Category Archives: Adventism (D)

Ellen White, Inspiration and Christmas

Ellen White, Inspiration and Christmas

By Jaymark Molo

“Not again.” Some would sigh of complaint. I feel the same sentiment for those who have already made up their minds regarding this issue. Much has been discussed in my previous work and they are requested to read it all over again if they want to.[1] However, another pertinent issue has been put on the table regarding Christmas and this has something to do with nature of inspiration of Ellen White with regards specifically to her comments on Adventist Home (AH), chap. 77, under the sub section, “Christmas.”

The question of this short article is not primarily: “How much of the writings of Ellen White are inspired?” But it specifically seeks to answer the contention whether the AH (chapter 77) is inspired by God or not.

1. Another Course to Take. Since the Bible is not necessarily against tradition, but only to unbiblical traditions. We are delighted to hear what Ellen White says about Christmas. Fortunately, her writings supports that there is no problem celebrating Christmas as long as materialism is denounced and Christ becomes the supreme object.[2] Since this a plain reading of the writings of EGW, some have found difficulty accepting this position due to apparent paganistic root.

Now this presents an insurmountable dilemma for those who accept the writings of EGW as inspired and yet hold the position that Christmas has no place for the life of Christians. For they are force to take either of the following positions: (A) Christmas has paganistic roots but Ellen White find it no problem endorsing it as long as Christ becomes the centre of the celebration. (B) Christmas has paganistic roots and Ellen White erred with regards to this topic for she is: (1) fallible, (2) her writings on AH are not inspired. [3] Position A is less likely true because that would put Ellen White under trial for endorsing paganism. That would reasonably disqualify her as a genuine prophet. Not unless the real issue is materialism, not paganism. Position B seems veritable course for others and this has become popular nowadays.[4]

2. Inspired or Not: AH chapter 77. This issue is not new at all in the time of Ellen White. We can agree right off the bat that not all her writings are inspired by God. In fact, on August 30, 1906, there appeared in the Review and Herald this statement from the pen of the inspired writer, addressing the said issue.

“In your letter,” she asked, “you speak of your early training to have implicit faith in the Testimonies, and say, ‘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 inspired as the ten commandments.”

She responded, “My brother, 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 in our cause have made such claims.” However, although not all her writings are inspired, it is dangerous to put our position as a judge whether her writings are inspired or not. “And now, brethren, I entreat you not to interpose between me and the people, and turn away the light which God would have come to them. Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united. For Christ’s sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and scepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do.”[5]

Unfortunately, some are hasty to regard the writings of EGW as non-inspired if it does not suit their taste.

“Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.

“If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human–Sister White’s opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition.”[6]

It is spurious to make some distinctions, unless Ellen White clearly states that she is merely giving opinion of her own.[7] So the thumb rule is: Accept the writings of Ellen White as inspired unless she regarded it as a human opinion. Same case with AH chapter 77. Here are some helpful references to read:

a. Testimonies:

“In the testimonies sent to _____ I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion.”[8]

b. Books:

“Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light, that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the world.”[9]

c. Articles:

“I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision–the precious rays of light shining from the throne.”[10]

d. Letters:

“Weak and trembling, I arose at three o’clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me.”[11]

e. Interviews:

“He [Elder G. A. Irwin, President of the General Conference] has with him a little notebook in which he has noted down perplexing questions which he brings before me, and if I have any light upon these points, I write it out for the benefit of our people, not only in America but in this country.”[12]

3. Common Matters and Spiritual Matters. Although there is wisdom in looking for tangible indicators whether the writings of Ellen White as inspired or not such as: “I was shown,” “Thus saith the Lord,” etc. The non-appearance of such indicators does not mean the absence of inspiration. But when Ellen White talks about common things, we must regard it as non-inspired.

“There are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God. Questions are asked at times that are not upon religious subjects at all, and these questions must be answered. We converse about houses and lands, trades to be made, and locations for our institutions, their advantages and disadvantages.” Selected Messages, 1:38, 39.

