Scriptures is the source of authority and everything else has to pass its test to be approved. The funny thing is that whoever attacks her as not being a true prophet does it because they show that her writings are not in line with their interpretation of the holy scriptures, therefore since we agree with her prophetic gift and understand scriptures in agreement with her therefore she is our pope. However, if we were to take your interpretation of the scriptures, doesn't that make you our pope
I just want to make a comment here in regards to consistency. At first, to make EGW like a pope to us they claim that we take her as infallible. So whatever she says is the final word, but then somewhere around 1:21 they claim that people were dismissed because they disagree with her and that EGW herself said that you can disagree with her. Now which one is it? I am just looking for consistency, that is all.
Sister Ellen g white is a false prophet. She was wrong about her prophecies of Armageddon and she prophecied about the trinity and Jesus not being flesh and blood. In the old testament if someone gets 1 prophesy wrong there are stoned to death and counted as a false prophet.
SISTER ELLEN WHITE IS A MESSENGER INSPIRED OF GOD.
SHE IS NOT INFALLIBLE!
SHE SERVES GOD ACCORDING TO WHAT GOD HAS INSPIRED HER TO REVEAL. AND IF SHE PUTS THAT IN WRITING, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HER WRITINGS ARE INFALLIBLE RATHER IT POINTS BACK TO THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.
THE ROLE OF HER WRITINGS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY, IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.
ellen g white is a false prophet and sda church is a false church. Though throughout the years, they revised their declaration of beliefs, they still found to be false church and their doctrrines contrary to the scriptures
@origs14 you are making UNDER STATEMENTS, you don't understand TRULY WHAT IT IS TO BE A TRUE SDA. Sister Ellen's writings is not based on whether it is infallible or not, rather it is based on what Bible teaches. Read her writings, study them, & point out in its true light or proper context w/c of the concepts, principles, that she wrote to teach are up against the infallible Bible? Show me and present them in their PROPER CONTEXT. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor...
Praise the LORD of the ETERNAL 7th Day SABBATH. As the Lord Lives forever, so shall His Blessed Holy Day. The LORDS DAY. I Praise you O Lord of the Sabbath and Thank you for your HOLY 10 Commandmants that you WROTE with YOUR FINGER...THE FINGER OF GOD. Bless us as we share in the Sabbath you MADE for Mankind..PRAISE HIM, PRAISE HIM..LET ALL THE EARTH PRAISE THE LORD OF THE SABBATH!!!
EGW taught that Satan will be the FINAL SIN BEARER. This means that Adventists have Satan as their FINAL SAVIOUR! This also means that Adventists indirectly trusts Satan to take away their sins!
Read The Great Controversy, page 422. by Ellen G White and you will be HORRIFIED when you learn that she taught that Satan is your FINAL SIN BEARER..a demonic teaching that contradicts God's Holy Scriptures!
WAKE UP ADVENTISTS!! YOU ARE IN BABYLON FOLLOWING A DEMON POSSESSED WRITER! I LEFT SDA CULT!
I saw this show years ago and know for a fact that abusive editing was utilized to create a clumsy witness from William Johnsson. John Ankerberg is the quintessential Laodicean Christian. There's no call to repentance from sin, nor tears in his eyes for those he believes will suffer in the torments of hell forever. And to this he says, "Amen!"
"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt.19:17. How Christians keep ignoring these words illustrates the insanity of men under Satan.
The Books of the New Testament were written between AD 33 and AD 96. You said The Bible was being written during the time that Gentiles were joining The same commands the Jewish Christians had were for the Gentiles. One Faith Jude 3, I have not seen any Christian in the New Testament observing the Sabbath nor a command to observe it. 84 times in the NT Paul when in on the Sabbath to convert the Jews. They kicked him out chased him out or beat him up. He did get some but that was not worship.
@pumbah007: "The Books of the New Testament were written between AD 33 and AD 96."
That appears to be the case. I suggest (only a suggestion) that Matthew was written in time for when the pilgrims to Jerusalem went home after Pentecost when thousands were converted. Why send them away empty-handed? Why not give them a Gospel?
@pumbah007: The Bible was being written during the time that Gentiles were joining. At least as late as the 5th century most Christians around the Med were still keeping the Sabbath. In Norway theu kept the Sabbath till the late 1200's or so. In India they were kepping the Sabbath till the 1540's. And in Ethiopia they were keeping the Sabbath till about 1600.
@dconklin58 I would like 1 Bible versus were Christians gathered in obervance of the Sabbath. You said In Norway they kept the Sabbath till the late 1200's or so. In India they were keeping the Sabbath till the 1540's. And in Ethiopia they were keeping the Sabbath till about 1600. What about in the BIBLE. I thinks we should check the Bible First and then go to Norway, India and Ethiopia
@pumbah007: It is important to note that there is NOTHING in the Bible about the Sabbath being replaced. According to the Bible the Christian symbol for the death and resurrection of Christ was baptism by immersion. Combined these tell us why Christians kept the Sabbath long after the Cross. Early Christian tradition shows that they followed what they had been taught from the time of the apostles.
@pumbah007 Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
God made the day Holy. Man can not make something Holy, they can only keep it Holy. Therefore, keeping the Sabbath Holy, not making the Sunday "Holy".
Hm, for me personally, the writings of Ellen White are only infallible as far as contradiction to Scripture. But if there's conflict over interpretation, I pray and for God's guidance and keep studying to see whether I was wrong or if Ellen was right. So far, I haven't come across anything I strongly object to.
@BuckLakeBoy: "The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face."
That is a lie.
The critcis lie, period. First, they lied about the plagiarism claim. When they find they can't defend that, they shift to borrowing and paraphrasing. When they are shown to be wrong there they change the subject to what did EGW say about her works. What they don't realize is that given the previous were lies, what she said is moot.
@dconklin58 Great Controversy,1877. Total acknowledgement for that book, "Being aided in the study of the Scriptures, and in her work as a religious teacher, by the special enlightenment of the Spirit of God, she is peculiarly qualified to present the facts of the Life and Ministry of Christ, in connection with the divine plan of human redemption and to practically apply the lessons of Jesus to the simple duties of life.
The true Messiah guarded all His Father's commands (John 15:10) including the 7th day Sabbath (Luke 4:16).
As did His true followers (Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42,44; Acts 18:4).
IF we want to follow the true Messiah we will walk as He walked (1 John 2:3-7). And the true Messiah, YaHuWshuaH, comes in His Father's Name, YaHuWaH (John 5:43). Hallelu~YaH !
The true Messiah guarded all His Father's commands (John 15:10) including the 7th day Sabbath (Luke 4:16).
As did His true followers (Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42,44; Acts 18:4).
IF we want to follow the true Messiah we will walk as He walked (1 John 2:3-7). And the true Messiah, YaHuWshuaH, comes in His Father's Name, YaHuWaH (John 5:43). Hallelu~YaH !
IS 65:20 in context: There will be NO death in New Earth or New Jerusalem. Its speaking of events bfore NEW is MADE. Child dying at 100 yrs happens bfore 2nd ressurection (destroy evil Rev 20:6) v.19=no more crying=infants/weeping children will grow to100 yrs & prior to great FINAL battle of armageddon wicked adults will be 100 years old & cursed BUT all SAVED children will eat from tree of life & grow into glorified state = no death ever
@jesusisonlyway Read the text! You're not reading it! Here it is: Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." This text mentions people dying at 100 and those who don't reach 100 will be considered accursed. Which Bible are you using? Is this your Heaven?
