Stll waiting for an answer.

You're right on about that DHK.

 

Hi Psalm,

I don't doubt for a second Gregory's belief in baptismal regeneration.

Well, there isn't much of a reason as to why you should, to begin with.

I was just curious as to why, believing as he did, he would suggest holding off the baptism of children until the age of three.

For the reason I stated in my above post.

Don't you think that risky and incompatible?

Yes, there would be some risk involved, and that is why he speaks about baptizing when in danger of death. And no, there is no incompatibility involved.

Also in the early church infant baptism was completely overshadowed by the baptism of proselytes

Overshadowed? Infant baptism occurred universally throughout the Christian Church.

infant baptism was the result of the union of church and state.

You need to back this up.

Also why did Constantine give legal effect to the decrees of the council of Nicea yet put off his own baptism until he was on his deathbed?

Because he knew that baptism was the sacrament that forgave sin entirely, including its temporal punishment.

Augustine (who you so freely quote often),Chrysostum and Gregory of Nazianzum who I mentioned all had pious Christian mothers and yet the fact that they were not baptized until early manhood, show sufficiently that considerable freedom prevailed in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages.

Yes, many Christian parents put off the baptism of their children because they were worried that their children - after baptism - would commit grave sin that would entail the loss of salvation, and back then, the sacrament of penance was administered in a very different way that it is now. It was given only after one had joined the order of penitents and had undergone a long period of penance, and even then, it was not administered repeatedly.

 

In the 27 Fundamental beliefs available on the Web - that contain the entire doctrinal position of the SDA church - can you find "one" that relies for its "proof" or "authority" on Ellen White?

If so - then "that one" is the one that would "go away" without the visions of Ellen White. (Or without whatever vision it was relying upon).

So far.. I have not found one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't know if I can find that, but I do know that I can find Adventist web pages that say that some crucial Adventist beliefs and practices cannot the found in scripture, unless you intentionlly read them into it. (See thread on Adventist Glasses). Whether Adventist beliefs rely on Ellen White or not I can't say, but Adventists say that their beliefs derive outside the Bible.

 

Websites don't tell everything. They only put on a website what they want the public to know. What is the actual history of the SDA movement.

from The Fundamentalist Library, David Cloud
DHK

 

The "point" is that the book "The 27 Fundamental Beliefs" contains SDA doctrine in its entirety. (The book "happens" to be available online so you don't need to go buy one) My point was not that you need a "web page" to have the doctrinal statement. Just that the book was "also" available on the web.

The "point remains" - all you have to do is find a doctrine in the list of 27 that "needs" Ellen White as "proof" or as "Authority" and then you can "prove" that there is even one doctrine that would not survive in Adventism without Ellen White.

Your point that a teenage girl - Ellen Harmon, after the Oct 22, 1844 date set by the Millerites - was "among" the 50 Millerite Adventists that eventually formed the SDA church (organized in the 1860's) is valid. It is also true that the 1Cor 12 gift of Prophecy given to that teenage girl played a key role in motivating the group.

But the question about the existence and mission of the group and whether its doctrinal position is based "sola scriptura" or whether it is simply augmented with some scriptural support while relying essentially on visions God gave to Ellen White remains to be proven.

Lets say for example that lacking any evidence that any of the 27 doctrines are based on statements from Ellen White to "sustain them" - you go to the secondary level of determining "Were any of those doctrines first suggested by Ellen White through vision and then Bible support found later" - I have not found history to support that view either (- outside of the statements on health).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another quote from the same source:

Please not the last paragraph especially. They relied on her. Basically their doctrines came from her and from her visions. Her great work: "The Great Controversy" is like a handbook for all SDA's. Ellen White was a prolific writer, receiving many and various dreams and visions. New revelation in itself is heretical in the sense that the canon has closed.
Having a woman as the leader of the SDA is out of place since a woman has no authority to teach or have authority over a man.
The use of spiritual gifts is entirely another subject in itself.
DHK

 

The idea that the 1Cor 12 subject of spritual gifts (which is in fact the "only source of the gift of prophecy") has nothing to do with "the gift of prophecy" is a hard assertion to support from the Bible.