Housel Jemison reasonably observes:

“It seems clear from this statement that Mrs. White intended to convey the idea that when she dealt with common subjects, or answered questions ‘not upon religious subjects,’ there would be nothing in what was spoken or written that would suggest it had been given by inspiration. The opposite idea is implied: That which was written or spoken under divine direction would bear its own credentials, either in the spiritual nature of the matter dealt with, or by some such indication as ‘I was shown.’[13]

Upon observing the nature of AH chapter 77, one could justly assess that although there are no “Thus says the Lord”, nor “I was shown”,  it is still inspired by God for it is a religious subject and spiritual in nature. For instance:

a. It talks about Spirituality:

“The youth should be treated very carefully. They should not be left on Christmas to find their own amusement in vanity and pleasure-seeking, in amusements which will be detrimental to their spirituality. Parents can control this matter by turning the minds and the offerings of their children to God and his cause and the salvation of souls.”

b. It talks about Morality:

“Thousands of dollars will be worse than thrown away upon the coming Christmas and New Year’s in needless indulgences. But it is our privilege to depart from the customs and practices of this degenerate age, and instead of expending means merely for the gratification of the appetite, or for needless ornaments or articles of clothing, we may make the coming holidays an occasion in which to honor and glorify God.”

c. It talks about Christ:

“There is no divine sanctity resting upon the twentyfifth of December; and it is not pleasing to God that anything that concerns the salvation of man through the infinite sacrifice made for them, should be so sadly perverted from its professed design. Christ should be the supreme object; but as Christmas has been observed, the glory is turned from him to mortal man, whose sinful, defective character made it necessary for him to come to our world.”

d. It talks about Sin:

“On Christmas, so soon to come, let not the parents take the position that an evergreen placed in the church for the amusement of the Sabbath school scholars is a sin; for it may be made a great blessing.”

Folks, this is no common talk. These words are coming from the Lord. F. M. Wilcox, for many years editor of the Review and Herald, commented:

“We must believe that what she gave, by either voice or pen, in printed page or through the medium of correspondence, as the messages of God, was true to this representation. We must accept her statement as true relative to this, or else reject altogether her call to the prophetic office.”[14]

Position B is  less probable, but position A is more plausible. There is reasonableness to believe that  AH chapter 77 comes from the Lord, not a mere opinion of a prophet.


[1] Jaymark Molo, see:


[3] However, there are some who are willingly to adapt the radical view of Graeme Bradford to discredit the role of the writings of Ellen G. White in Christmas. See: Graeme Bradford, Prophets are Human (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2004) 91pp. This view has been reasonably critiqued by the following scholars, see: Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Prophets are Humans: Book Review,” Reflections BRI Newsletter 10 (April 2005): 8-10. See also, William Fagal, “New Testament Era Prophets—Are They Less Reliable?” ( A more balance approach can be found in the works of Juan Carlos Viera, The Voice of the Spirit: How God Has Led His People through the Gift of Prophecy (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1998). See also, Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the LordThe Prophetic Ministry of Ellen White (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1998).

[4] It seems to me that this has been the position of my good friend and respected apologist Ronald Obidos.

[5] Testimonies, vol. 5, 691.

[6] Selected Messages, 3:68 (MS 16, 1889).

[7] See Manuscript 107, 1909.

[8] Testimonies to the Battle Creek Church, 1882, p. 58.

[9] Colporteur Ministry, 125.

[10] Testimonies for the Church, 5:67.

[11] Testimonies for the Church, 5:67.

[12] Letter 96, 1899 (Selected Messages, 3:51).

[13] T. Housel Jemison, A Prophey Among You, 396.

[14] The Testimony of Jesus, 64.



Hallucination or Vision?


This photo was posted by Little Nartea

Simul Justus Et Peccator: Sounds adhominem to me, Little Nartéa.

Little Nartéa: It’s from an Adventist.
 She was epileptic, that could account to the visions she hallucinated.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: That’s quite inaccurate—Adventist Currents is a discontinued magazine which was published INDEPENDENTLY by progressively-minded Seventh-day Adventists from 1983 until 1988. So basically, this magazine was not an authorized by Church.

By the way, that allegation is not new so it has been answered by Donald I. Peterson, see his response:

Little Nartéa: You should study the report.
 It’s not adhom but a scientific finding on the hallucinations of EGWhite.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: I have already read the article by Molleurus Couperus, “The Significance of Ellen White’s Head Injury” Adventist Currents 1:6 (June 1985). Fortunately, it has been answered by Donald I. Peterson, see again his response:

Thus, it will become an adhominem if you will still insist the allegation even though it has been proven wrong. Blessings!

