Derrick Gillespie

April 20 at 5:07am Edited

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM VS "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK": Jamaican SDAs were probably shaken up lately by *SEEMINGLY unanswerable questions raised by an SDA dissident on the popular Jamaican talk show called "Religious Hardtalk". Yet I submit to everyone reading these words that things are NOT always as they appear. The issues raised are ANSWERABLE (I certainly can answer them), and the Dr. Andre Hill who raised them (cheered on by a supportive program host, Ian Boyne; a 'one-time-SDA' himself with an "axe to grind", no doubt) he (and Ian Boyne too) has bigger questions to answer himself, as a practicing Christian and a questioning SDA (or as he claims), than questions he could ever raise to cast doubt on SD Adventism. Here are a few troubling questions he needs to be able to answer without dabbling in the "obscurantism" that he claims Adventism is guilty of when asked to answer SEEMINGLY difficult issues: 1. How does he account for the Christian religion proclaiming for hundreds of years, yeah, nearly two thousand years now, that Jesus is coming "soon" and is coming "quickly" or "in a little while"? See Rev. 22:12, 20, and Heb. 10:37, for instance. New Testament writers even wrote that the "end of the world" would be in their time, nearly 2000 years ago. See Heb. 9:26, 1 Cor. 10:11, and 1 John 2:18. How does he (and Ian Boyne) defend the Bible itself, and the Christian religion, against the view that a time span of 2000 years cannot be easily explained to mean Jesus returning/coming "soon" and or returning/coming "quickly"? There are many who doubt Christianity by asking how can 2000 years of waiting be deemed a return of Jesus being fulfilled "quickly" or "soon" since he left the earth. How would he answer with being accused of being "obscurantist"? 2. How does he further account for the following seeming difficulties with the Bible itself, and Jesus' own words, the founder of Christianity, without dabbling in "obscurantism? Look at what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 16:28 (compare Mark 9:1). Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Well, didn't they all taste of death, and have died for nearly two thousand years now? And would Dr Hill, or Ian Boyne, present these "difficulties" as evidence for not believing either in the Bible or Jesus himself? 3. In several places the Bible seems to differ with itself in giving certain accounts, and even seeming to contradict itself on key doctrines. How, without appearing "obscurantist", would Dr Hill (and Ian Boyne), as a practicing Christian, explain the following for instance, without accusing the Bible or the Bible writers as being false? a) One Bible writer seemingly saying we are justified by works (or deeds), while another saying the total opposite: "James 2:24 Ye see then how that *BY works a man is justified, and not by faith only." "Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith *WITHOUT the deeds of the law." b) Seemingly differing accounts on the crucifixion of Jesus: For instance, did Jesus carry his own cross or not? In Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene In John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way

Also, what did Jesus drink while crucified, or did he or did he not drink? In Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn't drink In Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn't drink In John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks LET THE READER REALIZE THAT THERE ARE VERY MANY MORE SUCH EXAMPLES OF SUCH SEEMING "DIFFICULTIES" IN THE BIBLE ITSELF THAT I COULD CITE (MATTERS THAT WOULD MAKE CHRISTIANS WHO FAIL TO READ QUIBBLE AND BE BOTHERED BY THEM). SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE DEEMED 'GUILTY' OF BELIEVING IN 'FALSEHOOD' BECAUSE OF THESE SEEMING DIFFICULTIES? I DECLARE, CERTAINLY NOT!! WHY? BECAUSE THESE SEEMINGLY DIFFICULTIES CAN BE RESOLVED AND EXPLAINED WITHOUT DABBLING IN "OBSCURANTISM", DESPITE THE ISSUES MIGHT, AT FIRST, APPEAR SEEMINGLY UNANSWERABLE. THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO SD ADVENTISM, AND THE SEEMINGLY UNANSWERABLE ISSUES RAISED BY THE MISGUIDED DR. HILL ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" RECENTLY. [NOTE: *Dr Hill has since left the SDA Church since the original writing of this response] Keep watching this thread/post and see me answer one by one the SEEMINGLY unanswerable questions thrown at SD Adventism. Knowledge is power, and sometimes we just need to take the time to hear both sides of the story before drawing conclusions. Keep tuned. It will get most interesting. o o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS PART 1 OF THE "HARDTALK" PROGRAM I WILL BE ADDRESSING HONESTLY, OBJECTIVELY, AND CANDIDLY HEREAFTER: http://www.televisionjamaica.com/.../Religio.../Videos/25764 12Like Share Follow Post JaNice Scott, Otencia Johnson-Robinson and Tameica Bradber like this.

Religious Hardtalk - Andrae Hill, S.D.A. Who Disagrees With His Church Pt1 www.televisionjamaica.com April 20 at 6:08am Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 1- AGAINST THE CHARGE OF "CONTRADICTION" IN E.G. WHITE'S ACCOUNT ABOUT NOAH'S ARK: Dr Andre Hill, from all appearances, has a sharp mind, and is well read and well spoken, and yet the evidence is clear (TO A CAREFUL RESEARCHER, LISTENER AND THINKER) that he too can be, and *IS MISGUIDED!! Let me quickly demonstrate that reality by how he arrives at the unfortunate conclusion that Mrs. White gave so-called "contradictory" accounts of how the door to Noah's ark was closed before the Flood. He points out that in one instance, E.G. White accounts that an angel was seen descending and closing the door to the ark, while in another account she describes the scene as a flashing light descending and closing the door to the ark by way of "unseen hands". Dr Andre Hill claims there is a "contradiction" in the two extra-biblical accounts from E.G. White, and that there is a "difficulty" to reconcile the two accounts. Now, you know, dear reader, Proverbs 18:17 makes plain in more modern translations that :"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (English Standard Version). I took the time out to READ CAREFULLY the two accounts Dr Hill contends are "contradictory", and, lo and behold, I see no such "contradiction"!! No wonder we are counseled to "prove all things", and not just run with the views of others; no matter how compelling they may sound.

IN BOTH ACCOUNTS E.G. WHITE DESCRIBED THE AGENT WHO ARRIVED AT THE SCENE TO EXECUTE THE CLOSING OF THE DOOR TO NOAH'S ARK---AN *ANGEL. BUT IN THE LATER ACCOUNT SHE GAVE THE *METHOD BY WHICH THE ANGEL DID THE CLOSING OF THE DOOR. THE ANGEL "HOVERED" ABOVE THE ARK (AFTER ARRIVING AS A FLASH OF LIGHT) AND THEN THE DOOR WAS CLOSED BY "UNSEEN HANDS"!! NOTICE, BY "UNSEEN HANDS"; SHE DID NOT SAY BY AN UNSEEN ANGEL. SO WHO SAYS THE ANGEL DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CLOSE THE DOOR FROM THE POSITION THAT HE "HOVERED", AND BY THE POWER OF KINETICS THAT ANGELS DO HAVE, i.e. TO CLOSE THAT DOOR WITHOUT TOUCHING IT...HENCE BY "UNSEEN HANDS"? NOTHING CAN DISCOUNT THAT REALITY, AND IT IS PLAIN THAT DR HILL, WITH ALL HIS APPEARANCE OF ERUDITION, FAILED TO SEE THAT POSSIBILITY. THUS, WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A CONTRADICTION WAS ACTUALLY AN AMPLIFICATION, AND THE GIVING OF FURTHER DETAILS (AS SEEN IN VISION). See the two separate account quoted below and judge for yourself dear reader: QUOTATION 1: "Everything was now ready for the closing of the ark, which could not have been done by Noah from within. An *ANGEL is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from Heaven, clothed with brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door [NO MENTION HERE HOW THE DOOR WAS CLOSED], and then takes his course upward to Heaven again." - E.G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, pg, 68 QUOTATION 2: "Noah and his household were within the ark, and the Lord shut him in. A flash of dazzling light was seen, and a cloud of glory more vivid than the lightning descended from heaven and HOVERED before the entrance of the ark. The massive door, which it was impossible for those within to close, was slowly swung to its place by unseen hands [IT DOES NOT HERE SAY BY AN UNSEEN ANGEL]. Noah was shut in, and the rejecters of Gods mercy were shut out. The seal of Heaven was on that door; God had shut it, and God alone could open it....Notwithstanding the solemn scenes which they had witnessed [i.e. SAW]---the beasts and the birds entering the ark, and THE *ANGEL OF GOD CLOSING THE DOOR--they [i.e.THE "REJECTERS OF GOD'S MERCY"] still continued their sport and revelry, even making a jest of these signal manifestations of God's power" - E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890 NOTICE THE SECOND STATEMENT *ALSO SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF AN ANGEL BEING PRESENT (DESPITE DR HILL INSIST NONE WAS MENTIONED): "Notwithstanding the solemn scenes which they had witnessed [i.e. SAW]---the beasts and the birds entering the ark, and THE *ANGEL OF GOD CLOSING THE DOOR--they [i.e.THE "REJECTERS OF GOD'S MERCY"] still continued their sport and revelry, even making a jest of these signal manifestations of God's power" - E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890 NOTICE TOO THAT BOTH ACCOUNTS HARMONIZE BECAUSE WHAT ANGELS DO ON GOD'S BEHALF ARE REPRESENTED EVEN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF AS GOD DOING IT (e.g. THE APPEARANCE TO MOSES IN THE BURNING BUSH, JACOB WRESTLING WITH AN ANGEL, AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS). THE SECOND ACCOUNT QUOTED ABOVE TELLS *HOW THE ANGEL CLOSED THE DOOR...BY HOVERING AND CLOSING IT WITH "UNSEEN HANDS" (OBVIOUSLY BY CLOSING IT FROM A DISTANCE WITHOUT TOUCHING IT)!! AND THE SECOND ACCOUNT MAKES PLAIN IT WAS REPRESENTED AS IF GOD HIMSELF DID IT. THAT'S NOT CONTRADICTORY. PERIOD!! So much for the PRETENDED superiority of Dr Hill to recognize a so-called "contradiction". He missed the harmony because he failed to read the full page in the second account, failed to consider all background issues, failed to consider the context clues involved, and failed to take everything into account before drawing a conclusion. Any other examples of so-called "contradictions" in other places in her writings he and the critics (inside and outside of Adventism) may present it may just be that these above mentioned shortcomings on his/their part exist as well. He would probably do better trying to see how the portions of the Bible I highlighted in the introductory post can be, and have been harmonized/reconciled, despite they do appear contradictory at first. I am convinced it is "educated minds" that will be most instrumental in leading Christians astray in these last days. After all, isn't it "educated scientific minds" that are now proclaiming that homosexuality is "positive and normal", and that the entire universe and all life came out of nothing by itself? So what's really new? [MORE TO COME. IT WILL GET EVEN MORE INTERESTING FOLKS!!] September 8 at 5:21am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 2- AGAINST THE CHARGE OF PLAGIARISM BY E.G. WHITE: Dr Hill, started his tirade against Adventism's co-founder, Mrs. White, by simply *REPORTING the views of SOME that she

