| Author | Message | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1646 Registered: 7-2007 |
Awhile back a couple J.Witnesses visited. When told that All the cults including J.W. are the same (meaning that they all ADD and SUBTRACT from the Word of God), they wouldn't believe it. They believed that THEIR church was the ONE TRUE CHURCH. In the same way, if you told a person in a cult how another cult was wrong, they'd have no trouble believing it. For example if you told an SDA that none of us is going to become a god someday, that God says in Isaiah 43:10 "...Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me," [and that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves Isaiah to be true]; they'd have no trouble believing it, but if you pointed out that Hebrews 6:19,20; 9:25; 10:12 says that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place of Heaven ALREADY and that He didn't wait until 1844; Adventists would say, "what does Ellen White say about that?" Anyway, I feel kind of frustrated, like there are people trapped in a burning building who WON'T come out, no matter what I say... | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 790 Registered: 8-2008 |
And the irony is that they are all correct in thinking so! (Message edited by bskillet on January 16, 2011) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7081 Registered: 9-2006  |
Good answer Bskillet. It is ironic. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 975 Registered: 2-2008  |
lol! | ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 9 Registered: 1-2011 |
It is true. I have heard all kinds of things to defend Ellen White, that it is preposterous e.g. With regards to state of the dead, when verses are pointed out in the Bible, I heard, "The Jesuits tampered with the Bible to confuse people and lead them astray." When pointed out that Ellen White 'saw' a temple in the New Jerusalem, and that John in Revelation did not see a temple--because God was there, explanation: "There will be a temple in the New Jerusalem that is in Heaven, but when it comes down to Earth, it will not be there anymore." When speaking about grace, I heard, "Grace is being given the ability to understand the Bible--and specifically the law." <--This one made me the most sad. When you explain away grace, then what does a poor sinner's heart have to cling to? Why oh Why!! Even worse than thinking that the other cults are wrong, is the hateful attitude towards the other Christian churches. Just had a conversation this evening where they were called daughters of the whore, etc. etc. These are Jesus' people you are talking about. It breaks my heart. | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 479 Registered: 4-2007 |
More irony My wife received, as a gift, a book 'No Fear for the Future' by Ron du Preez (an Adventist). In the book he coined a rather clever word 'anthropologian' to describe those whose theology is based on the writings of man (or women?) On page 33 of this book he wrote regarding Adventist theologians and evolution: Adventist anthropologians ..."Dejected," on the other hand, to hear so-called theologians supporting the claim of the theory of evolution. In fact, one well known theologian admitted in the discussion time, that "when push comes to shove, I have to go with the scientific evidence!" When I heard that statement, I concluded that this man was not a theologian (i.e., one who studies the word of God, and bases his belief upon it), but rather an "anthropologian" (a term I concocted, to describe a person who studies the words are human beings, and then bases personal beliefs on that)... (Page 33) it's rather amazing he doesn't recognize that his own theology is based on the writings of Ellen White and that he himself is an anthropologian by his own definition. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1647 Registered: 7-2007 |
Mkfound; yes they DO excuse everything she wrote away! I pointed out to an Adventist where I work and also to one of my sisters, where Ellen White wrote that God the Father gathered all the angels around His throne and then she says: "The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father." The Ellen goes on to describe how angry and envious Satan was. She says: "Were not his garments light and beautiful? Why should Christ thus be honored before himself?" (This is in a book called "Spirit of Prophesy" volume 1; in the fist chapter, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs - about page 16 & 17 in this little hardcover that I bought from the Adventist Book Center.) Anyway, I pointed out that Ellen White is obviously saying that Jesus was promoted to equality with God. The lady at work said that because of the trouble that Satan was stirring up, the angels needed to be REMINDED that Jesus was God. Huh??? My sister excused what Ellen White wrote by saying that what she wrote here was just an early outline, and she wrote good stuff later - so not to worry about it. Huh??? My sister got someone to help her email some arguments awhile back, so I was emailing TWO hardcore Adventists, determined not to be swayed from their beliefs. One of the things I pointed out to them was that the Law wasn't given to Israel's forefathers - but just to them. I pointed out Deuteronomy 5:2,3 where Moses told Israel: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." I also pointed out Deuteronomy 4:13 which spells out that covenant. Here Moses is talking to Israel: "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." They wrote back telling me to define fathers in Deuteronomy 5:3; kind of like Clinton defending himself by telling his accusers to define "is, I guess. Obviously fathers mean anyone before, but they wanted it to mean someone specific that they could disregard and still believe that the Law was given earlier. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12174 Registered: 12-2003  |
And even more specifically, "the fathers" in Scripture refers to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The patriarchs did not have the law. Paul uses "the fathers" in Romans 15: 8 (NASB):
The ESV has it "Given to the patriarchs". To Israel, the fathers were the patriarchs, and Paul often uses this phrase to show how God's promises are absolutely certain because God's promises cannot fail. So you're right, Asurprise...the fathers did NOT have the law! Not any of them! Colleen | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2381 Registered: 5-2007  |
Concerning Ron du Preez He is a current apologist popular with the Adventist church and has written a number of books defending their ‘special’ doctrines. In Dale Ratzlaff’s book, Sabbath in Christ, he stresses that ‘Sabbath’ mentioned in Colossians 2:16 clearly means the weekly Sabbath. Ron du Preez came out with a book in response to Dale’s book, ‘Judging the Sabbath’, where he attempts to prove otherwise. The current edition of ‘Sabbath in Christ’ now includes, in the last chapter, a review of du Preez’ book by Jerry A. Gladson where he upholds the accepted view that ‘Sabbath’ means what we think it means. Fearless Phil |
