Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Walter Veith


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Gustave

    35

  • stinsonmarri

    23

  • Gregory Matthews

    21

  • BlessedMan

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I, too have found many contradictions between SDA culture(including some of the "28"); but I have found contradictions between my understanding of scriptural and every other denomination I have resear

That's very interesting. I was raised SDA and I believed the whole "27" (it was 27 back then). When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Adventist fait

I would disagree with you on this one. However, I have decided to no longer comment on this topic of the sanctuary in this forum. There are a couple of other topics that I choose not to be part o

On 4/3/2021 at 5:42 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

If you have wondered who Walter Veith is, the following may enlighten you.

 

  https://atoday.org/whos-walter-veith-aunty-and-whats-he-all-about/

 

well, IMHO, the article is in poor taste, and most of the very gauche comments simply do similar things that "Aunty" is supposedly protesting. but "Aunty" really provides nothing but anecdotal quips, and opinionated declarations - and as much as I cannot support the work Veith is doing, "Aunty" just put varsol in the cornflakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Theophilus

Some of Veith's sermons are very good.  I loved watching him. Then later, all i saw was information on Jesuits, freemasons, and such. What happened for me was that he was no longer preaching Jesus or elaborating on the Bible. (His study on Zechariah is fantastic!)

Recently, I saw a short video on you tube stating that Veith was going to go back to evangelism. The next video I saw from him was on the Sabbath,think it was a Q&A( he was discussing why he speaks so much of the Sabbath) and it was very good. I think that one was 2 weeks ago.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Some of his earlier stuff was OK. I havnt heard the sabbath presentations you spoke about. Any chance you have a link to one of those? id be interested to listen in. 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched it and noted that @ the 39:40 mark he starts making the claim that the Catechism "stands above Scripture alone". Without getting into the specifics of why Walter Veith is incorrect as to his assertion I'll just come out and say he's being disingenuous here with his comments. 

A sincere Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran (or any Denominationally oriented individual) would say that their "Creed" systematizes Sacred Scripture (The Bible). While SDA's generally claim they don't have a Creed this wouldn't be at all an accurate assessment of the situation. Consider the following instruction from Ellen White as to the SDA Creed and where its positioned in relation to the Bible. 

Sister White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God(1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

And she says it again;

Ellen White
Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.{MR760 9.5}
MIN19801001-V53-10.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

Mass definition: "A large quantity or amount of something

Ellen wrote this in 1905...  1905 minus 50 years = 1855 and from that date forward to the date she wrote that teaching. 

I've previously cited "The Personality Of God" SDA Pillar Doctrine previously enough I won't do it again. Suffice it to say that Doctrine requires the adherent to it to affirm that Father is a Being with a humanoid body of flesh, bones, organs, etc. and that Christ (prior to the Incarnation) was a "Being" with a body of flesh, bones, organs, etc. During this time period it was understood these two "Beings" acted a committee or board of Directors that were perfectly united in purpose. 

The point I'm making here is that Veith makes the claim that the Catholic Church has a "Creed" that is enforced by it's "Catechism" and that the Catechism "stands above Scripture alone". 

If a sincere well intentioned Seventh-day Adventist or someone of another Faith Tradition came up to Ellen White in 1865 or 1879 and said: The Leaders of your Church are wrong about the Personality of God Pillar or frankly any other pillar and here are "A MASS OF SCRIPTURES" to back up why we are saying the teaching is wrong - what now? What would Walter Veith claim would be the appropriate way to answer this situation? Tell the other people despite their masses of Scripture the Spirit of Prophecy has already "defined the matter" and the case is closed? How is this ANY different than my believing that God started a Church and gave it the authority to not only define what constituted what Books would be in the Bible but to step in on questions pertaining to faith and morals - no differently than Acts 15? 

The way that I'm seeing this is Ellen White claimed more power for herself than Catholic Church claims the Pope has - only difference here is that Ellen white and generally SDA's will claim that Ellen doesn't contradict Scripture but the Pope does. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gustave said:

The point I'm making here is that Veith makes the claim that the Catholic Church has a "Creed" that is enforced by it's "Catechism" and that the Catechism "stands above Scripture alone". 