was guilty of "plagiarism"; NOT BY PROVING IT!! Such a charge demanded LEGAL proof; not just *REPORTING on the opinions of those not LEGALLY qualified to so determine!! Let me now address this issue Dr Hill is unfortunately MISGUIDED over as well: Was Ellen White a plagiarist (i.e. one who copied works of others without due acknowledgement, or copied outside of "fair use" rules)? Ellen White often made use of literary sources in communicating her messages. In the Introduction to one of her most popular books she wrote: "In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works" (The Great Controversy, p. xii). Ellen White's use of other authors was not limited to historical or geographical material, but included other subject areas as well. Research has found that she enriched her writings with choice expressions from her reading more extensively than had been known, although the amount that has been documented thus far is a small percentage (less than 2 percent) when measured against her total literary output. In 1980 Dr. Fred Veltman, at that time the chairman of the Religion Department of Pacific Union College, undertook a detailed analysis of Ellen White's use of literary sources in her book The Desire of Ages, a study which took eight years to complete. Copies of the full 2,561-page report were distributed to Seventh-day Adventist college and university libraries throughout the world. The complete report, including its 100-page summary, is also available online at the General Conference Archives web site: http://docs.adventistarchives.org//doc_info.asp?DocID=1158. (You will need to install the DJVU Plugin to view the document.) Because she included such selections from other authors in her writings, critics have charged Ellen White with plagiarism. But the mere use of another's language does not constitute literary theft, as noted by a NON-Seventh-day Adventist Attorney Vincent L. Ramik, a specialist in patent, trademark, and copyright cases [A *LEGAL EXPERT ON THE ISSUES]. After researching about 1,000 copyright cases in American legal history, Ramik issued a 27-page legal opinion in which he concluded "Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy." Ramik points out several factors that critics of Ellen White's writings have failed to take into account when accusing her of literary theft or deceit. See the "Ramik Report" here: http://spiritofprophecydefend.com/ramik.html RAMIK LEGALLY FOUND THAT-1) Her selections "stayed well within the legal boundaries of 'fair use." 2) "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. 3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of--demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author. Ellen White "did not copy wholesale or without discrimination. What she selected or did not select, and how she altered what she selected" reveals that she used literary sources "to amplify or to state more forcefully her own transcending themes; she was the master, not the slave, of her sources" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 461). ONE CAN ALWAYS EXPRESS AN OPINION, OR A PERSPECTIVE ON ANY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, BUT PLAGIARISM IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE WHICH MUST BE PROVEN *LEGALLY; NOT JUST BY OPINION. PERIOD! So much for the UNPROVEN *OPINIONS of Dr Hill and others who charge Mrs. White with plagiarism (and with charging her of denying she ever "borrowed"), without regard for the TRUE FACTS, without regard for the "fair use" principles in operation in that era, and without regard for legal considerations; when a charge of plagiarism CANNOT simply be a matter of opinion, and cannot just stand only as opinion!!

General Conference Archives docs.adventistarchives.org Copyright 2013 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600 USA. ADVENTIST and SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST are the registered trademarks of the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists. July 3 at 3:31am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Oniel A Blake I see no contradiction. His PHD seems to have given him a permanent head damage. Ian is just as silly. But then again he is so anti SDA that he will gladly accept without thinking. April 20 at 7:43am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS FURTHER MATERIAL TO COMBAT THE PLAGIARISM CHARGE:http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/whitelie.html#sources THE USE OF LITERARY SOURCES - The Truth About "The White Lie" www.whiteestate.org A glance at The White Lie reveals many pages of similarities between Mrs. White's writings and the writings of others. How much did Ellen White borrow from other sources? April 20 at 7:51am Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie N.B. Please note as well, dear reader, that Mrs. White often recommended the books she quoted from for reading; not just often giving the bibliography of sources she might have quoted heavily from. THAT'S TELLING!! April 20 at 8:01am Like

o
Oniel A Blake I didn't watch the program, but I saw the clip where he spoke of "how could she have been writing under inspiration". Many of these persons seem to think that God dictated thins "word by word" to his prophets. She wouldn't be "shown" anything in that case. So in bringing clarity to a matter, or to increasingly evidence a claim, its quite normal to refer to other sources. April 20 at 8:11am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 3- AGAINST THE CHARGE OF "UNSCIENTIFIC" MASTURBATION PROCLAMATIONS OF E.G. WHITE: Dr. Hill is a trained scientist in the field of psychology, and, as one who specializes in science SHOULD know, science is ever growing in its body of knowledge, and so what may be deemed "unscientific" now, may just turn out to be otherwise later; ONCE FURTHER RESEARCH IS DONE!! I will admit that the masturbation issue is highly controversial in scientific/medical circles, and hence opinions of 'experts' differ (with even certain medical personnel IN ADVENTISM TODAY, like Dr Felix Cortez, and others, believing E.G. White was misguided on the matter, even while, ironically, several non-SDA medical personnel are believing and expressing quite the opposite in support of her). It is therefore advisable to tread softly on the matter, even while reviewing all research findings so far; not just what one PREFERS to countenance. But I will hasten to say this. New scientific finding (since fifty years ago) about zinc deficiency in the diet, and also that zinc in fluids is most concentrated in human semen and female vaginal/ejaculatory fluid than anywhere else in the human body, and that if lost through excessive masturbation, and not replaced quickly enough in the diet, that it can lead to a weakened immune and nervous system, explains much about the much debated pronouncements of E.G. White on the dangers of masturbation, as it concerns the causes of several diseases related to a weakened nervous and immune system. Research continues, and much is left to be revealed!! Never be too quick to jump to conclusions, I always say! Check out these recent scholarly findings (written since the year 2000) to consider the issue: http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/.../Zinc%20Deficiency... http://george-eby-research.com/html/warning.html http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/MASTURBATION.htm CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TWO *RECENT (2007) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FINDINGS: "The concentration of zinc in the male genital organs and human semen is *extremely high relative to those of other body fluids and tissues..... *High levels of zinc found in maturing spermatozoa are believed to exercise some influence on oxygen consumption by the spermatozoa, chromatin stabilization and acrosin activity." - Jerome Nriagu , School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Zinc Deficiency in Human Health, 2007, pg. 5 "As a consequence of the large number of zinc-dependent metabolic functions, the clinical morbidities associated with zinc deficiency are considerable. The crosstalk between the metabolic cycles of zinc and other essential micronutrites allows zinc deficiency to achieve a domino effect that affects most organ systems in adverse manner. It is not surprising that some people associate zinc deficiency with chronic fatigue syndrome....Zinc is essential to most cell systems involved in the immune function and its deficiency can diminish immuno-competence and resistance to infections" -- Jerome Nriagu , School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Zinc Deficiency in Human Health, 2007, pg. 5 pgs. 4, 6 NO WONDER OTHER MEDICAL EXPERTS DECLARED: "The amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of all the zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. This has a number of consequences. Unless the amount lost is replaced by an increased dietary intake, repeated ejaculation may lead to a real zinc deficiency with various problems developing, including impotence....It is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 19th century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad!"Dr. David Horrobin M.D., Oxford University, Zinc (Vitabooks: St. Albans, Vermont, 1981), p. 8. ""We hate to say it, but in a zinc-deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might precipitate insanity." Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D, Zinc and Other Micro-nutrients (Keats: New Canaan, Conn., 1978), p. 45. IT IS PLAIN THAT IF ZINC AND SEMEN ARE SO CONNECTED, AND IF ZINC DEFICIENCY AND THE IMMUNE AND NERVOUS SYSTEM IS SO CONNECTED, THEN MRS. WHITE'S PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE *POSSIBLE DISEASES THAT CAN

