| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 90 Registered: 9-2006 |
Esther, I do see where the confusion can come in, and maybe I am wrong but I donít think so. (Rom 2:12 KJV) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Here Paul is talking about law again, notice the words ìShall be judgedî and this is the point where Adventist go awry on their thinking, I think what Paul is saying here is that if a person refuses to acknowledge Gods Law he will be judged without even the benefit of that (Atheist) in the second half of the verse he is saying that if a person recognizes God Law but is unable to keep it he will be judged by it (10 cís keeper) so it is still there to judge fully able to judge. Now the old covenant wore out when Jesus came because it was temporary, see the people killing and supplying their own sacrifice? Look at the story of Adam, Abraham and Isaac, God always furnishes the ample sacrifice for man is unable to do that. God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son but instead, sacrificed his own Son, Christ Jesus, offering us a new covenant which is not grievous but just as serious, to love and forgive one another as he forgave ìFather forgive themî the Law of love in Christ Jesus. Some will be judged by the 10 cís, and this is where it gets scary, the ones who try to attain righteousness through law keeping for in effect they are saying that Christ was not enough, now it gets really hairy, the one who acknowledges Jesus (Claims the cross of Christ)and still try to attain salvation through law keeping, be it Sabbath keeping or what ever one or all of these commands you might pick out (now who does that sound like?) You cannot undo a broken command by the attempting to keep it. You see we only come by the new covenant when we are born of the spirit, when we take on Christ as our atonement, Christ fulfilled the law in our behalf, but there will be many lost, that is why I fear for my Adventist friends who try to attain salvation through mental, dietary, EGW, Sabbath means, well they say they fear for me because I donít keep the Sabbath but they do not understand that I have rested from my works, have reached the end of toil through Christ Jesus my rest, so me and my friends are at a Mexican stand off so to speak (no racial slur intended) my Sabbath lasts more than one day, it is 24/7 so Saturday is covered. Love is a command and not an option. So the old covenant of the blood of bulls and goats didnít have to be ìDone awayî with, it just grew old and died at the cross. I hear people say that the Law was nailed to the cross and I cringe inwardly at that, it was not the Law that was nailed to that cross it was Jesus who was nailed to that cross. Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf so that we could have life, paid our price for law breaking, he never broke any. The law is still able to judge, a good read is ìSinners in the hands of an angry Godî A good test is to just get a short version of the 10 cís, get quiet somewhere and read them one at a time and ask yourself to remember the ones you know you broke, stand before god with a tender conscience and see if it doesnít make you want to throw yourself at the feet of the savior. Come back and tell me what you think of the experience. I tried the experiment and again saw Christ as my only hope. The Law condemns our hearts and drives us to the cross, our only hope Christ Jesus. Hereís my two cents, now between us we have four cents, if we keep going weíll have enough for soda pop. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1508 Registered: 7-2003 |
There was no disagreement my ex and I had near as intense as one about the role of EGW. My disrespect of her as a spiritual leader and 'inspired' would cause him to go running from the house like it was going to collapse in around him for the things I was saying about her writings contradicting not only themselves, but scripture. If EGW was optional, she wouldn't be in the fundamentals. I don't care HOW you claim she ranks, she's above any normal human being. No reputable evangelical scholar is in the fundamentals, not even their own scholars are in the fundamentals. Just EGW. That alone says something about her that is not extended to any other human being in ALL history. That's not incidental. | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 119 Registered: 8-2006 |
