8een4Tfor
Joined 5 June 2010
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 189.61.0.190 in topic Reference
This is the place...
Editing Edward Heppenstall edit
It seems we have a dispute or revert war occurring. What you call heresy I may call non NPOV. Articles are supposed to be written from a NPOV, which I feel both Willfults (talk) and yourself have violated. I am trying to provide a balance by recognizing the statements of Ellen G. White on perfection which provide arguments for either side of the Historic Adventist debate. Fountainviewkid 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- In order to do it properly your need a source that says that Ellen and the Historic Adventists believed the same. Quoting Ellen is OR on your part, you are choosing what from Ellen you think is important. That is OR. And She is a primary source, you need secondary sources which talk about Ellen. Historian Knight is the primary source for this article. You need sources like Knight to support the Historic Adventist position. 8een4Tfor (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do have sources that talk about White and the Historic Adventist position being the same or at least very similar, for example Bull & Lockhart. I disagree with your characterization that the Knight book is the primary source for Edward Heppenstall as Bull & Lockhart are used just as frequently. Furthermore, Bull & Lockhart are not Adventist yet are considered to have written "The most authoritative study of Seventh-day Adventism". Additionally, there is nothing wrong with using a primary source especially since, this article is not directly focused on Ellen G. White. Notice that this article "chooses" from her what it wants. Both sides have done that in this article which I believe is fair since it provides a "balance" to make it on the whole more NPOV. Fountainviewkid 2:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- more than 80% of the document comes from Knight. Bull and Lockhart are minor additions later. It is not OK to use Ellen to prove a position, because different people quote the same quote and arrive at different conclusion. You need a second party analysis of Ellen's writings to show what she believed. 8een4Tfor (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- 50% Knight (6 quotes), 30% Bull & Lockhart (3 quotes), 10% Ellen White (1 quote), 10% Audio Verse (1 quote). That's different numbers than what you got. If you would like however I could easily, to quote you, "massacre" this article with many more citations from Bull & Lockhart, who argue that Andreasen was consistent in the traditional SDA position. As for using Ellen G. White, she can be used since she is discussed in a mixed context within this article. If Knight uses her to talk about Heppenstahl returning to a focus on grace, then others can use to her to talk about perfection. If you want a second party analysis, however, Bull & Lockhart provide it and even reference her as is duly noted in the article. I find your use hypocritical as you only want to see her statements used if it fits your position. By contrast, I'm willing to allow both sides on this article. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not remove relevant citations as you did on Edward Heppenstall. You may disagree with an item in the article, but that doesn't give you the right to remove citations, unless there is some agreement among the editors. Also you are trying to change the wording which is in line with several of the sources quoted, mainly Bull & Lockhart. Feel free to add Knight language along with this, but don't remove based on only one source. Fountainviewkid 1:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your quote from Ellen is extremely vague. You at the very least you need page number and you need to put the reference in valid WP format. Knight was the primary source for this article. Other valid sources can be added. the comment by Ellen can be taken different ways. The way it is used implies that Heppenstall contradicts Ellen, when in fact he agrees with her 100 percent. It would be worth you while to read what Heppenstall has actually written. Heppenstall agrees with Ellen, but disagrees with Andreasen who twisted Ellen's writings. Andreasen nearly lead the church into abject salvation by works. Which is why other church's were saying that Adventists were not Christian. Heppenstall and others such as Morris Venden were instrumental in bringing the church back to the Biblical salvation by faith alone. Andreasen was teaching that salvation was by faith AND works. But Salvation is by faith alone and works are the fruit of salvation, not an additional requirement for salvation. Sanctification is by faith too, for we cannot make ourselves holy. But, we become sanctified through God's power, not our works. We change by God's power, not our will. Our works come out of our love for God, not out of fear of hell fire. 8een4Tfor (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the quote is vague, then feel free to find a better source, rather than just removing it. I didn't post the quote, but I am defending its use especially within the context of the article. You keep making the false statement that Knight is the primary source for the article. As I have already noted he is the most quoted source, not necessarily the primary one. Not every article has to have a "primary" source. You argue that Heppenstall agrees 100% with White, which is a very much disputed point. Your problem is that you see opinion as fact and contradicting opinion as fiction. That is not the way Wikipedia works. The articles are made up of multiple points of view. I have read a lot of what