SDA unique doctrine

I repeat the Ellen White discussion you seek - is already stated as being "pointless" in a context with a non-SDA.

Did you miss that part??

As I said before - I am always happy when it looks like you might actually get into exegesis in actual scripture.

It would be a pleasure to see you do it.

In fact Paul said -- that the WE who believe and the WE who do not want you to be uninformed is the WE who will be alive and remain ... let's observe "the details".

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we[/b] who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.[/b]


From the standpoint of exegesis - the first century reader at Thesselonica is going to think that Paul is writing to them -- not to people who 'will someday live 2000 years later".

They are not reading this as "WE who are now alive writing to you will be the Dead in Christ when the Lord comes. But THEY who are alive at that time in the future will find that WE will preceed them for WE will be the "Dead in Christ" and WE shall rise first - then THEY who are alive at that time will be caught up together with US who were just resurrected - and so shall WE always be with the Lord".

I realize that you and I read this 2000 years later knowing that this is what will really transpire - even though the words are not there.

Indeed. We can see that.

And that is the way his readers would have taken it as well.

How "interested" they may have been as decade after decade saw first one then another of the number who read Paul's letter - pass away until finally none of that generation was left.

Notice that EVEN in the case of John - he has to qualify Christ's statement to Peter "What does it matter to you if I will that he continues to live until I return" speaking of the Apostle John -- and John says "IF is the key word here -- he did not say I would continue to live that long". But clearly the earnest hope of the saints was that the 2nd coming would be soon - perhaps before the death of John.

As I said the reason I don't have that "your prophet" discussion with non-SDAs is that it is completely pointless.

EVEN if I got you to accept the Biblically sound exegesis of "WE who are alive and remain" in 1Thess 4 -- and you agreed to the similarity with what Ellen White said -- I WOULD STILL argue that you NOT accept her as a prophet SINCE the primary test "sola scriptura" of the doctrinal messages she claimed to have been from God MATCH perfectly with SDA doctrine -- and you have not yet come to the point of understanding the proof and support that doctrine has "sola scriptura".

I.e. the entire discussion along the lines you keep trying to have - is pointless!

Obviously.

You keep trying to get to your "prophet fails" end-point "as if " you have done something. If you read the posts you will see -- it is a point without a point that you keep trying to reach.

in Christ,

Bob

 

One of the first "context principles" of exegesis is that we "pay attention" to the author's words and what the author was conveying to his primary first-order audience - the people that actually "got the letter".

By ignoring that principle of exegesis - you seem to hope to make your case.

But as I have already said EVEN if I got you to accept the rock solid biblical principles of exegesis in this case and agree to the similarity of Paul's argument to the one Ellen White makes - I WOULD STILL argue that you not accept Ellen White as a prophet SINCE the Biblical test of a prophet is first and formost "agreement between the message that is from God and scripture as the rule and judge of that message". Since you have not yet come to the point of understanding the sound sola-scriptura proofs for SDA doctrine - there is no other option -- it would not matter if your view of that one prediction went for or against Ellen White.

The result is the same since you are non-SDA.

How much more obvious could this be?

It is a dicussion that only makes sense between two SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The reader will instantly recall "Ninevah was NOT overthrown in 40 days of Jonah's message".

The reader will instantly recognize that Jonah did NOT say "IF you repent this will not happen".

But the reader will also recall that these messages are "conditional" as Ezekiel and Jeremiah have stated.

OK - now I am interested --

You say that like you actually know something.

What is it you claim to know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

When the SDA who DOES accept Ellen White is making their case with the SDA today that does accept all the SDA doctrines "sola scriptura" but does NOT accept that Ellen White is a person who happened to have the gift of prophecy -- the argument you state above is the one that the SDA who DOES accept Ellen White will make.

The SDA who does NOT accept Ellen White will note that the gift of Prophecy was also manifest among the Bible writers just as the Angel states in Rev 19 and that the SDA focus on those writings and the correct interpretation of prophecy still places the Adventist church in that same unique position of having insight into prophecy. And since at this point in time BOTH Ellen White AND those prophets who contributed to scripture are all deceased - it amounts to the same argument "for the gift of prophecy" in either case.

I don't completely agree with their argument when they counter with that - but I understand their point.

Happens all the time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Targus said "yada yada" -?

again?

The point "at the start" of this thread is that SDA doctrine is established "sola scriptura" as opposed to the Targus "sola-Ellen-White" fiction.