Walk, I see where you have agreed that the 10 commandments are part of the first covenant. Have you had a chance to read about the blood ratifying that covenant where I mentioned? Or have you moved on to forming your response to Ramone's second question? Blessings, Susan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 522 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Walk, Cool, cool. So now, not only are the 10C part of the Old Covenant, they are they very "words" of the Covenant. As we go back to the definition of "Covenant", we understand that it is an agreement between two parties with terms. What we see, then, is that God made a covenant agreement with Israel (Ex.19:5), and that its most basic terms were the Ten Commandments. If Israel obeyed, they would prosper, but if not... well, Deuteronomy 28. A mere forty days after had Israel agreed to the covenant, they were already breaking it by worshiping a golden calf! Moses came down the mountain and saw them, and he threw the "Tablets/Words of the Covenant" on the ground, showing that they had broken the covenant with God. (It would later be renewed, and continued being renewed up until King Josiah in 2 Kg.23, and then later again after the exiles returned). Now, with question number 3, we'll start to deal with the can of worms that this realization opens ("10C is OC"). ***** 3) Which "will" is in effect for us? The first? The last? Or both? (See Hebrews 8:6-7, 8:13 & 10:9-10 and 2nd Corinthians 3:6-16) ***** All these blessings in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 111 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear Tim and Leigh Anne: If I said, "Americans think George Bush is a great president." would you say that is an accurate statement? I rather doubt it. The truth is that some people do think Bush is a great president. But I don't and neither do many other Americans. So to say ìAmericans feel Bush is greatî would be a false statement. Now, if I were to say, ìAdventists believe Ellen White's writings have the same authority as the Bible.î would that be true or false? Just like the question about Bush, it is false. Obviously, there are some who do believe she and the Bible are on the same level. There are even some SDA's who put EGW above the Bible. But many donít and official church teaching says that EGW is a lesser light and the Bible is the greater light. The SDA Church says, "... her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They (EGW writings)also make clear that THE BIBLE IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH ALL TEACHING AND EXPERIENCE MUST BE TESTED. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) (Caps provided by me) That means I must test all things by the Bible, which I do. In fact, if I could only test things by Ellen White, I would have never begun to dialogue with you folks. But unlike the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness, I have the freedom as an Adventist to "test ALL things, and hold on to that which is good," This freedom also allows me to test Ellen White's writings. Which I do. In conclusion. Some SDA's do elevate Ellen White to a position unsupported by the SDA Church and unsupported by her writings. I do not do that and my guess (I canít prove it) would be that most do not. In fact, the truth be known, I find very few Adventists who do read much of Ellen White anymore. Blessings on you, WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 112 Registered: 9-2006 |
Ramone, I agree that the Ten Commandments were a part of the First Covenant but I am not prepared to say they WERE the covenant itself. The COI said, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." I do not see that as referring only to the 10 Commandments. As I said in my answer to Question 2 the entire sanctuary system was part of the First Covenant. If the 10 Commandments are the First Covenant, then perhaps we should throw out the 10-C's and keep all of the cerimonial law with its sacrifices and washings and sprinklings of blood. Show me where I am wrong about this. WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2006  |
Walkonwater, Thankyou for your explaination. "We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God." {1SM 161.2} | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 113 Registered: 9-2006 |
Tim and Leigh Anne and EVERYONE: One more thought on my last post to you. (Number 111) I believe my post to you was a very important one for all of us. When I hear people on this thread saying over and over again that Adventists put Ellen White equal to or above the Bible, they are making a false statement. If they said "Some Adventists put her equal to or above the Bible." that is true because, granted, some do! Granted some elevate EGW higher than the Bible. But thatís not Church teaching, thatís not what EGW taught and I personally believe thatís not what most SDAís do. When we are having discussions such as this, there is always the temptation to overstate oneís case. But when discussing truth it is IMPERITIVE to do our best to ALWAYS BE AS TRUTHFUL AS POSSIBLE. That goes for me and for everyone else. How on earth are we going to arrive at truth if we are willing to fudge on truth to make our case appear stronger? When Lone showed he had a better grasp on how a contract works than I did, I had to swallow my pride and say, ìYOU TRUMPED ME!!!î Did I feel like saying that? NO!! In fact I was embarrassed that I showed my ignorance. But what he said was truth and I MUST acknowledge that, whether I feel like it or not. Failure to be as truthful as possible in our search for truth is like trying to fly to New York with the propeller running backwards. WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2263 Registered: 3-2005 |
