Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

Snoopy, I'll try to explain.

     It would be foolish for me to go back and explain to you exactly what I was calling diabolical because then you would simply be just as dull of understanding as you are now to hear what I am saying. You are so set on defending the corporation that you justify their existence as a prophecy of God and your allegiance as mandatory for heaven.

And christian's response went on. Calling me dull of understanding, saying I'm so set on defending the corporation, those kind of personal attacks are unnecessary. It would have been much better to simply show that I was somehow mistaken in my understanding of that EGW statement. But I don't think christian can do that, or else some sort of attempt would have been made by now.

To some extent, I have been left to guess as to what christian's understanding of that statement might be, and have then shown how those guesses can't be correct.

Therefore, the response seemed more emotional than a calm, objective reponse to my understanding of that statement.

[Snoopy]

I did not ask you for an explanation.  I simply stated my opinion on christian's perspective after you attacked it.  I agree with christian - I think you are dull of understanding and you often come across with an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude.  I have experienced it myself on more than one occasion.  Christian made a valiant, page and a half attempt to explain what you still don't get, and most likely never will.  You consider yourself an expert on EGW, and when someone disagrees with your views on her or her writings, you hide behind the "I have been left to guess" argument and whine about personal attacks and insults.  Good luck with that.  I don't think it has been working well for you thus far.

[Bob Pickle]

The bottom line remains:

"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).

If christian is not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, christian is not a member of the church Ellen White was referring to in this statement. That is simple and easy to understand, and really has nothing to do with my views on Ellen White's writings. The statement is clear and plain without anyone's interpretations being added to it.

[Snoopy]

The bottom line remains:

"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).

If christian is not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, christian is not a member of the church Ellen White was referring to in this statement. That is simple and easy to understand, and really has nothing to do with my views on Ellen White's writings. The statement is clear and plain without anyone's interpretations being added to it.

Interesting, Bob.

And in the same paragraph....  "We must be divested of our self-righteousness and arrayed in the righteousness of Christ."

That statement is also "clear and plain."

[Bob Pickle]

Sure, that is very true.

[Dedication]

Reading through these last few pages is a classic demonstration of a
1)left brain dominate person (very logical and focused on one topic) trying to converse with
2) someone who mixes many things together and adds a heavy dose of personal putdowns to make their point.

Person 1 would find person 2's arguments rather illogical and evasive of the point in question and frustrating to reason with.
Person 2 would find person 1's arguments as rather "dull of understanding" (as they rather emphatically declared), and also frustrating as they don't want to follow the argument but deal with a larger picture that avoids that particular argument.

However, it seems to me that person 2 is so intent on proving the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as a recognized church, will not go through, that he evades the question asked.
I do believe he has some very valid points -- however, those points address the LEADERSHIP and problems in the church, not the church itself.
EGW makes several statements of the "bright lights" going out, and that few who are in leadership today will be in leadership during the last crises, etc.
The church APPEARS to fall, but it will not.  What does that mean?

   

In vision I saw two armies in terrible conflict. One army was led by banners bearing the world's insignia; the other was led by the bloodstained banner of Prince Immanuel. Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe and tribe after tribe from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God. An angel flying in the midst of heaven put the standard of Immanuel into many hands, while a mighty general cried out with a loud voice: "Come into line. Let those who are loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Christ now take their position. 8T.40

It's because there is so much compromise and outright sin in the church that it will look like the church will vanish when the crises hits.

What clouds of chaff will then be borne away by the fan of God! Where now our eyes can discover only rich floors of wheat, will be chaff blown away with the fan of God. Every one who is not centered in Christ will fail to stand the test and ordeal of that day.{RH, November 8, 1892

So there is NO question on that point -- to  be in the church now is NOT a sure ticket to heaven.

However,   the question remains --

What church is EGW talking about when she says:

"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).

[Bob Pickle]

Dedication, thank you for your thoughtful post.

I've been wondering if it was in part due to the differences between men and women, and your point about left brain individuals seems to support that suspicion.