See also: Free e-Book: Ellen G. White and Her Critics (

Rebuttal: The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites

The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites
Negative: Presentation of Counter Evidences

 Jaymark Molo

First of all, it is a privilege to be continually part of this conversation with Zandro Ganipan.[1] Despite of admitting the fact that he can not prove that the Seventh-day Sabbath was given only to the Israelites – it is still a pleasure to dwell on his first presentation.


My initial impression after reading his first presentation (especially his first argument) leads me to conclude that there are some teachings in the Seventh-day Adventist Church that needs to be clarified and emphasized.

The Promulgation of the Law at Mount Sinai, by...

The Promulgation of the Law at Mount Sinai, by the illustrators of the Figures de la Bible, 1728 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First, we both partially agree that those who suggests that Sunday worshipers today does belong to anti-Christ cannot be warranted its teaching from the Scripture.[2] Perhaps, this erroneous teaching can be traced on the belief that Sunday keepers have already received the mark of the beast. In contrast, the Seventh-day Adventist believes that “no one has yet received the mark of the beast”.[3] Ellen White concurs by stating that: “Sunday-keeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol Sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet.”[4] However, this subject must not be dismissed because Sabbath keeping will become life and death issue in the end times (cf. Rev. 13).[5]

Second, regarding to your third argument, we also believed that Sabbath/s in Ezekiel are plural in form (including the ceremonial Sabbaths). Nevertheless, we contend that there are enormous distinctions between moral law and ceremonial law. The ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system of Israel. All the sacrificial offerings, the feast days, and even the priesthood all that were typical of the sacrifice and ministry of Christ our Lord met its end on Calvary’s cross. Therefore, we do not find difficulty in believing that ceremonial Sabbath/s were included on that mark/seal because the nature of ceremonial Sabbath itself was only temporal (cf. Heb. 10:1). Unlike the Seventh-day Sabbath, which we believed moral in nature, are eternal and perpetual. To simply put it, the Seventh-day Sabbath only remains a mark/seal because it was never abolished (unlike the ceremonial Sabbaths) on the cross.


            In this section, we will attempt to answer objectively to our disagreements on his first presentation and to his answers in my cross-examination.[6]

First, regarding to his second argument, he implicitly states that Christ was instituting a new Sabbath (different in the Seventh-day Sabbath) in Mark 2:27 by statement of our Lord “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for Sabbath.” Nonetheless, his arguments cannot be contextually and linguistically advanced because: (1) Immediate Context. The day that Jesus Christ was been accused of breaking the Sabbath was no other than seventh-day Sabbath itself (see, Mark 2:23). To inject another Sabbath in mind of Jesus is to simply miss the day when our Lord Jesus Christ has been accused. (2) Linguistic Context. If Jesus Christ was introducing a new Sabbath here, why did Jesus use the verb in aorist tense (“was made—egeneto”)? That only proves that Christ does not introduce new Sabbath commandment here but establishes its permanent validity by appealing to its original creation when God determined its intended function for the well being of humanity.[7]

Second, on his last part on his second argument, he used Romans 14:5, 6 to base his belief that Sabbath is a matter of liberty and conscience. Unfortunately, a second reading of the text will lead us to reject his conclusion. Here are the following reasons: (1) Total Abstinence? Notice that some of the recipients of the letter to the Romans believed that one should abstain from eating meat and drinking wine (14:2, 21). However, the Old Testament does not require total abstention from animal flesh but only of the flesh of some animals (Lev 11). Neither does the OT consider grape juice improper for ingestion. It was forbidden only to the High Priest and the Nazarite. (2) Common Food? Paul is discussing food that was considered common (koinós, unclean by defilement [the term used in Rom 14:14]), and not unclean foods (akatharthos the term used in Leviticus 11], unclean by nature). Paul says that the weak values one day more than another but he does not explicitly state the reason for the distinction. There is not an explicit statement from Paul indicating what was done during that day or whether the day was considered holy. There are no references in the chapter to the holy days of the Old Testament Whatever it was, the strong valued every day as the same for the purpose or activity that he or she had in mind. (3) Concern of Paul. Paul dedicates only two verses to the subject of “days” and about 21 to the issue of food. Had he been discussing the Sabbath he would have had to develop his thought much more because of the potential controversial nature of this subject. Therefore, to say the Sabbath is a matter of liberty and conscience is not warranted, because in the first place, the issue in Romans 14 was not Sabbath, not even the Old Testament.[8]

