| Author | Message | ||
     Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 1615 Registered: 2-2002 |
JR, The denomination was trying to justify Adventism as a legitimate Protestant church without extra-biblical authority. It was a matter of "explaining" to the rest of Christendom that the SDA "church" is not a cult, which is what the charge had been. With that as the reason for the book, Questions on Doctrine, and the debates preceding it, it was the responsiblity of the church to come clean on the status of Ellen White. The problem was, and still is, that not everybody in the SDA church agrees on that status; and those in charge of running the church are not, necessarily, qualified make the determination. It's well and good for the TSDAs to owe "nobody any explanation" except when the purpose of the debates was to show that Adventism is not a cult based on the definitions agreed upon. | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 721 Registered: 2-2002 |
Yes Dr. Barnhouse's (a Presbyterian) magazine "Eternity" was doing a series on "cults" by Walter Martin (a Baptist). In this series the term "cult" was used to label a group that claimed to be a Christian group, but in the view of Martin and most evangelical protestants, their doctrine was too far removed from so-called protestant orthodoxy to actually be part of the broader protestant church, thus the lable "cult". Some of the doctrines that MUST be held by a group or denomination to pass the Martin/Barnhouse test would be: The full Diety of Christ. That He is God and not created and not a lesser God than Jehovah God. The death of Christ on the cross was a complete and finished atonement for the sins of mankind. The Trinity doctrine. That salvation is completely by grace alone, not by works or the keeping of the law in full or in part. Sola Scritpura or Bible "alone". Only the Bible, the OT and NT, is the inspired "Word of God" and the only written authority for the Christian. After Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses were bashed and trashed a "cults" by Walter Martin, he did an article on Seventh-Day Adventists. One Adventist leader, Toby Unruh, called Donald Barnhouse to complain and protest. That led to Martin and Barnhouse being invited to SDA headquarters to meet with SDA leaders. LeRoy Froom was chosen to lead the Adventists in the meetings which were held off and on for two years. The result was a book put out by the SDA church called "Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine". The book actually just answers questions put to the SDA church by Walter Martin. Martin came away thinking the SDA church did beleive just like him where it counted to avoid the term "cult". Eternity magazine then did a new series on the SDA church and reversed its postion and half of the subscribers quit. Clearly many readers rejected the Martin/Barnhouse view about the SDA church being a real Christian denomination like the Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists. | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 722 Registered: 2-2002 |
J. R. I wasn't attacking Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick. Especially as a person. As a matter of fact, I try very hard in life NOT to attack anybody. Just pointing out that Pastor Kirkpatrick is on the worldwide web TRASHING Questions on Doctrine and Kirkpatrick is VERY upset that the book has been put out again. Kirkpatrick says the Questons on Doctrine is the biggest mistake that Adventist church ever made and in not a few places its postion on doctrine is far from correct. Kirkpatrick says that Questions on Doctrine is wrong about the human nature of Christ, the atonement, the writings of Ellen White and other things. KIRKPATRICK ACTUALLY USES ELLEN WHITE AS AN AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE AND TO EXPLAIN THE BIBLE. KIRKPATRICK CALLS THE ELLEN WHITE WRITINGS "PART OF THE WORD OF GOD". Now you tell me. If Larry Kirkpatrick had been conducting the meetings in the 1950's with Martin and Barnhouse rather than LeRoy Froom, Martin and Barnhouse would have walked out and the "cult" lable would have stayed. No doubt about that. Actually if Kirkpatrick had been in charge, there NO meetings would have been held. Indeed. I just read a Kirkpatrick bashing of Questions on Doctrine on line and he said that the SDA church should NEVER water down or compromise the "truth" just to avoid not Adventists calling the church a "cult". After all. According to Kirkpatrick, these SDA critics are part of Babylon and Bayblon HAS FALLEN. And they will be swept into the confusion and false religious system to come during the time of trouble and receive the mark of the beast and be lost. Yes I'm sure Larry Kirkpatrick is a wonderful man. Very humble and kind. So was Joe Crews who was from my area here in North Carolina. But like Larry, Joe thought people like you and me J. R. will be lost in the end if we don't heed the truth being proclaimed by the remnant church. | ||
