As for the great “evidence” you claim is on this site against the alleged “false doctrine” of Adventists, that is a figment of your imagination. You provide nothing but unproven accusations, all of which derive from Canright, and his derivatives such as Ratzlaff. While you say you do not/cannot get along with him now, you plagiarize many of his ideas and writings. Nothing you provide here is original or believable.
Just because you are unable to see does not imply that the reality is consistent with your assessment. You should check your eyes, because you were unable or unwilling to admit that the reformers were united in affirming “justification by faith alone” even if I put the evidence right in your face, namely, that Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran confessions all confess “justification by faith alone.” Just because you deny that the evidence exists does not make it so. Let others look and see if we provided the evidence or not.
Complaints and accusations were made about his ability to hold church office given this revelation, and this past week he was grilled as to his beliefs by the Church board Chairman, Pastor, and Conference President, for 2 and a half hours. He was quite taken aback that his relationship with Christ was not taken into consideration, or that he lives an honorable Christian life. This treatment has him seriously questioning whether he can maintain ties with an organization that has this type of inquisition on such a dubious understanding of Scripture.
The above quote is the kind of thing which my last post referred to. And you were true to form, choosing again to try and address my character by accusing me of being “uncharitable.” I am stating my opinions of this ministry. You might not like my opinions; but that does not make me “uncharitable.”
If you object to this quote, you should have all kinds of problems with the “testimonies” written by Ellen White against many of her brethren that go much further in their anecdotal quality while defaming the character of the intended target. Albion Ballenger, among others, comes to mind.
Protestant 101 - 15 August 2009 09:32 PM
As for the great “evidence” you claim is on this site against the alleged “false doctrine” of Adventists, that is a figment of your imagination. You provide nothing but unproven accusations, all of which derive from Canright, and his derivatives such as Ratzlaff. While you say you do not/cannot get along with him now, you plagiarize many of his ideas and writings. Nothing you provide here is original or believable.
I notice you failed again to tell me specifically what was wrong with my analysis of Adventist doctrine, but you repeat the mantra of “unproven accusations” and claim I am imagining things. It is highly ironic that you add the charge of plagiarism as your prophetess was well-studied in this black art. For the record, agreement between two individuals does not constitute plagiarism but copying the exact phrases and sentences of others while passing them off as your own (as Ellen White did) certainly does.
As for the great “evidence” you claim is on this site against the alleged “false doctrine” of Adventists, that is a figment of your imagination. You provide nothing but unproven accusations, all of which derive from Canright, and his derivatives such as Ratzlaff. While you say you do not/cannot get along with him now, you plagiarize many of his ideas and writings. Nothing you provide here is original or believable.
Just because you are unable to see does not imply that the reality is consistent with your assessment. You should check your eyes, because you were unable or unwilling to admit that the reformers were united in affirming “justification by faith alone” even if I put the evidence right in your face, namely, that Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran confessions all confess “justification by faith alone.” Just because you deny that the evidence exists does not make it so. Let others look and see if we provided the evidence or not.
Gabriel
Now you want me to “get my eyes checked?” (and who did you guys say was not being charitable?) It’s all fine and good to come back at your Adventist targets with such quips; I suppose it does get you some “results.” You and Greg seem to have the most difficulty in dealing with those whom you cannot imtimidate with such replies. Contrary to what Greg just said in his last post, you have no agreement with Canright to plagiarize his ideas, and his writings on this web site, and then come across to the public like you have some sort of “good news” for Adventists or anyone else. You are following a man, with this website, and his name is not Jesus. No amount of Bible-quoting will get you out of that one.
...you have no agreement with Canright to plagiarize his ideas, and his writings on this web site, and then come across to the public like you have some sort of “good news” for Adventists or anyone else. You are following a man, with this website, and his name is not Jesus. No amount of Bible-quoting will get you out of that one.
This is an incredible accusation, particularly when there is a “continuing and authoritative source of truth” besides Jesus whom you follow, and the source is a woman who copied the writings of others. You accuse us of precisely the things Ellen White and the Adventists are guilty of—plagiarism and following someone other than Jesus. I find that remarkable.