Heppenstall wrote as well as what others have said about him. Again it depends on one's perspective which side you come down on. I personally believe, Bull & Lockhart duly note that Heppenstall in some ways departed from traditional SDA views that had been in place since Ellen White's time, some of which she is on record as having affirmed. There are many who argue that it is Andreasen who agrees with Ellen White and Heppenstall who twists her writings. I did not say I agree with that statement, but my point is not to merely enforce my viewpoint as you seem to be doing. I believe both viewpoints should be recognized: your view which many progressive and centrist SDA's endorse and the Historic Adventist view (which you charge with heresy). Other churches have always said the SDA church is not "Christian", a fact Ellen White was fine with as long as we kept to our core doctrines and lived as Christians. You make another false statement when you charge Andreasen with teaching faith and works for salvation. That is a statement he would dispute as he believed in salvation by faith. It is your interpretation of his writings that leads you to such a position. If that is true then up to 1957 the SDA church was not teaching salvation by faith, which is rather interesting since Ellen White affirmed the salvation message as early as 1888 long before Heppenstall. I will not get into a theological debate with you on this, for that is not relevant to the discussion. I would kindly suggest that you refrain from edits that only enforce one point of view on a controversial issue. Religious truth is more complex than you might realize. Fountainviewkid 5:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've been reading Bull, etc.. Since they do not understand SDA theology (being non-SDA) they make many blind statements. They cannot even understand why Andreasen was rejected and Heppenstall accepted other than to say it must be some kind of cultural thing of that particular era. They are basically clueless. Their book is sort of a history, but they have NO insight. Yes, Ellen affirmed salvation by faith through grace, but after her death in 1918, the church was dragged into the direction of salvation by works and Andreasen was leading the way. He was hiding it by saying that Salvation came by faith AND by our works. I remember hearing sermons preached on that very topic back in the 50s and 60s. Happily, Heppenstall, et. al., came along and put us back in line with Ellen's Salvation by faith alone as presented in 'Steps to Christ'. 8een4Tfor (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow I do not believe what I just saw from you. According to many sources on both the Historic SDA and Progressive SDA camps Bull & Lockhart wrote the most definitive book on American Seventh-day Adventism. Bull & Lockhart explain the debate over QOD in a very balanced manner. That is probably why you don't favor them since you come down very strongly in a biased manner opposed to Andreasen and the Historic Adventists. FYI Bull & Lockhart are former Adventists, one raised strongly in the church, and very much understanding of the reasons for Andreasen's rejection by some elements in the SDA community. As for the Fundamentalist revival controversy yes there was debate over her influence and salvation, but it's not as simple as saying "salvation by faith and works". You have a bad tendency of oversimplifying issues to suit an ideological agenda. Even those who agree with your position such as Julius Nam and Ron Numbers recognize that the issues are much more complex. It was not Andreasen is bad, Heppenstall is our good Saviour to return us to Ellen White as you assert. Instead the question is, was Andreasen going to far in his focus on sanctification and crossing the line into legalism or was he simply following along the pattern established by Ellen White? That question is not a simple one. The next next that must be asked is, what effect did Heppenstall have, and what were his motives in moving the church against the Andreasen view? Again another question that can't be answered as simply. Perhaps I need to quote a few prominent SDA historians, academics, and professors, but then again you'd say they didn't understand Adventism either, even though they've studied it far more in-depth than you may have. Fountainviewkid 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Former Adventists? Well that explains their lack of insight! It's the same for Numbers and his silly books "Ellen White: prophetess of Health" and "The Creationists" The are a sort of history, but specifically designed to twist the facts to emphasize doubt and distrust. His 'Ellen' book is a joke. In his preface he specifically states that he was going to write from the viewpoint that there is no god and so there is no such thing as prophets for this non-existent god to talk to. So the only thing left to influence Ellen is the writings of mere men and her fantasies. In the 'Creationists' he searches for and finds every negative thing possible to report. And he is completely clueless about science and the philosophies it depends upon. Numbers has deliberately set out to undermine God and the SDA church. Yet these are what are held up as "scholaraly" works! What utter nonsense. 