RESULT IN SOME AFFLICTED WITH A CHRONIC MASTURBATION SYNDROME IS MORE THAN PLAUSIBLE AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRABLE. THIS WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGIN TO SEE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SINCE THE 1960s!! AND REMEMBER RESEARCH IS ONLY JUST BEGINNING AS IT CONCERNS ZINC DEFICIENCY. AMAZING, ISN'T IT? SO THOSE WHO BELIEVE (EVEN SOME MISGUIDED SDA WRITERS) THAT THE EARLIER E.G. WHITE PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT MASTURBATION AND ITS POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS, THAT THEY "CAN NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED", THEY BETTER WAIT BEFORE SPEAKING TOO SOON. I will now quote an online webpage below, which addresses the issue with some amount of reasonableness [INSERTS IN BRACKETS MINE]. ____________________________ "Masturbation Few topics have generated more ridicule from critics than Ellen Whites statements regarding self -abuse, solitary vice, self-indulgence, secret vice, moral pollution, etc. Ellen White never used the term masturbation. Her first reference to this subject appeared in a 64-page pamphlet, An Appeal to Mothers, April 1864, nine months after her first comprehensive health vision. Primarily devoted to masturbation, pages 5 to 34 were from her own pen; the remainder consisted of quotations from medical authorities [OF THE DAY]. Ellen White did not say that all, or even most, of the potentially serious consequences of masturbation would happen to any one individual. Nor did she say that the worst possible degree of a serious consequence would happen to most indulgers. Modern research indicates that Ellen Whites strong statements can be supported when she is properly understood. The general view today [WHILE REMAINING CONTROVERSIAL], however, is that masturbation is normal and healthy and thus should be free from guilt feelings [THE SAME VIEW IS GROWING AMONG SCIENTISTS REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY, AND HENCE WILL REMAIN CONTROVERSIAL]. Two medical specialists have suggested that in a zinc -deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might precipitate insanity, and it is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 18th century moralist s were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad. ......some may be embarrassed by Ellen Whites strong statements regarding masturbation. However, many of Mrs. Whites other statements also seemed unrealistic and exaggerated before science corroborated them, for example, cancer being caused by a virus, the dangers of smoking, overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt, to name a few. . . . It seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical knowledge at any point is not perfect. Quoted from : http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt43.html... ____________________________ IN CLOSING ON THIS ISSUE, I MUST SAY THAT IF DR. HILL (THE SDA APPEARING ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK) HAD NOT BEEN ALREADY PREJUDICED AGAINST E.G. WHITE, HE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT FURTHER RESEARCH LATER MIGHT JUST PROVE HER TO HAVE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG ABOUT THE QUESTIONABLE/CONTROVERSIAL PRACTICE OF MASTURBATION AND ITS POSSIBLE RESULTS WHEN INDULGED TO EXCESS. But alas, despite he is MISGUIDED on issues I have addressed so far (i.e. before the masturbation issue), he is so blinded by the OPINIONS of others that his mind is probably now closed to seeing what am seeing, and what others are seeing as well; NOT JUST SOME SDA MEDICAL PERSONNEL. See and CONSIDER THIS 2012 NON-SDA SOURCE: http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/MASTURBATION.htm October 9 at 6:59am Edited Like 1

o
Oniel A Blake Its alarming the things that may make one crazy. And since I'm no expert on those matters, I will not dabble. My own view is that God or nature wudnt have given male and females such compatible sex organs if an individual were to sexually satisfy himself/herself. Scientist call everything normal and healthy based on what they know(and don't know). Like you correctly said, its an ongoing discovery.

April 20 at 8:52am Unlike 2

o
Derrick Gillespie Oniel, the TVJ link to the "Religious Hardtalk" appearance of Dr Hill is seen above. You can watch the program over at your leisure. I AM HAPPY FOR THE PROGRAM IN ONE WAY...AT LEAST IT WILL CAUSE SOME PEOPLE TO STUDY AND RE-EXAMINE THEIR FOUNDATIONAL BELIEFS. WHAT WAS PROBABLY MEANT FOR EVIL MAY JUST TURN OUT FOR THE GOOD. SMILE!! April 20 at 9:06am Like 1

o
Derrick Gillespie KEY QUOTE IN LIGHT OF THE MASTURBATION ISSUE FROM E.G. WHITE: "...many of Mrs. Whites other statements also seemed unrealistic and exaggerated before science corroborated them [DOING SO INCREASINGLY TOO], for example, cancer being caused by a virus, the dangers of smoking, overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt, to name a few. . . . It seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical knowledge at any point is not perfect. April 20 at 9:09am Like

o
Oniel A Blake I will watch it. I wonder why so many "adventists" are trying so desperately hard to discredit Ellen White. April 20 at 9:09am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie N.B. The greatest Enemy to any organization is one from within, since they can do more damage than an outsider could. Balaam was an insider from Israel who was commissioned by the opposition to "curse" Israel, and am reminded of the greatest enemies of the early Church who originated from within. Same with Adventism. Be warned folks!! April 20 at 9:11am Like 1

o
Derrick Gillespie I AM NOT BOTHERED IN THE LEAST BY THE OPPOSITION OF APOSTATES, OFFSHOOTS AND MISGUIDED PERSONS AMONG US IN ADVENTISM. IT WILL BE THE MEANS BY WHICH PEOPLE WILL BE ENCOURAGED/MOTIVATED TO RUN BACK TO THE WORD AND TO TEST THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR BELIEFS. April 20 at 9:12am Like

Derrick Gillespie THE TIME FOR THOSE NOT GROUNDED IN THE WORD TO BE SIFTED, AND THE CHAFF BLOWN AWAY, IS CERTAINLY HERE. BUT TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY PREVAIL; NO MATTER HOW FORMIDABLE THE OPPOSITION TO IT MAY SEEM, OR HOW MANY MAY REJECT IT. Does the fact that a few persons, some who may have been more or less prominent in the church, leave that communion and make other connections, prove that church or its teachings to be untrue? Not necessarily. If so, the work and teachings of Jesus our Lord would be discounted, for there were a number of apostasies from the ranks of His followers. Of one such experience it is stated that from that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. John 6:66. It was a question as to what even the twelve apostles would decide to do, for Jesus turned and said unto them, Will you also go away? Verse 67. If every disciple of Jesus had gone away from Him, that fact would in no way have affected the truthfulness of His teaching. Truth is not dependent upon the following it may have, nor the ability of those who may once have accepted it. The fact that Judas "had a devil" and still remained among the disciples, did not in any way affect the truthfulness of Christ's doctrines, any more than did the departure from Him of "MANY" others who also were not in harmony with His work. Of those who left the faith in Christ's day, John says: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19 . June 19 at 12:57am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie NOTE TO READERS: I will shortly address the charge against E.G. White about her so-called claim to infallibility in her writings, and about her statements about "amalgamation of man and beast". Suffice it to say the following at this time: HERE'S REFUTATION OF THE BOLD LIE TOLD ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" (ABOUT MRS. WHITE); A REFUTATION BY MRS. WHITE HERSELF : "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning".Letter 10, 1895 April 20 at 9:18am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 4- AGAINST THE CHARGE OF FALSE PROPHECY REGARDING DATING THE SECOND COMING: Dr Hill, and Ian Boyne for that matter, know fully well that since the SDA Church's official founding is dated to be 1863 (as an official denomination), therefore the 1844 prediction of Jesus' second coming could *NOT rightly be considered a prediction of SD Adventism, but rather that of the *MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL Millerite movement of the 1840s. The Seventh-day Adventist Church (formed in 1863) has *NEVER predicted a DATE for the second Coming of Jesus or "Doomsday"!! NEVER!! During the recent global brouhaha over the recently failed "Doomsday" predictions, the RUMOR continued to be banded about that the SDA Church was one of those organizations that, at one time, had also falsely predicted a date (in 1844) for the Second Coming of Jesus!! It is time people be informed of the REAL TRUTH about the matter (even some SDA members themselves are so misinformed; many of whom are either weak in the faith, or never took the time to find out the REAL truth). The officially named "SDA Church" was founded in *1863 and has NEVER, EVER set a date for the coming of Jesus. THE *MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL "MILLERITE" MOVEMENT OF THE 1840s DID SET A DATE FOR 1844. This mixed group of the 1840s, called "the Millerites" (not a church denomination), consisted of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians or Anglicans, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformers, Seventh-day Baptists, Free Will Baptists, among others. That mixed group earlier thought that Jesus would come in 1844, based on a SYMBOLIC prophecy that was accurately calculated, but they misunderstood the EVENT that was to have taken place that year. If any group was 'guilty' of that misunderstanding it would have applied ALSO to the various church denominations all those members came from (as above listed).