I say "only Christ, only Scripture". I need no prophet to interpret Scripture. The Bible is the only rule for faith & practice. The Holy Spirit is "the Teacher" not EGW.
Christians call Sunday the Lord's Day because that is the day he rose from the Dead. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Rev 1:10. Justin Martyr one of the Early church Fathers spoke about it, long before AD 324. SO research on Christian worship and you will know why. Christians can worship any day of the week. Act 2: 46. Daily
@pumbah007 - To be fair, there is nothing in the text in Revelation that says the Lord's Day is Sunday. Infact nowhere in Revelation are we given any information specifically ... there are a few schools of thought 1) It means the day the Lord Returns which was the subject of John's Revelation 2) it means Sunday, 3) It means on the Sabbath. Since John was in exile he would not have been working on the Sabbath so it would be a good time to write out his vision
@gnmtyf - I would support argument 3 with the following texts. - Isaiah 58:13, the Lord calls the Sabbath "My Holy Day". In Matthew 12:8, and Luke 6:5 Jesus calls himself "Lord of the Sabbath" ... There is no such association of the Lord's name with any first day of the week, so when John says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day", the best scriptural evidence is that this is the Sabbath.
@pumbah007: Most Christians around the Med were still keeping the Sabbath, even as late as the 5th century. In India they kept the Sabbath till the 1540's and in Ethiopia till around 1600.
"For as the NEW heavens & the NEW earth which I WILL MAKE shall remain bfore me saith the LORD so shall your seed & your name remain. And it shall come to pass from one NEW moon to another & from ONE SABBATH to ANOTHER shall ALL FLESH come WORSHIP BFORE ME SAITH the LORD
U might as well get use to it NOW cuz its gonna happen thru eternity*-*
@Hawgdawgrain Context is the ONLY way I study Sola Scriptura. Matt 24 along with many many verses have DUAL applications. You are reading OUT of context if you cant percieve that Isa 66:22,23 are just as literal as Isa 7:14. as I explnd to another eternal 7th day Sabbath antagonist..IF God said there will be a NEW moon in the NEW heavens & NEW earth that CHRIST WILL MAKE to track days, months seasons AND SABBATHS...IT IS DONE..AMEN!
@dconklin58 3 of 5 claims regard plagiarism. Have you read Adventist Review or Ministry Mag from 1980-85 where EGW White Estate is forced to admit on an ongoing basis that she copied wholesale from far more authors than Walter Rea ever imagined?
@BuckLakeBoy: Please give me the exact tiltes of the articles. I have 690 sources that I have examined in my bibliography. If they literally said that she "copied wholesale" then I'll have to say that they lied. The "evidence" that Rea musters is about 90-95% of all that we wuill probably ever find. And his work is highly flawed--like giving examples of "plagiarism" where she does give her source (some 13 times!)!
@dconklin58 Any sources listed in her works were added in subsequent editions when SDA friends & workers noticed that she was copying without credit. The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face. If you're still stuck on Rea then you haven't read later EGW Estate admissions and examples of plagiarism and paraphrasing where THEY have researched the original source authors.
@dconklin58 Paraphrasing, borrowing...no one cares what you call it or if it was ethical. The only problem with the above is that EGW spent a lifetime making ABSOLUTE, UNQUESTIONABLE statments that she did not do this. It's the fact the she said she didn't but she DID...who cares about copyright etc. she lied!
@BuckLakeBoy: "THEY have researched the original source authors."
That's what I did. So I can see from that the alleged evidence in Rea's book has been manipulated and distorted. In one case, on the web, a critic inserted a sentence from EGW INTO her alleged source!
@dconklin58 Get past REA already...I'm talking about ongoing SDA research at the White Estate, YEARS after Walter's book....you seem stuck on Rea and old data. Now you are claiming your research overrides that of the EGW Estate and their much later admissions that she borrowed from all of Walter's sources and many more that Walter never even thought of when he wrote his book.
I am; I'm simply showing how sloppy and duplicitous the critics have been.
My work has been seen by the White Estate and they appprove of it. Secondly, I did the kind of study that Dr. Veltman told us to do over 20 years ago and it was published in a scholarly, refereed journal.
@dconklin58 Regarding money, no one said she was a millionaire in her time but that her income in current value would be equal to millions today...but by the 1880's the White's owned: a large home in Battle Creek, one in Oakland, a house they built on a farm near Healdsburg and a mountain retreat in Rollinsville, Colorado. Not bad for struggling pioneers! Oh..not to forget the last 74 acre Healdsburg estate which was able to accommodate her staff of 14.
@BuckLakeBoy: They didn't say that her estate was worth a million. They said that she was a millionaire. Which cannot be because when they processed her will she was about $24,000 or so inthe hole.
@dconklin58 Actually she died with a debt nearly 3x what you said. BUT she still had huge royalties due her estate which paid off the debt. The other figures I have seen only appoximate her income in her time into current dollar values and they are not unreasonable considering she published more books under her name than any woman author..ever at premium royalty rates
@BuckLakeBoy: I seemed to recall that approx. amount. Howvere a critic of EGW says that "her estate fell short $63,230.40 of paying her debts." So, we're both wrong! I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that she was paid "premium royalty rates."
@dconklin58 "I am not satisfied with the result. Those who have felt that they were doing me justice by awarding me fifteen cents for each copy sold have erred in judgment…I will make no rash moves, but I cannot submit to the arrangements made. They are unjust. The money used in paying canvassers for selling the first edition was misspent, for I should have received the profits on that edition". Letter 15, 1885
@dconklin58 EGW proudly called Marian Davis her "book maker" but Fanny did years of editorial work as well. Since The White Estate admits she borrowed heavily from nearly a dozen major authors, who can claim authorship of any of her books? EGW knew about quoting: "the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation. --R & H Oct. 8, 1867
@BuckLakeBoy: she didn't borrow "hgeavily" from any author, period. Unbiased outsiders have seen my work on the web and concluded that I had proven she was NOT a plagiarist.
Doesn't it bother you that she was never sued if she was a plagiarist? The NYT had over 1,000 articles on the subject during her lifetime. Yet none are ab't her--isn't that like hiding your light under a bushel? Were her alleged victims informed about the theft?
@dconklin58 "Since our last report on this topic ("Did Mrs. White 'Borrow' in Reporting a Vision?" Adventist Review, April 2, 1981, and Letters to the Editor, April 30), research has located several further instances in which Ellen White used the language of other authors to report what had been revealed to her". (from Ellen G White Estate)
@BuckLakeBoy: got that source. I'm still looking for the support for your claim that they admitted she "borrowed heavily."
===
Read Robert Macfarlane's Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (OUP, 2007). If his book had been published earlier it would have saved me a lot of work!
@dconklin58 In sincerity, you are not getting the one SOLE issue. It's not if borrowing, plagiarizing, paraphrasing was legal or a spinach pie from outer space. The only issue is the EGW denied in the stongest possible terms that she ever did any of this whether legal or not. The fact that she did do it, legal or not, means she lied over and over and over regarding her writing. No one cares whatsoever if anything she did was legal, or acceptable but they do care that she lied about what she did
@dconklin58 OK..erase the board. "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation. --Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867. Based on her claim, if she used just one sentence from another author, is she a liar or a saint?