Third, his fourth argument completely collides to the immediate context of Deuteronomy 5:15. The immediate context states:

“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do.” (vv. 12-14, emphasis added)

The term “foreigner” highly suggests that this command is not exclusively given for Israelites alone. A universal dimension to the weekly Sabbath is clearly implied in this text (v. 14).[9] Thus, the argument of Zandro Ganipan cannot stand on the immediate context of Deuteronomy 5:15.

Fourth, regarding to his fifth argument, allow me to focus on his argument on Colossians 2:14. Here our critic suggests that the Seventh-day Sabbath was nailed on the cross. Allow me to present to you the two proposed Adventist solutions regarding with this contention: (1) Ceremonial Sabbaths. The popular interpretation argues that the Sabbaths refer to the ceremonial Sabbaths. This traditional interpretation asserts that the Sabbaths in Colossians 2:14-16 were part of Hebrew ceremonial system – with its feast, new moon celebrations, and various Sabbaths, symbols pointing forward to the work of the Sabbath. In contrast to the Seventh-day Sabbath, it points back to the creation, and it was instituted long ago before the Hebrew ceremonial system, and was encoded in the Decalogue, as no ceremony was. Thus, the “Sabbaths” were clearly ceremonial ones, and not the moral Sabbath of the Decalogue.[10] (2) Colossian Heresy. The second proposal suggests that Paul is reacting to syncretistic practices[11] promoted by the false teachers with respect to eating, drinking and festivals (2:22; 8). Paul is in fact warning “the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but against ‘anyone’ (tis) who passes judgment on how to eat, to drink, and to observe sacred times. The judge who passed judgment is not Paul but the Colossian false teachers who imposed ‘regulations’ (Col 2:20) on how to observe these practices in order to achieve ‘rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body’ (Col 2:23). Therefore, what Paul is rejecting is not “the teachings of Moses but their perverted use by the Colossian false teachers.”[12]

Lastly, his answer to my last question on my cross examination gives dubious account to the number of literatures that proves that “the church substituted Sunday for Saturday.” The burden of proof lies on the person who claimed that they had the power to change such law.[13]

Thus, I have maintained the position that the Seventh-day Sabbath was not only given to the Jews alone.

[1] Allow me to commend first, again, the honesty of Zandro Ganipan on conceding that he can’t prove his stand on the Bible. His sincerity to the truth is quite unparalleled compared to the other debaters here in Debate Forum. Even though it is quite odd that we are still pursuing this debate (because our Moderator, whose a member of Iglesia ni Kristo, insisted so) – we are uninterrupted for the sake of truth! Follow our discussion: (1) The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites by Zandro Ganipan [Courtesy Introduction]; (2) The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites by Jaymark Molo [Courtesy Introduction] ; (3) The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites by Zandro Ganipan [Affirmative]; (4) The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites by Jaymark Molo  [Cross Examination]; (5) The Seventh-day Sabbath Was Given Only to the Israelites by Zandro Ganipan [Cross Examination Answer]

[2] Yet, I believed that they (Sunday worshippers) would be part of the propaganda movement of anti Christ in the last portion of the end time.

[3] George R. Knight, Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2003), 153.

[4] Ellen G. White, Manuscript 118, 1899.

[5] See, Anthony Macpherson, “The Mark of the Beast as a ‘Sign Commandment’ and ‘Anti Sabbath’ in the Worship Crisis of Revelation 12-14,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, 43, Vol. 2 (2005): 267 – 283. See also, Norman R. Gulley, “Good News About The Time of Trouble,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 7/2 (Autumn 1996): 125-141; Norman R. Gulley, “The Battle Against the Sabbath and its End-time Importance,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 5/2 (Autumn 1994): 79-115; John Paulien, “Revisiting the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998): 179-186.

[6] I am quite disappointed to the answers that our critic had given to my cross-examination. In my humble opinion; some are irrelevant (see his answers in question/s # 1, 4); some are presumptuous (see his answer in question/s # 2, 3). Yet, I do not question his motive in answering my questions.

