SDA unique doctrine

#1. For those Adventsits that do accept Ellen White as having the gift of prophecy - they insist that she must pass the Bible tests of a prophet or be rejected.

#2. Historically - The Doctrine of soul sleep was not introduced to SDAs by Ellen White.

#3. Historically - Ellen White (the teenage Ellen Harmon if you want to go back to the 1844 issue on Christ's 2nd coming) had no visions at all prior to the expected Oct 22, 1844 date. Nobody was listening to that 16 year old girl at the Millerite prayer meetings (for there were no SDAs back then) any more than any other teenage girl. And as you may recall - in the 1800's women were not doing a lot of "teaching" in any way shape or form - much less teenage girls.

(Historic note - of the 50,000 Millerites that predicted the Oct 22, 1844 second coming, 50 went on to start the Adventist church. It would not be fair to blame the Millerites for SDA doctrine)

#4. The pre-advent judgment that "uses books" is found clearly in Dan 7. No magic, no secrets there - easy to see.

#5. The "WE shall not ALL SLEEP but we shall all be changed" of 1Cor 15
and the
"regarding those who are ASLEEP" who are called "the DEAD in Christ" of 1Thes 4
and the
"Lazarus SLEEPS I go that I may WAKE him" of John 11

Are all "there to read" without anyone having to need to read Ellen White.

The teenage Ellen Harmon was in fact a United Methodist and just as surprised as many other Adventists to find this to be the case with "sleep" in the bible.

There is no historic event where God comes to the Teenage Ellen and "reveals to her" that the "Dead in Christ" are in fact those saints "WHO ARE asleep" - so that she might then intoduce this doctrine to Adventists. By the time she had any message from God on these topics - Adventist leaders had already established and accepted them "Sola Scriptura".

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. Predictions are one of the Bible tests of a prophet - I actually did answer that. The prophet's message claimed to be given "from God" must be in harmony with scripture -and any future event that God is supposed to have spoken of - must happen as God said or else the message did not come from God. (With the Caveat that of conditions such as we find with Jonah who is an example of a real prophet with a conditional message. It is important not to bend or construe the tests of the Bible such that even the Bible writers fail the tests as we specifically define it.)

And as already stated - the teenage Ellen Harmon gave no message from God prior to Oct 22, 1844 - had no visions at all prior to the final Oct 22, 1844 date representing the failed prediction of the Millerites.

2. A Methodist minister by the name of George Storr's studied the subject of the immortal soul and came to the conculsion in 1840 that the Bible was correct in 1Cor 15 "We shall not all sleep- but we shall all be changed" and in 1Thess 4 "regarding those who have fallen asleep... the dead in Christ shall rise first" and regarding John 11 "Lazarus sleeps I go that I may wake him".

Later in 1842 that minister joined the Millerites in looking for a pre-millennial 2nd coming in 1843 and also the revised prediction for Oct 22, 1844. One of the first ministers to come around to the truth that Storrs was preaching - was Charles Fitch in January of 1844. After Oct 22, 1844 they presented this to Ellen Harmon, James White and Joseph Bates -- who all accepted the Bible teaching as Storrs presented it.

To them - the truths of Daniel 7 made no sense without also accepting the truth of 1Thess 4, 1Cor 15 and John 11 on the subject of the resurrection and the condition of the soul in death.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That's pretty interesting.

When I have this discussion with another Seventh-day Adventist that agrees with all the SDA doctrines "sola scriptura" but does not accept that Ellen White happens to be an example of someone with the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy -- and it get's to that specific prophecy - we often begin comparing that to Jonah or to Paul in 1thess 4, or to some of the expectations and teachings that John the baptizer appeared to have regarding the Messiah.

But in the end that dissussion often ends with the result that "opinions vary" and though we agree fully on the Biblical basis and foundation for all SDA doctrines - we differ on the point of whether Ellen White happens to be an example of someone with the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy.