@dconklin58 You divert from the issue so skilfully. It's not about 'fair use percentage', it's not what was permissable or how many authors did similar things. There is only one issue; Ellen White SAID she did not copy. She DID copy so she lied!
@BuckLakeBoy: You started with the claim of palagiarism. When you found that you couldn't defend it you moved to paraphrasing and borrowing when you could win that one either you changed to claims of not copying--what you don't realize is that since the first two are false, this is a moot point. Even the writers in the Bible copied!
@dconklin58 You still divert from the issue! I already gave you a quote from EGW, "yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation" Based on Veltman, EGW Estate,SDA reasearch etc, DID SHE USE WORDS OTHER THAN HER OWN OR THOSE OF AN ANGEL? Why can't you answer only the question put to you?
@BuckLakeBoy: You are missing the point. If you use someone else's words but make them your own, then they are your own words. In most cases EGW's alleged borrowings lie in the 3-6 word length range. We can't actually prove that she borrowed them from someone else unless we have a string of 16 or more words.
@dconklin58 Ron Graybill, E. G. White Estate, report at G C , Nov. 15-19, '81 "The material borrowed by Mrs. White included historical, geographical, and chronological information, as well as devotional material, theological concepts—and scriptural and prophetic expositions. She also employed extra-Biblical comments on the lives of various Biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact., "
@BuckLakeBoy: there's no problem with drawing from others information about the history, etc.. Imagine trying to talk about the begiining phases of teh Amer. Revolution without mention Paul Revere's midnight ride?
As for turning speculations into fact--that's guesswork.
@onetwopussies I think you misunderstand about what SDA believes about 1844. I hate it when people make ignorant comments who don't even know what they are talking about.
"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you [ever] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible & make that your food, & your meat, & your drink, & you make that the elements of your character ... don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' —'Sister White said this,' & 'Sister White said that,' & 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.' Spalding & Magan Collect.
"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you [ever] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible & make that your food, and your meat, & your drink, & you make that the elements of your character, ... don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' —'Sister White said this,' & 'Sister White said that,' & 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.' Spalding & Magan Collec.
Wow they got really defensive, looks like somebody hit a sore spot. Perhaps because people inside and outside Adventism are observing too much honoring of Ellen White above the Word of God.
Well then you should believe in the atonement then and not Ellen White because to say that your sins are forgiven, then they are not, that they are blotted out, then they are not , and then the confessed and forgiven sins are put back onto the sinner after they were confessed is saying that 2+2=5
Johnson said the same thing "Jesus is taking care of my sins" then went on to talk about how "forgiven sins" are put back onto the sinner and used the Bible for his proof! Just more proof that EGW distorts the minds of SDA's when they interpret scripture
Johnson would never draw that conclusion if he hadn't been trained to believe the Investigative Judgment in the SDA educational system. It's contrary to the Bible. And is basically the 1844 coverup doctrine
But according to SDA's those recorded sins can be put right back on you after they were forgiven because they really were not forgiven or blotted out, because Jesus is "taking care of them".
We were talking about whether these things are taught in the church and I was pointing to the teachers. That's not nose counting noses or looking to men, it's just the truth about who is teaching what.
I always look to the Bible, not little red EGW books. It is obvious that Johnson's teachings are not in line with the Bible and that is common in the SDA church. Unfortunately too many Adventists use EGW as their guidebook for interpreting scripture. That is why you can go to the Adventist Book Center and get a Bible with EGW commentary/footnotes in it. If there's a question on a text, just read the EGW commentary to explain it.
Well my set of experiences, my location, associations, etc. in the church are quite different from yours and I have seen and experienced all of the above, it is very commonplace.
>Well my set of experiences, my location, associations, etc. in the church are quite different from yours and I have seen and experienced all of the above, it is very commonplace.
I've been in about 2 dozen SDA churches across the country and have dealt with dozens of members on the web. There are some off-shoot (some not even that) churches that claim to be SDA, but are not part of the main body.
@spooteronicus@spooteronicus There are 2 sorts of Adventists. Christian/Adventists and Adventist/Adventists. Christian/Adventists read the bible only and follow Christs teachings. Adventist/Adventists follow EGW as God;s last day prophet, and hold her writings above the scripture, these are the ones that are the cult in the church.
But if my sins can cause my forgiveness to be revoked as Johnson illustrated then that is not possible at all, and if the sins are sitting on the books in heaven waiting to be put back upon me after I already confessed them and God has NOT blotted them out but He reverses His mercy as Johnson illustrated, then it's awfully hard not to think about them.
Are you insinuating that Bill Johnson did this interview on his own accord?, representing the SDA church as Editor of the Adventist Review Magazine, battling a guy like Walter Martin who wrote the ever popular book "Kingdom of the Cults" which has a HUGE section on the SDA church and he did this without needing consent from the church? No way.
I know what the Bible says but Johnson represents the church's beliefs as based on the false writings of EGW, he is not alone in his opinions, they are church doctrine
And the same way the Bible is authoritative in the Christian religion, not the writings of Ellen White and especially since they disagree with the authority of scripture
>Any message that denies we are forgiven and covered under the blood of Christ TODAY, that denies our sins are pardoned, blotted out, TODAY, is a false message
The IJ teaches exactly that, therefore it is not false. Thanks for proving it.
Nope it is not the same at all. Even William Johnson stated that his sins are not forgiven but that "Jesus is taking care of my sins". He said this after saying "I am in Christ". Then to illustrate he tells the story of the 2 debtors? That story applies to those who are "in Christ"? And claims that those who are in Christ can have their forgiveness canceled? What a mess of mixed up lies. That poor guy is confused big time
No the Investigative Judgment does not teach that at all. Adventists must wait for the conclusion of the Investigative Judgment to see, as Ellen White says, "if they were even entitled to its benefits"
EGW- "Our High Priest enters the holy of holies [in 1844]to perform the work of investigative judgement and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits
Although Paul said in his time that we already have the reconciliation and atonement
Romans 5:11 - by whom we have now received the atonement.
Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
1 John 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
"All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God,"
You clipped the context, that was in the context if the futuristic Investigative Judgment, she never claimed it applies to believers today. she uses words like "have had" PAST tense and "will have" FUTURE tense. SDA's living after October 1844 have nothing until the IJ is over, no atonement, no blotting of sins, not even full forgiveness according to William Johnson and EGW - and furthermore, not even a mediator in finality
>SDA's living after October 1844 have nothing until the IJ is over, no atonement, no blotting of sins, not even full forgiveness according to William Johnson and EGW - and furthermore, not even a mediator in finality
That's complete bunk. No SDA believes that even for a moment.
>I'm certain the "thumbs down" was for your false ideas and crappy attitude
I didn't write the Bible texts. And if you think "Lev. 16 (Day of Atonement); Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 12:36-37" have a "crappy attitude" wait till you meet the God who inspired them. You read these posts about as well as you read the Bible--when will you learn?
Like I said, people are probably giving you thumbs down for your now continuing crappy attitude. People are not giving a thumbs down to the Word of God, just your interpretation of it and your immature attitude. Grow up.