| J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal) Moderator Username: Daneanderthal Post Number: 1096 Registered: 1-2002 |
Hey.......you mean that Seventh-day Adventism isn't a CULT?  Although I wouldn't put it in the same place as Mormonism (which in my opinion, isn't even a “CHRISTIAN” cult!) Anyway, someone swiped my original edition of QOD years ago. Must have been a TSDA, eh? re:"KIRKPATRICK ACTUALLY USES ELLEN WHITE AS AN AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE AND TO EXPLAIN THE BIBLE. KIRKPATRICK CALLS THE ELLEN WHITE WRITINGS "PART OF THE WORD OF GOD". " Of course he does, what would you expect of him? He's a good TSDA and I wouldn't expect anything less of him. Likewise with our friend Hubb here. I love him and respect him for his CHARACTOR, although I can and do disagree with him on doctrinal issues. As talented as Saint Ellen was at excerpting interesting bits of information and copying them with an introductory “I was Shown”, and commentating on spiritual issues....she wernt no dang PROPHET! which is my issue with TSDA's. Once their married to the worship of Saint Ellen as a Prophet" it's impossible IMO for them to form lucid and logical beliefs "outside the box" so to speak. To them, it would be the highest form of their own intellectual dishonesty! My point is, that Pastor Larry is a highly qualified and intellectual supporter of the "prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White," and to expect him to be any different then what he is, and what he says would be illogical in itself! FWIW, Circular form of reasoning (e.g. EGW "says" so therefore it IS) is a sure sign of a TSDA, and one of the reasons I reject EGW as a "prophet!" Besides she loved all those OYSTERS!  I'm just expressing the view that my friend Larry K is, for a TSDA, quite honest and forthright in his views, and should be respected as a highly qualified "defender of the ‘truth", so to speak. Unlike the anti JESUITS such as Ulrike and Teddy Mac, Larry isn't a nutcase, but is a strong believer in Saint Ellen’s "Prophetic Authority," unlike most of us. FWIW Sirje, I am well aware of the history of QOD, and ALWAYS found it somewhat DISHONEST in the attempt by Nichol, et al, to attempt to "hide" true Adventist history and belief from Barnhouse and Martin. Frankly, even as a once believing TSDA. I find nothing wrong with being labeled of a “cult” per se. The early Christian Church certainly met all the current requirements for being labeled as a “cult.” I suspect that being labeled as a “cult” really singed the hair of those like Unrah and Nichol. And they were willing to do ANYTHING to prevent that label being placed upon the denomination. Shrug……it doesn’t seem to have hurt the LDS’s in their numbers, eh? Don't get mad, get even! | ||
| Marsha A. Adams (Dragonlady) member Username: Dragonlady Post Number: 341 Registered: 2-2002 |
Of course Seventh Day Adventism is a cult! But don't feel bad, the same folks that accuse you of culthood have been saying that Roman Catholicism is a cult too. But who made them the final arbitraire of cultism? Maybe you and we are orthodox religions and their the cults? Marsha | ||
| U.Unruh (Ulrike) member Username: Ulrike Post Number: 1168 Registered: 2-2002 |
Hmmm -- so being anti-Jesuit is being "a nut case"? So in other words, to be sane one would have to be pro-Jesuit? Now, I'm not talking about individual people, I'm talking about a system with a mission-- and that mission is clearly stated as the destruction, "extirpate and exterminate" of Protestantism, by violent means if necessary, and the bringing back of the "seperated" into the fold of Rome. That is the mission of the Jesuit society. You know, I have a book by a very fundamental Baptist (I bet many modern Baptists would declare him a "nutcase" too) for he is very anti-Jesuit. His name is Michael Bunker and he is what you term "hyper Calvinist", now I do NOT agree with all he says, obviously since I do not believe in an arbitrary predestination. However, he has some quotes from former USA presidents that I'm sure would cause J.R. to call those presidents "nut cases". Like this one from John Adams: "If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Loyola's". Well, as far as I'm concerned any REAL protestant IS anti-jesuit. And any real TSDA is also anti-jesuit. It's just the way it is-- the motivating objectives of the Jesuits are totally at variance with Protestantism. To follow them and their teachings is certain death to true Protestantism. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestants almost universally believed that: "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof: but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God." (Wetminster Confession of Faith, 1658) The Reformation Christians believed that the Pope of Rome represented the "man of sin" spoken of by Paul in Thess. The Reformers taught that the great sea beast of Revelation 13 was the Papal system. In 1798 they recognized that this beast had received it's deadly blow, and it lay dying. By 1870 they thought it was dead as far as any political influence was concerned. But the scriptures reveal that the deadly wound would be healed, and the entire world would eventually worship the beast. That is exactly what EGW taught and prophecied-- and she did this during a time when it seemed the Roman church as a political identity was dead! But now, everywhere we see the attack on basic reformation historicist prophetic interpretation of scripture etc. etc. as the counter interpretations of the Jesuits gain the support of just about all the protestants. These seeking to vindicate the papacy of it's "beastly" symbol and clear identification in prophecy. Now the time has come when to point out that those who are promoting these things are the agents, either knowing or unknowing of the Jesuit agenda, is to be declared "a nut case"? So be it-- Though it baffles my mind that this should happen as we see the wound healing. But then it wouldn't heal, if Protestantism had remained true to it's original interpretations. | ||
| J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal) Moderator Username: Daneanderthal Post Number: 1099 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ulrike...you get labeled a "nut-case" because you wholeheartedly agreed with Teddy Mac, that we here are under the control and domination of the JESUITS. you EARNED the label (although you seem to have mellowed out some over the years The point is, that I, J.R. Layman don't know any JESUITS. I have never met one in my life, that I know of. NOBODY CONTROLS THIS FORUM....I simply try to "moderate" it as least as possible!. So therefore when you throw around the names of us being JESUITS here. I have to label you a "nutcase" because there is no other explanation as to why you wish to insult innocent folks with labels which don't apply to them! FWIW....Pastor Larry and I chat occasionally. He doesn't think I'm under the control of the JESUITS at all. Indeed he does have some points in his beliefs, which I happen to agree with him upon! It's just that that ole OYSTER eating 350 lb PROPHETESS that told everyone to eat 2 meals a day, that I have problems with Don't get mad, get even! | ||
| J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal) Moderator Username: Daneanderthal Post Number: 1100 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ulrike: Re: "That is exactly what EGW taught and prophecied" Hmmmmm, you come tantalizing close to ADMITTING that she was only COPYING from contemporary religious writers of her day. If you guys would ONLY ADMIT it, instead of attempting to maintain the charade that she was a "Prophet". My bet is you'd get a lot more respect, instead of being called a "nutcase!" And the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination could start sourcing it’s beliefs from the BIBLE SOLELY, FWIW.....have you ever studied "The Kellogg File"?. She is "SHOWN" by OTHERS, issues. which she then writes as "I WAS SHOWN," in her counsels, as if by her "angel guide". The point being she was "shown" by no other then church politicians, interested in INFLUENCING her to write "Counsels" to Dr. Kellogg and others. (Frankly it didn't take a "I was Shown" to know that Dr. Kellogg was out of line.) The FACT is, as a "Prophet" she was pitifully a FAILURE, if she had to be SHOWN by others.....of Dr. Kellogg's failings! (frankly it seems as if her "angel guide" fail down here......as he didn't have any insight into Dr. Kellogg's failings and it took POLITICALLY MOTIVATED individuals in Battle Creek to point out the problems to Saint Ellen!) So the real question is, can ANY of EGW's "I WAS SHOWN" be trusted????? I suggest NOT…..she was simply a well meaning, simple person, who persuaded herself that her dreams where “inspired”. OYSTERLY YOURS J.R. Don't get mad, get even! | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) member Username: Roca88 Post Number: 1592 Registered: 2-2002 |