Walk, I have tried to follow this thread some. But back aways you were mentioning your experience with going to an Assembly of God church. After leaving Adventism I visited an AOG church often and had the same experience you did--shallow on theology, but big on experience. Also the constant talk of "God told me this" etc was also troublesome. As a result, it looks like you went back to an SDA church. However, I think there are better alternatives out there than either AOG or SDA. One example of this is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I find that it has a lot of good things that were associated with Adventism such as reverence in worship, with hymns being the emphasis. Also like SDAs they regard the law in high esteem. My wife and I are being blessed also by the in depth preaching of God's Word. There is no shallow theology in a PCA church. Just a suggestion. Adventism is really a counterfeit of the true Reformation faith of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Stan | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2006 |
"I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. ... God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept." Testimonies, Vol 5, p. 605 | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 329 Registered: 11-2004 |
I understand where you are coming from WalkonWater. I wasn't an EGW'er and rarely read what she had to say. As an Adventist I believed that only a few SDAs put her above the Bible. On the other side of it now I am looking from a new perspective. The issue basically goes to the infallibility of the Bible. Adventists (and I must include my past self in this statement) may not feel they are putting EGW above the Bible or equal to the Bible, but when EGW is viewed as inspired and she contradicts the Bible EGWs teachings trump. There are many Adventist doctrines that cannot be supported on the Bible alone. The contradictions between EGW and the Bible show that EGW is held as an equal or above the Bible. EGW is used as an interpretor and if the Bible is viewed as fallible that gives her a status that no person should have. The church does not specifically teach that EGW is above the Bible, but in application of theology the Bible is approached through her writings which does put her above the Bible. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 497 Registered: 7-2000 |
"The Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy." (Selected Messages, Book 3, page 30, paragraph 3.) (Absolutely impossible to deny this clear statement). Ellen says this: "If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves; if you lesson the confidence of God's people IN THE TESTIMONIES HE HAS SENT THEM, you are REBELLING AGAINST GOD as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Testimony to the Church Vol. 5, page 66, 1882 edition. (You canít ëpick and chooseí what you want to keep from Ellen. You canít discriminate between ëI sawí or ëI was showní ) And again: "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." ó Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905. There is no way, WOW, that you or anyone can honestly claim that EGW didn't put her writings on a par with Scripture. Here's more from some of the leading lights of Adventism: "Ministry" Magazine of October, 1981. Ron Graybill, who was then assistant secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, made this statement on page 8, " "We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White's writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other." SDA SABBATH SCHOOL QUARTERLY: "THE BIBLE AND THE WRITINGS OF ELLEN WHITE ARE INERRANT..." -- Feb. 11, 1978, Sabbath School-Quarterly; teacher's Edition, p. 112 LOUIS VENDEN: "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEGREE AND QUALITY DIMENSION OF THE INSPIRATION OF ANY BIBLICAL WRITER AND ELLEN WHITE...I believe that the Desire of Ages, for example, is just as high in quality or degree of inspiration as the Gospel according to Luke...What is the best way to keep it all in perspective and end up with ELLEN WHITE BEING FOR THIS CHURCH WHAT LUKE WAS for his generation and not one whit less in contribution and AUTHORITY." -- Louis Venden, as quoted on cassette tape "The Wilson Committee-Rea On Ellen G. White" GLACIER VIEW DOCUMENT: "...HER AUTHORITY TRANSCENDS THAT OF ALL NON-INSPIRED INTERPRETER' OF THE SCRIPTURES..." -- Cassette tape 8/23/80, Pacific Union College, in a discussion o Glacier View with Charles Bradford and Philip Follett. Follett was quoting from official Glacier View document: "The Relation of Ellen White's Writings in Doctrinal Studies" MORRIS VENDEN: "I'd like to take this position, that if you do not believe in the gift of prophecy, based on what the Bible has to say on it, that you don't believe in the Bible ...The primary purpose of the gift of prophecy in relationship to scripture is to confirm Scripture truth. WE TOOK THE POSITION LAST TIME THAT THE GIFT OF PROPHECY HAS EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH THE BIBLE AND EQUAL INSPIRATION WITH THE BIBLE." -- Morris L. Venden, Cassette