Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Walter Veith


Recommended Posts

 

I find it interesting that aside from telling the Sadducees that they were basically idiots when it came to Scripture Jesus didn't seem to repudiate folks who sincerely believed something that differed. I wonder if we have perhaps missed something in this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Gustave

    25

  • BlessedMan

    15

  • Gregory Matthews

    13

  • stinsonmarri

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

This is a really good book. One of the reasons I appreciate the study of "the sanctuary," is because I once red a quote that basically says "In ever part of it was a symbol of Him," meaning, the sanct

stinsonmarri
On 4/24/2021 at 7:58 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

We tolerate a much wider range of belief and practice that many people realize.

*  'While it is true that the majority of SDAs begin and end the Sabbath at sundown, There are three (3) different times that SDA members actually begin and end the Sabbath.

*  While it is true that the official SDA teaching on the Trinity is orthodox, it is also true that the early founders of the SDA denomination had a mixture of beliefs that often included some Arian concepts of the Trinity.

*  There are elements of those Arian beliefs that have remained with the SDA denomination to this day.  This forum used to have a vocal proponent of such as a regular poster.  She no longer posts here.  But, it was her choice to stop posting here.  I wish that she had continued to participate in this forum.

*  There has been an element in Adventism that differs with the majority belief as to what happens to a person at death.

*  There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination.

All of these are accepted in Adventism as long as the person does not cause a public disturbance in our worship services.  They can proclaim their view outside of the worship services generally without a problem as long as they do it in a positive manner.  If they publicly attack the SDA Chruch, that might eventually result in disciplinary action.

  

 

 

 

Pastor the same problem with IsraEL, is the exact problems with SDA. We should not be mixed all going different ways.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat 7:13  

Satan had the Adam's to believe the opposite of what HE Commanded them to do. Ms. Adam told the serpent a lie. She told they were told not the touch the tree, nor eat the fruit and that is not true! She felt if she could not eat of the fruit, then she should not touch it!

 And YAHWEH ELOHIYM formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And YAHWEH ELOHIYM planted a Garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made YAHWEH ELOHIYM to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the Tree of LIFE also in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. And YAHWEH ELOHIYM took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And YAHWEH ELOHIYM Commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat:  But of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.      Gen 2:7-10, 15-17

Now men alway wanted it appear that men were more important than woman. So it appears that Mr. Adam was told everything first and then he told his wife. Nope that is not what happen, it what the KJV writers wanted people to believe, that is not what THE HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED Moses to write, this added in trying to mixed up various lies to fit to their way of thinking how things should be instead of follow the words at they appeared. 

From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): and breathedH5301 into his nostrilsH639.   Nostrils is H639 and "his" was put in there.  tookH3947 (H853) the man,H120 (HI20 means both male and female that we call human beings again English giving the title to man. The Bible said both male and female are flesh blood beings! Both male and female was called Adam! In Hebrew the male is called zâkâr and the female in Hebrew is called neqebah. Nothing like the English who put male and female. Making the woman out as a sexual object and they both were naked! 

Let the Bible remind you that we can't  call all types of mixed belief and be save. The Bible says one faith and it has to go according to what THE FATHER SAYS, THE SON  and THE HOLY SPIRIT follow HIS WORD. YAHSHUA Said HE DOES THE WILL of HIS FATHER and THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO IS THE COMFORTER LEADS AND GUIDE ALL INTO THE TRUTH OF THE FATHER! Let the speak:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Mat  7:13-14

Blessings!

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

Pastor the same problem with IsraEL, is the exact problems with SDA. We should not be mixed all going different ways.

There are scriptures which denote the fact that it is through the very divisions we keep loathing, and usually very publically, that The Holy Spirit can and DOES work best. The divisions are not the problem. How we respond to them, what we say and how we categorize and stigmatize those who believe differently. As soon as we start categorizing a "division" we begin the process of creating STIGMA. Note how Paul puts it:

Quote

"...when you come together, I hear that divisions exist among you...there must actually be factions among you so that they which are approved will be made manifest."  (1 Cor 11:18-19)

Regardless of how one interprets these verses, it can be seen that we don't always have to bemoan the divisions themselves, so much as we should be speaking out against the actual dividers. Furthermore, "divisions" as used in most scripture texts has little to do with doctrine. People do not need to "agree" on doctrine to be united IN Christ.