[7] Interestingly, during our cross-examination, he used Hebrews 4:8-9 to substantiate his point; unfortunately, even their Catholic Bible will not agree to his view, for it says, “There must still be, therefore, a seventh-day rest reserved for God’s people.” (Heb. 4:9, New Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added)

[8] See, Angel Manuel Rodriguez, The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective,” Biblical Research Institute, pp. 1-35.

[9] See, H. R. Cole, “The Sabbath and the Alien, ”Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Autumn 2000): 223-229.

[10] See a recent study, Ron du Preez, Judging the Sabbath: Discovering What Can’t Be Found in Colossians 2:16 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2008).

[11] For an extended discussion of Gnosticism, see Ibid. (1982), 2:484–90. For other useful works, see Francis D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, l957), 6:54–9; Justo L. Gonzalez. A History of Christian Thought (Nashville: Abingdon, l970), 1:128–44; Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, l970), 51–5; Colin Brown, Christianity & Western Thought (Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity, l990), 70–82.

[12] See the works, Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament: Answers to Questions (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 2000), 75-87; Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Biblical Analysis of Recent Sunday Developments (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1999), 229-247.

[13] See, Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Ayers Publishing, 1978): 108; Stephen Keenan, Catholic—Doctrinal Catechism 3rd Edition: 174; Our Sunday Visitor (February 5, 1950); Louis Gaston Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1874): 213; The Catholic Mirror (September 23, 1893); Catholic Record (September 1, 1923); The Question Box,” The Catholic Universe Bulletin (August 14, 1942): 4.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Contemporary Christian Music and Seventh-day Adventist Church

Contemporary Christian Music and Seventh-day Adventist Church

by Rutherona Jae Ballenas[1]

A friendly dialogue between  Rutherona Jae Ballenas and Mc Raven regarding the cotemporary music inside the Adventist Church. 

Bakit ang Seventh-day Adventist ngayon parang born again na ang type of worship? Its like, rock and roll inside the church. Go to MAMC college church.

Its because of TIME. As time changes, people change too. That is how our styles of music, from ancient to modern,change. A fact that can’t be denied and is taking place too, not only in the SDA church but also in other religions.

hands raised: church worship background

hands raised: church worship background (Photo credit: Brian A Petersen)

So you think its right? Should we just go on the flow on what is happening today? What if the doctrine will soon be change? Will it be alright? We should be firm on our first belief, it is written that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. So just imagine if you will ask Jesus regarding the changes today if its alright, will your reasons be acceptable for him? Think brethren. We should not compromise our faith.

With all due respect to you brother Mc Raven, this is what I privately think.

I can’t say whether its right or wrong, for style of music is morally neutral, depending on the cultural context. As our SDA Guideline puts it: “We should recognize and acknowledge the contribution of different cultures in worshiping God. Musical forms and instruments vary greatly in the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist family, and music drawn from one culture may sound strange to someone from a different culture.” So, we can’t judge them easily without knowing their reasons why. Judging them right away might lead to division and non-profitable thinking of other brethren against them. Understanding them is a must.

Another thing is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been going on with the flow of change in the years since the time it was founded. Here are the number of instances where we joyfully adapt the style of other religions: Usage of piano, usage of violins, singing CCMs as special number, singing gospel songs, songs of Sally Deford, using minus one, etc. All of these are results of time itself. Year 1849, publication of our 1st SDA Hymnal, mostly imitated from the Millerite’s Movement Hymnal. (Companion on to the SDA Hymnal, p. 12). But before that, hymns have been a great trend in other churches especially in Lutheran Church. Accompaniments are greatly denied too before especially the organ. (The Story of Christian Music, pp. 76-77) What is amusing here is that all of these were denied as a style of worship, but today they are accepted style of worship. We should be firm with our “faith”, but we should be flexible to our form of “practice”.

Now, I concur to your argument that God is same yesterday today and tomorrow, unfortunately; we are humans, not God. In addition to that, we must be very careful on taking this text out of context, for the immediate context of Hebrews 13:8, admonishes us to remember our leaders by imitating their faith, and it has nothing to do with the style of worship.

Regarding to your reflective question: “So just imagine if you will ask Jesus regarding the changes today if its alright, will your reasons be acceptable for him?”

