| Author | Message | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 420 Registered: 7-2000 |
Dear Raven: I think the original SDA statement of beliefs is more in line with what the Bible teaches than what the current statement of beliefs state especially in regard what is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Read "The Scriptures a Safeguard" in the book Great Controversy. EGW said that God would have a people in these last days that will maintain the Bible and the Bible only as their rule of faith and practice. She did not say that they would maintain her writings as the only rule of faith and practice. In the 5th book of the testimonies she says to reject her writings if they do not speak in accordance with the Bible. ----------------------------------------------- Quite frankly, EGW was all over the map on this issue. Repeatedly, she claimed for her writings an equality with the Bible. Here are some examples: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed His people more earnestly than He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue."[1 VOL. 4, PP. 147, 148 (1876).] (By constructing her own paraphrase of the verse in Hebrews, she has equated her writings as equal in every respect with the Bible). "The Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy." (Selected Messages, Book 3, page 30, paragraph 3.) Those who seek to lessen the faith of God's people in these TESTIMONIES, which have been in the Church for the last thirty-six years, ARE FIGHTING AGAINST GOD. It is not the instrument whom you slight and insult, BUT GOD, WHO HAS SPOKEN TO YOU IN THESE WARNINGS AND REPROOFS." Testimony to the Church Vol. 5, page 234-235 Ellen says this: "If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves; if you lesson the confidence of God's people IN THE TESTIMONIES HE HAS SENT THEM, you are REBELLING AGAINST GOD as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Testimony to the Church Vol. 5, page 66, 1882 edition. (You canít ëpick and chooseí what you want to keep from Ellen. You canít discriminate between ëI sawí or ëI was showní ) Light to Be Given to the World.--Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in His hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take His loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.--CM 125. {PM 354.1} (I guess, then, that we donít really need the Bible. God has supplied us with a substitute that can ëmake the gospel plainí. A corollary is that obviously the Bible doesnít make the gospel plain. A second corollary is that the only place one can find truth is in the SDA church. A third corollary is that if the gospel is to be found in her books; and that the Lord has designed this---then her writings are even more than the Bible. Instead of the Bible revealing the way of salvation, the writings of EGW do this) "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." ó Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905. Here are some statements from SDA ministers and leaders on EGW and her writings: "Ministry" Magazine of October, 1981. Ron Graybill, who was then assistant secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, made this statement on page 8, " "We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White's writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other." SDA SABBATH SCHOOL QUARTERLY: "THE BIBLE AND THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN WHITE ARE INERRANT..." -- Feb. 11, 1978, Sabbath School-Quarterly; teacher's Edition, p. 112 LOUIS VENDEN: "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEGREE AND QUALITY DIMENSION OF THE INSPIRATION OF ANY BIBLICAL WRITER AND ELLEN WHITE...I believe that the Desire of Ages, for example, is just as high in quality or degree of inspiration as the Gospel according to Luke...What is the best way to keep it all in perspective and end up with ELLEN WHITE BEING FOR THIS CHURCH WHAT LUKE WAS for his generation and not one whit less in contribution and AUTHORITY." -- Louis Venden, as quoted on cassette tape "The Wilson Committee-Rea On Ellen G. White" GLACIER VIEW DOCUMENT: "...HER AUTHORITY TRANSCENDS THAT OF ALL NON-INSPIRED INTERPRETER' OF THE SCRIPTURES..." -- Cassette tape 8/23/80, Pacific Union College, in a discussion o Glacier View with Charles Bradford and Philip Follett. Follett was quoting from official Glacier View document: "The Relation of Ellen White's Writings in Doctrinal Studies" SDA BOOK: "Elder I. H. Evans, the General Conference representative at the conference declared: 'When the statement from Sister White is read, I am sure that the majority of our brethren will feel as we feel tonight - that THE LORD HAS SPOKEN, AND WE WILL OBEY."'-Quoted in "The Invisible Irishman", p. 484, by Merlin Neff MORRIS VENDEN: "I'd like to take this position, that if you do not believe in the gift of prophecy, based on what the Bible has to say on it, that you don't believe in the Bible ...The primary purpose of the gift of prophecy in relationship to scripture is to confirm Scripture truth. WE TOOK THE POSITION LAST TIME THAT THE GIFT OF PROPHECY HAS EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH THE BIBLE AND EQUAL INSPIRATION WITH THE BIBLE." -- Morris L. Venden, Cassette tape #MY-312 "Church Body Building". Venden was specifically referring to Ellen G. White and the gift of prophecy in the Seventh-day Adventist church. I think it's pretty clear that the actual SDA position is NOT that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. EGW, along with HER interpretation of the Bible is what is infallible. SDA's are not now, nor have they ever been, a church which follows the idea of 'Sola Scriptura'. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1030 Registered: 10-2004  |
Wow, Loneviking, all I can say to the second to last Ellen quote is, "Um, what's wrong with the Bible?!" Jeremy | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 911 Registered: 7-2004 |