When it comes to Veith; I do not see him as one who promotes the Biblical definition of "unity" because he seems more focused on the alleged conspiracy end of things. There is very little room for Christ at his Diatribe Inn.

This is just an opinion on the general tone of his ideas, not on the man as a person.

Edited by BlessedMan
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 9:58 AM, Gustave said:

... folks who sincerely believed something that differed. I wonder if we have perhaps missed something in this. 

I have thought about this for more than 40 years - sincere people, each looking at the same evidence, but each being a product of his or her upbringing, environment, experiences, genetics, biases, priorities, etc. - come to different conclusions, each convinced he is correct and that the others are wrong.

Many religious people are 100% cocksure that the other guy's religion is wrong and mistaken, and that everyone who follows that other guy's religion is deceived at best and malevolent at worst. Many seem to be well-informed about the absurdities and internal contradictions innate to the other guy's religion, but are willfully blind to the absurdities and internal contradictions in one's own.

Many also seem to believe that once their own particular religion is explained, anyone who doesn't agree with it must be in rebellion. It rarely occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe, the justifications for their own religion are not all that compelling and convincing.

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

I have thought about this for more than 40 years - sincere people, each looking at the same evidence, but each being a product of his or her upbringing, environment, experiences, genetics, biases, priorities, etc. - come to different conclusions, each convinced he is correct and that the others are wrong.

Many religious people are 100% cocksure that the other guy's religion is wrong and mistaken, and that everyone who follows that other guy's religion is deceived at best and malevolent at worst. Many seem to be well-informed about the absurdities and internal contradictions innate to the other guy's religion, but are willfully blind to the absurdities and internal contradictions in one's own.

Many also seem to believe that once their own particular religion is explained, anyone who doesn't agree with it must be in rebellion. It rarely occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe, the justifications for their own religion are not all that compelling and convincing.

Yeah, its called "scotoma"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 11:14 PM, BlessedMan said:

 

.

When it comes to Veith; I do not see him as one who promotes the Biblical definition of "unity" because he seems more focused on the alleged conspiracy end of things. There is very little room for Christ at his Diatribe Inn.

This is just an opinion on the general tone of his ideas, not on the man as a person.

Veith knows its far more profitable  to keep titillating his paying customers proclivities. If Veith produced a DVD that explained that there were now Jesuits hiding inside boxes of Corn Flakes and he could show ya how to identify them his - fans would snap those DVD's up faster than Ellen White could have shot an Oyster back in the day. 

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

Veith knows its far more profitable  to keep titillating his paying customers proclivities. If Veith produced a DVD that explained that there were now Jesuits hiding inside boxes of Corn Flakes and he could show ya how to identify them his - fans would snap those DVD's up faster than Ellen White could have shot an Oyster back in the day. 

Dont get me started on the "paying customers" in certain other organizations. This is not where I was going with my comment. I believe its unfair to talk about someone this way, especially when it comes to quoting from non-official sources, which you just decried above that some dont do. While the article cited is from an official source, was it talking about Veith, and his motives for what he teaches. You and I both know the answer to that. I cant tell others here what to do but Ill only comment on the ideas, not the people themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 2:14 AM, BlessedMan said:

There are scriptures which denote the fact that it is through the very divisions we keep loathing, and usually very publically, that The Holy Spirit can and DOES work best. The divisions are not the problem. How we respond to them, what we say and how we categorize and stigmatize those who believe differently. As soon as we start categorizing a "division" we begin the process of creating STIGMA. Note how Paul puts it:

Regardless of how one interprets these verses, it can be seen that we don't always have to bemoan the divisions themselves, so much as we should be speaking out against the actual dividers. Furthermore, "divisions" as used in most scripture texts has little to do with doctrine. People do not need to "agree" on doctrine to be united IN Christ.