As for the great “evidence” you claim is on this site against the alleged “false doctrine” of Adventists, that is a figment of your imagination. You provide nothing but unproven accusations, all of which derive from Canright, and his derivatives such as Ratzlaff. While you say you do not/cannot get along with him now, you plagiarize many of his ideas and writings. Nothing you provide here is original or believable.
Just because you are unable to see does not imply that the reality is consistent with your assessment. You should check your eyes, because you were unable or unwilling to admit that the reformers were united in affirming “justification by faith alone” even if I put the evidence right in your face, namely, that Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran confessions all confess “justification by faith alone.” Just because you deny that the evidence exists does not make it so. Let others look and see if we provided the evidence or not.
Gabriel
Now you want me to “get my eyes checked?” (and who did you guys say was not being charitable?)
How can you deny that all reformers, lutherans, anglicans, presbyterians were united in affirming justification by faith alone after before you eyes I put all those quotations from their confessions that explicitly affim justification by faith alone? It’s right before your eyes, why can’t you see it? The problem is not with the evidence in such cases, the problem is with the one who looks at the evidence. He can’t see it. Consequently, he should “check his eyes”, verify if his perceptions are accurate.
Now you’re saying that the evidence against adventism is unproven. Well, we had lots of posts on this forum where we compared the adventist doctrines with the Bible. Denying this fact in spite of the evidence to the contrary it’s like denying that the sun exists since you don’t see it. Blind men can’t see the sun, why can’t you see the evidence if your eyes are OK? Check your eyes again.
Contrary to what Greg just said in his last post, you have no agreement with Canright to plagiarize his ideas, and his writings on this web site, and then come across to the public like you have some sort of “good news” for Adventists or anyone else. You are following a man, with this website, and his name is not Jesus. No amount of Bible-quoting will get you out of that one.
Once again, you are twisting what people say. Greg did not claim that he had an “agreement” with Canright or Ratzlaff to “plagiarize” their ideas and writings. What he said was that agreement (in theology/beliefs/viewpoints) with another person does not constitute plagiarism.
And you are completely ignoring your own prophet’s behavior. If what Greg and Gabriel are doing is plagiarism according to you, then certainly what Ellen White did was plagiarism, correct?
...you have no agreement with Canright to plagiarize his ideas, and his writings on this web site, and then come across to the public like you have some sort of “good news” for Adventists or anyone else. You are following a man, with this website, and his name is not Jesus. No amount of Bible-quoting will get you out of that one.
This is an incredible accusation, particularly when there is a “continuing and authoritative source of truth” besides Jesus whom you follow, and the source is a woman who copied the writings of others. You accuse us of precisely the things Ellen White and the Adventists are guilty of—plagiarism and following someone other than Jesus. I find that remarkable.
Greg
If it’s so “incredible” then why don’t you try and prove me wrong in what I said about Canright? You haven’t got a leg to stand on. Likely, you will have to resort to just quipping back with “well, you do it too.” That’s fine too. My point has already been made.
And to Jeremy’s point about you not saying that you had some agreement with Canright - I am not stupid, as you keep trying to prove; I know what you said. You basically stated that Ellen White had no agreements with people whose materials she quoted from, so I am returning the same obligation back to you. Where’s your agreement with Canright or your enemy Ratzlaff, to plagiarize their luxuriate theology? Don’t you like your own “medicine” brother?
This is just a Canright/Ratzlaff puppet site, totally plagiarized with all the modern “trimmings.” This is not something you can weasel out of with your pat “you do it too” stuff.
This is just a Canright/Ratzlaff puppet site, totally plagiarized with all the modern “trimmings.” This is not something you can weasel out of with your pat “you do it too” stuff.
Don’t you realize that by accusing us of plagiarizing you’re placing Ellen White in the same position? You can’t have us guilty of plagiarism without having Ellen White guilty of the same thing. You may triumph by claiming that you destroyed our credibility while at the same time burying your prophet’s credibility, if you insist that we are plagiarizing.
