| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 351 Registered: 10-2004  |
But Paul got almost all of His stuff from the OT and Jesus' teachings in the Gospels!  | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1425 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jeremy, there you go throwing a monkey wrench into the works by stating the truth again! What CAN you be thinking?! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1519 Registered: 11-2002 |
I remember as a little girl listening to the grown-ups in my extended family discussing if Paul's writings should even have been allowed to be part of the Bible because he went so contrary to OT truth. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 124 Registered: 7-2004 |
Hello everybody. I just finished reading the newest material over at the Bucky site (up to 31 pages now) and what I've noticed is that the Gospel of Jesus has been stated and restated, ground up and spoon-fed. In response a Mr. Wicklund, a ministerial student, decided that he had to correct our erring ways and took almost a whole page of the forum quoting EGW. This he then told us was serious business and that if those who were arguing for a New Covenant perspective did not pay close attention they would be lost. Both Greg and Jeremy made it clear after his long post that they were not interested in hearing "truth" from EGW, but that the scriptures were good enough and then proceeded to refute his long post. It is so obvious that God is leading in all of the posts on that site. I want to once again tell the faithful posters who have stated and restated the Gospel that they must have felt like instruments in the hands of God while they were laying out the information. What is so amazing is that there may be as many as 10 individuals stating the Gospel as they understand it, and all of the posts fit together seamlessly. Not one fact that is placed before these doubting SDA's is non-Biblical, and there is no argument between the posts. If anything, each itteration is focused just a little better, but the Gospel never changes. God bless you all. I have decided to remain a lurker from this point forward (unless I'm so impressed to post that I simply burn with the urgency). I think we should all pray for Wicklund. Something about him seems desperately trying to defend EGW. Think back about your SDA walk and I'm sure you each had that point in your experience, where you knew you had to prove her or give her up. Something deep inside me says this young person may be at, or near that point. He is studying for the ministry of the SDA Church and as such he must prove his points through scripture and the extra-Biblical source of EGW. He seems fearful of having to go Sola Scriptura. I simply cannot get past the feeling that he is at a crossroads and needs to be blanketed in prayer. Belva | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 306 Registered: 6-2004 |
The thread about the debate between the old and new covenants was shut down on the other site and one of the anti-Paul posters got banned. Praise God. | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 264 Registered: 2-2002  |
I haven't read the site since Monday, but I keep wondering if Bucky's grandpa is going to shut his site down before long...might have to if the gospel preaching doesn't stop. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 354 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yes, I've thought the same Carol. Wicklund did seem very desparate yesterday. In response to point about the term "My commandments" not saying "Ten Commandments" he wrote: "What has been outlined here over and over is a Pauline negation of the law. Rely on Jesus' spirit but trust that when He was speaking explicitly about commandments, He was referring to the 10. He may have never mentioned the Sabbath specifically, but that doesnt mean that it is abolished." He seemed to be saying, "please...just trust that when He said commandments He meant the 10...please, I'm begging you." That's what it soudned like to me anyway. It sounded very desparate. It reminded of a post on here from awhile back about a relative who in an argument said something like: (referring to Ellen) "Please don't take her away from me. She's all I've got." So sad. BTW, in response to the post I quoted, what's wrong with a "Pauline negation of the law"? Is Paul not inspired?? Jeremy | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2005 |
Hi all, The discussion yesterday and this morning reminded me of the Ebionites. I'm not a theologian, or even a historian for that matter, but my understanding is the Ebionites were Jews who believed that Jesus was the only Jew who ever perfectly fulfilled the law. They held that he was not divine, but because of his perfect obedience to the law, God ordained him as a living sacrifice for man's sin. The Ebionites believed that to be saved, you needed to be a Jew who believed in Jesus' sacrifice, but that sacrifice did nothing to the requirement to keep the Mosaic law. Understandably, the Ebionites were not happy with Paul's teachings (and Paul was not happy with theirs--see Galations). None of the Ebionites' writings have survived but we know something of their beliefs from the books that were written against them. They were ultimately branded heretics by Tertullian and their sect slipped into obscurity. Interestingly, there