Anyway it is a pretty interesting discussion when that happens.

in Christ,

Bob

 

IF I were discussing this with an SDA that had fully investigated the Doctrines of the Adventist church sola-scriptura and found them to be rock solid then the issue would be not "Is Adventism correct" but "Is Ellen White an example of someone with the 1cor 12 gift of Prophecy".

When the discussion of "predictions" comes up we get to a whole raft of them that all turned out to be true -both national and for individuals.

But then we would discuss specifics of "Did Paul really mean -- THEN WE who are ALIVE AND REMAIN will be caught up together with THEM in the air" the same way that Ellen White meant "some here will die and some will be alive" -- there will then be "varying views" discussed.

We will have the same comparison with Jonah "40 days and Ninevah will be destroyed" -- to be sure our "rule for determining true vs false prophet" does not hatchet Jonah on the wrong side of the fence.

A similar discussion would happen with John the baptizer.

The conversation is of benefiit without insisting that everyone agree on every aspect of Ellen White's life. At the end we may or may not agree on "just who has the gift of prophecy in the last 200 years" but we DO agree on "the spiritual gift of prophecy in 1Cor 12 is valid - is still valid today".

And we DO agree that ALL the doctrines of Adventism MUST be established sola-scriptura and are in fact rock-solid on that basis "alone".


Now Let me help you --

THE REAL question you "should be asking" is "WHY not have this same Ellen White discussion with someone who is NOT already bought into the sola-scriptura doctrinal proofs of the Adventist church".

The "answer is obvious" -- (hint: the sola scriptura rule is number one - no shortcuts). I will let the class have a shot at it before I give it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So you have given up on the obvious answer already???

Targus - the "Bible is your friend" you need not fear it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Targus we seem to have reached a post you are not willing to read.

Let me know what I can do to help walk you through it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed your argument is that Paul never claims that "WE who believe.." or "WE who are ALIVE" CAN NOT have been understood by Paul's first century Readers to have any reference at all to people actually ALIVE in Paul's day - (interesting supposition but exegetically difficult to prove that the readers woudl thing of all living saints at that time as being "THEM who are asleep" or "THEM who are the Dead in Christ".)

Interesting opinion Targus thanks for sharing it --

BTW - I am impressed that you would even consider having an exegetical review of scripture. This is pretty surprising - - feel free to exegete 1Thess 4 "showing" that the First century reader of Paul was not going to conclude that the "we who believe" and the "we who are alive" could possibly refer to anyone living at the time they were reading Paul's letter.

Obviously - This is the same kind of discussion that would be had in earnest with someone who was an SDA who fully accepted all the doctrines of the Adventist church "sola scriptura" but did not "happen to conclude" that Ellen White was an example of someone with the spiritual gift of prophecy.

At end of that conversation I and the Adventist in question may or may not agree on the point regarding Ellen White - but it really wouldn't matter much to me.

Now for the "significant" part of this -- which is WHY I don't have that SAME discussion with non-SDAs.

The same way a rebublican would not have a debate with a flaming liberal democrate over Republican primary candidates to vote for -- a John McCain + VP or a Romney+VP match-up and who should be selected as VP in those scenarios a left-leaning democrat-ish VP or a Reagan-esk shore-up-your-base VP.

It does not matter in the context of a Republican arguind with a Democrat since the Democrat is not going to vote for either candidate anyway. The heat in that debate is "pointless". The discussion has no "point".

But a Republican debating another republican - might actually "have a point" as their "super Tuesday" date starts to arrive.

If you are not even at the doctrinal basis of the Adventist who agrees with the doctrines "sola scriptura" (and thus would find Ellen White to be in perfect harmony with scripture... so now just looking for "Prediction accuracy") -- then the entire discussion is pointless to start with.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As stated -

And then Targus - you made me give the obvious answer anyway.

I was hoping you could see it as clearly as everyone else.

in Christ,

Bob