8een4Tfor (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not for you to judge how "scholarly" sources are once they pass a certain test, which they definitely do. I could give you the same statements from leadings scholars WITHIN the SDA church. Fountainviewkid 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I invite you to visit the Wikipedia:Vandalism page before making such bold accusations. It says "Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such", "NPOV contraventions" are not vandalism, and finally Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is also not vandalism. Fountainviewkid 3:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not for you to judge how "scholarly" sources are once they pass a certain test, which they definitely do. I could give you the same statements from leadings scholars WITHIN the SDA church. Fountainviewkid 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Former Adventists? Well that explains their lack of insight! It's the same for Numbers and his silly books "Ellen White: prophetess of Health" and "The Creationists" The are a sort of history, but specifically designed to twist the facts to emphasize doubt and distrust. His 'Ellen' book is a joke. In his preface he specifically states that he was going to write from the viewpoint that there is no god and so there is no such thing as prophets for this non-existent god to talk to. So the only thing left to influence Ellen is the writings of mere men and her fantasies. In the 'Creationists' he searches for and finds every negative thing possible to report. And he is completely clueless about science and the philosophies it depends upon. Numbers has deliberately set out to undermine God and the SDA church. Yet these are what are held up as "scholaraly" works! What utter nonsense. 8een4Tfor (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow I do not believe what I just saw from you. According to many sources on both the Historic SDA and Progressive SDA camps Bull & Lockhart wrote the most definitive book on American Seventh-day Adventism. Bull & Lockhart explain the debate over QOD in a very balanced manner. That is probably why you don't favor them since you come down very strongly in a biased manner opposed to Andreasen and the Historic Adventists. FYI Bull & Lockhart are former Adventists, one raised strongly in the church, and very much understanding of the reasons for Andreasen's rejection by some elements in the SDA community. As for the Fundamentalist revival controversy yes there was debate over her influence and salvation, but it's not as simple as saying "salvation by faith and works". You have a bad tendency of oversimplifying issues to suit an ideological agenda. Even those who agree with your position such as Julius Nam and Ron Numbers recognize that the issues are much more complex. It was not Andreasen is bad, Heppenstall is our good Saviour to return us to Ellen White as you assert. Instead the question is, was Andreasen going to far in his focus on sanctification and crossing the line into legalism or was he simply following along the pattern established by Ellen White? That question is not a simple one. The next next that must be asked is, what effect did Heppenstall have, and what were his motives in moving the church against the Andreasen view? Again another question that can't be answered as simply. Perhaps I need to quote a few prominent SDA historians, academics, and professors, but then again you'd say they didn't understand Adventism either, even though they've studied it far more in-depth than you may have. Fountainviewkid 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've been reading Bull, etc.. Since they do not understand SDA theology (being non-SDA) they make many blind statements. They cannot even understand why Andreasen was rejected and Heppenstall accepted other than to say it must be some kind of cultural thing of that particular era. They are basically clueless. Their book is sort of a history, but they have NO insight. Yes, Ellen affirmed salvation by faith through grace, but after her death in 1918, the church was dragged into the direction of salvation by works and Andreasen was leading the way. He was hiding it by saying that Salvation came by faith AND by our works. I remember hearing sermons preached on that very topic back in the 50s and 60s. Happily, Heppenstall, et. al., came along and put us back in line with Ellen's Salvation by faith alone as presented in 'Steps to Christ'. 8een4Tfor (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the quote is vague, then feel free to find a better source, rather than just removing it. I didn't post the quote, but I am defending its use especially within the context of the article. You keep making the false statement that Knight is the primary source for the article. As I have already noted he is the most quoted source, not necessarily the primary one. Not every article has to have a "primary" source. You argue that Heppenstall agrees 100% with White, which is a very much disputed point. Your problem is that you see opinion as fact and contradicting opinion as fiction. That is not the way Wikipedia works. The articles are made up of multiple points of view. I have read a lot of what Heppenstall wrote as well as what others have said about him. Again it depends on one's perspective which side you come down on. I personally believe, Bull & Lockhart duly note that Heppenstall in some ways departed from traditional SDA views that had been in place since Ellen White's time, some of which she is on record as having affirmed. There are many who argue that it is Andreasen who agrees with Ellen White and Heppenstall who twists her writings. I did not say I agree with that statement, but my point is not to merely enforce my viewpoint as you seem to be doing. I believe both viewpoints should be recognized: your view which many progressive and centrist SDA's endorse and the Historic Adventist view (which you charge with heresy). Other churches have always said the SDA church is not "Christian", a fact Ellen White was fine with as long as we kept to our core