Marx wrote through the 1840's to the 1880's. His first writing was not in 1844. Same with Darwin. Where did you get the idea that Darwin finished 'the origin of species' in 1844? The topic at hand is 1844 as the beginning of the investigative judgement. It is not biblical, in fact adventists didn't even come up with this idea until the 1850's. Of course this happened after they did away with the closed door doctrine, another false standing.
I can't believe people are still defending the IJ theory. It is not Biblical what so ever it was merely an attempt to explain away the failed prediction of Christ's return. EGW was nothing more than a false prophet and a fraud. Her failed prophecies, her inaccurate Biblical recounts. The shut door policy I could go on and on. Satan bears our sins. Incredible that anyone could defend her.
Revelation 1: 7, "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen"
Matt. 12: 36,37 "But I say to you that for every IDLE WORD men may speak, they will give account of it in the DAY OF JUDGMENT. For by YOUR WORDS you will be JUSTIFIED, and BY YOUR WORDS you will be condemned
thank you so much SKYSPLASH for this collection of videos. its been so helpful for me and my study of religion. Lord bless.
efonoti0409 1 month ago
Scriptures is the source of authority and everything else has to pass its test to be approved. The funny thing is that whoever attacks her as not being a true prophet does it because they show that her writings are not in line with their interpretation of the holy scriptures, therefore since we agree with her prophetic gift and understand scriptures in agreement with her therefore she is our pope. However, if we were to take your interpretation of the scriptures, doesn't that make you our pope
jcsnpio 2 months ago
I just want to make a comment here in regards to consistency. At first, to make EGW like a pope to us they claim that we take her as infallible. So whatever she says is the final word, but then somewhere around 1:21 they claim that people were dismissed because they disagree with her and that EGW herself said that you can disagree with her. Now which one is it? I am just looking for consistency, that is all.
jcsnpio 2 months ago
Sister Ellen g white is a false prophet. She was wrong about her prophecies of Armageddon and she prophecied about the trinity and Jesus not being flesh and blood. In the old testament if someone gets 1 prophesy wrong there are stoned to death and counted as a false prophet.
mamainmancj 2 months ago
THE WORD OF GOD IS INFALLIBLE,
SISTER ELLEN WHITE IS NOT AN INFALLIBLE BEING
ONLY GOD IS INFALLIBLE.
SISTER ELLEN WHITE IS A MESSENGER INSPIRED OF GOD.
SHE IS NOT INFALLIBLE!
SHE SERVES GOD ACCORDING TO WHAT GOD HAS INSPIRED HER TO REVEAL. AND IF SHE PUTS THAT IN WRITING, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HER WRITINGS ARE INFALLIBLE RATHER IT POINTS BACK TO THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.
THE ROLE OF HER WRITINGS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY, IT IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.
iiiEMOTIONiii 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pearl Trees Of Life [a vast Bible Resource Site]:
[3 w dot] pearltrees [dot com] [forwardslash] awhn
Freely you have received, freely give...
AWHNNOH 2 months ago
Twenty seven articles of faith vs. THE BIBLE. Sorry, but if the articles disagree with the Holy Scriptures, then they are WRONG.
j4270108 2 months ago
another daughter of Rome in trouble
odephraimchai 4 months ago
1st question: Do you still hold to Questions on Doctrine?) Seventh-day Adventists do NOT.
2nd question: Do you regard the interpretations of Ellen G White of the Bible to be infallible?) Seventh-day Adventists DO.
3rd question: Why Questions on Doctrine went out of print?) Seventh-day Adventists have held to their original beliefs which QOD denied.
I'm doing a series of videos EXPOSING Adventist doctrines.
OurSword 5 months ago
ellen g white is a false prophet and sda church is a false church. Though throughout the years, they revised their declaration of beliefs, they still found to be false church and their doctrrines contrary to the scriptures
origs14 6 months ago in playlist Seventh Day Adventist -VS- Christianity - Full Debate
@origs14 you are making UNDER STATEMENTS, you don't understand TRULY WHAT IT IS TO BE A TRUE SDA. Sister Ellen's writings is not based on whether it is infallible or not, rather it is based on what Bible teaches. Read her writings, study them, & point out in its true light or proper context w/c of the concepts, principles, that she wrote to teach are up against the infallible Bible? Show me and present them in their PROPER CONTEXT. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor...
iiiEMOTIONiii 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pearl Trees Of Life [a vast resource of evidence]:
[3w dot] pearltrees [dot com] [forwardslash] awhn
Final Events:
watch?v=D1lFYO5zE-c
[3w dot] halos [dot com]
[3w dot] orionfdn [dot org]
[3w dot] amazingfacts [dot org] or [dot tv]
[3w dot] amazingdiscoveries [dot org] or [dot tv]
AWHNNOH 7 months ago
@bullawaya
What do you believe that means?
Myhopeisinhim 7 months ago
Praise the LORD of the ETERNAL 7th Day SABBATH. As the Lord Lives forever, so shall His Blessed Holy Day. The LORDS DAY. I Praise you O Lord of the Sabbath and Thank you for your HOLY 10 Commandmants that you WROTE with YOUR FINGER...THE FINGER OF GOD. Bless us as we share in the Sabbath you MADE for Mankind..PRAISE HIM, PRAISE HIM..LET ALL THE EARTH PRAISE THE LORD OF THE SABBATH!!!
1978dagreat 10 months ago
EGW taught that Satan will be the FINAL SIN BEARER. This means that Adventists have Satan as their FINAL SAVIOUR! This also means that Adventists indirectly trusts Satan to take away their sins!
Read The Great Controversy, page 422. by Ellen G White and you will be HORRIFIED when you learn that she taught that Satan is your FINAL SIN BEARER..a demonic teaching that contradicts God's Holy Scriptures!
WAKE UP ADVENTISTS!! YOU ARE IN BABYLON FOLLOWING A DEMON POSSESSED WRITER! I LEFT SDA CULT!
FatTonyAU 1 year ago 2
@FatTonyAU, They're a joke
Nashhinton 11 months ago
I saw this show years ago and know for a fact that abusive editing was utilized to create a clumsy witness from William Johnsson. John Ankerberg is the quintessential Laodicean Christian. There's no call to repentance from sin, nor tears in his eyes for those he believes will suffer in the torments of hell forever. And to this he says, "Amen!"
"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt.19:17. How Christians keep ignoring these words illustrates the insanity of men under Satan.
utopiandesign 1 year ago
The Books of the New Testament were written between AD 33 and AD 96. You said The Bible was being written during the time that Gentiles were joining The same commands the Jewish Christians had were for the Gentiles. One Faith Jude 3, I have not seen any Christian in the New Testament observing the Sabbath nor a command to observe it. 84 times in the NT Paul when in on the Sabbath to convert the Jews. They kicked him out chased him out or beat him up. He did get some but that was not worship.
pumbah007 1 year ago
@pumbah007: "The Books of the New Testament were written between AD 33 and AD 96."