I was raised a Catholic - a devout Catholic.  I counted many priests as personal friends - still do.

When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Catholic faith.  When I would discuss this with my priest friends, the discussion would usually start out with something like "people a lot smarter than you studied scripture for longer than you've been alive.  Follow the faith you have loved your whole life".  As I found more and more of what I perceived to be contradictions, the debates became more heated.  In the ned, they admitted that one could either accept scripture or accept Catholic dogma and catechism; or accept the Bible; but rectifying the two was an exercise in futility.  At the tender age of 19, I chose to put 100% of my faith in the Bible and quietly leave Catholicism.  That was 52 years ago.  Are these priests still my friends? you betcha!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I was raised a Catholic - a devout Catholic.  I counted many priests as personal friends - still do.

When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Catholic faith.  When I would discuss this with my priest friends, the discussion would usually start out with something like "people a lot smarter than you studied scripture for longer than you've been alive.  Follow the faith you have loved your whole life".  As I found more and more of what I perceived to be contradictions, the debates became more heated.  In the ned, they admitted that one could either accept scripture or accept Catholic dogma and catechism; or accept the Bible; but rectifying the two was an exercise in futility.  At the tender age of 19, I chose to put 100% of my faith in the Bible and quietly leave Catholicism.  That was 52 years ago.  Are these priests still my friends? you betcha!  

Interesting, my experience has been somewhat different in that I've never heard that, I've got the opposite as far as comments. Glad you are still friends with them!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
On 4/11/2021 at 4:43 PM, Gustave said:

I just watched it and noted that @ the 39:40 mark he starts making the claim that the Catechism "stands above Scripture alone". Without getting into the specifics of why Walter Veith is incorrect as to his assertion I'll just come out and say he's being disingenuous here with his comments. 

A sincere Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran (or any Denominationally oriented individual) would say that their "Creed" systematizes Sacred Scripture (The Bible). While SDA's generally claim they don't have a Creed this wouldn't be at all an accurate assessment of the situation. Consider the following instruction from Ellen White as to the SDA Creed and where its positioned in relation to the Bible. 

Sister White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God(1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

And she says it again;

Ellen White
Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.{MR760 9.5}
MIN19801001-V53-10.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

Mass definition: "A large quantity or amount of something

Ellen wrote this in 1905...  1905 minus 50 years = 1855 and from that date forward to the date she wrote that teaching. 

I've previously cited "The Personality Of God" SDA Pillar Doctrine previously enough I won't do it again. Suffice it to say that Doctrine requires the adherent to it to affirm that Father is a Being with a humanoid body of flesh, bones, organs, etc. and that Christ (prior to the Incarnation) was a "Being" with a body of flesh, bones, organs, etc. During this time period it was understood these two "Beings" acted a committee or board of Directors that were perfectly united in purpose. 

The point I'm making here is that Veith makes the claim that the Catholic Church has a "Creed" that is enforced by it's "Catechism" and that the Catechism "stands above Scripture alone". 

If a sincere well intentioned Seventh-day Adventist or someone of another Faith Tradition came up to Ellen White in 1865 or 1879 and said: The Leaders of your Church are wrong about the Personality of God Pillar or frankly any other pillar and here are "A MASS OF SCRIPTURES" to back up why we are saying the teaching is wrong - what now? What would Walter Veith claim would be the appropriate way to answer this situation? Tell the other people despite their masses of Scripture the Spirit of Prophecy has already "defined the matter" and the case is closed? How is this ANY different than my believing that God started a Church and gave it the authority to not only define what constituted what Books would be in the Bible but to step in on questions pertaining to faith and morals - no differently than Acts 15? 