doctrines and lived as Christians. You make another false statement when you charge Andreasen with teaching faith and works for salvation. That is a statement he would dispute as he believed in salvation by faith. It is your interpretation of his writings that leads you to such a position. If that is true then up to 1957 the SDA church was not teaching salvation by faith, which is rather interesting since Ellen White affirmed the salvation message as early as 1888 long before Heppenstall. I will not get into a theological debate with you on this, for that is not relevant to the discussion. I would kindly suggest that you refrain from edits that only enforce one point of view on a controversial issue. Religious truth is more complex than you might realize. Fountainviewkid 5:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your quote from Ellen is extremely vague. You at the very least you need page number and you need to put the reference in valid WP format. Knight was the primary source for this article. Other valid sources can be added. the comment by Ellen can be taken different ways. The way it is used implies that Heppenstall contradicts Ellen, when in fact he agrees with her 100 percent. It would be worth you while to read what Heppenstall has actually written. Heppenstall agrees with Ellen, but disagrees with Andreasen who twisted Ellen's writings. Andreasen nearly lead the church into abject salvation by works. Which is why other church's were saying that Adventists were not Christian. Heppenstall and others such as Morris Venden were instrumental in bringing the church back to the Biblical salvation by faith alone. Andreasen was teaching that salvation was by faith AND works. But Salvation is by faith alone and works are the fruit of salvation, not an additional requirement for salvation. Sanctification is by faith too, for we cannot make ourselves holy. But, we become sanctified through God's power, not our works. We change by God's power, not our will. Our works come out of our love for God, not out of fear of hell fire. 8een4Tfor (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not remove relevant citations as you did on Edward Heppenstall. You may disagree with an item in the article, but that doesn't give you the right to remove citations, unless there is some agreement among the editors. Also you are trying to change the wording which is in line with several of the sources quoted, mainly Bull & Lockhart. Feel free to add Knight language along with this, but don't remove based on only one source. Fountainviewkid 1:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- 50% Knight (6 quotes), 30% Bull & Lockhart (3 quotes), 10% Ellen White (1 quote), 10% Audio Verse (1 quote). That's different numbers than what you got. If you would like however I could easily, to quote you, "massacre" this article with many more citations from Bull & Lockhart, who argue that Andreasen was consistent in the traditional SDA position. As for using Ellen G. White, she can be used since she is discussed in a mixed context within this article. If Knight uses her to talk about Heppenstahl returning to a focus on grace, then others can use to her to talk about perfection. If you want a second party analysis, however, Bull & Lockhart provide it and even reference her as is duly noted in the article. I find your use hypocritical as you only want to see her statements used if it fits your position. By contrast, I'm willing to allow both sides on this article. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- more than 80% of the document comes from Knight. Bull and Lockhart are minor additions later. It is not OK to use Ellen to prove a position, because different people quote the same quote and arrive at different conclusion. You need a second party analysis of Ellen's writings to show what she believed. 8een4Tfor (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do have sources that talk about White and the Historic Adventist position being the same or at least very similar, for example Bull & Lockhart. I disagree with your characterization that the Knight book is the primary source for Edward Heppenstall as Bull & Lockhart are used just as frequently. Furthermore, Bull & Lockhart are not Adventist yet are considered to have written "The most authoritative study of Seventh-day Adventism". Additionally, there is nothing wrong with using a primary source especially since, this article is not directly focused on Ellen G. White. Notice that this article "chooses" from her what it wants. Both sides have done that in this article which I believe is fair since it provides a "balance" to make it on the whole more NPOV. Fountainviewkid 2:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, between the two of you, the Edward Heppenstall page is looking much better, just talk through it and do a balanced job in editing, and if you need any help, let me know....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Knight edit
Dr. Knight is the current President of Pacific Union College. There is currently a collaboration occurring to provide her with a suitable wiki-presence at WP:SDA/Heather J. Knight. I noticed your recent activity in WP:ADVENTIST and thought you may be interested in helping out.. your contributions are welcomed! BelloWello (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOCK edit
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Reference edit
A few years ago, you inserted a reference to Historicism (Christianity) and mentioned page numbers 802 and 1006 — without linking them to any specific occurrence of the references. Could you oblige, please?
- —189.61.0.190 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)