That appears to be the case. I suggest (only a suggestion) that Matthew was written in time for when the pilgrims to Jerusalem went home after Pentecost when thousands were converted. Why send them away empty-handed? Why not give them a Gospel?
dconklin58 1 year ago
Were there any Gentile Christians keeping the sabbath in the Bible?
pumbah007 1 year ago
@pumbah007: The Bible was being written during the time that Gentiles were joining. At least as late as the 5th century most Christians around the Med were still keeping the Sabbath. In Norway theu kept the Sabbath till the late 1200's or so. In India they were kepping the Sabbath till the 1540's. And in Ethiopia they were keeping the Sabbath till about 1600.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 I would like 1 Bible versus were Christians gathered in obervance of the Sabbath. You said In Norway they kept the Sabbath till the late 1200's or so. In India they were keeping the Sabbath till the 1540's. And in Ethiopia they were keeping the Sabbath till about 1600. What about in the BIBLE. I thinks we should check the Bible First and then go to Norway, India and Ethiopia
pumbah007 1 year ago
@pumbah007: It is important to note that there is NOTHING in the Bible about the Sabbath being replaced. According to the Bible the Christian symbol for the death and resurrection of Christ was baptism by immersion. Combined these tell us why Christians kept the Sabbath long after the Cross. Early Christian tradition shows that they followed what they had been taught from the time of the apostles.
dconklin58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pumbah007 Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
God made the day Holy. Man can not make something Holy, they can only keep it Holy. Therefore, keeping the Sabbath Holy, not making the Sunday "Holy".
irock1100 6 months ago in playlist Seventh Day Adventist -VS- Christianity - Full Debate
Hm, for me personally, the writings of Ellen White are only infallible as far as contradiction to Scripture. But if there's conflict over interpretation, I pray and for God's guidance and keep studying to see whether I was wrong or if Ellen was right. So far, I haven't come across anything I strongly object to.
iMattCi89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>"The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face."
You lied, period.
dconklin58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BuckLakeBoy: "The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face."
That is a lie.
The critcis lie, period. First, they lied about the plagiarism claim. When they find they can't defend that, they shift to borrowing and paraphrasing. When they are shown to be wrong there they change the subject to what did EGW say about her works. What they don't realize is that given the previous were lies, what she said is moot.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face."
That is a lie.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Great Controversy,1877. Total acknowledgement for that book, "Being aided in the study of the Scriptures, and in her work as a religious teacher, by the special enlightenment of the Spirit of God, she is peculiarly qualified to present the facts of the Life and Ministry of Christ, in connection with the divine plan of human redemption and to practically apply the lessons of Jesus to the simple duties of life.
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: And the point would be?
When John wrote Revelation why did he draw material from the book of Enoch? Compare Rev. 9:11 with Enoch 86:1--right out of Graybill's article
The book of Revelation has 2,500 echoes and allusions to the OT without giving the source(s) even once.
dconklin58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The true Messiah guarded all His Father's commands (John 15:10) including the 7th day Sabbath (Luke 4:16).
As did His true followers (Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42,44; Acts 18:4).
IF we want to follow the true Messiah we will walk as He walked (1 John 2:3-7). And the true Messiah, YaHuWshuaH, comes in His Father's Name, YaHuWaH (John 5:43). Hallelu~YaH !
4Romans8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The true Messiah guarded all His Father's commands (John 15:10) including the 7th day Sabbath (Luke 4:16).
As did His true followers (Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42,44; Acts 18:4).
IF we want to follow the true Messiah we will walk as He walked (1 John 2:3-7). And the true Messiah, YaHuWshuaH, comes in His Father's Name, YaHuWaH (John 5:43). Hallelu~YaH !
4Romans8 1 year ago
IS 65:20 in context: There will be NO death in New Earth or New Jerusalem. Its speaking of events bfore NEW is MADE. Child dying at 100 yrs happens bfore 2nd ressurection (destroy evil Rev 20:6) v.19=no more crying=infants/weeping children will grow to100 yrs & prior to great FINAL battle of armageddon wicked adults will be 100 years old & cursed BUT all SAVED children will eat from tree of life & grow into glorified state = no death ever
jesusisonlyway 1 year ago
Hawgdawgrain 1 year ago
Happy eternal 7th Day Sabbath to everyone*-*
jesusisonlyway 1 year ago
I say "only Christ, only Scripture". I need no prophet to interpret Scripture. The Bible is the only rule for faith & practice. The Holy Spirit is "the Teacher" not EGW.
windbisquit25 1 year ago
LOL there was no careful study by the church, they had already made up their mind before they had even heard the evidence.!!!
cornerstone111 1 year ago
so, ok sabbath is not the day of the lord.
then is sunday the day of the lord?
if it is, why?
just because the pope transfer the santity of the sabbath to sunday
and seems like every other church said amen
i don't get it
jhopeh84 1 year ago
Christians call Sunday the Lord's Day because that is the day he rose from the Dead. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Rev 1:10. Justin Martyr one of the Early church Fathers spoke about it, long before AD 324. SO research on Christian worship and you will know why. Christians can worship any day of the week. Act 2: 46. Daily
pumbah007 1 year ago
@pumbah007 - To be fair, there is nothing in the text in Revelation that says the Lord's Day is Sunday. Infact nowhere in Revelation are we given any information specifically ... there are a few schools of thought 1) It means the day the Lord Returns which was the subject of John's Revelation 2) it means Sunday, 3) It means on the Sabbath. Since John was in exile he would not have been working on the Sabbath so it would be a good time to write out his vision
gnmtyf 1 year ago
@gnmtyf - I would support argument 3 with the following texts. - Isaiah 58:13, the Lord calls the Sabbath "My Holy Day". In Matthew 12:8, and Luke 6:5 Jesus calls himself "Lord of the Sabbath" ... There is no such association of the Lord's name with any first day of the week, so when John says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day", the best scriptural evidence is that this is the Sabbath.
gnmtyf 1 year ago
@pumbah007: Most Christians around the Med were still keeping the Sabbath, even as late as the 5th century. In India they kept the Sabbath till the 1540's and in Ethiopia till around 1600.
dconklin58 1 year ago
Happy Sabbath Everyone. Praise the Lord of the ETERNAL 7th Day Sabbath the ruler of ALL things, seen and unseen. AMEN..I LOVE YOU LORD.
jesusisonlyway 1 year ago
@jesusisonlyway
Eternal 7th day?
It was "made" for man (Mark 2:27), how can it be eternal? Nothing that is "made" is eternal.
Hawgdawgrain 1 year ago
@Hawgdawgrain, Isaiah 66:22.23
"For as the NEW heavens & the NEW earth which I WILL MAKE shall remain bfore me saith the LORD so shall your seed & your name remain. And it shall come to pass from one NEW moon to another & from ONE SABBATH to ANOTHER shall ALL FLESH come WORSHIP BFORE ME SAITH the LORD
U might as well get use to it NOW cuz its gonna happen thru eternity*-*
Happy 7th Day Sabbath
jesusisonlyway 1 year ago
@jesusisonlyway
I guess the child will die at 100 (Isaiah 65:20) and we'll be celebrating the New Moon festivals as well (Isaiah 66:23).
Unless you're choosing to ignore the rest of the passage beginning contectually at Isaiah 65:17.
This had a local context for Israel had they accpeted the Messiah and become all they were supposed to become.
It is NOT speaking of the new earth as spoken of in Revelation.