Targus has been "dissappointed" by that glaring fact throughout the entire discussion.

The "obvious fact" that Prophets must be doctrinally established "sola scriptura" in terms of testing the doctrine of the prophet's message seems to be "totally lost on Targus". The fact that the "Ellen White" discussion is "pointless" if you are going to start by saying that you have not done the "homework" on the "sola scriptura" point -- of page 1 -- should be apparent to any unbiased objective reader.

The fact that Targus is not using sound Biblical exegesis in 1Thss 4 in this case turns out to be incidental - since he is already ignoring the larger "sola scriptura" test for doctrine "as if that is optional".

I.E nothing much has changed since page 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Obviously not. They repented in sackcloth and ashes, and therefore God had mercy on them. Whey therefore should it have been overthrown? Jonah's objective was accomplished.

Only if the reader is a simpleton and very naive, perhaps holding some presuppositions that don't want to make him believe that Jonah didn't say "if you repent," a phrase implied in the very words that he spoke. What a stretch you have to make this argument. It is one of the most foolish ones I have heard yet. I can't really believe that I am spending time answering this.

"cry against it" That doesn't mean weep Bob. It means preach a message of repentance. And that is what he did. And that is what happened. The people repented due to the message of repentance that was preached. Why can a class of grade one students understand this and you can't??
Is it because you have an axe to grind and are trying to imply that Jonah was a false prophet like E.G. White, or the corollary--that because you think that Jonah's message didn't come true and that he was a true prophet that White therefore is a true prophet as well. It doesn't work Bob. Your logic is flawed in both scenarios. E.G. White was a known false prophet.

 

1. My argument is not that Ninevah should have been overthrown or that Jonah was a false prophet.
2. My point stands -the reader will instantly see what is actually IN the text - as WRITTEN.

In the same way - my point in 1Thess 4 is not that "Paul was wrong".
At the same time - exegesiis shows us clearly that that the "WE" in 1Thess 4 can be clearly identified as contemporary with Paul as he writes and his readers read - his letters to them.

All of these men were in their right place as inspired writers - approved by the Bible tests of inspiration.

Details... they "Can" be your friend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

From post #2 page ONE.

Dead silence from Targus -

This point appears to have gone past Targus.

This point was clearly lost on Targus.

Indeed -


in Christ,

Bob

 

Are you saying that the only way to get Paul, Jonah and John the baptizer to pass the Bible test of a prophet and be considered "true" is to use a rule that is "so flexible" so "fluid" that it would accomodate any false prophet on the planet?

Why not take the path of carefully defining the test so that Paul and Jonah, and John are in compliance and so that the SAME rule used for them can be used for others??

Seems like the logical approach.

HOWEVER "IF" you claim to be "looking for a rule" such that Ellen White would "pass or fail" objectively - as a prophet for a NON-SDA the answer is THERE CAN be no such rule -- because THE FIRST rule is "sola scriptura" doctrinal agreement in scripture on messages pertaining to doctrine that Ellen White claimed to have come from God. God CAN NOT be in "doctrinal error" so IF you find that her messages do not agree with your own personnal view of Bible doctrine -- you have NO WAY to say "well yes but she passes on the prediction basis alone". No such thing!!

I keep pointing that out -- as an obvious fact and you keep running away from it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That's a reasonable request = I went over there and gave you a simple one that in my opinion meets the criteriia of something covering a lot of doctrine - which could easily be identified as "not Catholic" and "not Lutheran" etc.

Which is my point here - that all messages have to be compared to scripture and tested for doctrinal accuracy.

If that the one claiming the gift of prophecy does not pass that test -- there is no point in "looking for more tests".

in Christ,

Bob

 

You claimed you needed to toss exegesis out the window for your solution.

I have a hard time with "that" as the solution.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To which we got treated to Argus' brief excursion into reason and logic - asking for inspired-text to test "sola scriptura" -- but when given a perfect example of such an Ellen White book to use as "his test" --

Targus leaps off into "one book is not enough I need whole lists of books, writings etc".

I.e - "Dead Silence" on the point raised above.

Targus' agenda ends without "a point"

in Christ,

Bob

 

Sadly - this is an exchanged that highlights the "Bible avoidance" approach that Targus is taking.

As I said before -- thanks for admitting that you actually have no interest in that "sola scriptura" exercise.:thumbs:

Saves us both lots of time!:type:

:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob