leaves the SDA believer in the untenable position of believing in her inspiration or believing in the Bible. This leads to all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify her (and their) position. It is frustrating to discuss with the SDA youth, the True Believers. They are so sincere. Reminds me of me. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13691 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dt , you are right. To deny their absolute dependence upon EGW, Adventists argue to essentially "dismiss" her...yet they KNOW they can't and won't. Moreover, they like to argue that EGW never called herself a prophet, and she wasn't a prophet. Yet EGW called herself "more than a prophet"; she said her work encompassed more than that of a prophet. She used the words of Jesus to describe John the Baptist in Matt. 11:9 and Luke 7:26 to describe herself. You are absolutely right to say their words about her are misleading and deceitful. Colleen | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 1133 Registered: 5-2009 |
Amen, Dt!!! And if EGW was leading people to the Scriptures, then how do you explain what the SDA organization did to Ford, Mark Martin, and countless others? As soon as I read Hebrews I knew that Desmond Ford had told the truth about the IJ. What happens in reality in the SDA church is that EGW trumps the clear words of the Bible. SDAs are taught (and I used to believe it, too) that every doctrine in adventism is based on the Bible, and they repeat it over and over. And I hate the "perfect church" argument...whether a church is "perfect" is NOT the point! The question is: does the church contradict the plain teachings of Scripture! The Mormon church isn't "perfect", either. Does that mean we should join it? |