But after the disappointment of 1844, in the predicted date of Jesus' second Coming, those initially *FROM that movement broke up and either went back to their specific Church denominations (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, etc), or formed several different and newly named groups (e.g. the Church of God, among many others), some of which even remained Sundaykeeping denominations, and which are today called Sunday "Adventists" (e.g. the Adventist Christian Church); not the sabbath-keeping SDA church formed LATER. One group went back to fully study the Bible, and recognized the mistake of the earlier multi-denominational mixed group of "Millerites", and they LATER formed the Sabbath-keeping "SDA Church" in 1863 (having learned the lesson well that "no man knows the day nor the hour") and they have NEVER done any date setting (i.e. GIVING A SPECIFIC YEAR!!) for "Doomsday" since being officially formed in 1863!!! NEVER, EVER!! These are the REAL facts, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!! For further insights, and for objectivity, go to Wikipedia (a free online encyclopedia), and view the facts there on the broad family of SEVERAL church denominations today called "Adventists" (seeing that some people *mistakenly think "Adventists" only mean SDA, or the sabbath-keeping denomination.) It's time to become TRULY INFORMED, and not be misguided by those who know not the true facts themselves. *BUT WHAT OF DR HILL'S CHARGE ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK", THAT MRS. WHITE DID PREDICT A GENERAL TIME FRAME FOR THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS IN 1856, AND AGAIN IN 1888, i.e. IN HER PREDICTION THAT THOSE ALIVE IN HER TIME WOULD HAVE SEEN THE SECOND COMING, AND IT DID NOT HAPPEN? I again point both Dr Hill and Ian Boyne to my opening questions regarding Jesus and the disciples predicting the second coming to happen "soon" and "quickly", and "in a little while" (IN RELATION TO THE FIRST CENTURY; Heb. 10:37), and in light of the fact that they indicated "the end of the world" to be in or near their time (Heb. 9:26, 1 Cor. 10:11, and 1 John 2:18). "Soon", "in a little while", and "quickly" are all terms THAT CAN ONLY BE LEGITIMATELY USED relative to *knowing, at least in general terms, of how NEAR the predicted event would have been! Yet "no man knows the day nor the hour"!! WHAT OF JESUS PREDICTING THAT SOME ALIVE IN HIS TIME WOULD NEVER "TASTE DEATH" TILL THEY *SEE THE SON COMING INTO HIS KINGDOM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WITH GLORY, WITH HIS *REWARDS FOR ALL, AND WITH HIS *ANGELS; see Matthew 16:26-28 with Luke 9:25-27, and Mark 8:36-38 to Mark 9:1)? Yet it has been nearly 2000 years since, and Jesus did not VISIBLY return to His kingdom with glory, with his angels and with his rewards for all; only spiritually (as most explain) via the Holy Spirit's descent on the day of Pentecost, or symbolically (as some explain) in his transfiguration on the Mount. Would Dr. Hill charge Jesus and the New Testament writers with false prophecy TOO because they are SEEMINGLY wrong to have predicted it to happen "soon" and "quickly", when it did not happen within the last 2000 years? Shouldn't he also ask Jesus and the New Testament writers how come they could predict the event as being slated to happen "soon" or "quickly" (i.e. a general time frame) if "no man knows the day nor the hour"; NOT EVEN JESUS WHILE ON EARTH AT THE TIME? See Mark 13:32. Shouldn't he also ask the Bible writers how come they could definitively STATE (not just expectantly anticipate) that the time remaining is "short" (1 Cor. 7:29-31), and that the "end of all things is at hand" or NEAR (1 Peter 4:7) if NO MAN KNOWS THE DAY NOR THE HOUR? Were they falsely prophesying of the "shortness" of the time remaining (NEARLY 2000 YEARS AGO), when they shouldn't have known how near or far the day would be in the first place? Clearly Dr Hill and Ian Boyne has bigger questions to answer from the Bible itself (as practicing Christians), and any proper answer they give in defense of Jesus and the New Testament writers on this matter (and in fact there is a proper answer that is needed) this would be an equally applicable defense of E.G. White, who likewise never gave any specific date for the second coming, but always urged the imminent return of Jesus, as all Christians have been doing since the first century. Period!! In addition, the same way prophets of God made several *UNFULFILLED prophecies in the OLD Testament, e.g. those "UNFULFILLED" IN THE ORIGINAL LITERAL CONTEXT OF LITERAL ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST, yet we now (as Christians) understand these prophecies, with good reason, to be *CONDITIONAL to LITERAL Israel fulfilling the original role they should have fulfilled, I also accept that E.G. White's UNFULFILLED prophecies (of Jesus coming back earlier, and near her time) to have been *conditional to certain circumstances!! If this cannot be a plausible explanation in her defense then it likewise cannot be a plausible explanation for UNFULFILLED prophecies related to literal Israel (i.e. they being CONDITIONAL to LITERAL Israel fulfilling its intended role on the global scale). June 19 at 12:56am Edited Like

o
Oniel A Blake How old was Ellen White in 1844?

April 20 at 10:56pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie ONIEL, IN 1844 SHE WAS JUST A TEENAGER! 17 YEARS OLD, TO BE EXACT. SHE WAS JUST A *METHODIST AMONG THE MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL "MILLERITES" OF 1844. SHE NEVER MADE THE PREDICTION (BUT BELIEVED WILLIAM MILLER WHO PREACHED IT), AND HER LATER CHURCH, THE SDA CHURCH, WOULD NOT BE FORMED TILL 1863... YEARS LATER. REMEMBER SHE WAS BORN IN 1827. A SIMILAR REALITY IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. CHRISTIANITY GREW OUT OF JUDAISM THAT LARGELY REJECTED JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND WHICH LARGELY FELT, WRONGLY MIND YOU, THAT THE MESSIAH WOULD BE AN EARTHLY KING TO OVERTHROW THE ROMANS. EVEN THE DISCIPLES EARLIER THOUGHT THIS WAY. YET WE FIND NO ONE IN CHRISTIANITY CASTIGATING ISRAEL OR THE EARLY DISCIPLES FOR THIS EARLIER MISTAKEN NOTION. DO WE? APART FROM CHRISTIANS LAUDING THEIR JEWISH HERITAGE IN JUDAISM, THOSE SAME JEWISH DISCIPLES ARE TODAY REVERED AMONG CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THEY LATER LEARNED THE FULL TRUTH AND PROCLAIMED IT WITH POWER AS CHRISTIANS (!!!), BUT ONLY AFTER GIVING UP THEIR EARLIER MISTAKEN NOTIONS AS JEWS. OBJECT LESSON? OH, I THINK IT IS ALREADY CLEAR. July 4 at 7:06am Edited Like

o
Oniel A Blake You answered everything I wanted you to. Why do persons keep saying that SHE or the SDA church(non existent at the time) predicted anything? April 21 at 9:45am Unlike 1

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 5- REGARDING THE CHARGE OF INFALLIBILITY OF E.G. WHITE WRITINGS: Dr Hill selectively quoted on "Religious Hardtalk" aspects of E.G. White's writings, which addressed a particular CONTEXT or situation, where she indicated that IN THAT PARTICULAR BODY OF WRITING UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME no "heretical sentence" could be found, and then made the UNFORTUNATE proclamation that she declared all her writings (up to 1915 when she died) had no error at all. That is what is called libel, and is tantamount to MISREPRESENTATION. PROOF? HERE'S THE STATEMENT IN *CONTEXT REGARDING A SERIES OF PAST LETTERS AND DIARIES MRS WHITE REFERRED TO IN 1905 (SHE DIED IN 1915) THAT HAD NO "HERETICAL SENTENCE" (i.e. ERRORS IN MAJOR DOCTRINE WAS FOUND THERE): "I am now looking over my *diaries and copies of *letters written for several years back, commencing before I went to Europe.... I have the most precious matter to reproduce and place before the people in testimony form. While I am able to do this work, the people must have things to revive past history, that they may see that there is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence, in that which I have written. This, I am instructed, is to be a living letter to all in regard to my faith.E.G. White, Letter 329a, NOV. 16, 1905. NOTICE HER FOCUS, AND CONTEXT!! HUMAN ERRORS IN HER WRITINGS AND OUTRIGHT DOCTRINAL "HERESY" ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND ALSO SHE MADE PLAIN HER CONTEXT WHEN SHE SPOKE, SINCE SHE ALSO SAID "*ONLY GOD IS INFALLIBLE". DR HILL MISREPRESENTED HER ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" . PERIOD!! SO MUCH FOR HIS CLAIM TO BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT HIS CHURCH. If even the very Bible has certain human errors contained in it, despite its inspiration and divine authority, then Mrs. White could NOT and DID NOT lay claim to the infallibility Dr Hill reported she claimed, especially when she herself said:

"In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God *ALONE is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning".E.G. White, Letter 10, 1895 Webster's New World Dictionary describes "infallible" as "1. incapable of error; never wrong. 2. not liable to fail, go wrong, make a mistake, etc." It renders "inerrant" as "not erring, making no mistakes." It is essentially those definitions that many people import into the realm of the Bible and Ellen White's writings. DID E.G. WHITE SEE ALL HER WITINGS AS INFALLIBLE? WELL LET'S SEE. "I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments. I held that view with absolute tenacity against innumerable objections raised to it by many who were occupying prominent positions in the [Adventist] cause," wrote Dr. David Paulson to Ellen White on April 19, 1906. Deeply concerned over the nature of Ellen White's inspiration, Paulson wondered whether he should continue to hold such a rigid view. In the process he raised the question of verbal inspiration and the related issues of infallibility and inerrancy. Since a correct understanding of such issues is of crucial importance in reading Ellen White and/or the Bible, we will examine each of them in this section. Mrs. White replied to Paulson on June 14, 1906. "My brother," she penned, "you have studied my writings diligently, and you have *never found that I have made any such claims [to INFALLIBILITY]], neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims" for her writings. ONLY GOD DOES SHE ASCRIBE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY TO, AND THE BIBLE SHE DECLARES THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON TRUTH REGARDING SALVATION. In summary, it appears that Mrs. White's use of the term infallibility has to do with the Bible being completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation. She doesn't mix that idea with the concept that the Bible or her writings are free from all possible errors of a factual nature. Thus the faithful reader's belief is not shaken if he or she discovers that Matthew attributed a Messianic prophecy, written centuries before Christ's birth, to Jeremiah when it was actually Zechariah who inferred that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (see Matt. 27:9, 10; Zech. 11:12, 13). Nor will one be dismayed over the fact that 1 Samuel 16:10, 11 lists David as the eighth son of Jesse, but 1 Chronicles 2:15 refers to him as the seventh. Neither will faith be affected because the prophet Nathan wholeheartedly approved of King David's building of the Temple but the next day had to backtrack and tell David that God didn't want him to build it (see 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). Prophets make mistakes. The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible. The writings of God's prophets are infallible as a guide to salvation, but they are not inerrant or without error. Part of the lesson is that we need to read for the central lessons of Scripture and Ellen White rather than the details. What is important to remember at this point is that those who struggle over such problems as inerrancy and absolute infallibility are fighting a human-made problem. It is not anything that God ever claimed for the Bible or Ellen White ever claimed for the Bible or her writings. Inspiration for her had to do with the "practical purposes" (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 19) of human and divine relationships in the plan of salvation. We need to let God speak to us in His mode, rather than to superimpose our rules over God's prophets and then reject them if they don't live up to our expectations of what we think God should have done. Such an approach is a human invention that places our own authority over the Word of God. It makes us the judges of God and His Word. But such a position is not Biblical; nor is it according to the way Ellen White has counseled the church. IT WAS THE SAME E.G. WHITE, WHOM DR HILL FALSELY CLAIMED ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" THAT SHE HAD DECLARED HER WRITINGS INFALLIBLE, WHO UNRESERVEDLY SAID: "God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.E.G. White, The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892 DR HILL IS BEING INCREASINGLY PROVEN TO HAVE A "CHERISHED VIEW" THAT IS FAULTY AND FALLIBLE ABOUT MRS. WHITE AND ADVENTISM, AND IN PUSHING IT (NOW ON NATIONAL TELEVISION) IT IS NOW PROVING TO BE CAUSING DISUNITY AMONG THE SDA BRETHREN. HOW IRONIC. June 21 at 7:34am Edited Like

o
Oniel A Blake Dat man is desperately in need of attention. Somebody should hug him before he commits suicide. April 21 at 3:32pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie TAKE IT EASY ONIEL. WE DON'T NEED TO ATTACK THE PERSON AND BELITTLE, IN ORDER TO REFUTE ERRORS AND MISGUIDED VIEWPOINTS. BE RESPECTFUL AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE WHEN DEALING WITH DR HILL'S HONESTLY HELD VIEWS...EVEN IF THEY ARE PROVING TO BE LESS THAN SOLID. SMILE April 21 at 3:49pm Like

o
Oniel A Blake I honestly think he just needs attention. He has garnered education and hasn't been highlighted. So this is his chance. If the founder of adventism is false according to him, why is he still an adventist? April 21 at 4:18pm Like 1

o
Derrick Gillespie Oniel, go back to read "Response #5" above and see I have made the case for Dr Hill being guilty of libel, and GROSS misrepresentation of Mrs. White's so-called claim to infallibility of her writings. April 21 at 4:20pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie WITHOUT BEING TOO JUDGMENTAL, I TOO WONDER HOW CAN SOMEONE DISBELIEVE THE MAIN DOCTRINE OF SD ADVENTISM (1844 AND THE THREE ANGELS MESSAGES), AND ALSO SEE AS FALSE THE LEADING ADVENTIST OR CO-FOUNDER AND REMAIN A MEMBER. I SUSPECT HE IS BEING USED FOR MORE SINISTER PURPOSES THAN HE REALIZES, AND ALSO MAYBE HE WANTS TO GET ATTENTION BY 'ROCKING THE BOAT'. WHO KNOWS? April 21 at 4:35pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie MORE TO COME SOON... AS I WRAP UP MY 7-PART RESPONSES TO DR HILL AND "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" (PART 1). THE MORE I LOOK AT THE ISSUES, THE MORE I SEE HOW SO VERY WRONG DR HILL IS. AM SURE HIS PART 2 APPEARANCE ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" WONT BE ANY DIFFERENT. I WAIT TO SEE. April 21 at 4:37pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie ALL IT TAKES IS A LITTLE PATIENCE, OBJECTIVITY, BACKED BY CAREFUL RESEARCH AND DEEP THOUGHT, AND THE WEAKNESSES/ERRORS IN THE ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS OF THE OPPOSITION WILL BE LAID BARE. GOD HELP ME, I WILL ALLOW MYSELF TO BE USED TO DEFEAT ERROR WHENEVER IT TRIES TO SUBVERT THE TRUTH. JUST PRAY FOR ME ONIEL April 21 at 5:06pm Like

o
Michael Morris Derrick, You have made some good points. All these points and more covered in Dr Graeme Bradford book http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm

Prophet-index www.sdanet.org More Than A Prophet may be ordered direct from the publisher, Biblical Perspe...See More April 22 at 10:12pm Unlike 1 Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie PEOPLE, OF COURSE, WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME TO HEAR OUT THE ISSUES FULLY, OR CHECK OUT HOW THE CHARGES RAISED AGAINST SDAs ARE DEFENDED AGAINST AND REFUTED... SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY PREFER TO RUN WITH THE PROPAGANDA, OR ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. BUT I CHALLENGE ALL TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY TO BE OBJECTIVE, OR TO BE TRULY INFORMED. April 23 at 4:07am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 6- REGARDING SOME SDA LEADERS DOUBTING ADVENTISM'S DOCTRINE ON AN "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" STARTING IN 1844. Dr Hill closed his presentation in his Part 1 appearance by seeking to undermine the SDA doctrine on the "Investigative Judgment" (which is believed by SDAs to have started in 1844). While he didn't say much, since he was slated to say more