tape #MY-312 "Church Body Building". Venden was specifically referring to Ellen G. White and the gift of prophecy in the Seventh-day Adventist church. RON GRAYBILL: "THE QUALITY OF INSPIRATION OF ELLEN WHITE IS EQUAL TO THAT OF THE BIBLE WRITERS..." -- Ron Graybill, at that time Assoc. Sec. EGW Estate, in talk given at Southern Missionary College 9/27/80 KENNETH WOOD: "ELLEN G. WHITE WAS INSPIRED IN THE SAME SENSE AS WERE THE BIBLE PROPHETS.'' -- Kenneth H. Wood, Editor "Review" as quoted in RH 9/4/80, p. 15 DON NEUFELD: "SHE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD AS WERE THE BIBLICAL WRITERS..." -- The late Don .Neufeld, Assoc. Editor "Review" as quoted in "What Ellen White Has Meant to Me,", p. 157 ROBERT OLSON: "I believe that BOTH ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE APOSTLE PAUL WERE TRUE PROPHETS WHO WROTE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. MY REASON FOR BELIEVING IN THE INSPIRATION OF ONE IS IDENTICAL WITH MY REASON FOR BELIEVING IN THE INSPIRATION OF THE OTHER."- Robert Olson, Sec. EGW Estate, as quoted in "What Ellen White Has Meant to Me," p. 165 Adventist doctrine, and the Adventist view of the Bible rise or fall on EGW. The SDA church does put her on a par with scripture. You just can't deny it. Bill | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 129 Registered: 8-2006 |
"Our position on the Testimonies is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out, and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone. . . Nothing is surer than this, that the message and the visions [of Mrs. White] belong together, and stand or fall together"(Review and Herald Supplement, Aug. 14, 1883). "The Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings] is a fundamental part of this message. . . Since the rise of this message, this denomination has believed in the Spirit of Prophecy. We have preached it as widely as we have the Sabbath and other kindred truths, and believe it as thoroughly. . . To us it makes a vast difference whether one whom we have regarded from the rise of this message as being endowed with the prophetic gift is a prophet of God, or whether she is not" (A Statement [by the General Conference Committee], May, 1906, pp. 10, 86). "In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661). "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 66). Here Ellen is placed on a level with all the Bible writers, both prophets and apostles. (See Heb. 1:1,2.) Any one who rejects or opposes her writings is branded as a rebel fighting against God. "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" (Testimonies, Vol. V., pp. 63-67). Wow Said, "Granted some elevate EGW higher than the Bible. But thatís not Church teaching, thatís not what EGW taught and I personally believe thatís not what most SDAís do." I am afraid that with the few examples mentioned above, I would have to respectfully disagree. Wow said, "How on earth are we going to arrive at truth if we are willing to fudge on truth to make our case appear stronger?" I agree 100%! | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 208 Registered: 11-2005 |
Walk--I used to get so frustrated when people would accuse Adventists of putting EGW above the Bible. I felt they were lumping SDAs in with Mormons and JWs. I would argue and argue that I followed the Bible, and Ellen White just helped to clarify things here and there, etc. But ultimately everything I knew, I could "prove" from the Bible. Even after I discovered that Ellen White was not a prophet, I thought that most of my Adventist theology would be able to remain the same. But the truth is, once I "threw" her out of the picture, and started just reading the Bible alone, I realized how tainted my theology was. I had no idea how much her writings influenced all of my Bible knowledge. And yes, you're right, there are many Adventists who don't read EGW's writings, but yet they still believe in "her" theology (they just don't know it's from her and not the Bible). Walk, I'm challenging you, as you think through Ramone's questions, and start to study the covenants, to simply JUST read what the Bible says, and take it for what it says. If you have to start rationalizing in your head for it to fit what you think it should say, pray that God will ground you in truth. If you do this, you can't help but be blessed. I promise you. But it will take an honest, open heart on your part. It will take risking "going there". The texts that Ramone has outlined about the covenants are very straight forward. It only becomes complicated when you try to see it through Adventist eyes (whether you think you are or not, believe me, you're influenced by it). I'm still continuing to pray for you, Walk. It's the most amazing life-changing miracle when that "veil" gets lifted (1 Cor 3:14-18). My favorite part of the passage: "Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 525 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Walk, I agree that the entire sanctuary system was part of the First Covenant. Yet if you notice in the Exodus account, the commands to build the sanctuary had not yet appeared. They were first given in Exodus chapters 25 to 31. The agreement you referenced ("Everything the Lord has said we will do") appears in Exodus 24:3. Interesting, no?  