Grwaitemd, I was re-reading your posts above and you mentioned "The big dispute between Jesus and the Devil is whether or not he is the literal divine Son of God." Where, in scripture, is this big dispute mentioned? I know of only one source where there is much made of a contest between Jesus and Satan, and that is the writtings of Ellen White. At no point during Christ's time spent on planet earth was Jesus in a disadvantaged position vis-a-vis Satan. The temptation in the wilderness was, perhaps, the period of greatest tension, and Jesus though weakened by hunger was still in charge of the situation. Lucifer was a creature. Jesus was creator. Satan did not win the day when Jesus was arrested and crucified. That was his day of doom. There is no controversy. You and I may still have to contend with Satan, but Jesus has won that battle -- completely, and finally. Please, I would love it if you could supply us with Scriptural references that a controversy is yet ongoing. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 33 Registered: 1-2004  |
Actually... and this is just from my personal study so it's possible I'm wrong, but... If a person does not believe in earthly church authority in matters of doctrine, then "sola scriptura" and not believing in the Trinity have a whole lot in common with each other during the first 1500 or so years of Christian history. There were many heretics who did not believe in a doctrine of the Trinity, who did believe in the scriptures, as they personally interpreted them. Read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, to name a few people who wrote against these heretics. Particularly if you read St Chrysostom's commentary on the book of Galatians you'll think you were reading something written against the SDA pioneers. Being anti-Catholic and being anti-Trinity have alot to do with each other. I personally know a former SDA who originally didn't believe the Trinity, but after much study became Roman Catholic. If I'm not mistaken, this was partly because his study of history led him to see that it was the Catholic church of that time period which hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today. In other words, there is some credibility to the JW's and early SDA's fear that accepting the Trinity is one step on the road to Rome. Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1238 Registered: 3-2005 |
I see what you are saying Jeremiah, but I guess I don't see any connection between anti-trinitarianism and anti-Catholicism. How else would you describe someone as anti-Catholic as Martin Luther? He and John Calvin were the great reformers who saw Rome as the great whore of Revelation, and I believe they are right, as do a lot of good Bible believing Christians who also believe in the triune God and oppose the apostate Babylonian religion of works-righteousness. Rome is really the mother of all false religions, and has always opposed the reformers and martyred those who would espouse a true gospel of grace. Stan | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 35 Registered: 1-2004 |
It was originally Luther's goal to reform Rome, not make a new church, I think. Some have observed that if Luther were dealing with the eastern part of the church rather than the West with it's particular abuses there very well may not have been a reformation at all. You should see all the Catholic teachings Luther hung onto. There are some great things happening within Catholicism these days, with historians and theologians coming to grips with what started the reformation, and there are changes happening inside Rome. I've noticed a definite move towards dropping some of the differences Rome had with the rest of the churches back at the time of the Reformation, going back to an earlier understanding of things. What alot of people believe about Rome is based on misunderstandings, and some of it actually was true but has been changed recently. In this information age, in order to retain members in your church, you'd better be able to provide hard facts about what your church has to offer, and Rome is certainly feeling the pressure! Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 36 Registered: 1-2004 |
I will certainly give you one thing about Luther vs Rome though... Rome has never believed in salvation by faith ALONE. But in all my study of the earliest Christians I cannot find where anybody believed in "faith alone", so if Rome wants to try and say they teach the original faith handed down from the apostles, they have historical support in the "faith alone" area. From my study at least! This is also why the CoC doesn't believe in faith alone... they are trying to be a replica of the earliest Christian church. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2004 |
Here are some choice quotes from Chrysostom; Thou hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law? How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all. If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ, who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul says, "Therefore Christ is the minister of sin." ***** Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them." (Deut. xxvii: 26) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that hewho adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, "In thee shall all nations be blessed," (Gen. xii: 4) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion, Ver. 9. "So then they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham."80 Then, that they might not turn round, and object that, true it was Abraham was justified by Faith, for the Law was not then given, but what instance would be found of Faith justifying after the delivery of the Law? he addresses himself to this, and proves more than they required: namely, not only that Faith was justifying, but