Hawgdawgrain 1 year ago
@Hawgdawgrain Context is the ONLY way I study Sola Scriptura. Matt 24 along with many many verses have DUAL applications. You are reading OUT of context if you cant percieve that Isa 66:22,23 are just as literal as Isa 7:14. as I explnd to another eternal 7th day Sabbath antagonist..IF God said there will be a NEW moon in the NEW heavens & NEW earth that CHRIST WILL MAKE to track days, months seasons AND SABBATHS...IT IS DONE..AMEN!
jesusisonlyway 1 year ago
@jesusisonlyway
So the child will die at 100? (Isaiah 65:20)
Hawgdawgrain 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are lots of claims made about Ellen White. We now know that the following claims are false:
1. That she was a plagiarist.
2. That she plagiarized by paraphrasing.
3. That she was a millionaire.
4. That Fannie Bolton wrote Steps to Christ.
5. That she engaged in "wholesale plagiarism" of Conybeare & Howson.
That's just 5 of 55 that I know of.
If the cause of the critics was so true & right why do they have to lie so much? Does that sound like something Christ would do?
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 3 of 5 claims regard plagiarism. Have you read Adventist Review or Ministry Mag from 1980-85 where EGW White Estate is forced to admit on an ongoing basis that she copied wholesale from far more authors than Walter Rea ever imagined?
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: Please give me the exact tiltes of the articles. I have 690 sources that I have examined in my bibliography. If they literally said that she "copied wholesale" then I'll have to say that they lied. The "evidence" that Rea musters is about 90-95% of all that we wuill probably ever find. And his work is highly flawed--like giving examples of "plagiarism" where she does give her source (some 13 times!)!
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Any sources listed in her works were added in subsequent editions when SDA friends & workers noticed that she was copying without credit. The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face. If you're still stuck on Rea then you haven't read later EGW Estate admissions and examples of plagiarism and paraphrasing where THEY have researched the original source authors.
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: The sources are in her original works.
Paraphrasing is a legitimate literary activity. My work on this subject has been published in a scholarly refereed journal (Plagiary, 2008).
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Paraphrasing, borrowing...no one cares what you call it or if it was ethical. The only problem with the above is that EGW spent a lifetime making ABSOLUTE, UNQUESTIONABLE statments that she did not do this. It's the fact the she said she didn't but she DID...who cares about copyright etc. she lied!
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: paraphrasing is what you were taught in grade school. Even borrowing is legit as long as its in the realm of fair use.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "The credits were quietly slipped in later on to save face. "
That is a lie.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "THEY have researched the original source authors."
That's what I did. So I can see from that the alleged evidence in Rea's book has been manipulated and distorted. In one case, on the web, a critic inserted a sentence from EGW INTO her alleged source!
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Get past REA already...I'm talking about ongoing SDA research at the White Estate, YEARS after Walter's book....you seem stuck on Rea and old data. Now you are claiming your research overrides that of the EGW Estate and their much later admissions that she borrowed from all of Walter's sources and many more that Walter never even thought of when he wrote his book.
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "Get past REA already."
I am; I'm simply showing how sloppy and duplicitous the critics have been.
My work has been seen by the White Estate and they appprove of it. Secondly, I did the kind of study that Dr. Veltman told us to do over 20 years ago and it was published in a scholarly, refereed journal.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Regarding money, no one said she was a millionaire in her time but that her income in current value would be equal to millions today...but by the 1880's the White's owned: a large home in Battle Creek, one in Oakland, a house they built on a farm near Healdsburg and a mountain retreat in Rollinsville, Colorado. Not bad for struggling pioneers! Oh..not to forget the last 74 acre Healdsburg estate which was able to accommodate her staff of 14.
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: They didn't say that her estate was worth a million. They said that she was a millionaire. Which cannot be because when they processed her will she was about $24,000 or so inthe hole.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Actually she died with a debt nearly 3x what you said. BUT she still had huge royalties due her estate which paid off the debt. The other figures I have seen only appoximate her income in her time into current dollar values and they are not unreasonable considering she published more books under her name than any woman author..ever at premium royalty rates
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: I seemed to recall that approx. amount. Howvere a critic of EGW says that "her estate fell short $63,230.40 of paying her debts." So, we're both wrong! I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that she was paid "premium royalty rates."
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 "I am not satisfied with the result. Those who have felt that they were doing me justice by awarding me fifteen cents for each copy sold have erred in judgment…I will make no rash moves, but I cannot submit to the arrangements made. They are unjust. The money used in paying canvassers for selling the first edition was misspent, for I should have received the profits on that edition". Letter 15, 1885
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: no proof that 15 cents was a premium.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 EGW proudly called Marian Davis her "book maker" but Fanny did years of editorial work as well. Since The White Estate admits she borrowed heavily from nearly a dozen major authors, who can claim authorship of any of her books? EGW knew about quoting: "the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation. --R & H Oct. 8, 1867
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
Comment removed
dconklin58 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: The work that Marion did was what we would call a compiler.
>she borrowed heavily from nearly a dozen major authors,
She didn't borrow "heavily," period.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: she didn't borrow "hgeavily" from any author, period. Unbiased outsiders have seen my work on the web and concluded that I had proven she was NOT a plagiarist.
Doesn't it bother you that she was never sued if she was a plagiarist? The NYT had over 1,000 articles on the subject during her lifetime. Yet none are ab't her--isn't that like hiding your light under a bushel? Were her alleged victims informed about the theft?
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 "Since our last report on this topic ("Did Mrs. White 'Borrow' in Reporting a Vision?" Adventist Review, April 2, 1981, and Letters to the Editor, April 30), research has located several further instances in which Ellen White used the language of other authors to report what had been revealed to her". (from Ellen G White Estate)
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: got that source. I'm still looking for the support for your claim that they admitted she "borrowed heavily."
===
Read Robert Macfarlane's Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature. (OUP, 2007). If his book had been published earlier it would have saved me a lot of work!
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 In sincerity, you are not getting the one SOLE issue. It's not if borrowing, plagiarizing, paraphrasing was legal or a spinach pie from outer space. The only issue is the EGW denied in the stongest possible terms that she ever did any of this whether legal or not. The fact that she did do it, legal or not, means she lied over and over and over regarding her writing. No one cares whatsoever if anything she did was legal, or acceptable but they do care that she lied about what she did
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "It's not if borrowing, plagiarizing, paraphrasing was legal or a spinach pie from outer space."
The critics claim on the web and in print that Ellen G. White was a plagiarist. I show that the claim is a lie.
>they do care that she lied about what she did
Rea made that claim. Since I showed that his work is sloppy and in error that renders this claim moot.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 OK..erase the board. "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation. --Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867. Based on her claim, if she used just one sentence from another author, is she a liar or a saint?
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: "Based on her claim, if she used just one sentence from another author, is she a liar or a saint?"
"Fair use" is 10%. When she died Canright called her "a godly Christian woman." We don't call her a saint. I don't lie either.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 You divert from the issue so skilfully. It's not about 'fair use percentage', it's not what was permissable or how many authors did similar things. There is only one issue; Ellen White SAID she did not copy. She DID copy so she lied!
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: You started with the claim of palagiarism. When you found that you couldn't defend it you moved to paraphrasing and borrowing when you could win that one either you changed to claims of not copying--what you don't realize is that since the first two are false, this is a moot point. Even the writers in the Bible copied!
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 You still divert from the issue! I already gave you a quote from EGW, "yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in remarks of quotation" Based on Veltman, EGW Estate,SDA reasearch etc, DID SHE USE WORDS OTHER THAN HER OWN OR THOSE OF AN ANGEL? Why can't you answer only the question put to you?