The way that I'm seeing this is Ellen White claimed more power for herself than Catholic Church claims the Pope has - only difference here is that Ellen white and generally SDA's will claim that Ellen doesn't contradict Scripture but the Pope does. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the discussions is on the Catechism and the Catholic teaching of the supposed personalities of THE ALMIGHTY ONES, the Bible contradicts them both. Throughout the Bible, it proves that the Law and the Commandments are binding. YAHWEH Stated about Abraham is clear:

Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE, and kept MY Charge, MY Commandments, MY Statutes, and MY Laws. Gen 26:5

YAHSHUA in THE NAME of HIS FATHER stood before the 70 elders, Aaron, Abihu, Nadad, Moses and Joshua. They all saw HIM and they did not die! YAHSHUA in THE NAME of HIS FATHER Said to Moses:

 And YAHWEH said unto Moses, Come up to ME into the Mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Ex24:12

Then at the end, when sin has been eradicated along with Satan, his angels and the wicked; again HE Said:

Blessed are they that do HIS Commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of LIFE, and may enter in through the Gates into the City. Rev 22:14

When EGW spoke concerning the personalities of THE ALMIGHTY ONES, she still at that time believed as a Methodist, as most pioneers kept some of their old beliefs of their Protestant views. However, as EGW became closer to the truth, she wrote some outstanding truths:

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is Infallible.—SM, bk. 1, p. 416

The Bible and the Bible alone, is our rule of faith. Review and Herald, 1938

God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The GC p. 595

We must not for a moment think that there is no more light, no more truth, to be given us. We are in danger of becoming careless by our indifference losing the sanctifying power of truth and composing ourselves with the thought, ‘I am rich, and increased with goods and have need of nothing’ Rev. 3:17. While we must hold fast to the truths which we have already received, we must not look with suspicion upon any new light that God may send. GW, p. 310

Finally, before her death she made it powerfully clear where she stand:

We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, are that certain individuals the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has Said.  Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error; other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth.

Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted, that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God's WORD will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but ONE who is INFALLIBLE--HE who IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE.

Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, is it true--in harmony with God's WORD? But, by whom is it advocated and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas that they will not examine the Scripture evidence with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices. TM p. 105, 106

Words had being changed in the Bible that EGW also spoke about in Early Writings p. 220, 221, that YAHSHUA showed her HIMSELF! In Hebrew 1:3, the Protestant's took from the Catholic creed the word hupostasis which actually means standing under:

Hupostasis is a very common word from Aristotle on and was used in Greek to describe that which stands under anything such as a building, a contract, a promise. It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions or with the meaning of a title deed. Thus one translation renders it

"Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for."
George Brooks adds that...Faith does not put all its confidence in the present and the visible. Faith is to our hopes what a deed is to a piece of property. The deed guarantees ownership for the owner.
In Hebrews 1:3 the Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God's real being is.

Hebrews 1:3 (note) And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Comment: Christ is the very representation of the divine essence. The author is conveying the truth that whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression and in so doing affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The etymological equivalent of hupostasis in English is "substance" or that which stands under a thing and which makes it what it is. The Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God's real being is.)

Robertson commenting on the use of hupostasis in Hebrews 1:3 writes that...
The word hupostasis for the being or essence of God “is a philosophical rather than a religious term” (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In Hebrews 11:1 hupostasis is like the “title-deed” idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used Heb. 1:1-4 in his controversy with Arius. (Robertson, A. Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Wuest writes that...
The word “substance” deserves careful treatment. It is hupostasis, made up of stasis “to stand,” and hupo “under,” thus “that which stands under, a foundation.” Thus it speaks of the ground on which one builds a hope. Moulton and Milligan report its use as a legal term. They say that it stands for “the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property, deposited in archives, and forming the evidence of ownership.” They suggest the translation, “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.” The Holy Spirit energized act of faith which a believer exercises in the Lord Jesus is the title-deed which God puts in his hand, guaranteeing to him the possession of the thing for which he trusted Him. In the case of this first-century Jew, his act of faith in Messiah as High Priest would be the title-deed which God would give him, guaranteeing to him the possession of the salvation for which he trusted God. Thus, he would have assurance. Vincent translates, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” He says that “It is the firm grasp of faith on unseen fact.” (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans or Logos) Text Sermons : Greek Word Studies : Assurance (5287) hupostasis