This is the response of Paul: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”

Contextualization (adapting to change) without compromising his faith is the missionary style of Paul. Thus, perhaps, he would agree to this beautiful saying: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Please check the Philosophy of Seventh-day Adventist in Music.

[1] Edited by Jaymark Molo

Tagged ,

Cryptic Mathematical Hermeneutics of Wilfredo Hepolongca: Form of Historicist?

Cryptic Mathematical Hermeneutics of Wilfredo Hepolongca: Form of Historicist?

by Jaymark Molo

A friendly dialogue between Simul Justus Et Peccator and Wilfredo Hepolongca regarding to the validity of his (WH) hermeneutical approach.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: Where did you get that hermeneutical method that you need to put numbers in each corresponding letters, Wilfredo Hepolongca?


Wilfredo Hepolongca:  Thanks for your query Simul. Its the medium of prophecy (SYMBOLS & FIGURES from the EAST) that the ‘2nd Witnessing’ used by applying HISTORICISM on Chart. The ‘2nd Witnessing’ UNITES with the ‘first witnessing’ from the spirit of prophecy (DREAMS & VISIONS from the WEST) during the days of the voice of the seventh angel when the MYSTERY OF GOD SHOULD BE FINISHED ( Rev. 10: 7 ). The voice of the SEVENTH angel ( Rev. 10: 7 ) is no other than the voice of the SEVENTH-Day Adventist Church!

Simul Justus Et Peccator: I believe in HISTORICISM; but it seems to me that you are misrepresenting the TRADITIONAL SCHOOL BELIEF (for Historicism does not work with putting numbers in each corresponding letters; i.e., G [7] O [15] L [12] D [4]). I hope we are following with my question. Now again, “where did you get that hermeneutical method that you need to put NUMBERS IN EACH CORRESPONDING LETTERS, Wilfredo Hepolongca? Could you give me a biblical parallel and Spirit of Prophecy allusion to your hermeneutical method

Wilfredo Hepolongca: As I have said…The SYMBOLS & FIGURES from the EAST that were used is just a medium of prophecy under the ‘2nd witnessing.’ And by applying it on Chart..HISTORICISM comes into view that agree with the spirit of prophecy under the ‘first witnessing’ ( DREAMS & VISIONS by Mrs. White ) from the WEST.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: “2nd witnessing”? Is it possible for me to look the biblical/SOP references to that?

Wilfredo Hepolongca:  For EXAMPLE…The DIVIDING LINE between the words JEWS and GENTILES by applying SYMBOLS & FIGURES, we have ‘34’ as the link in between the CODE under the words ‘JEWS’-57 and the CODE under the words ‘GENTILES’-91. We get this ‘34’ as the difference between 91-57=34. What then is meant by this ’34 marking’ and what does it prove in history by applying HISTORICISM?

1.The signal to preach the gospel everywhere that was given by Christ earlier in Mark 1: 15 became effective in 34 AD!( 3 ½ years later after Christ’s death in 31 AD).’It was manifested in history as the fulfillment of the time prophecy in Daniel 9 :24’s ‘seventy ( prophetic) weeks’ that transpired in 34 AD when the gospel is no longer restricted to the Jewish nation, the gospel was then opened to the Gentiles and was preached all over the world!

2. Christ removed the dividing line that existed between the JEWS and the GENTILES by replacing it with the same ‘34’ marking which bear witness of the true gospel message ( 3rd angel’s message to be followed by the 4th angel’s message-Rev. 18: 1) to be preached all over the world benefiting both JEWS and GENTILES established in one body united through the cross at the time of His death ( 3PM ) and burial ( 4PM)!

All supports and evidence from the spirit of prophecy are mentioned in the attachments that I forwarded to you.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: I am not looking for HERMENEUTICAL INTERPRETATIONS, but HERMENEUTICAL GROUNDS. You’ve simply used MATHEMATICAL METHOD, without even presenting that the Biblical writers nor Ellen White uses that. That simply commits the fallacy of begging the question. Again,” where did you get that hermeneutical method that you need to put NUMBERS IN EACH CORRESPONDING LETTERS, Wilfredo Hepolongca? Could you give me a biblical parallel and Spirit of Prophecy allusion to your hermeneutical method?