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: You are missing the point. If you use someone else's words but make them your own, then they are your own words. In most cases EGW's alleged borrowings lie in the 3-6 word length range. We can't actually prove that she borrowed them from someone else unless we have a string of 16 or more words.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Ron Graybill, E. G. White Estate, report at G C , Nov. 15-19, '81 "The material borrowed by Mrs. White included historical, geographical, and chronological information, as well as devotional material, theological concepts—and scriptural and prophetic expositions. She also employed extra-Biblical comments on the lives of various Biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact., "
BuckLakeBoy 1 year ago
@BuckLakeBoy: there's no problem with drawing from others information about the history, etc.. Imagine trying to talk about the begiining phases of teh Amer. Revolution without mention Paul Revere's midnight ride?
As for turning speculations into fact--that's guesswork.
dconklin58 1 year ago
1844 bears witness to the Adventists getting it wrong.
onetwopussies 1 year ago
@onetwopussies I think you misunderstand about what SDA believes about 1844. I hate it when people make ignorant comments who don't even know what they are talking about.
ArmageddonComingSoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onetwopussies: "1844 bears witness to the Adventists getting it wrong."
SDA's didn't exist in 1844.
dconklin58 1 year ago
Comment removed
onetwopussies 1 year ago
"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you [ever] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible & make that your food, & your meat, & your drink, & you make that the elements of your character ... don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' —'Sister White said this,' & 'Sister White said that,' & 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.' Spalding & Magan Collect.
dconklin58 2 years ago
"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you [ever] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible & make that your food, and your meat, & your drink, & you make that the elements of your character, ... don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' —'Sister White said this,' & 'Sister White said that,' & 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.' Spalding & Magan Collec.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Wow they got really defensive, looks like somebody hit a sore spot. Perhaps because people inside and outside Adventism are observing too much honoring of Ellen White above the Word of God.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>The atonement was completed as Paul said in the
That's because no matter how many times you tell some people that 2+2=4 they still persist in lying and say that we believe that it equals 5.
>too much honoring of Ellen White above the Word of God.
We don't even think like that. Only an ignorant outsider would say such a thing.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Well then you should believe in the atonement then and not Ellen White because to say that your sins are forgiven, then they are not, that they are blotted out, then they are not , and then the confessed and forgiven sins are put back onto the sinner after they were confessed is saying that 2+2=5
spooteronicus 2 years ago
That doesn't even make sense.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Exactly and that's why I don't accept it.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Exactly and that's why I don't accept it.
That's a real helpful--since it has been ripped from its context.
dconklin58 2 years ago
>you deny that our sins are fully atoned for
No, your sins are completely taken care of when you confess those sins.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Comment removed
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Are they taken care of? Or are the Blotted Out and completely forgiven? There is a big difference
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Johnson said the same thing "Jesus is taking care of my sins" then went on to talk about how "forgiven sins" are put back onto the sinner and used the Bible for his proof! Just more proof that EGW distorts the minds of SDA's when they interpret scripture
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Johnson would never draw that conclusion if he hadn't been trained to believe the Investigative Judgment in the SDA educational system. It's contrary to the Bible. And is basically the 1844 coverup doctrine
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>It's contrary to the Bible. And is basically the 1844 coverup doctrine
They are based on the Day of Atonement service that God set up--so it can hardly be called "contrary to the Bible."
dconklin58 2 years ago
The atonement was completed as Paul said in the Bible
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>The atonement was completed as Paul said in the
It is completed for the individual when you confess your sins. That still leaves the sanctuary in heaven where the sins have been recorded.
dconklin58 2 years ago
But according to SDA's those recorded sins can be put right back on you after they were forgiven because they really were not forgiven or blotted out, because Jesus is "taking care of them".
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>But according to SDA's those recorded sins can be put right back on you
Show where that is taught in the SDA church.
dconklin58 2 years ago
For starters, William Johnson the Editor of the Adventist Review holds that view.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>For starters, William Johnson the Editor of the Adventist Review holds that view.
For starters you don't find truth by appealing to people in authority or counting noses. They can't save you, only Christ can.
dconklin58 2 years ago
We were talking about whether these things are taught in the church and I was pointing to the teachers. That's not nose counting noses or looking to men, it's just the truth about who is teaching what.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>We were talking about whether these things are taught in the church and I was pointing to the teachers.
We weren't taught that in any of the churches I've been in. You keep pointing to specific individuals vs. looking to see what the Bible says.
dconklin58 2 years ago
I always look to the Bible, not little red EGW books. It is obvious that Johnson's teachings are not in line with the Bible and that is common in the SDA church. Unfortunately too many Adventists use EGW as their guidebook for interpreting scripture. That is why you can go to the Adventist Book Center and get a Bible with EGW commentary/footnotes in it. If there's a question on a text, just read the EGW commentary to explain it.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Johnson's teachings are not in line with the Bible
I can't say. Sometimes the choice of words gets in the way.
>and that is common in the SDA church.
Pure bunk and gratutious--no evidence is presented.
>Unfortunately too many Adventists use EGW as their guidebook for interpreting scripture.
In 40 years I have yet to meet even one.
>That is why you can go to the Adventist Book Center & get a Bible with EGW commentary/footnotes in it.
Don't know anyone who owns or uses it.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Well my set of experiences, my location, associations, etc. in the church are quite different from yours and I have seen and experienced all of the above, it is very commonplace.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Well my set of experiences, my location, associations, etc. in the church are quite different from yours and I have seen and experienced all of the above, it is very commonplace.
I've been in about 2 dozen SDA churches across the country and have dealt with dozens of members on the web. There are some off-shoot (some not even that) churches that claim to be SDA, but are not part of the main body.
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58 agree with you. good to see another Sda here , blessings ,brother
Fredy197 2 years ago
@spooteronicus @spooteronicus There are 2 sorts of Adventists. Christian/Adventists and Adventist/Adventists. Christian/Adventists read the bible only and follow Christs teachings. Adventist/Adventists follow EGW as God;s last day prophet, and hold her writings above the scripture, these are the ones that are the cult in the church.
cornerstone111 1 year ago
@cornerstone111
Amen to that brother !!!
spooteronicus 1 year ago
>Johnson said the same thing
Again, you are looking to man. Stop doing that. Look to what the Bible says.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Johnson is simply repeating SDA Doctrine which is not based on the Bible
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Johnson is simply repeating SDA Doctrine
Not that I've ever heard.
>which is not based on the Bible
Read Leviticus 16.
dconklin58 2 years ago
>Or are the Blotted Out and completely forgiven? There is a big difference
Not for you. If you confess your sins, you're role is done as far as the Bible is concerned. You don't need to think about them anymore.
dconklin58 2 years ago
But if my sins can cause my forgiveness to be revoked as Johnson illustrated then that is not possible at all, and if the sins are sitting on the books in heaven waiting to be put back upon me after I already confessed them and God has NOT blotted them out but He reverses His mercy as Johnson illustrated, then it's awfully hard not to think about them.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
> as Johnson illustrated
Again, you are paying attention to man; we don't,so why should you?
dconklin58 2 years ago
He is there representing the SDA church with their consent and espousing their views.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>with their consent
Whose consent? Have you documented proof?
dconklin58 2 years ago
Are you insinuating that Bill Johnson did this interview on his own accord?, representing the SDA church as Editor of the Adventist Review Magazine, battling a guy like Walter Martin who wrote the ever popular book "Kingdom of the Cults" which has a HUGE section on the SDA church and he did this without needing consent from the church? No way.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Are you insinuating that Bill Johnson did this interview on his own accord?,
I have no idea how he got on the show. I just don't make up claims that have no basis in fact.