in his part 2 appearance (which I will address then), yet what he did say lacks solid foundation. He sought to bolster his viewpoints by appealing to the fact that "27 top scholars" in Adventism in recent times were polled and they reportedly expressed doubts about the SDA Church's stance on the explanation of Daniel 8:14, the key Scripture for the doctrine. To however assume that "top scholars" within SD Adventism must be the signal for whether the doctrine on Daniel 8:14 is true or not, and to assume that an opposition from even certain leaders in the SDA Church must mean the doctrine is questionable, is to ignore certain past realities. When Adventism in 1888 came up with its key doctrine of "Righteousness by faith" (i.e. only faith in Jesus can save, and only via him being ABSOLUTELY DIVINE AND FULLY EQUAL WITH GOD,) THE TOP SCHOLARS AND LEADERS OF THE CHURCH, ALMOST IN ENTIRETY, OPPOSED THE DOCTRINE FOR YEARS!! Ellen G. White was a lone voice in supporting the two men (A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner) who championed this foundational truth. It took years for the leading or top scholars in the young SDA movement to settle with the newly hammered out truth. So what's new when "top scholars" oppose a doctrine E.G. White supports. But we see an even more striking example in the Bible. Top scholars in Israel (i.e. Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees and the members of Sanhedrin Council and the High priests) all rejected Jesus as the Messiah (almost to a man), and only the few disciples thought differently, and preached differently. Object lesson? Oh, I think it is most self evident. Truth can stand regardless... Like I said before, and I MUST REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS: "Does the fact that a few persons, some who may even have been more or less prominent in the church, leave that communion and make other connections, prove that church or its teachings to be untrue? Not necessarily. If so, the work and teachings of Jesus our Lord would be discounted, for there were a number of apostasies from the ranks of His followers. Of one such experience it is stated that from that time *MANY of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. John 6:66. It was a question as to what even the twelve apostles would decide to do, for Jesus turned and said unto them, Will you also go away? Verse 67. If every disciple of Jesus had gone away from Him, that fact would in no way have affected the truthfulness of His teaching. Truth is not dependent upon the following it may have, nor the ability of those who may once have accepted it. The fact that Judas "had a devil" and still remained among the disciples, did not in any way affect the truthfulness of Christ's doctrines, any more than did the departure from Him of "MANY" others who also were not in harmony with His work. Of those who left the faith in Christ's day, John says: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no dou bt have continued with us:but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19." Dr Hill then made the claim that Hebrews 9 "OPPOSES" the SDA view that Jesus did not directly ascend to the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at first, but rather into the first or outer part of sanctuary until a pre-Advent or "Investigative Judgment" caused him to so do at a specific or appointed time, i.e. to engage in a specific phase of work/ministry as our High priest. But I have read Hebrews 9 very carefully for myself, and I beg to differ with Dr Hill. Why? Here's why. I will be honest to admit that I have gone back to review the established SD Adventist viewpoint ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE as it concerns Jesus in the Temple since his ascension, and found that it is indeed compelling when one takes the time to carefully study the arguments that have been presented since the time of the SDA pioneers. First let me start by saying that I found out that it certainly is not evidenced in the literal words of New Testament Scripture that Jesus ascended directly to the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies), but this theory must be assumed based on the argument that the Bible seem to suggest it. This assumption must be based on reading it into either Rev. 3:21 or Psalm 80:1 (by eisogesis). However I have found that that is not conclusive since the Father's throne is indeed MOVABLE (Ezekiel, chapters 1 and 10, with Daniel 7:9), and that God's "shekinah" glory did appear in the Old Testament sanctuary in other areas apart from the Most Holy place (e.g. by the door; Ex. 33:9-11), and the real cherubims would have followed. Therefore Psalm 80:1 is, by all intent and purposes it seems, a poetic expression of God "dwelling" between the cherubims, but not a literal statement of Him always being immovably fixed above the ark itself. GOD IS TOO BIG FOR THAT RESTRICTION!! Even in Heaven He is presented as not always sitting on His throne, but can come in from elsewhere, as in Daniel 7: 9,10, to take up His position in a ceremony, AFTER HIS THRONE IS PUT IN PLACE. Also, since the Greek expression complex for the Most Holy Place (the Holy of Holies), "hagia hagion", was used only once in the entire New Testament (in Heb. 9:3), then we can easily track the use of the terms "hagion", used for the entire sanctuary itself or just a holy place like Heaven, and the use of "hagia", used only for the first apartment of the sanctuary. Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places where it is claimed that Jesus "entered" [PAST TENSE] into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the Father is based on speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (eg. Heb. 9:8, and Heb. 10:19). Coupled with that is the fact that Jesus is said to have "entered" into "the holy place" (singular) in Hebrews 9:12 and into "holy places" (plural) in Hebrews 9:24, further MAKING IT VAGUE AS TO WHICH COMPARTMENT HE "ENTERED" UPON HIS ENTRY INTO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY....thus making the issue not as clearcut as some think!!

Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term i.e. "*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) so as to clinch a more specific meaning, and since there were two veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the "veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written, since even the writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY uses the term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to being "within" or behind any of the two "veils", since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right to be minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19, that this meant SPECIFICALLY "The Most Holy Place", and not just within the sanctuary itself!! [CONTINUED BELOW] October 24 at 1:26pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie [CONTINUED FROM ABOVE] It is quite interesting that in Rev. 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and 4:5 the presence of the altar and the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH (A PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY) THIS "LAMP" AND THE ALTAR WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY, and this is compelling evidence that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the Judgment scene (of Daniel 7:9, 10, and Rev. 11:18,19) seem to place God's throne in the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary. I also find it very gripping that only when the Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev. 11:18, 19 (i.e. "the TIME HAS COME") that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT, thus strongly indicating that this apartment was opened ONLY when INVESTIGATIVE Judgment arrived (which did not cover the whole Christian era, but a specifically appointed time- Acts 17:31). All the above described, along with the fact that the Godhead's 'Presence' can ALSO be represented by the shew bread (literally "bread of His presence") in the first apartment, makes compelling the established SDA viewpoint that prior to the Investigative Judgment of 1844 God had His throne in the first apartment (probably since the incarnation, who knows?) to accommodate the proper sequencing of the work of Jesus the true High Priest in the Heavenly sanctuary. Thus the signal of it being probably put back in place in the Most Holy Place only at the fulfilled time of the Judgment scene in Daniel 7:9 does seem to have merit. Another possibility is that His throne was never in this second apartment of the Heavenly, until the arrival of the Judgment scene, since the sanctuary was built around the salvation plan. Who knows? Remember that after salvation is complete there is no longer the need for the temple. John said in the New Earth he saw no temple!!! Think long and hard on that point, and consider that God needs no "Most Holy Place" at all times to fix His throne room. The writings of E.G. White, describes Jesus' ministerial "movement" as literally from one apartment to another in 1844, and because the Biblical evidence to FULLY disprove this possibility is just not there (despite the protestations of the critics), and because the SDA argumentation to this effect is indeed compelling, then I will choose to believe that it may just have been so as Mrs. White's writings described. In addition, there's compelling Biblical evidence that the prophecy/vision of Daniel 8:14, reaching UNDENIABLY in time way beyond the existence of the earthly Jewish sanctuary (destroyed in A.D 70), to 1844, might just have had BOTH the Heavenly sanctuary and the spiritual sanctuary (the Church) in mind. Thus the cleansing and vindication of the sanctuary (i.e. the BOTH the earthly sanctuary in symbol, as trampled/defiled by "the little horn" power, and or the heavenly sanctuary which the little horn power eclipsed in ministry) may very well have been in view but in different contexts at the end of the 2300 days/years. No one can say ABSOLUTELY that only one sanctuary was in the mind of the prophetic angel of Daniel 8, since he was dealing with symbols. I certainly see BOTH sanctuaries needing SYMBOLIC "cleansing" after the "little horn" power dominated Christianity into the end time period. I strongly believe that there is ample evidence that the prophecy might just have had both the Heavenly sanctuary and the earthly spiritual temple (the Church) in mind, that is BOTH would be SYMBOLICALLY "cleansed", but just from different things.

Both would be made victorious or vindicated, but in different contexts. The trampling of the sanctuary and God's people underfoot, and the casting down of the "place" of God's sanctuary and His truth to the ground, ARE SIMPLY SYMBOLS FOR, ON THE ONE HAND, THE DEFILEMENT OF THE CHURCH (THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE) BY THE PRESENCE AND PAGAN INFLUENCE OF THE ANTICHRIST POWER, THE PAPACY (2 THESS. 2:4), AND ALSO THE OBSCURING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF GOD'S SANCTUARY AND TRUE HIGH PRIEST (ONLY MEDIATOR) IN THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS AFTER THE ROMAN ANTICHRIST CAME ON THE SCENE. Thus both sanctuaries would simultaneously (in the same time period; i.e. at the end of the 2300 years) be "made right", "made victorious", and "vindicated", as the truth is made clear again to the world. Thus while the Heavenly sanctuary is being "vindicated" and "cleansed" in the anti-typical Judgment sense of Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur (a feast day typical of Judgment for the Jews), so too the earthly spiritual temple (the Church) is being "cleansed" (in another context) of pagan defilement, and "vindicated" too, as the "Remnant" leaves the confused ranks of spiritual Babylon in Christendom (since the spiritual awakening of the modern era) and restores the truth about God's true apostolic Church, God's law, Sabbath, state of the dead, etc. This all happens while God is "sealing" his chosen elect (making up his jewels) once and for all, thus pronouncing them "vindicated", to the chagrin of Satan, "the accuser of the brethren". This is all allowed in the prophecy of Daniel 8 about the sanctuary being "cleansed". Dr Hill's views opposing this doctrine have therefore been proven to be less than convincing or conclusive on this matter. I will address this issue more fully when he appears on "Religious Hardtalk" in his Part 2 address of this key doctrine of Adventism. Look out for my comment there too October 24 at 1:31pm Edited Like

o
Michael Morris The only reason why people like Dr Hill gets a story is because our church leaders have hidden the real EG white from the membership. The real EG White is only in the realm of the scholars and the well read persons. Just take a visit to the local ABC and tell me how many books you will find taking on the real challenges of the Bible and EG White. We are an organisation who are only comfortable with discussing the nice stuff. The moment we take on the other stuff we are seen otherwise. Where are all the scholars from NCU who should be on TVJ taking on Dr Hill? What about the Head of the EG White Library in Jamaica? They are all silent. We have to depend on our able and blessed brother Derrick Gillispie to defend the cause. Our men only maintain the status quo and collect a salary hoping that Dr Hill will go away. It is even worst now that we have so many pastors who have completed Phd. They have gotten rid of the title 'pastor' for 'Dr' but cant live up the challenge. April 29 at 1:01pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie I HEAR YOU MICHAEL April 30 at 7:53am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 7: CANDID ADMISSIONS AND MORE As I conclude my series of posts on the first of the appearances of Dr. Hill on Religious Hardtalk, I feel it is necessary to make certain candid admissions as an honest and objective researcher, but also as a mainstream SDA who tries not to be led astray by the misguided views of critics and defectors from the faith, even while I give a balanced, frank and realistic view of Adventism. Here are my candid admissions: 1. Unfortunately, many Adventists have, over the years, given the impression that the writings of E.G. White are on par with the Bible in terms of being EQUALLY authoritative in doctrinal matters, evidenced by sometimes the way her writings are