I also agree that the 10C were not the whole of the covenant. But Scripture does give them this title: "The words of the covenant." (Ex.34:28) Deuteronomy 4:13 also says, Scripture seems to be saying that the 10C were the foundation or essence of the covenant. They were the covenant in its most basic form, in its most condensed form. Dale Ratzlaff theorized that the 10C were the covenant in compact form, in condensed form. The "book of the law" (which also contained the 10C) was the covenant in expanded form, in elaborated and detailed form. This can be seen as we look throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There are many repeatings of various commands. All of the 10C are restated at least once in this "book of the law" -- the expanded version. A good example of this can be seen by looking at the commands in Exodus 34, which I'll put in bold letters, followed by the numbering the commands in parenthesis () - There are at least 13 commands stated here, although I put elipses (...) in and didn't subdivide, so actually there are more. But a lot of these commands we don't worry about today, and are clearly "old covenant". Notice that two or three of the Ten Commandments are re-stated. The Lord's opening and closing words in the passage are important to note: In sum - At the beginning God said: 1) I am making a covenant with you. (I will do this, and you must obey what I command you) 2) He then lists 13+ commands, including a few of the 10C 3) At the end, He said, "in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you" 4) He wrote down "the words of the covenantóthe Ten Commandments" From this passage, then, we learn that 1) All the 13+ commands were part of the covenant 2) The Ten Commandments are the "words" of the covenant 3) Hence, all of the covenant is contained in the Ten Commandments Basically it shows that all of the commands were the covenant, but that for whatever reasons, God only found it necessary to write those Ten on the "tablets of the covenant". Somehow, the Ten summarized everything concisely enough to be called the "words" of the covenant. ***** Okay, sorry, that was a bit long. But basically it shows that the 10C are the covenant in compact form, and the Book of the Law (including the 10C and all the other 603 commands) is the covenant in expanded form. It's not "The 10C and the other laws", but rather, the 10C are like the abbreviated form of all the other laws. Hope this makes sense, especially with the way it fits Exodus 34 and all the other texts for Question #2. Again, because the 10C were the covenant in its most basic essence, Moses showed the Israelites had broken the covenant when he broke the 10C after they danced to the golden calf. Let me know what you think of this new way to view the 10C and their relationship to the "other laws" based on the texts & passages given. Blessings in Christ to you, Walk. In Him, Ramone | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 302 Registered: 6-2006  |
Ramone, I'm really loving your posts. Your explainations are so clear and I'm learning things that I've never thought of. Even though I've been raised with Old/New covenant teaching, it's not something I've been able to fully wrap my brain around. Bless you! Leigh Anne | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 122 Registered: 8-2006 |
I do remember WOW saying he was going to approach this study using the bible only, and not EGW. I think he also said he doesn't read much of her anymore. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but even if he does, WOW has said he is going to just look at the bible, and I am going to accept his word on that. Church teaching officially says that Ellen White is not on the same level as the bible. In practice, many of us formers have found that to be the opposite, and the posts here by others and even EGW herself support that belief. The complicating factor is there are many people who are in high leadership positions who believe her writings are on a par, but the church has not said that. I think it's duplicitous, but if we are going to look at what is OFFICIALLY said versus what we have experienced to be true, we will not come to the same conclusion all around. I suppose the emphasis on EGW for individual Adventists has a lot to do with where you live and what the emphasis is, what particular church you belong to, how conservative or liberal, etc. While I and most, if not all, formers understand that every doctrine is based on EGW's theology, many Adventists do not agree with that position, nor may they be as knowledgeable about church history as many of us are. I personally pray that if we stick with the study that started this thread and, not ignoring the issues raised here but perhaps limit it to the questions, I believe that in time these other issues will come up and can be addressed. In turn, I believe the issue of Ellen will fall into place. At least that's my fervent prayer, and I trust the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to us when we honestly and prayfully study God's word. Dear Jesus, please take my feeble words and transform them to the reader to see the prayer of my heart that this study of the covenants is important to understanding many things. Susan | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 114 Registered: 9-2006 |