When it comes to Veith; I do not see him as one who promotes the Biblical definition of "unity" because he seems more focused on the alleged conspiracy end of things. There is very little room for Christ at his Diatribe Inn.

This is just an opinion on the general tone of his ideas, not on the man as a person.

Why is it, do we need to interpret what THE ALMIGHTY ONES  says? When did we think we are more knowable then THEM? You see it is the Greek gods we try to treat THEM like and we can't, it will not work! When Daniel and John, both saw the body of the beast was Greek, they saw that it would dominate the world. Their mixture of thoughts is just like Babylon of Nimrod. They were all together and they refuse to accept the way the earth was after the flood had changed it. Their language had to changed to a diversity of languages that took Nimrod's belief and twisted it into various mixed up thoughts that we cannot see ONENESS in THE ALMIGHTIES. THEY ARE THREE INDIVIDUALS who ARE ONE IN THOUGHT, THEY ARE UNITED AND THEY AGREE. There is no mixture with THEM and we are created beings. Who do we think we are! The reason why we do not agree is because we have not die to sin or self. The Bible says you can't, but we dare to say we can. The Bible says there is one way to salvation, we say there are many ways. If you believe that okay, you have that right. Just like THEY THE RIGHT to not too, since THEY ARE THE CREATORS! No you will not enter into the Gates of THEIR Kingdom or City but only those who accept One Way! I believe in them, I never seen flesh beings create any Living beings and I am not going to accept it.

 Hide THY FACE from my sins, and Blot out all mine iniquities. Ps 51:9

The one straight gate, that is what I believe in! I believe YOUR way YAHSHUA, I am not equal to YOU. YOU MADE me, and then came down here and DIED for me.

CREATE  Create in me a clean heart, O ELOHIYM; and renew a right life within me. 
Cast me not away from THY PRESENCE; and take not THY HOLY SPIRIT from me.  Restore unto me THE JOY of THY SALVATION; and uphold me with THY FREE SPIRIT. Then will I teach transgressors THY WAYS; and sinners shall be converted unto THEE. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O ELOHIYM, THOU ELOHIYM of my Salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of THY RIGHTEOUSNESS. O YAHWEH, Open THOU my lips; and my mouth shall show forth THY praise. For THOU Desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: THOU delightest not in burnt offering. Ps 51:10

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

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

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

Well, I am not sure why you said I have "interpreted" anything. I simply quoted scripture and made a general statement on one possible application. The scripture I quoted was simple and clear: there are division/s in the church, and The Holy Spirit can and does work just fine with the divisions therein. No need to eliminate the ones we dont agree with. Or to coerce everyone into seeing something the same way. PTL :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2021 at 7:41 AM, Gustave said:

If Veith produced a DVD that explained that there were now Jesuits hiding inside boxes of Corn Flakes and he could show ya how to identify them his - fans would snap those DVD's up faster than Ellen White could have shot an Oyster back in the day. 

I think they just might start buying Cornflakes! lol Happy day to you Gustave!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stinsonmarri asked in the quote below:

The answer to that question is very simple:  Because we seek to both understand and to apply it to our lives.

Stinsonsmarri interprets what she believes God says on a regular basis as she shares her interpretation with us.  She should interpret and apply it to her life.  Her understanding may not be correct.  But, that is another issue.  Her application to her life may not be correct.  But, that is another issue. 

A common meaning of the work interpret is to explain the meaning of something in understandable terms.   That is the basic role of evangelism.  If Stinsonmarri really believes that one does not need to interpret, she is telling us that evangelism is not needed.

Further, if she is telling us that she does not need to have Scripture interpreted to her, she is telling us that she believes that she has perfect knowledge and no need of any further understanding of the Biblical teachings. Well, on this point, the Biblical teaching is that the spiritual life is a life of constant growth in understanding.  