The word person is not in there but if you study history you will find that the Catholic writers of the early church changed it from substance to personalities. THE ALMIGHTY ONES are SPIRITUAL BEINGS; THEY ARE NOT flesh and blood. We are! It is the belief that the popes who who all are persons, flesh beings can be made equal to THEM. By using Zeus and theos as an example because the false belief they mix with human flesh, they can twix this idea. Trying to make THE ALMIGHTY ONES to be persons to connect that the papacy can be them here on earth. It is no wonder that HCH felt that Satan could be MICHAEL because of the teaching all who call themself Protestants teach. The exact same creed of faith that the Nicene Creed and the Catechism teaches and practice. It is not the people themselves, it is the teachings of the Church that Constantine made! The Romans both believed in Greece mythology along with Mithra. Constantine brought back the faith and worship of Nimrod that Daniel saw in Chapter 7. The Lion-Babylon, the bear-Persia and the leopard-Greece. They were combined into the fourth beast and that is what John saw. All of the beliefs systems together. How? Through Constantine and the Nicene Creed along with the Catechism!

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the discussions is on the Catechism and the Catholic teaching of the supposed personalities of THE ALMIGHTY ONES, the Bible contradicts them both. Throughout the Bible, it proves that the Law and the Commandments are binding. YAHWEH Stated about Abraham is clear:

Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE, and kept MY Charge, MY Commandments, MY Statutes, and MY Laws. Gen 26:5

Abraham did obey what God told him to do (i.e. pack up and move, proceed with the startling action of what he was going to do to his Son), etc. This contextually has nothing to do with what God gave Israel in the form of Ceremonial Laws to "separate Israel" from the other nations of the earth. The Sabbath was as alien to Abraham as was space ship with little green men inside!

Nehemiah 9,13:  Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

And YAHWEH said unto Moses, Come up to ME into the Mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Ex24:12

Again, you are ignoring / replacing fully revealed events with shortened synopsis. Read Deuteronomy 5 THE WHOLE CHAPTER. 

If you read that whole chapter you will see that it describes in fine detail what exactly happened on the Mountain with Moses, God started to go through the commandments and STOPPED at 10 because the people were terrified. God told Moses to tell the Israelites to go hide in their tents while Moses was to stay with God to God could continue giving the Israelites THE REST OF THE COMMANDMEANTS - which God did. 

You seem to have a problem with education in that at the time theological issues were being sorted out in the Christian Church the Church used the best technical language they had access to. Again, your anti -"Substance" argument is with Scripture, Logic and Reason.

WHY IS GOD SIMPLE? THE REASON FOR DIVINE SIMPLICITY - YouTube

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
On 4/18/2021 at 12:40 AM, Gustave said:

Abraham did obey what God told him to do (i.e. pack up and move, proceed with the startling action of what he was going to do to his Son), etc. This contextually has nothing to do with what God gave Israel in the form of Ceremonial Laws to "separate Israel" from the other nations of the earth. The Sabbath was as alien to Abraham as was space ship with little green men inside!

Nehemiah 9,13:  Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Where in the Bible does it said that Abraham did not know about the Sabbath?The Sabbath was given during Creation. Have you seen green people because the Bible said YAHSHUA made all the worlds. Heb 1: 2, 3 In Job they are called both sons and daughters or family (Ben) of ELOHIM. They came to represent themselves before HIM!

Nehemiah was writing about the Children of IsraEL who had forgotten the Sabbath and Ex 16 they had to be reintroduce to it again. The Commandments Abraham knew. Plus the Bible ended which I also gave that you will not enter the Gates of the Holy City if you do not keep all of them and obey them. That also includes the Sabbath! Isa. 66:23

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Who can say that they keep all of thee commandments?  I can not.  Yet, I have the assurance of salvation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Who can say that they keep all of thee commandments?  I can not.  Yet, I have the assurance of salvation.

I would definitely agree with this idea Gregory Salvation is not dependent on obedience but it does result in obedience, Good thing too. I dont know of any perfect sabbath keepers or perfect commandment keepers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 4:06 PM, stinsonmarri said:

Where in the Bible does it said that Abraham did not know about the Sabbath?The Sabbath was given during Creation. Have you seen green people because the Bible said YAHSHUA made all the worlds. Heb 1: 2, 3 In Job they are called both sons and daughters or family (Ben) of ELOHIM. They came to represent themselves before HIM!