Ellen White is guilty of passing original and private materials as her own, or as having God as author, while Canright and Ratzlaff’s books deal with the SDA theology, which is public, and their books, while certainly having their own particular elements, are presenting criticism that the SDA church had encountered from the beginning, and this criticism was in the public domain. Not only these guys criticized adventism, but also the other churches that saw the same problems, the same denials of the gospel, the same bad theology. And if X and Y, while unrelated to each other, see the same bad theology, spiritual sickness, their criticism will overlap in many points, in the same way as two doctors, consulting the same patient, will arrive at similar conclusions about the patient’s sickness. So, Ratzlaff’s and Canright’s books do not claim to pass to others information that only they have acces to (like Ellen being “inspired” by God), since their subject is in the public domain.
And to Jeremy’s point about you not saying that you had some agreement with Canright - I am not stupid, as you keep trying to prove; I know what you said. You basically stated that Ellen White had no agreements with people whose materials she quoted from, so I am returning the same obligation back to you. Where’s your agreement with Canright or your enemy Ratzlaff, to plagiarize their luxuriate theology? Don’t you like your own “medicine” brother?
This is just a Canright/Ratzlaff puppet site, totally plagiarized with all the modern “trimmings.” This is not something you can weasel out of with your pat “you do it too” stuff.
If I agree with anyone, whether it is Canright, Ratzlaff or even Ellen White, this does not make me a plagiarist. You don’t seem to understand this most basic point. If I use the phrases and sentences of others as my own without attributing the source, I would be a plagiarist. I invite you to find even one instance where I’ve done this.
By your definition of plagiarism, if anyone finds agreement with another person on any topic, they are plagiarizing. This definition makes you a plagiarist of Ellen White (which incidentally would make you a second-generation plagiarist, since you’d be plagiarizing a plagiarist!)
In the final analysis, you are attempting to change the definition of plagiarism in a desperate effort to oppose our criticism of Adventism while simultaneously salvaging the unsalvageable—a “prophetess” who stole the words of others. But even this effort fails because by your new definition of plagiarism, as Jeremy and Gabriel both said, Ellen White is even more guilty than we are.
It’s apparent that if you had a better argument against us, you’d use it instead of trying to redefine words.
LOL, as I said, about all you people are capable of resorting to here is a “you do it too.” Thanks for proving me right.
Whether or not you want to admit to your definition of plagiarizing; atleast you did concede that your gospel, therefore you personally, follow two men; neither of whom are named Jesus. One is Canright; the other is Ratzlaff. Last time I checked, there was a BIG difference.
LOL, as I said, about all you people are capable of resorting to here is a “you do it too.” Thanks for proving me right.
You’re wrong. “You do it too” is an excuse for something wrong we did, we had not conceded of doing anything wrong. We just pointed to the hypothetical situation in which, if we are found guilty, according to your standards, Ellen White is more guilty than us. That’s why we tried to make you aware that, IF you insist on condemning us as plagiarists, the same standards that YOU are using to condemn us will condemn Ellen White as a plagiarist too. So, if you continue to think about us as plagiarists, in order to be consistent, you should place Ellen White in the same category.
But in the equation was a big IF: IF you use this standard to condemn us as plagiarists, you condemn Ellen White too. We rejected explicitly your standard as a valid standard and pointed to the difference. We asked you to renounce using this flawed standard because you’re losing your case.
Protestant 101 - 17 August 2009 07:42 AM
Whether or not you want to admit to your definition of plagiarizing; atleast you did concede that your gospel, therefore you personally, follow two men; neither of whom are named Jesus. One is Canright; the other is Ratzlaff. Last time I checked, there was a BIG difference.
You’re twisting our words: we had not conceded that we follow two men, it seems that you’re not aware that the same criticism that these two men, Canright and Ratzlaff is not unique, they are not original, that criticism was for a long time in place before they wrote their books, and it’s a valid criticism because the Adventist Church is wrong. As I said, and I will repeat here, the common point between Canright and Ratzlaff and MANY OTHER EVANGELICALS who never had read what Canright and Ratzlaff wrote, is that we are looking to the same church, and we are looking to the same Bible and when we are comparing what the SDA church teaches with what the Bible teaches, we see the same problems.