In fact in 1Cor 14 Paul says "Desire Earnestly Spiritual Gifts but especially that you may prophesy".

And as I said - the historical accounts do not show SDA doctrine coming from visions of Ellen White. Rather at the "Sabbath conferences" as they called them - we have the leaders engaged in Bible study and setting out the doctrinal statements - Ellen White was not handing anything to them.

Be that as it may - I don't have a video of it, just the first hand testimonies written down. This is a case of testifying to the extent that Ellen White was "not involved". However the case does not rest on their testimony or anything they wrote - it rests on the degree to which the doctrines they published either can nor can not be shown to stand "sola scriptura". In the end - that is all that matters. (It's just that in this case - history ALSO shows a distance between those coming up with the doctrines and Ellen White that you would "not expect".)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Harley - here is a perfect opportunity to "learn something". Watch DHK - he is in perfect agreement with you on this point - so watch and learn.

He is quoting "sources" that actually "mean something" - you are simply looking for "some web page" that will say something negative about Adventists. Your "source" has no claim to "respectability" on the subject selected or to the person addressed.

To be compelling - you need at least an ounce of "objectivity" -- read that as "believability".

DHK is "showing you" the sources that would help to make the case. This could not be any easier - he is literally handing them to you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not really about SDA history, more of and SDA website about modern SDA biblical interpretation. We ought to applaud this author for recognizing that, as an Adventist, he brings non-biblical beliefs to the scriptures and reads them in that light.

Adventist Today

 

AT - Adventist Today is a magazine with a readership that is less than 1% of the SDA church in America - and less than .01% world-wide.

It has no endorsement at all within Adventism as being anything like "A voice" for any significant segment of the church.

So what?

Well it means that finding a "fellow-whiner" on that forum has almost no "objective value".

It is for that reason that I myself never go to "Whining RC sources" to make a "doctrinal case" about the RCC or to make a case about trends in the RCC over time. At best those sources are useful as "incidentals". They simply prove that "opinions vary" within any group of 12 million. In the case of AT - they are a good left-wing example of a small interest group. They propose "a lot of things" - the question is - how much fact do they have to back it up.

Which brings us to the subject of still others that seem to have "even less" to say.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is true Bob, that you have defended yourself well using only Scripture. But I believe that you would not have taken those positions in the first place had it not been for Ellen G. White. All the way from the Sabbath-Keeping, to the Investigative Judgement, soul sleep, and on-going prophecies. The reason you defend these doctrines is because you are SDA. You do a much better job defending your doctrines from the Bible than a Catholic does defending his doctrines from the Bible. To make the comparison, it is like Brother Ed, who is willing to take almost any of the Catholic doctrines and make a Biblical defence for them. As he does (sometimes sola scriptura) for Catholicism, so you do for SDA.

But that doesn't make the above-mentioned doctrines true or Biblical. Before ca. 1850 there was no one that believed them. Thus we can safely say from a historical perspective that without the "advent" of Ellen G. White, there would be no Seventh Day Adventism. Some of those doctrines did not exist before she came along. (Investigative Judgement, for example).
DHK

 

The thing that is "misleading" about that information is that it does "not include" the fact that she was not given any visions on SDA key doctrines until those doctrines were already stated by other leaders. Very early in Adventist history the "Sabbath conferences" were held - and they hammered out those doctrinal statements on the investigative judgment, the mortality of the soul, etc and they did not have "Ellen White visions" to tell them what to think or what to look for.

Your source is accurate in pointing out that she had a large number of visions after that. But by then the "distinctives" of the Adventism had already been published.

As for "sola scriptura" -- JWs, a very "Few" Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Adventists will all claim to support their views "Sola scriptura". And yet all of them have very significant church leaders that they accept as saints, as great Christians.

That does not make them "Right" or does it make them "wrong". The proof is the degree to which the Bible "actually does" support a given doctrine - regardless of what they claim.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good point DHK. Some Adventist scholars acknowledge that investigative judgement is not taught by scriptures and that its derives from non-biblical sources. I didn't know it was Ellen.