that the Law brought its adherents under a curse. To be sure of this, listen to the very words of the Apostle. Ver. 10. "For81 as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse." This is what he lays down, before proving it; and what is the proof? it is from the Law itself:- Ver. 10, 11. "For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now that no man is justified by the Law is evident." For all have sinned, and are under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, "The just shall live by faith," (Hab. ii: 4) which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, "The just shall live by the Law," but, "by faith:" Ver. 12. "And the Law is not of faith; but He that doeth them shall live in them." For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith. (Eph. ii: 8) ******* Ver. 18 18. "But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the Law."133 If it be asked in what way are these two connected, I answer, closely and plainly; for he that hath the Spirit as he ought, quenches thereby every evil desire, and he that is released from these needs no help from the Law, but is exalted far above its precepts. He who is never angry, what need has he to hear the command, Thou shalt not kill? He who never casts unchaste looks, what need hath he of the admonition, Thou shalt not commit adultery? Who would discourse about the fruits of wickedness with him who had plucked up the root itself? for anger is the root of murder, and of adultery the inquisitive gazing into faces. Hence he says, "If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the Law;" wherein he appears to me to have pronounced a high and striking eulogy of the Law, if, at least, the Law stood, according to its power, in the place of the Spirit before the Spirit's coming upon us. But we are not on that account obliged to continue apart with our schoolmaster. Then we were justly subject to the Law, that by fear we might chasten our lusts, the Spirit not being manifested; but now that grace is given, which not only commands us to abstain from them, but both quenches them, and leads us to a higher rule of life, what more need is there of the Law? He who has attained an exalted excellence from an inner impulse, has no occasion for a schoolmaster, nor does any one, if he is a philosopher, require a grammarian. Why then do ye so degrade yourselves, as now to listen to the Law, having previously given yourselves to the Spirit? ********** The phrase "faith alone" used here has to be taken in context; it's not the concept of salvation in sin. It's being changed to become once more in the image of God. And if the Catholics and Orthodox wish to honestly preserve the faith once delivered to the saints, they'll have nothing against St Chrysostom's commentary on Galatians here quoted, because after all they do believe he's a "Saint"! Jeremiah | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 263 Registered: 6-2001  |
Ephesians 2:8-10 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithóand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godó not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. I don't see what about this passage says "changing to become once more in the image of God." I also don't understand your comment "But in all my study of the earliest Christians I cannot find where anybody believed in "faith alone"" in light of this verse. Puzzled, Hannah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1240 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Hannah for that reminder from Ephesians. Jeremiah, I have a tape I would like to send you on Roman Catholicism done by John MacArthur. If you would like it sent to you for free, then ask Colleen for my email. Stan | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 421 Registered: 7-2000 |
I, also, am very puzzled by some of what Jeremiah wrote. I am very surprised to read his claim that the CofC does not believe in 'faith alone'. My dad (along with all of his side of the family) has been CofC for all of my life and the first church I took membership after leaving Adventism was CofC. I have never heard anything oher than 'saved by faith alone, through grace alone'. I'd be very interested in hearing why Jeremiah wrote what he did....... | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 38 Registered: 1-2004 |
I wrote what I did based on my personal experience and study. The one CoC minister I studied with did not believe in faith alone as he percieved the doctrine to be. This may simply be a case of meaning the same things but using different words. Maybe I can put it this way. The earliest Christians believed in righteousness. Not a righteousness which is simply a cover, but a righteousness which is a change in what we as a person actually are. Chrysostom can say "faith alone" because the "faith" part produces righteousness in the person who has faith. I think what the early Christians didn't believe is in a "faith alone" apart from righteousness. The "image of God" part is the idea that Adam and Eve were created in God's image but fell. Jesus came in order to make it possible for humans to be restored to God's intent, which is to be in God's image, or "like God", or righteous. Stan, you can ask Colleen for my email. I certainly am open to listening to the tape you mention. Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1243 Registered: 3-2005 |