are still proponents of Ebionite teachings. I ran across this web site today: www.ebionite.org They outline their beliefs on the home page, one of which is that all of Christianity are heretics because Christians are not keeping the law. There is an interesting tract on the left of the page entitled "Paul of Tarsus, Apostle?" where they argue that Paul was a heretic who did not agree with the other apostles, namely Peter and James, both of whom were still keeping the Mosaic law after Christ's resurrection. They even go so far as to claim that the antichrist of Revelation is Paul! The numbers 666 can be construed to spell "TRSU" or Tarsus...all code from John the Revelator to warn readers of the heresy of Paul. It seems some in Adventism are almost buying into this Ebionite view of Paul. Ellen White was able to reconcile Paul's teachings and her own by saying the law Paul was referring to was the ceremonial law. It comes down to this: do we believe Paul? My belief is that his teachings formed the basis of modern Christianity and if we discount them, we are really asking to return to a form of Judaism. What do you guys think? Greg | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 136 Registered: 5-2004  |
I agree Greg. My husband and I were just discussing this last night. Of all the things, to try to discredit Paul to prove their own theories. Just think if we tried doing that with Moses' writings...wouldn't they just flip out! If Jesus just came to reinstitute the Old Covenant way, why on earth didn't God give every person in the OT time period the Laws...and not just the Jews? Also, when you take the miracle of a Christian persecuter, come back to Jerusalem preaching the very things he used to be hell-bent against. And the disciples accept him as having the same gospel - I think that is miraculous. Thirdly, "by their fruits you will know them". The fruits of Paul's teachings are vastly different than the fruits of Ellen's teachings. Which would you prefer? Hang in there, you all are doing an incredible job in stating and restating the Gospel. Thomas said something to me shortly after I first started posting here last spring. I had printed it out and tucked it in my Bible, but it had gotten shuffled between the pages...I just refound it last night. He said in essence that: they will question you about many different things...but keep bringing it back to Jesus... "No matter what the question, bring the conversation back to Him. Remember what Jesus asked the disciples, pointedly? : Who do YOU say that I am? That is the strongest rock that you as a believer can stand on and keep your eyes on...." (BTW, thank you so much Thomas for that!) I think that is the essence of our calling as formers. We all have people in our lives who want to hash it out with us. It can be families, friends, coworkers, other Christians who don't understand, or even those we meet on other forums. They will drag is into arguing over Sabbath/Sunday, Laws, salvation, Paul, food, and everything else...but if we always keep the Gospel centeral in our minds, the Amazing God we've come to know and serve, and the beauty of His Grace for us, and the assurity of our salvation...after hearing that over and over again, who could resist it? Anyway, that's what God has impressed on me today, about dealing with my particular family. Not to get so bogged down with them over Bob Pickles reply to "Spirit Behind the Church" or the finer questions of EGW, but to keep emphasising what I've learned about the Gospel. That will keep me from getting burned out and frustrated, and I even benefit from the telling of it Wow, i kinda got on a tangent there...sorry | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2004 |
Actually what is so ironic is that for the Law in Galatians Ellen said that it is talking "especially" about the "Moral Law" and that it is talking about the "Moral Law" and the "Ceremonial Law"! In other words, the whole Law, as we've been saying! And once you admit that, then it all crumbles down. Or should.  Regarding Paul, Peter said that Paul's writings were SCRIPTURE! Jeremy | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 60 Registered: 7-2000  |
EGW only took that position about the moral law being referred to in Galatians AFTER she heard the 1888 preaching of Jones and Waggoner. Then, she hypocritically stated that she and her late husband, James, had believed believed that same way about righteousness by faith for many years. That was obviously a face-saving lie. If she, as the supposed "prophet" had believed it for years, why had she not preached and taught it all those years between the 1850s and the late 1880's? The truth is that until Elders Jones and Waggoner articulated in 1888 the clear doctrine of salvation set forth by St. Paul in Romans and Galatians, Ellen White had not had a clue! She had been too busy pontificating about legalistic trivialities. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 359 Registered: 10-2004 |
And she even continued teaching her false gospel of works and perfection/sinlessness into the 1900s, as long as she wrote, til her death!! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1427 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, could you please email me ASAP at proclamation@gmail.com? I need to ask you a question re: a project I'm working on...Thanks! Colleen | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bob, Can you briefly recount what happened in 1888 or point me to a web resource for this? I must have missed this point of history along the way. Greg | ||