Nehemiah was writing about the Children of IsraEL who had forgotten the Sabbath and Ex 16 they had to be reintroduce to it again. The Commandments Abraham knew. Plus the Bible ended which I also gave that you will not enter the Gates of the Holy City if you do not keep all of them and obey them. That also includes the Sabbath! Isa. 66:23

Blessings!

Where in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath was given during creation? You should invest in a Strong's. When Hebrews 1, 2 says "WORLDS" its NOT IN A GENE RODDENBERRY context LOL! 

Where in the Bible does it say that the Children of Israel had "forgotten the Sabbath" & needed to be reminded of it? Ezekiel 20, 9 -13 says otherwise Stinsonmarrie. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
On 4/19/2021 at 7:20 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Who can say that they keep all of thee commandments?  I can not.  Yet, I have the assurance of salvation.

The Bible through THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB and THE POWER of THE HOLY SPIRIT! How it is our will through the power of choice! The assurance of salvation is by hearing and doing the Word! We make a choice to choose to keep HIS Commandments. We are not robots pastor, we have the power of choice. Those who will be save, will obey on their on free will the power given to use during creation.

By this we know that we love the children of ELOHIYM, when we love ELOHIYM, and keep HIS Commandments. For this is the love of ELOHIYM, that we keep HIS Commandments: and HIS Commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of ELOHIYM overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that YAHSHUA is the SON of ELOHIYM? 1John 5:2 -5 

There is no where in the Bible that says we cannot stop sinning! Salvation is the victory of being save, once we keep all of HIS Commandments. It does not say anywhere that salvation is going assist us, that the reward if we obey first and keep HIS Commandments. Lot of people are going be surprise thinking that we cannot choose to do right. That salvation is some magical powers. It not!

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Where in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath was given during creation? You should invest in a Strong's. When Hebrews 1, 2 says "WORLDS" its NOT IN A GENE RODDENBERRY context LOL! 

Where in the Bible does it say that the Children of Israel had "forgotten the Sabbath" & needed to be reminded of it? Ezekiel 20, 9 -13 says otherwise Stinsonmarrie. 

 

What you need to understand is the Hebrew grammar and language!

aiōn

From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550. Strong Hebrew and Greek Dictionary

This shows that Paul wrote the book of Hebrew to the Hebrew people not Jews in their language and grammar.

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, JoeMo said:

When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Catholic faith.  When I would discuss this with my priest friends, the discussion would usually start out with something like "people a lot smarter than you studied scripture for longer than you've been alive. 

That's very interesting. I was raised SDA and I believed the whole "27" (it was 27 back then). When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Adventist faith (and many contradictions within the biblical texts). When I tried discussing some of these issues with SDA clergy, I also got the response - "Adventist scholars have been studying this for 100 years and have resolved these questions."

I have since made peace with the realization that I will not have all the answers and that I do not need to have all the answers. As I worked my way through the SDA 28, Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Luther's commentaries, the Catholic Catechism, Orthodox writers, etc. I concluded that the Catholic approach to and interpretation of scripture is not really any less valid than the 19th century New England innovations which led to the SDA, JW and Christian Scientist movements.

SDA doctrine, teaching and practice is far from "perfect"; Catholic doctrine, teaching and practice are far from perfect. The same can be said of Calvinism, Lutheranism and others. Each of these traditions requires one to emphasize certain biblical texts and downplay or outright ignore others. This imperfection in doctrine and teaching is endemic to Christianity, since the founding documents are imperfect themselves. The imperfection is inevitable since the documents are rendered in human language, which is always fraught with ambiguities.

I continue my search, but it's been liberating to recognize that I do not need to have the answers and I don't need to find a faith community with which I agree 100% (I doubt any exists). And even if such a faith community exists, such 100% agreement would be short-lived since my views are always being challenged, updated, modified, improved, refined etc.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 11:37 PM, BlessedMan said:

I dont know of any perfect sabbath keepers or perfect commandment keepers.