  

Quote

Why is it, do we need to interpret what THE ALMIGHTY ONES  says?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Well, I am not sure why you said I have "interpreted" anything. I simply quoted scripture and made a general statement on one possible application. The scripture I quoted was simple and clear: there are division/s in the church, and The Holy Spirit can and does work just fine with the divisions therein. No need to eliminate the ones we dont agree with. Or to coerce everyone into seeing something the same way. PTL :)

Blessed Man: I never said you personally. This is what I said: "Why is it, do we need to interpret what THE ALMIGHTY ONES  says? When did we think we are more knowledgeable than THEM?" (I did misspell knowledgeable and than).

The only Scripture you focus on was 1 Cor 11:18-19 the newer translation did not provide what Paul was saying more clearer. He said: " I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it." t was you that brought up interpretation: "Regardless of how one interprets these verses, it can be seen that we don't always have to bemoan the divisions themselves, so much as we should be speaking out against the actual dividers. Furthermore, "divisions" as used in most scripture texts has little to do with doctrine."

 Study to show thyself approved unto ELOHIYM, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 
 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more wickedness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of ELOHIYM standeth sure, having this seal, YAHWEH knoweth them that are HIS. And, Let everyone that nameth THE NAME of YAHWEH depart from iniquity. 2Ti 2:15-19

The Bible speaks for itself. It is just like what Paul said when he spoke very clearly about the two brothers, who wanted to preach a false doctrine that does causes division. Division is in the church and also out of the church. There are those who were SDA teaches now the earth is flat. If we believe that the one faith of the Bible, but people can have division of beliefs why witness? That is why there are so many religions and they all feel that they are the righteous one and not others. Some may give you credit like they are THE ALMIGHTY ONES, stating you are sincere. Sincerity can not save you or get you into the Kingdom, love and obedience does.

The same reason many cannot keep the just and fair laws of the land because many want to do it their way. Yes, beings here on earth have unjust laws, but YAHWEH Laws are just and true all of them! Psalm Chapter 119 is the dedication and the simple facts on obeying and keeping all of YAHWEH'S Laws.

If anyone wants to choose that they are a burden and you justified that you cannot keep them. So be it. Then YAHWEH Said you cannot enter HIS Kingdom through the Gates of HIS City. I did not say it the Bible did which I believe!

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri asked in the quote below:

The answer to that question is very simple:  Because we seek to both understand and to apply it to our lives.

Stinsonsmarri interprets what she believes God says on a regular basis as she shares her interpretation with us.  She should interpret and apply it to her life.  Her understanding may not be correct.  But, that is another issue.  Her application to her life may not be correct.  But, that is another issue. 

A common meaning of the work interpret is to explain the meaning of something in understandable terms.   That is the basic role of evangelism.  If Stinsonmarri really believes that one does not need to interpret, she is telling us that evangelism is not needed.

Further, if she is telling us that she does not need to have Scripture interpreted to her, she is telling us that she believes that she has perfect knowledge and no need of any further understanding of the Biblical teachings. Well, on this point, the Biblical teaching is that the spiritual life is a life of constant growth in understanding.  

  

Dear Pastor what did I interpret? There is a difference in interpreting then quoting. I do not have a Kingdom or a City in Heaven that have Gates. What I have always said is to take the Bible and on what it said. Not things that have changed in the Bible and EGW stated this clearly that ELOHIYM showed that words had been changed in the Bible and they have.

This was said beautifully by another: "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." I agree with this and it was wonderful. Is he interpreting too? What makes what I speak any different? You make not agree with me, but please do not say that I interpreted anything because I do not need too! I have said over and over to take the Bible and what Moses was given. Not the things added on and many things were. As I also said that when EGW said she saw or was shone I believe it came from ELOHYM and that's not interpreting that's just accepting the truth! I do have that right, don't I? My creed, my salvation, life is studying the Bible not fixed up. When Paul told Timothy to study let's see what this word means

Study: application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection.  Dictionary.com

 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to ME: seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy ELOHIYM, I will also forget thy children. Hos 4:6

I understand the meaning and I do not need to interpret it! That's exactly what I do with the Bible. Now, if I misquote the Bible, please of you inform me and I will stand before all asking forgiveness. I can and will admit when I've done something wrong. It is the right thing to do. I ask please do not accuse me of believing what the Bible says is correct and I choose what it says. You have a right not to and we can agree to disagree. That why we make comments.