Actually, I am aware of some very cultic churches of Christ such as the Boston CofC, and many others, who are very works-righteousness oriented, and actually considered cults, but may be out of the mainstream that Loneviking is talking about. Jeremiah, There is no evidence that the Roman Catholic church has changed one bit. In fact, Rome will morph into anything it has to be to get a foothold in any particular country. In Cuba, for example, it is very pro Fidel Castro while the evangelical true church is persecuted, or has to go underground. Ditto for so many S.America countries. Now in the U.S., they have put up a great front. In fact, they have been so deceptive, that they have conned a large portion of the evangelical church into believing that they are just another Christian church just like the Adventists are. But the fact that cannot be challenged is the fact that they still hold up the council of Trent as official dogma. In this Tridentine document, they pronounce ANATHEMA on anyone who believes Luther's doctrine and Jesus and Paul's doctrine of Justification by faith alone. It clearly states in this document that you can never have assurance of salvation, but if you work well, then you will be welcomed into eternal life. This is ANOTHER gospel, in the same way SDA theology teaches works-righteousness with their purgatorial doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. All false theology comes from Rome, as Paul and John, as well as Daniel, and of course Jesus has stated. There is a book that can be read off the web written by Geoffrey Paxton called "The Shaking of Adventism" which was the primary book which caused my spiritual eyes to be open to the issues of the Reformation. It was one of those life-changing moments when I realized why Adventism was false--because for the same reason Catholicism is false. These are just fancy Salvation by Works schemes that comes from the father of lies. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1244 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is the link for the Paxton book I referenced above and will likely post it on the Romans Revolution thread, as the White Horse Inn is addressing these issues so well right now. www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/shaking/index.html Stan | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 422 Registered: 7-2000 |
Jeremiah wrote: Maybe I can put it this way. The earliest Christians believed in righteousness. Not a righteousness which is simply a cover, but a righteousness which is a change in what we as a person actually are. Chrysostom can say "faith alone" because the "faith" part produces righteousness in the person who has faith. I think what the early Christians didn't believe is in a "faith alone" apart from righteousness. ------------------------------------------------- I doubt that there is any disagreement amongst most of the forum members on this point. The belief that faith produces change is mainstream Evangelical doctrine, and common to most CofC congregations. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2004 |
I think that as long as you mean faith that produces righteousness when you say faith alone, then there doesn't seem to be a fundamental disagreement with what my research in Christian history shows has been believed all along. I'm going to have to quiz my Catholic and Orthodox friends about this "faith alone" subject. After all, I've got the much revered St Chrysostom "backing me up"!  Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2004 |
Another part of the misunderstanding about "justification by faith alone" may have something to do with the near total lack of a "juridical" view of the atonement and salvation process in the early Christian writings. Since Rome sort of pioneered the emphasis on sinners owing a debt to God which could not be forgiven unless Jesus "paid the penalty", saying "faith alone" in this context could mean "I'm going to get off scot free and don't have to worry about changing my behaviour, because Jesus will take care of God's problem with my sins". I hope this isn't what Luther meant by faith alone. But this is what Rome could have understood Luther to mean, perhaps. While there is an aspect of Jesus having done something for us that nobody but Jesus could have done, the early Christians seem to have believed that Jesus was "defeating Death" and becoming man to unite man with God by man uniting with Jesus. Their emphasis was on salvation as "healing", curing the problem of us humans being sinful, being unlike God. We would partake of Jesus divine nature just like Jesus partook of our flesh and blood. So understanding "faith alone" in the context of "how are we healed from our sinful condition" does not disagree with the historical understanding at all, I think. Jeremiah | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 426 Registered: 7-2004  |
While there may not be a difference of opinion as to whether faith results in changes in a believer's life, I will be the first to say strongly that this does not mean there is agreement that believers become, rather than are counted, righteous through faith. There is no evidence in Scripture to suggest that the righteous work of believers is anything except "filthy rags." | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 41 Registered: 1-2004 |
Yes, this may be a sticky point. I'll have to see what I can find in history about whether we actually become righteous or whether we are just counted righteous. Maybe this has something to do with the phrase "Lord have mercy" used so frequently by the Orthodox and Catholics. Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1247 Registered: 3-2005 |
This issue is very important, because if our justification in anyway depends on a certain standard of sanctification, then there is no assurance of salvation, and what we have proclaimed as the good news of the gospel is gone. In fact this is what Paul was talking about in Galatians, that if our salvation depended on any part of lawkeeping then we fall from grace. It is the confusion of justification and sanctification which Rome and large amounts of protestantism say nothing of SDA which causes folks to despair of salvation. But it is true that the grace through faith that saves is never alone. Obedience and holiness are the fruit of salvation and not the root. Stan |
