Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Walter Veith


Recommended Posts

Gregory Matthews

Gustave commented on the so-called "pillars of the faith."

 

*  There is no one correct answer to this issue as to the pillars of the faith.  I generally define them as five (5) that were developed in the early days of this denomination.

*  Other SDAs who study our history agree on there being five, but do not totally agree with me as to what those five were.

*  Others expand beyond five and consider there to be more than five.

One of the problems with this issue is that as I define the five, those five core teachings were not the basic core teachings of Christianity.   For example, none of the five addressed the nature of Christ and/or the Godhead.  None addressed salvation by faith.

I will suggest a reason as to why none of what I call the five addressed core teachings of Christianity.  The early SDA leaders came from areligious background.  Some like Ellen white came from a Methodist background.  Ohers like James White came from what has been called the Christian Connection, which did have some teachings that were in error.  Others came from other Christian denominations.  The result was that all of those early leaders considered everyone to have a Christian background.  As such, they did not need to be converted to Christianity.  So, basic, core Christian teachings were ignored during those formative years and therefore my listing of the five core pillars of the emerging SDA faith did not include any teachings that were central to Christianity.

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

On 5/3/2021 at 3:49 PM, BlessedMan said:

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

Where are these differences that you speak of that is held by the faith ones. Show me if the Adams after sinning in the Garden was different, or Abraham, Moses Job, Nehemiah, Matthew, Mark, Peter, John. The only ones I read was mix were Satan and his fallen angels, Cain and his family, those lost in the flood, Job's children, Israel that were lost over and over mixing false gods with the TRUE ALMIGHTY ONES! Peter, James and John and so much more. So, please show me.

Blessings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Stinsonmarri:  The problems with the logic of your above statement includes the following among other issues.

*  It may be true that no one can show you that Adam and Eve believed differently after they sinned, but, you cannot show that Adam and Eve believed the same after they sinned.  You do not know what they believed in any kind of detail and neither do we. 

*  Your arguments often fail on the basis of your logic.  As an example, in the above post, you ask a question that no one can answer.  You cannot answer and neither can anyone else.  We do not know exactly what Adam and Eve believed in any kind of detail.  Your logic in asking the question has failed.

*  You often post on the basis of a false premise.   You continue to use Strong as an authority on the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words.  As you have been told this is not a proper use of Strong.  Strong tells us how Greek and Hebrew words have been translated in the Bible.  There is a difference.  Strong does not tell us what those words mean.  That is what a lexicon does.  NOTE:  You may have lived in Israel and therefore have some understanding of modern Hebrew.   However, that does not give you an understanding of either Biblical Hebrew or of Biblical Aramaic.

*  In actual fact, you do often present positions that are correct and well worthy of consideration.  But, your manner of presentation is often such that people simply dismiss them without consideration.  You do it to yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2021 at 5:20 PM, phkrause said:

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

A few more statements here as a foundation of what will be coming this weekend. 

Ellen White:
"Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. They should so represent Christ's person and conduct that by doing His works they will manifest the character and spirit of the Father. Christ is the express image of His Father's person and character.--Manuscript 130, 1902, p. 11. (Diary, "Christ's Example in Every Line of Work," October 27, 1902.)
 

Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in

Christ's own speech; for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning”. Present Truth December 18, 1890
 

"Christ's Personality had a beginning".  This will also be developed so as to establish the meaning the individuals who employed the words meant for them. The Adventist position up until around 1920 was that Christ earthly body was his 2nd body - In heaven Michael & Lucifer the archangels were taught to have actual FLESH. 

Ellen White
entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

 

RH October 8, 1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It    depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world

As others have pointed out here, the SDA Church didn't derive any doctrines from Ellen White. Other individuals came up with ideas and they would be offered to Ellen White who would infallibly define which ideas were true and become doctrines and what ones were false and be relegated to the trash. 

Above Ellen entreating the faithful to be firm and "clear" on the specific eternal truth of the "Personality of God". Like her other statements on this particular subject a rejection of the POG doctrine is like being in a small boat in a storm and cutting off the anchor. 

In any event these statements will become useful as we explore teaching of the Personality of God doctrine and what it was defined to be by the individuals who presented it to Ellen White for doctrinal approval. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 5:24 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

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)

 

 

Yes, I agree with what you've said. 

I don't want what I'm saying (or better said preparing to say) to be a kind of "gotcha". Part of where I'm leaning is that Dr. Kellogg, when he was in a favorable status within the Denomination, was one of the official apologists for the SDA Church and one of his main harping points was "The Personality of God". What I'm seeing is that Kellogg wrote extensively against the Trinity and in favor of the Personality of God and there wasn't a peep about how Kellogg was wrong. 

Kellogg ends up writing a book and that generated an immediate rebuke from Ellen White but the ironic thing from my point of view was that between Kellogg's last apologetic article in favor for the Personality of God and the Living Temple book Kellogg accepted the Trinity Doctrine that he had previously rejected. If Kellogg could write copious amounts of anti-Trinitarian materials in the Church Papers and not so much as a peep of correction and then we see a very public vocal rebuke on the Living Temple that would seem to strongly indicate something. I've read the Living Temple and I'm not seeing Pantheism in it and additionally I've read Kellogg's letter to Butler where he absolutely denies he's a Pantheist in any form. 

The SDA's prior to about 1920 considered a belief in the Trinity Doctrine to be Pantheism. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

There has been scholarly debate within Adventism in recent years as to whether or not Kellogg's book The Living Temple reflected Pantheism.

I have not yet converted to the idea that it did not reflect pantheism on any level.  

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...