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2021 at 4:44 PM, stinsonmarri said:

As I also said that when EGW said she saw or was shone I believe it came from ELOHYM and that's not interpreting that's just accepting the truth! I do have that right, don't I? My creed, my salvation, life is studying the Bible not fixed up. When Paul told Timothy to study let's see what this word means

 

Hi Stinsonmarri, I am curious if you agree with Ellen White when she said she was shown that God the Father has a body with parts? By "parts" I mean things like an esophagus, nose, liver, stuff like that? 

 

"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}

[NOTE:  Gustave has raised an interesting point in this post.  I will respond to it in a postdated May 5, 2021.--Gregory Matthews.]



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2021 at 4:44 AM, BlessedMan said:

Well, I am not sure why you said I have "interpreted" anything. I simply quoted scripture and made a general statement on one possible application. The scripture I quoted was simple and clear: there are division/s in the church, and The Holy Spirit can and does work just fine with the divisions therein. No need to eliminate the ones we dont agree with. Or to coerce everyone into seeing something the same way. PTL :)

I am not THE RULERS of Heaven, the Bible says one faith, one baptism and ONE ELOHIYM, this is plural which stands for THREE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS  in Heaven or THE FAMILY OF ONE and ONLY THEM do we serve. That's What the Bible says and nowhere does it says a division of beliefs will make it into the Kingdom. Kindly show me where it says it please.

Blessings!

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

I am not THE RULERS of Heaven, the Bible says one faith, one baptism and ONE ELOHIYM, this is plural which stands for THREE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS  in Heaven or THE FAMILY OF ONE and ONLY THEM do we serve. That's What the Bible says and nowhere does it says a division of beliefs will make it into the Kingdom. Kindly show me where it says it please.

Blessings!

Not sure where you are getting this to mean "one doctrine." It says "one faith."  Huge difference in scripture, throughout.

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

 

Hi Stinsonmarri, I am curious if you agree with Ellen White when she said she was shown that God the Father has a body with parts? By "parts" I mean things like an esophagus, nose, liver, stuff like that? 

 

"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}

Where does she actually say that? Because if that statement above is your proof, than you have a problem Gustave!!

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

Where does she actually say that? Because if that statement above is your proof, than you have a problem Gustave!!

I thought you'd never ask. 

I've helping someone with disability the next few days but plan on having some material for your viewing this weekend. 

With all due respect IF I'm able to produce such statements do you believe YOU would than have a problem? Or is only I that would have a problem if Ellen did or didn't teach what I'm saying she did? If that's your contention would you mind my asking how you logically draw that conclusion? 


Thanks

 

 

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

With all due respect IF I'm able to produce such statements do you believe YOU would than have a problem?

With all "due respect" it doesn't matter what "Ellen" taught. You have been informed a number of times about the correct way to use her writings, and how we do not derive any of our doctrines from her. So, obviously, this is another problem you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a post dated Sunday, May 2, 2021, Gustave has raised an interesting point.  I am responding to it in this post.

* Gustave asks about EGWs teaching as to the physical nature of God the Father.  Then he quoted from Manuscript Release 760.  It should be noted that Ellen White is not said by the SDA Chruch to have been without error in her beliefs.  She did hold beliefs in regard to the nature of God that can be said to have been wrong.   

*  I will suggest that it is important to give some thought to Manuscript Release # 760, which Gustave cited.  That release consists of some 31 pages.  To get a full sense as to what it says, one should read the entire document and not depend on a summation of a few sentences, whether made by Gustave, or by me.  

The main focus of that document, as I understand it, was to point of the errors of Dr. Kellogg and Elder Ballenger, and specifically the pantheism that was present in the book, The Living Temple.  

If you are interested in reading MR 760, see:  Manuscript Release No. 760 — Ellen G. White Writings (egwwritings.org)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

With all "due respect" it doesn't matter what "Ellen" taught. You have been informed a number of times about the correct way to use her writings, and how we do not derive any of our doctrines from her. So, obviously, this is another problem you have.