Nor has anyone else knows any perfect commandment keepers.

Therein lies the absurdity of the so-called "last generation theology" and the perfectionist camp. These people will argue until they're blue in the face, with EGW quotations in hand, that man can perfect his character on this earth. But none can point to a single example of this ever occurring.

It's a little like those people who take the text about being able to move mountains by faith literally. Could you imagine a group of supposed adults having a supposedly serious conversation about whether or not a man has the ability to throw Mount Everest into the Indian Ocean by faith?

So what exactly is the point of arguing about whether or not man can do something that no one has ever done? Unless it's just arguing for the sake of having an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

I have since made peace with the realization that I will not have all the answers and that I do not need to have all the answers.

It sounds like a very healthy and normal process to go through. Glad for you that you could do this for yourself. My friend's Mother used to keep saying "just keep doing what you KNOW is right." Sounds like good advice for today.

 

2 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

Nor has anyone else knows any perfect commandment keepers.

Therein lies the absurdity of the so-called "last generation theology" and the perfectionist camp. These people will argue until they're blue in the face, with EGW quotations in hand, that man can perfect his character on this earth. But none can point to a single example of this ever occurring.

I agree there are many poor examples out there on this subject. The way I figure it is simple...there is some truth to this idea, the Bible describes it in various places, regarding "a remnant" so its not really something to just shoosh under the rug. I think the main point should be that we too often do not set this idea forth in the same way that the Bible does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

That's very interesting. I was raised SDA and I believed the whole "27" (it was 27 back then). When I started reading the Bible for myself, I started to find many contradictions with my Adventist faith (and many contradictions within the biblical texts). When I tried discussing some of these issues with SDA clergy, I also got the response - "Adventist scholars have been studying this for 100 years and have resolved these questions."

I, too have found many contradictions between SDA culture(including some of the "28"); but I have found contradictions between my understanding of scriptural and every other denomination I have researched.  I have come to the conclusion that many (if not most) of these contradictions are IMHO not "salvational".  The most salvational truth I know is that I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of mankind as well as completely God and completely man. He and His Father are also the creator of all things.  It is only by His sacrifice' death' and resurrection that I even have a chance at eternal life in His Kingdom.

I don't believe He cares one iota about my opinion of EGW or 1844 or who got to the tomb first after His resurrection, or whether He died on Wednesday or Friday of AD 30 or AD 33 or whether I think the papacy or Islam or the New World Order is the antichrist/beast/false prophet. There will not be a theology test that must be taken prior to obtaining eternal life.  He cares a lot about me believing He is who He says He is; and has done what He said He will do.

I remain an SDA because it is the closest thing I can find to my idea of biblical theology; and as a group, they are the most "real" people I know.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 2:43 PM, Gustave said:

The way that I'm seeing this is Ellen White claimed more power for herself than Catholic Church claims the Pope has -

This is not very accurate my friend. I can understand why you are in general objection to EGW but this seems to be crossing a line of thought that has no basis in scripture or actual existing facts. Your claim is impossible to prove. I think you are doing something similar to many Madventists who pile up a mass of EGW quotes to "prove" what Adventists "really" believed and taught. Now, I am not saying you seem mad, just that this kind of posting can be recognized elsewhere by Adventists who misuse her writings in ways she would never condone. 

JoeMo said something above that sounds much more realistic to me.

8 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I remain an SDA because it is the closest thing I can find to my idea of biblical theology; and as a group, they are the most "real" people I know.

There is simply no need to quote EGW to prove anything about our official beliefs. We dont do it, so others should likely learn from that end of the spectrum. If you have a copy of our Fundamental Belief statements, it would be best to just start there. That is, if one is actually interested in finding what we really believe.