But not only we see the same problems, we see the root of the SDA problem: the departure from the theology of the reformation, the unrealistical view about man’s sinful condition, the semi-pelagian view of man’s nature, sin, salvation and so on. That’s what is at root of all the departure from the gospel of free grace and justification by faith alone, and this root you will not find in Canright and Ratzlaff. We are not following men, we are following the teachings of the Bible that tell us that salvation is of God and God ALONE.
LOL, as I said, about all you people are capable of resorting to here is a “you do it too.” Thanks for proving me right.
Whether or not you want to admit to your definition of plagiarizing; atleast you did concede that your gospel, therefore you personally, follow two men; neither of whom are named Jesus. One is Canright; the other is Ratzlaff. Last time I checked, there was a BIG difference.
101,
It is becoming increasingly apparent that your only motive for being here is to ridicule us unfairly, rather than try to have a conversation. I have only read small amounts of Canright and Ratzlaff, and wouldn’t even think of copying their books in a way that would constitute plagiarism. You have surely twisted the meaning of the word “plagiarism”, but you won’t even try to defend your prophetess from plagiarism, which has been so well documented.
I would challenge you to try to find even one post on this entire web site that would constitute plagiarism in any sense. Whenever I post a quote, it is with credit given to the source.
You only want to pick fights and arguments. You are not interested in any truth pertaining to God’s Word.
Please tell us why you are an SDA, and why any of us on here who have left should return to the SDA church?
It is becoming increasingly apparent that your only motive for being here is to ridicule us unfairly, rather than try to have a conversation. I have only read small amounts of Canright and Ratzlaff, and wouldn’t even think of copying their books in a way that would constitute plagiarism. You have surely twisted the meaning of the word “plagiarism”, but you won’t even try to defend your prophetess from plagiarism, which has been so well documented.
I would challenge you to try to find even one post on this entire web site that would constitute plagiarism in any sense. Whenever I post a quote, it is with credit given to the source.
You only want to pick fights and arguments. You are not interested in any truth pertaining to God’s Word.
Please tell us why you are an SDA, and why any of us on here who have left should return to the SDA church?
Since it seems you are interested in hearing the good news brother…
When you have more “good news” please send it my way.
Here it is. Bad news first, otherwise the good news won’t seem so good. This is the condition of all men on this earth, regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, or anything else:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
… for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. (Genesis 8:21)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
… the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:19-20)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Romans 1: 29-30)
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10-18)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)
These verses teach unequivocally that all people everywhere are born spiritually dead. We don’t only do bad things, we are born haters of God and therefore everything that we do apart from being reconciled with God is sin (Romans 14:23). We are all drowning in an ocean of our own sin. We are not able to raise ourselves from this spiritual deadness and grasp the greatest good in this universe, namely, God (John 6:44). Since we are naturally haters of God, He does not owe us anything except His righteous judgment and omnipotent wrath. Yet, for some reason unknown to me, out of His shear grace and mercy, He let all of us live through last night.
Jesus Christ accomplished salvation infallibly for everyone who has or will ever believe on Him and His all-sufficient finished work on the cross (John 3:16, John 19:30). Jesus’ substitutionary (Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:24) death on the cross stops the tsunami of the omnipotent wrath of God in its tracks, so that you and I won’t have to experience it, if we are truly in Him. Our only hope for eternal life is to cast ourselves on Him for His mercy with the empty hands of faith (which is itself a gift from Him, Ephesians 2:8-9).
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Romans 4:4-8)
There is nothing that we can add with our own filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) to the perfect merits of Christ. We are declared righteous before a holy God due to no merit of our own, and as David tells us that the sins of the believer will not be counted against him (Psalm 32:1-2), we cannot be declared unrighteous (and therefore cannot be lost ultimately) due to any merit of our own (or lack thereof).
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10:27-30)
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)
… those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:30)
Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:33-39)
This is the good news, what the scriptures call “the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16) My friendly challenge to you is this: what role do fundamental beliefs 18 and 24 (for starters) play in this biblical picture of salvation by God’s sovereign grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (which is the only way that human boasting will be done away with)? Once again, I will state that disagreeing with Adventist theology does not mean that we hate Adventists, and it does not mean that we are followers of any person who has left the Adventist church before us.