| Bobalou Registered user Username: Bobalou Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2005 |
PW I posted on that site. I got so upset when they finally admitted that they didn't believe in Paul's writings that I called them Judaizers and the moderator removed my post. Good to hear that the thread was shut down and one was kicked off. They were proclaiming bad stuff. Lurkers shouldn't be subjected to blasphemy. They go there to learn and get fed Satan filled garbage. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 61 Registered: 7-2000 |
Greg, I will have to locate the specific EGW references and post them for you later. I don't even know where I have stored the EGW books that I kept for reference purposes! If you go to the online "Complete Published Writings of EGW (http://www.whiteestate.org/search/search.asp), do a search in volumes 1 and 3 of Selected Messages. Type in search words like "Galatians" "law in Galatians." You will discover that there was a huge, heated battle at the 1888 G.C. session over what law is referred to in Galatians as having been "added." In one statement, EGW wrote: I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the school-master to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments. {Ms. 87, 1900; 1888 1725.1} As she did on so many other subjects, she discovered that she had gotten into big trouble with the brethren for taking this position. She later switched her position on the matter, and claimed that the issue of which law is referred to in Galatians was a trivial and unimportant matter! To illustrate her equivocation, note the following EGW statements, in which she admits she can't remember what God had earlier "revealed" to her on the subject! "I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years."--Letter 28, 1887, p. 1. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 325.1} "I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that was given to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . ." {9MR 325.2} Some of the other leaders at the 1888 G.C. session clearly understood that it was, instead, a key issue that threatened their unique doctrinal teachings and the very existence of the SDA church. I am far from being an expert on the 1888 controversy, but it was specifically my studies into this period of SDA history years ago that led to my eyes being opened to the deception of SDA teachings. I will post more on this later when I can organize it and footnote it more thoroughly. Others on this forum are better qualified than I. I invite them to share their own observations and studies on this issue. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 62 Registered: 7-2000 |
Greg, if you are interested in further reading on what Elders Jones and Waggoner were preaching and teaching that caused such an uproar at the 1888 General Conference session, check out the following links: http://www.1888msc.org/1888_message_articles.htm http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/shaking/4.html | ||
| Greg Registered user Username: Greg Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2005 |
Thanks Bob, I'll check those references and anything else you send my way. Reading EGW's words can be an exercise in "untanglement", since there are so many parallel and contradictory lines of thinking. The whole thing makes my head spin. Evidently she had that same problem, not being able to remember the "light" she had been given on Jones and Waggoner. I thank God for the light of His word. Greg | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 726 Registered: 7-2003  |
It is my understanding that while she initially supported Waggoner's "version" of the gospel, she eventually blacklisted him and he left adventism. I used to have a long article that he had written about the gospel, but have long since lost it. A former gave it to me to "prove" that somewhere in time EGW did eventually support the gospel. He thought perhaps it would help B see the true gospel. He said that somewhere in her writings she called Waggoner's writings "the" 3rd angels message. It's been several years....sorry for the lack of specificity. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 63 Registered: 7-2000 |
Melissa, I think you may be referring to the following EGW statements: "The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. . . It presented Justification through Faith in the surety; It invited the people to receive the Righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." ó Testimonies to Ministers, pages 91-92. "The message given us by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean Church." ó E.G.W., Letter S-24-1892. "The loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the Righteousness of Christ, the sin pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth." ó Review, November, 1892. It is shameful, but not surprising, that later she backed away from supporting Waggoner and Jones when she had to share the heat of the opposition that came against them. She was always more committed to keeping her precious SDA church "united" than she was in standing for truth, though the heavens fall. (hmmm, isn't that phrase from one of her often-quoted statements?) |