quoted and used. Yet, the TRUE FACTS are that they are not. Mrs. White herself insisted over the course of her ministry that they should NOT be so considered, and that the Bible and the Bible only is the final authority on matters of faith and doctrine. Yet the Bible *itself (the final doctrinal authority) encourages us to despise not prophesying (1 Thess. 5:20) since prophets in the Church are one of the gifts of the Spirit (Eph. 4:11-15) FOR THE EDIFYING OF THE CHURCH; despite (and in addition to) the Bible being already present. But while we are to believe the prophets and consequently prosper (2 Chron. 20:20), we are also commissioned to prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21) and to try [test or prove] the spirits (1 John 4:1), since while there obviously would be true prophets in the Church, yet there would also be false ones too. After "proving" them, then we are further commanded to "hold fast to that which is good" ...in other words, preserve, respect and abide by the counsels and insights made available via the prophetic once it passes the Biblical test!! Too many who claim to believe and hold to the tenets of the Bible tend to reject the notion that genuine prophets can be in the Church, yet it the same Bible which predicts that in the lasts days your sons and your daughters would prophesy (Acts 2:16-18; Joel 2:28-32), meaning both men and women (not just males) would be given the gift of prophesy (i.e. being a special messenger with messages from the Lord in addition to what the Bible already has in it). In fact, it does appear strongly that one of the identifying marks of the TRUE people of God in the last days is to be blessed with the spirit of prophecy or the spirit of the prophets even as they are identified as being obedient to the commandments of God (see Rev. 12:17 and Rev. 19:10). It does appear too that those blessed with the spirit of prophecy or the spirit of the prophets, and are obedient to the commandments, would suffer much wrath from the Devil working though his human agents. Yet, what must never be forgotten is that even prophets can make mistakes, even prophets are fallible, and even prophets will need to grow in knowledge about heavenly things and doctrinal truths. This was the case with E.G. Whites ministry in Adventism, since she herself said (and I re-quote it): "God and heaven ALONE are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.E.G. White, The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892 IT IS EVEN MORE TELLING WHEN SHE SAID IN THAT SAME YEAR (1892): There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our [SDA] expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ . The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --Review and Herald, December 20, 1892 NEVER FORGET THAT IN RESPONSE TO ONE MISGUIDED BROTHER WHO WROTE TO E.G. WHITE THE FOLLOWING WORDS, SHE CANDIDLY RESPONDED TO HIS LETTER WHICH SAID : "I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you [Mrs. White] ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments. I held that view with absolute tenacity against innumerable objections raised to it by many who were occupying prominent positions in the [Adventist] cause" [Dr. David Paulson to Ellen White on April 19, 1906]. "My brother," she *REPLIED, "you have studied my writings diligently, and you have *never found that I have made any such claims, neither will you find that the pioneers [i.e. early SDA leaders] in our cause ever made such claims" [Mrs. White to Paulson on June 14, 1906. THAT SETTLES THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER THE WRITINGS OF E.G. WHITE ARE TO BE SEEN AS INFALLIBLE IN ALL MATTERS. [CONTINUED BELOW] July 4 at 5:36pm Edited Like

Derrick Gillespie [CONTINUED FROM ABOVE] 2. I have recognized that, just like aspects of the Bible, there are certain parts of E.G. Whites writings which might be ha rd to understand, and to give the final and definitive explanation TO SATISFY THE CRITICS might be beyo... See More July 4 at 6:48pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie SEE ALSO MY NOW COMPLETED RESPONSES TO THE PART 2 TV APPEARANCE OF DR. HILL HERE: http://www.facebook.com/derrick.../posts/10201360843569374 July 3 at 8:14pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE: "The first person to speak always seems right until someone comes and asks the right questions." (ERV) - Proverbs 18:17 "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (ESV) - Proverbs 18:17 May 1 at 6:27pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE: I am now so much CLEARER IN MY MIND regarding the "amalgamation" issue. Dr. Hill never seemed to have taken the time to read Gen. 6:1-13 and especially Leviticus 19:19... otherwise he would not have made such overconfident (but misguided) statements about what really "defaced God's image in man" at the time (in contradistinction to the intermarriage of the godly and ungodly "races" of men when only ONE genetic race existed at the time, which resulted in the degeneration of human character, as E.G. White explained; not, as he and the critics assume, and as even some misguided SDAs mistakenly assumed Mrs. White meant, men having sex with beasts resulting in hybrid half-humans and half-beasts). Dr. Hill would also not have so over-confidently declared that "nothing is wrong/sinful with cross-breeding animals", when it seems God had laws even prohibiting it from ancient times (hence making this practice, as induced *by humans, a sin), as Lev. 19:19 CLEARLY SHOWS!! Man influencing animals to cross-breed among themselves is deemed a breach of God's command, and hence is sinful!! No wonder we are told, God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither his ways ours ways. See Isaiah 55:8. Having gone back to CAREFULLY study Genesis 6:1-13 and Leviticus 19:19 (WITH MUCH HELP FROM A WIDE RANGE OF BIBLE COMMENTARIES), I must say am now much clearer on the "amalgamation of man and [of] beast" statements of E.G. White (involving two *separate things, but described together, i.e. the union of the ungodly and godly "races" of men, and the union of animal species among themselves in crossbreeding processes induced *by humans). I now better appreciate F.D. Nichol's explanations and defense of her writings on this matter, and I now see even better how misguided critics have poisoned Dr Hill's mind, rendering him unable to be objective to properly appreciate context, and rendering him unable to have deeper insights into a controversial matter. I encourage you dear reader to study out the issue of this difficult statement from Mrs. White, about the amalgamation of man and [of] beast, by referring to the following helpful webpage which give *POINTED insights into the issue, in light of Biblical support in Gen. 6:1-13 and *ESPECIALLY Lev. 19:19: https://egwwritings.org/ [ONCE AT THE WEBSITE SEEN ABOVE, TYPE "AMALGAMATION" IN THE SEARCH BOX, AND PROCEED TO THE ARTICLE AFTER ENTERING THE WORD "AMALGAMATION" AND CLICKING SEARCH. STUDY IT CAREFULLY AND OBJECTIVELY WITH GENESIS 6:1-13 AND LEVITICUS 19:19 IN MIND. YOU WILL BE AMAZED HOW IT MAKES MUCH SENSE UPON CLOSER EXAMINATION, AND READ WITH AN OPEN MIND]

July 3 at 8:22pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE: Here are further helps on the "amalgamation" issue: http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/.../did-egw...

Adventist Defense League adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com July 3 at 8:23pm Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE: LOOK OUT ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK" FOR A LIVE RESPONSE/DEFENSE FROM THE SDA CHURCH SOON. YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO SEE AND HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY; NOT JUST HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION!! May 8 at 6:01am Like

o
Wayon Walters What is taking the church so long to respond? Confident you have laid the foundation for Jamaica Conference. May 13 at 12:22pm Like

o
Charles Powell Well I have not read all the threads, and let me state that i do speak form an anti-SDA stand point, as i have made publicly known. My issue with E.G. White is simple. The adventist lauding of her as a prophet to me is contrary to the Bible itself. The Bible, if we take is as the word of God (all be it that some messages may have been lost in translation to English) did state that there where no more prophesies that were to be "added or subtracted from this book". Therefore, if there be no more prophecies, why are we in need of this prophet? I have heard adventist describe her writing (which I must admit, was their personal opinion) as a supplement to the bible, which would suggest the bible itself is deficient in instructions. In my opinion, she is just a writer, but the exaltation given to her many adventist seems to distract them from searching the Bible themselves and praying to God to give them understanding. The Bible says study to shew thyself approved, but many people want to use E.G White as Cliff notes.