 

I'm intimately aware that Ellen didn't formulate any SDA Doctrines - other individuals did. Ellen White's role, as she clearly articulated,  was to define true or false doctrines. These "points of faith" or "Pillar" doctrines were (according to Ellen) established under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit THROUGH her "spiritual gift" charism. So, for the purpose of clarification as to what I'm forwarding - I'm not claiming or even loosely implying the SDA Church derived any of its pillar (AKA distinctive doctrines) from Ellen. I'm saying she claimed the charism of infallibly defining what doctrines were true and what ones were false.  

Ellen White 
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors broughtinnewdoctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the HolySpirit 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 uponME, andI was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error.  As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the HolySpirit. 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}" 

So, accordingly, we should be looking for what Ellen described as "Pillars" or Fundamental doctrines that her SDA contemporaries "brought in" and see 1st if "The Personality of God" doctrine was defined by those individuals and subsequently IF Ellen defined the doctrine as truth. This is my logic chain PhkRause and Blessedman.

The SDA's repeatedly repudiated the Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. Protestant Churches for their DENIAL of the Personality of God Doctrine.  Trinitarian Protestants held that God was a single spiritual substance and the SDA Personality of God doctrine asserted that position [held by the Protestants] made God a non-entity and was a blasphemous innovation of the Great Whore of Babylon. Additionally, the SDA "Personality of God" held that God had "PARTS" the same as a man

Adventist Review and Herald Oct 8,1903 
"The doctrine of the Personality of God IS the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures..." 
...""NEITHER was this image of God a mere concept; FOR the Bible declares that the Lord
has PARTS, THE SAME AS the human body"." OUR EXISTENCE as a people is FOUNDED on a belief in the truths stated above". 
 

By itself the above quote could be argued as just a rogue individuals opinion of what the Personality Of God doctrine was. It however can be demonstrated that the Adventists hammered this specific doctrine HARD from 1850 through to approximately 1921. I think around a year ago I posted multiple quotes of early SDA's where this Doctrine was described in great detail right down to the part where it was believed if God could smell the sacrifice God had a nose & if God wrote with his finger on the stone tablets of 10 commandments God had a finger, if God spoke than God had the speech organs necessary to use speech, etc. etc, etc. 

So, as BlessedMan has said the SDA Church didn't derive any doctrines from Ellen White - Ellen White affirmed that's accurate, she DIDN'T come up with any doctrines - SHE defined doctrines others brought forth as truth or error & primary among those distinctive doctrines was "The Personality of God" Doctrine. Below Ellen describes how important this doctrine is.

"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 Godor of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without aanchor". {MR760 9.5} 
 

I'm not versed well enough in SDA history to know if  "pillars" would be the same as "Fundamental Belief" but it would seem logical that they are given the proximity "the Sanctuary" is to the Personality of God in the above Manuscript. 

When D.M. Canright was a member in good standing in the SDA Church he wrote extensively about the contrast between the Trinity doctrine & the Personality of God doctrine. As I've documented previously, The Personality of God doctrine represented the Sabbath God while the Trinity, specifically that God is ONE Substance represented the Trinity Doctrine. 

"God has all the members and parts of a perfect man"... stands in stark contrast to the Methodist Creed which states... "that there is but one living and true God, everlasting without body and parts". In closing the article concludes by saying the Personality of God doctrine teaches that "God has all the MEMBERS and Parts of a perfect man". The Personality of God Doctrine by D.M. Canright, Review & Sabbath Herald, September 5, 1878.

I read Gregory Matthews post on some of the things Ellen White defined as truth. Gregory is adept and I've heard other experienced theologians assert similar positions. To a degree I agree with him in what he said. 

I'm unfortunately at a remote location at this time and don't have access to all my materials so I'll my continuation will have to wait till the weekend. I didn't want to make Phkrause to have to wait too long and wanted to give him a heads up as to where I'm coming from with the subsequent material I'll be posting. 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...