I hope it is clear to you that I am looking for Biblical references (including in the Spirit of Prophecy) where the prophets used the hermeneutical method that you just used.

Wilfredo Hepolongca: SYMBOL means a SIGN used to represent a quantity or a relation as in MATHEMATICS. Remember that GOD is the greatest Mathematician and this was disclose through the ORACLES of GOD contained in the Bible.

Simul Justus Et Peccator: No doubt that SYMBOLS are SIGNS; but where in the Bible (including SOP) that says symbols are signs that requires each LETTER TO BE TRANSLATED AS NUMBERS?

I have seen your attachment already; but your files simply commits the fallacy of begging the question friend Wilfredo Hepolongca.

FACT: No biblical writers, nor Ellen White employed that MATHEMATICAL HERMENEUTIC METHOD. This is NOT HISTORICIST METHOD, but simply a misrepresentation of it. Unless Wilfredo Hepolongca can show to us some references (even allusions) that the Biblical writers (including Ellen White) have used that method; then it is only wise to entertain his cryptic interpretations. Unfortunately, as of now, his interpretations are found wanting to be validated.

Wilfredo Hepolongca: Isaiah 28: 10-11 Line upon line, precept upon precept, ANOTHER TONGUE will He speak to this people. T
his ANOTHER TONGUE being mentioned in Isa. 28: 10-11 does not refer to the HEBREW tongue but the next ENGLISH tongue as a SIGN for prophesying. How come are you telling me that my use of interpretation by using the ENGLISH tongue is not biblical

“In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new. But it is the light which shines in the fresh unfolding of truth that glorifies the old. He who rejects or neglects the new does not really possess the old. For him it loses it’s vital power and becomes but a lifeless form.” (Ellen G. White

Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 127)

Wilfredo Hepolongca: “Truths vast and profound are shadowed forth in its rites and symbols. The gospel is the key that unlocks its mysteries. Through a knowledge of the plan of redemption, its truths are opened to the understanding. Far more than we do, it is our privilege to understand these wonderful themes. We are to comprehend the deep things of God.” (Ellen G. White, COL 133)

Simul Justus Et Peccator: With all due respect, Wilfredo Hepolongca.

Isaiah 28:10-11 says, “line upon line” NOT “numbers upon letters”.

Isaiah 28:10-11 says, “another tongue” NOT “another method of interpretation”.

Christ’s Object Lessons pg 127-128 says, “new truth is not independent of the old” NOT “new truth is not dependent of the old”.

Christ’s Object Lessons pg 127-128 says, “old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new” NOT “”old truths are understood if it is different with the new”.

Christ’s Object Lessons pg 133 says, “the gospel is the key that unlocks its mysteries” NOT “the numbers is the key that unlocks its mysteries”.

Thus, your references are quite irrelevant to your HERMENEUTICAL METHOD—all of them committed again the fallacy of begging the question.

Wilfredo Hepolongca: If Mrs. White has been blessed with the ENGLISH tongue in writing down the ‘first witnessing’ from the spirit of prophecy ( DREAMS & VISIONS ) then…are you still DOUBTFUL why the same ENGLISH tongue was used in writing down the ‘2nd witnessing’ ( SYMBOLS & FIGURES )? What lack of faith do you have in considering all these?

Wilfredo Hepolongca: This is the reason why the wisdom of understanding the ‘spirit of prophecy’ was given to the UNLEARNED…considering the fact that many LEARNED men lack the divine wisdom to comprehend things from above!

Simul Justus Et Peccator: Forgive me, but Ellen White used ENGLISH TOUNGE, not CRYPTIC MATH. Let me give my final attempt to make clear things out:

METHOD OF INTERPRETATION: Put numbers in each corresponding letters in each corresponding letters (i.e., The DIVIDING LINE between the words JEWS and GENTILES by applying SYMBOLS & FIGURES, we have ‘34’ as the link in between the CODE under the words ‘JEWS’-57 and the CODE under the words ‘GENTILES’-91).

BASIS FOR METHOD OF INTERPRETATION: Bible: None; Spirit of Prophecy: None

INTERPRETATION: We get this ‘34’ as the difference between 91-57=34.

Your hermeneutical interpretation is pure wishful thinking and until now, that methodology is crying to be vindicated.

Tagged , , , ,