Been too involved with things to respond to anything. I'll respond as soon as I can. WalkOnWater | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 115 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear Lone: Thanks for all the quotes. I personally know some of the people you quoted. Those quotes persuade me that there are people in the SDA Church who have said a lot of very foolish things about Ellen White's writings. The other day Colleen mentioned a meeting in Oregon in which it sounds as if similar foolish statements were made. Having said that, I still maintain it is false to categorically say that Adventists put Ellen White on a par with or higher than the Bible. Some do, some donít. As for the people you mention who appear to elevate her to an unrealistic position, I can add another name. At PUC one of my teachers was Dr. Hyde. The following statement appeared in a midterm exam. True/False Every word written by Ellen White was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Without hesitation I marked the statement ìFalseî. And of course I was marked "wrong". I took the test to the teacher and discussed (read: hotly argued) my case. I said, "First of all, the question is false because you say "EVERYTHINGî she wrote. Thatís an immediate tip-off that the statement is false. If EVERYTHING she wrote was inspired that would mean a grocery list she wrote for her husband would be inspired.î His response was, "Don't be ridiculous." So I tried a different approach. ìPaul says that some of the things he wrote were not directly from the Lord.î I pointed out (Read: ìhotly arguedî). ìIf we say EVERYTHING she wrote was directly from God then that puts EGW above Paul.î His response was interesting (read: "maddening"). "Well" he said, "when Paul said, 'it wasn't from the Lord,' he was mistaken. It WAS from the Lord. Therefore we are not putting EGW above Paul." I walked out of the classroom muttering quietly (read: "cursing Hyde's hidebound stupidity"). YES! A lot of foolish (read: "insanely stupid") claims have been made for her. And YES, even Ellen White said some things about her inspiration which I question (read: "perplex me".) So why don't I simply throw her out with the proverbial kitty litter? Well first of all Lone, the quotes you gave from EGW sound pretty convincing. Those quotes could make it sound like she herself put her writings equal to or greater than the Bible. Unfortunately you cherry picked your quotes. In fact your first quote comes from Chapter Four of Selected Messages (Book 3) which is entitled, ìThe Primacy of the Wordî. In that chapter are a number of statements in which she emphatically says her writings are a ìlesser lightî than the Bible. Letís grab a few examples: ------------------------------------------------ "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."--The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903. (Quoted in Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.) { 3SM 30 .4} -------------------------------------------------- "for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. . . . Isaiah declares, 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them'" (Isa. 8:20).--The Great Controversy, Introduction, p. vii. { 3SM 30 .5} -------------------------------------------------- ìWhen you make the Bible your food, your meat, and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious Word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that." Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.î--Manuscript 43, 1901. -------------------------------------------------- Note that 2 of those quotes came from the very same page as your first anti EGW quote. And the third quote came from one page over. Lone, with all due respect, you have not accurately represented the facts on this subject. I realize as an attorney, your job is to represent one side or the other. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO TRUTH, WE DARE NOT TAKE THAT APPROACH! We must HONESTLY look clearly at all sides and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ìhold fast to that which is good.î WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2006 |
I think no matter what Ellen or others said about her writing, the greater fact is that the Bible says if a prophet makes a prophecy and it doesn't come to pass, you can disregard everything the prophet says. It's no secret that Mrs. White made prophecies that didn't come to pass. The false prophets of the OT could only have wished to be thrown out with the proverbial kitty litter, instead of being stoned to death by the children of Israel. Susan |