I have no problem seeing you explaining/defending your Roman Catholic beliefs here. That is likely a very good thing for Adventists who come here to experience...as in hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak. NO I am not calling you a horse! lol

I am sure most Roman Catholics would expect us to use their officially stated sources for explaining their beliefs, some of us Adventists would welcome you doing that here, by using our officially stated belief statements, along with the scriptures provided by same, and then making your comparisons with scripture. No matter which of our church leaders or pioneers you would wish to quote, they cannot speak for the church, in terms of an official belief statement. When such ones have an opinion that is not in harmony with the official fundamental belief statement; it does not follow that THAT is "really" what we believe. It just means we, as a church allow and encourage people to think and believe differently. Yes, some do not allow such but really, we are supposed to. Its in the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlessedMan said:

If you have a copy of our Fundamental Belief statements, it would be best to just start there. That is, if one is actually interested in finding what we really believe.

It is also essential to recognize that our church does not claim these "fundies" to be "infallible." They are simply brief statements of our current understandings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
On 4/21/2021 at 11:26 AM, pierrepaul said:

Nor has anyone else knows any perfect commandment keepers.

Therein lies the absurdity of the so-called "last generation theology" and the perfectionist camp. These people will argue until they're blue in the face, with EGW quotations in hand, that man can perfect his character on this earth. But none can point to a single example of this ever occurring.

One of the real problems you will have to deal with in this argument is that we are exhorted over and over again in the Bible to "be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect." I see many many people who believe that a person can sin right up to the very moment that Jesus returns to this earth and I tend to believe this is a very fatal error. First of all, it demonstrates unbelief. 

I find that you really then have to determine what or how one becomes perfect. Exactly what does that mean? Many try every day of their lives to not sin and fail miserably. And to be sure, I find it to be really works to attempt tp become perfect through your own efforts. 

It was (and is) often said to me that "we need to get ready, because Jesus is coming." No one ever says how you do that. It has been one of my focuses for some time now to understand exactly how do you get ready, i. e., even, how do you become perfect. Since we have been exhorted to become perfect by God in Scripture, then it follows that we can become perfect. God does not lie and He does not waste words. And as noted previously, what that means has to be determined. One of the great recent studies regarding having the mind of Jesus and becoming perfect is a seminar by Bill Liversidge which is available on Youtube and is linked to in my sig lines. See the Victory in Jesus section of the links.

One of the fallacies I find is to try and point out that no one is a perfect commandment keeper. We cannot know that. It is given that everyone has sinned, but the idea seems to be because one has sinned they can never be perfect. I very much believe that a person can cease to sin. There is reference in Scripture that when Jesus comes we will see Him as He is because we will be like Him. He even stands up in heaven and says let the righteous be righteous still. Again, we can not ever be able to say how many individuals on this earth have become so like God through their relationship with Him that they cease to sin. However, I believe that for one to claim they have stopped sinning is to prove that they continue to sin. As far as saying none can point to a single case of someone becoming perfect, you cannot prove none have. 

As far as "Last Generation Theology (LGT)" goes, it seems to be a name applied to a number of traits of those people who go through the time of trouble without a mediator. The Bible uses a different name, "the 144,000." I believe the name came through the writings of M. L. Andreasen, but any of you are free to correct me on that. I have found nothing in the LGT belief that is not in all of the writings of the Scriptures and the early church founders including Sister Ellen, E. Waggoner, and others I have yet to read. And of course, many more modern theologians and writers echo much of the same in different ways including Andreasen, Goldstein, Douglass, Liversidge, and others. 

On 4/21/2021 at 2:45 PM, JoeMo said:

I don't believe He cares one iota about my opinion of EGW or 1844 or who got to the tomb first after His resurrection, or whether...

This I would find troubling. I do believe God will share secrets with His people and show them wonderful things. When it comes to EGW, it seems to me that you have to totally dismiss the messages that were given to us via her ministry or believe. And if we have been given a wonderful message through her, but choose to dismiss them, it seems one is not slighting her but God who gave the message.

The understanding of 1844  is a very powerful message that we have not even gotten to the end of fully understanding it. While it is true that it is not a "requirement" for salvation, but I personally would be very concerned to go out and ignore what understandings have been offered to us for this day and age. Daniel was told to seal up that understanding and in this day it is open to us. Jesus talked about how the people of His time on earth had a knowledge of things that others only dreamed of knowing. And today, we have a knowledge of things that even the apostles did not seem to have.