(Wetminster Confession of Faith, 1658) I hope that is a typo, but I like it an will use it in the future. | ||
| U.Unruh (Ulrike) member Username: Ulrike Post Number: 1169 Registered: 2-2002 |
I do get my belief's from the BIBLE! You can hang your doubts on what the "anti-EGW" people dig up. What I read from her writings agrees with the Bible in a consistant manner that I don't find ANYWHERE else. Truth is truth-- If the Reformers were on the road to truth, then of course any prophet would speak the same thing! In fact there have been times when I did Bible studies solely from the Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, type of thing and got all excited because of what I'd found -- thinking I had "discovered" something, but then, later, found it was "confirmed" somewhere in EGW's writings. Yes, she was a human. As a human she made mistakes. However, there is TOO MUCH in her writings that tell me NO SIMPLE, SICKLY woman, could ever pick and chose from so much material and come up with what she presents without being inspired. Truth is truth-- many writers have written truth. A prophet will write the same truth. God led the Reformation period. The reformers were not perfect, not everything they said and taught was truth, but they were on the ROAD of truth. Of course the truth they presented would continue in the writings of inspired prophetic interpretations. Besides, by 1870 most people DID NOT BELIEVE the catholic church would again rise to political importance. Even ol' Uriah left the standard interpretation that the "king of the North" in Dan. 11:40-45 was the papacy, and decided it was Turkey. James White strongly disagreed with him. But Uriah won the day (for a while). However, you won't find in any of her writings where EGW is talking about Turkey being the big player in the last days. She and James stayed with the "papal" interpretation. And yes, I do believe those who mutilate her writings, and teach the modern accepted theories of things, are marching under the same banner as the Jesuits. They just may not know it-- the ideologies of the Jesuits have been planted and are carried by nonprotesting PROTESTANTS. And by the way, if anyone has mellowed-- it is you. I've been pleasantly surprised a number of times at some of the things you've written. There was a time when a-today/a-tommorrow was VERY ANTI-Adventist. | ||
| U.Unruh (Ulrike) member Username: Ulrike Post Number: 1170 Registered: 2-2002 |
It should be, "Westminister Confession of Faith, 1658". | ||
| U.Unruh (Ulrike) member Username: Ulrike Post Number: 1171 Registered: 2-2002 |
A very enlightening article -- at Defense of EGW Here's just a few sentences: "A big problem of Ellen's detractors and accusers is that they have failed to recognize the difference between Ellen White THE PROPHET and Ellen White THE AUTHOR. Neither have they recognized the difference between Ellen White THE PROPHET and Ellen White the woman, wife, mother, and friend...." No prophet in the Bible was perfect as a human being in their relationships with all people. Yet, God used them. Why would we expect more today? | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 1123 Registered: 1-2002 |
So how can we discern when she was writing as a prophet and when as an author? Just how many hats did she wear, and at what time was she not speaking prophetically? As for your reading the Bible and "discovering" things and then later finding that EGW confirmed them, doesn't it occur to you that her "confirming" the Bible indicates that she read her Bible also, and used it in her writings? If you write something "confirming" what you read from the Bible, does that make you a prophet? As for the many things that she wrote that ARE NOT in the Bible, you should do a little research on that before you speak with such confidence, i.e, while she agreed with Sylvester Graham on the benefit of whole wheat flour in crackers (graham crackers), she also wrote that phrenology was a great way to diagnose disease or medical conditions; wearing wigs could cause brain fever, masturbation would lead to imbecility and blindness. That's for starters. If she was prescient in her instructions on health, how is that she got as many wrong as right? Assuming you don't believe the value of the above. |