>"Kingdom of the Cults" which has a HUGE section on the SDA church
Pages 359-423 in the Appendix.
dconklin58 2 years ago
>Even William Johnson stated that his sins are not forgiven but that "Jesus is taking care of my sins".
Why are you paying attention to him? What does the Bible say?
dconklin58 2 years ago
I know what the Bible says but Johnson represents the church's beliefs as based on the false writings of EGW, he is not alone in his opinions, they are church doctrine
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>church's beliefs as based on the false writings of EGW,
The church's belief are based solely on Scripture.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Then why does the 28'th Fundamental Belief of SDA's say that her writings are "authoritative truth"?
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Then why does the 28'th Fundamental Belief of SDA's say that her writings are "authoritative truth"?
The same way a medical book is authortative in the field of medicine. Or a math book in mathematics.
dconklin58 2 years ago
And the same way the Bible is authoritative in the Christian religion, not the writings of Ellen White and especially since they disagree with the authority of scripture
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>especially since they disagree with the authority of scripture
No proof for that claim.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Since many differ in that opinion ....
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Since many differ in that opinion ....
Not relevant; only Jesus saves.
dconklin58 2 years ago
And many in the SDA church teach us not to even utter the words "I am saved"
spooteronicus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>And many in the SDA church teach us not to even utter the words "I am saved"
In the context of "once saved, always saved."
dconklin58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spooteronicus: "And many in the SDA church teach us not to even utter the words "I am saved""
Context, context, context: in reference to OSAS.
dconklin58 1 year ago
>Any message that denies we are forgiven and covered under the blood of Christ TODAY, that denies our sins are pardoned, blotted out, TODAY, is a false message
The IJ teaches exactly that, therefore it is not false. Thanks for proving it.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Comment removed
dconklin58 2 years ago
Comment removed
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Nope it is not the same at all. Even William Johnson stated that his sins are not forgiven but that "Jesus is taking care of my sins". He said this after saying "I am in Christ". Then to illustrate he tells the story of the 2 debtors? That story applies to those who are "in Christ"? And claims that those who are in Christ can have their forgiveness canceled? What a mess of mixed up lies. That poor guy is confused big time
spooteronicus 2 years ago
No the Investigative Judgment does not teach that at all. Adventists must wait for the conclusion of the Investigative Judgment to see, as Ellen White says, "if they were even entitled to its benefits"
That is not the gospel message at all
spooteronicus 2 years ago
EGW- "Our High Priest enters the holy of holies [in 1844]to perform the work of investigative judgement and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits
Although Paul said in his time that we already have the reconciliation and atonement
Romans 5:11 - by whom we have now received the atonement.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
EGW- "their sins WILL BE blotted out, and they themselves WILL BE accounted worthy of eternal life"
All these references are futuristic, but the Bible disagrees.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that YE HAVE eternal life.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
1 John 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
Neither text contradicts the EGW quote you gave.
dconklin58 2 years ago
None of those quotes contradict what EGW wrote.
dconklin58 2 years ago
You, or your source, clipped the quote
"All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God,"
dconklin58 2 years ago
You clipped the context, that was in the context if the futuristic Investigative Judgment, she never claimed it applies to believers today. she uses words like "have had" PAST tense and "will have" FUTURE tense. SDA's living after October 1844 have nothing until the IJ is over, no atonement, no blotting of sins, not even full forgiveness according to William Johnson and EGW - and furthermore, not even a mediator in finality
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>You clipped the context,
I gave more of the source and you have the gall to accuse me of clipping the context?!?
dconklin58 2 years ago
>SDA's living after October 1844 have nothing until the IJ is over, no atonement, no blotting of sins, not even full forgiveness according to William Johnson and EGW - and furthermore, not even a mediator in finality
That's complete bunk. No SDA believes that even for a moment.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Then you need to visit more of their churches
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>Then you need to visit more of their churches
Been in over 2 dozen.
dconklin58 2 years ago
It's the same issue that they challenged Johnson on in these videos and Johnson defended it so it is taught
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>they challenged Johnson on in these videos and Johnson defended it so it is taught
Non sequitur. If you wish to keep looking to what men say then don't bother reponding.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Those men are in leadership positions in the SDA church and Johnson is editor of the Adventist Review.
spooteronicus 2 years ago
>>It is not Biblical
>Lev. 16 (Day of Atonement); Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 12:36-37.
You give them Bible texts and they mark it thumbs down!
dconklin58 2 years ago
Comment removed
dconklin58 2 years ago
I'm certain the "thumbs down" was for your false ideas and crappy attitude ... just a guess though ...
spooteronicus 2 years ago 12
>I'm certain the "thumbs down" was for your false ideas and crappy attitude
I didn't write the Bible texts. And if you think "Lev. 16 (Day of Atonement); Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 12:36-37" have a "crappy attitude" wait till you meet the God who inspired them. You read these posts about as well as you read the Bible--when will you learn?
dconklin58 2 years ago
Like I said, people are probably giving you thumbs down for your now continuing crappy attitude. People are not giving a thumbs down to the Word of God, just your interpretation of it and your immature attitude. Grow up.
spooteronicus 2 years ago 14
Comment removed
dconklin58 2 years ago
"God will take care of them."
Is that your vide of people who disagree with you? Like I said ... immaturity.
"I didn'tgive any interpretation."
Yes you did, you filtered everything through the writings of the false prophet.
spooteronicus 2 years ago 9
Comment removed
dconklin58 2 years ago
Applause!
Charles Darwin finished his thesis in 1844 but did not publish it until later.
Marx published his Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 - the precedent to his Manifesto but in the same body of work.
Oh,
hopgoblin1 2 years ago
Marx wrote through the 1840's to the 1880's. His first writing was not in 1844. Same with Darwin. Where did you get the idea that Darwin finished 'the origin of species' in 1844? The topic at hand is 1844 as the beginning of the investigative judgement. It is not biblical, in fact adventists didn't even come up with this idea until the 1850's. Of course this happened after they did away with the closed door doctrine, another false standing.
drdent7 2 years ago 2
I hope you understand the difference between the shut door doctrine and the current investigative judgment teaching they now adhere to.
drdent7 2 years ago
I can't believe people are still defending the IJ theory. It is not Biblical what so ever it was merely an attempt to explain away the failed prediction of Christ's return. EGW was nothing more than a false prophet and a fraud. Her failed prophecies, her inaccurate Biblical recounts. The shut door policy I could go on and on. Satan bears our sins. Incredible that anyone could defend her.
drdent7 2 years ago
ok i dont get it who is ellen G white im assuming she is a prophetic
tedros19 2 years ago
AMEN !!! Her own words compared with the plain teaching of the Bible are enough to prove her to be a false prophet
gnmtyf 2 years ago
Revelation 1: 7, "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen"
Matt. 12: 36,37 "But I say to you that for every IDLE WORD men may speak, they will give account of it in the DAY OF JUDGMENT. For by YOUR WORDS you will be JUSTIFIED, and BY YOUR WORDS you will be condemned
moses123143 2 years ago