Another writer notes often that much of the Scripture writings of prophecies that seem to have been fulfilled long ago are written for us today. Many prophecies even by Jesus were in the same talk applicable to the residents of Jerusalem and to the inhabitants of the earth at the end of the age.

On 4/11/2021 at 4:43 PM, Gustave said:

The way that I'm seeing this is Ellen White claimed more power for herself than Catholic Church claims the Pope has - only difference here is that Ellen white and generally SDA's will claim that Ellen doesn't contradict Scripture but the Pope does. 

Here you are making statements without proving evidence. Exactly where does EGW contradict Scripture? Often done is to make such statements without providing the evidence for them.

And exactly where does EGW claim more power for herself than the Pope? Given that EGW claimed nothing more than being a messenger, but the Popes have referred to themselves in the past as "Lord God the Pope"! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2021 at 8:49 PM, BlessedMan said:

This is not very accurate my friend. I can understand why you are in general objection to EGW but this seems to be crossing a line of thought that has no basis in scripture or actual existing facts. Your claim is impossible to prove. I think you are doing something similar to many Madventists who pile up a mass of EGW quotes to "prove" what Adventists "really" believed and taught. Now, I am not saying you seem mad, just that this kind of posting can be recognized elsewhere by Adventists who misuse her writings in ways she would never condone. 

JoeMo said something above that sounds much more realistic to me.

There is simply no need to quote EGW to prove anything about our official beliefs. We dont do it, so others should likely learn from that end of the spectrum. If you have a copy of our Fundamental Belief statements, it would be best to just start there. That is, if one is actually interested in finding what we really believe.

I have no problem seeing you explaining/defending your Roman Catholic beliefs here. That is likely a very good thing for Adventists who come here to experience...as in hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak. NO I am not calling you a horse! lol

I am sure most Roman Catholics would expect us to use their officially stated sources for explaining their beliefs, some of us Adventists would welcome you doing that here, by using our officially stated belief statements, along with the scriptures provided by same, and then making your comparisons with scripture. No matter which of our church leaders or pioneers you would wish to quote, they cannot speak for the church, in terms of an official belief statement. When such ones have an opinion that is not in harmony with the official fundamental belief statement; it does not follow that THAT is "really" what we believe. It just means we, as a church allow and encourage people to think and believe differently. Yes, some do not allow such but really, we are supposed to. Its in the Bible.

 

A lot goes into a dogma before it becomes a dogma & the key word being "we declare and define [x,y,z]. From my perspective this is radically different than how dogma was defined in the SDA Church. 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon MEand I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is errorAs the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundationWe accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

Ellen is saying that SHE "defined" what is truth and what is error by the CHARISM she possessed. This is radically different than the Papacy and ascribes significantly more power to one person in the context of identifying and defining dogma than as found in the Magisterium. Furthermore the charism claimed by Ellen White included the ability to interpret Scripture in addition to prophecy. 

Ellen White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

 

Below Ellen appears to contrast her charism with the inspired writers of the Bible.

Ellen White
The Bible is written by inspired menbut IT is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers")

Ellen then claimed that what she wrote was directly what God wanted to convey. 

Ellen White
There are those who say, ‘Someone MANIPULATES her writings.’ I acknowledge the charge. It is One who is mighty in counsel, One who presents before me the condition of things (1MR 30).

As anyone with knowledge of how dogma is defined in the Catholic Church can attest - Ellen White certainly ascribed more power in defining what was to be accepted or rejected as faith than the Papacy generally or any singular Pope. 

Love your comment about the horse LOL. 

We have to keep our sense and source of humor going. 


It took 1800 years for the Marian dogmas to be defined - compare that length of time, debate and study to how the SDA dogma of the Investigative Judgement was defined as truth. Who was it again that "defined" the I.J. as truth for the SDA Church? I know the answer to that and of course have a quote to back it up but wanted to hear your thoughts on it prior to posting it. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...