June 4 at 12:13am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie FROM THE BIBLICAL STANDPOINT, IT IS *UNBIBLICAL TO REJECT THE NEED FOR A PROPHET IN THE LAST DAYS, SEEING IT IS THE VERY BIBLE WHICH SAYS IN 1 THESS.5:19, 20 TO "DESPISE NOT PROPHESYING" AND THAT (ACCORDING TO JOEL 2:27-32) IN THE "LAST DAYS" GOD'S SPIRIT WILL CAUSE BOTH SONS AND DAUGHTERS (WOMEN AND MEN) TO "PROPHESY". IN ADDITION, THE VERY BIBLE ITSELF MAKES PLAIN THAT ONE OF THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE CHURCH (ACCORDING TO EPH. 4:10-14) IS THAT OF "PROPHETS" SO THAT THE CHURCH MAY GROW UP INTO MATURITY, AND FOR THE "EDIFYING" OF THE CHURCH. ALL THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE SCRIPTURES ALREADY GIVEN. SO THEN, HOW CAN THE BIBLE SAY ALL THIS, AND IT BE "UNBIBLICAL" TO ACCEPT PROPHETS IN THE CHURCH IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE? NOT AT ALL. SEEMS YOU NEED TO REVISIT THE BIBLE Charles Powell, SINCE ALL IT SAYS IS TO "PROVE" THE PROPHETS IN 1 THESS. 5:19-21;NOT DENY THEY STILL EXIST. SMILE. June 4 at 3:34am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie What does the Seventh-day Adventist church hold regarding the relationship between the writings of Mrs. White and the Bible? We do not regard the writings of Ellen G. White as an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture. We do not think of these writings as of universal application, like the Bible, but as written particularly for the Seventh-day Adventist church. We do not regard Mrs. White's writings in the same sense as the Holy Scriptures, which stand alone and unique as the standard by which all other writings must be judged; extra-biblical prophetic utterances included. If, as at least some scholars believe, Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians was the first book of the New Testament to be written, then his concern as expressed in its closing verses may have an interesting significance to Christians today: "Quench not the Spirit" he commanded (1 Thessalonians 5:19). "Don't tune Him out," as we might put it in today's vernacular. The existence of the possibility of doing just this undergirds the necessity for the warning. "Despise not prophesyings" (vs. 20). Was Paul here, first of all, telling the Christians that the word of God to them did not end with the closing of the Old Testament canon of Scripture? That the spiritual gift of prophecy was still being exercised-and would continue to be exercised--until the end of time? Was he warning, don't despise latter-day prophets, who will be just as inspired and authoritative--prophets whose messages also come directly from the Holy Spirit? Most certainly!! The prophetic gift of the Spirit is ONE OF THE MEANS whereby the saints are to be "perfected", the work of the ministry performed, and the body of Christ edified, "till we all come into the unity of the faith" (Ephesians 4:10-14). Now is there any such thing as standing upon the Bible and the Bible alone, and yet reject these Biblically described and prescribed agencies? THERE CERTAINLY IS NOT; if the Bible alone is one's final doctrinal authority!! Those who reject these BIBLICAL injunctions DEPART FROM THE BIBLE TEACHING ITSELF!! HOW IRONIC!! It is a HERESY similar to that of popularly rejecting obedience in favor of faith and grace, despite TRUE or BIBLICAL faith, and or genuine grace, teaches FULL obedience as a fruit-age of faith and grace, as seen in Titus 2:11-15 and Ephesians 2:8-10. As it concerns prophets we are told to "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). The Christian has an obligation to "try the spirits" (1 John 4:1), because while not all of them are from God, the obverse is equally true: Not all of them are from the devil, either! The Christian is hereby commanded (by the Holy Spirit through Paul) to seriously examine the content of purported prophetic writings. He must also examine the fruitage of these writings, both in the life of the alleged prophet and in the lives of those who follow that prophet. This task must be undertaken with an open mind willing to receive more truth, a mind that seeks to validate all new light by what has been tested before (Acts 17:11). And, having made the test, and noted the results: "Hold fast that which is good" from the prophets we are equally commanded (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This means, as a non-

SDA Bible Commentary says: Hold fast that which is good - Which is in accordance with reason and the word of God; which is adapted to promote the salvation of the soul and the welfare of society. This is just as much a duty as it is to prove all things. A man who has applied the proper tests [to prophetic utterances], and has found out what is truth, is bound to embrace it and to hold it fast. He is not at liberty to throw it away, as if it were valueless; or to treat truth and falsehood alike. It is a duty which he owes to himself and to God to adhere to it firmly, and to suffer the los s of all things rather than to abandon it. Albert Barnes Commentary July 3 at 8:47pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie FINAL TRUTH BE TOLD? MRS. WHITE HERSELF WROTE ABOUT THE SUPREMACY OF THE BIBLE: "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain Thus saith the Lord in its support."- E.G. White. IT IS THAT SAME BIBLE WHICH SPOKE CLEARLY IN 1 THESS.5:19-21, IN JOEL 2:27-32, AND IN EPH. 4:10-14. IF WE FOLLOW THAT BIBLE IN THESE REFERENCED SCRIPTURES WE WOULD KNOW HOW TO RELATE TO PROPHETS IN THE CHURCH TODAY. PERIOD!! AND NEVER FORGET, THE VERY SAME BIBLE PREDICTS NOT JUST A CALL TO RETURN TO GOD'S TEN COMMANDMNTS (WHICH MANY CHRISTIANS IGNORE), BUT PREDICTS SENDING AGAIN "ELIJAH" (OR SOMEONE/PERSONS WITH ELIJAH'S *PROPHETIC SPIRIT) JUST BEFORE THE *FUTURE DAY OF FIERY JUDGMENT. SEE MALACHI 4: "Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. June 4 at 4:01am Like

o
Andrew Stephenson I love this last point about how to relate to prophets. There is a list I see passed around called the biblical test of a true prophet. What is its origin? Did Jesus and others use such a test? June 4 at 4:49am via mobile Unlike 1

o
Derrick Gillespie I HAVE SEEN THE "LIST" ANDREW STEPHENSON, BUT THE SCRIPTURES AND "TESTS" ARE BEING MISAPPLIED IN MANY RESPECTS. BUT WHAT'S NEW ANYWAY? June 4 at 8:06am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie CHARLES POWELL, PLEASE READ ALL COMMENTS I POSTED AFTER YOUR OWN COMMENTS ABOVE. IT SHOULD BE FOOD FOR THOUGHT! June 4 at 8:08am Like

o
Charles Powell I have, still need to reexamine if the gift of prophecy was not last bestowed on the apostles. To tell the truth, have not been doing much religious reading of late. June 4 at 8:29am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie "Study to show yourself approved unto God", Charles Powell : "2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." June 4 at 8:41am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie NEVER FORGET, THE VERY SAME BIBLE PREDICTS NOT JUST A CALL TO RETURN TO GOD'S TEN COMMANDMNTS (WHICH MANY CHRISTIANS IGNORE), BUT PREDICTS SENDING AGAIN "ELIJAH" (OR SOMEONE/PERSONS WITH ELIJAH'S *PROPHETIC SPIRIT) JUST BEFORE THE *FUTURE DAY OF FIERYJUDGMENT. SEE MALACHI 4: "Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. June 4 at 8:47am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie CHARLES POWELL SAID: "[I] still need to reexamine if the gift of prophecy was not last bestowed on the apostles" MY RESPONSE? Only if the Church ended with the apostles of the New Testament, and only if the Church attained the full perfection EPHESIA...See More

June 4 at 10:55am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie "Ephesians 4:10 He [Jesus] that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..." June 4 at 11:00am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie "1Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many." June 4 at 11:02am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie ATTENTION BOTH CRITICS OF SD ADVENTISM, AS WELL AS SD ADVENTISTS ON FACEBOOK. DID YOU READ ALL MY RESPONSES YET? YOU SHOULD, AND WITH AN OPEN MIND TOO!! June 22 at 7:08am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS MY PART 1 RESPONSE LIVE ON TVJ (CLICK LINK): http://televisionjamaica.com/.../ReligiousHa.../Videos/29026

Religious Hardtalk - Religious televisionjamaica.com September 5 at 2:04pm Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Norman Johnson Interesting stuff Mr G., I should have watch Dr Hills interview first. Is it you he said coming back for part two next week? September 6 at 3:14am Unlike 1

o
Derrick Gillespie Yes Norman, see me returning on September 17, at 9:30 pm, to conclude my rebuttal of Dr. Hill. September 19 at 12:30am Edited Like

o
Rhoan Brown somewhere there is a common ground it needs to be found September 8 at 9:34am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie Thanks for your expressed opinion, Rhoan. September 10 at 6:00am Edited Like

o
Mike Wayne Every generation need to hear the gospel,what are we doing about that?so much knowledge about religion yet

September 10 at 1:19pm Like 1

o
Derrick Gillespie Mike Wayne, WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE *YOU DOING TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL? ARE YOU INVOLVED ACTIVELY IN PREACHING, AND TEACHING ABOUT CHRIST, AND ARE YOU ENGAGED IN DEFENDING THE TRUTHS ABOUT HIM AT THIS TIME? JUST A QUESTION. SMILE September 11 at 5:07am Edited Like

o
Stephenson Theovercomer Karl Be strong Derrick.Go in the name of the Lord September 17 at 5:20pm Unlike 1

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS MY CONCLUSIVE APPEARANCE: http://www.televisionjamaica.com/.../Religio.../Videos/29348

Religious Hardtalk - Derrick Gillespie on the Ellen G White Issue Pt.2 www.televisionjamaica.com September 19 at 12:00am Like Remove Preview

o
Charles Powell Keep up the work Sir G. For now yuh still know mi anti-adventist, but as you said, study to shew yourself approved. Let all be for the edification of our spiritual and let all glory be unto God. September 19 at 12:37am Unlike 2

Andrew Beckford a very good episode; some parts were really funny though September 19 at 4:30pm Unlike 1

o o
Derrick Gillespie Thanks for the expressed sentiments, Charles and Andrew!! October 13 at 5:34am Like

o
AlthAndrea White This is thoroughly researched work, Derrick. Praising God for your dedication to searching for truth. I'll need to send you my email address... October 24 at 1:11pm via mobile Like

o
Derrick Gillespie Thanks for the sentiments expressed, Althea. See your FB inbox for my email address. October 24 at 1:17pm Like