| Author | Message | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 146 Registered: 8-2006 |
Yes, Jeremy, I did leave that part out! You are right, Satan is left to bear the punishment of the sins he made us commit. It's almost unbelievable to me that this is a belief by EGW that is accepted by the church. I don't blame you for wanting to throw up. This is the best example of how Jesus is minimized in the SDA church. Susan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 546 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, my goodness! The thoroughness comes forth! Thank you SusanS & Jeremy!! Timmy, your post basically nailed the issue on the head. But for anyone who is unsure why I started this thread, it was in response to WalkOnWater's assertation that Ellen's quotes here have been "taken out of context". This thread is basically an opportunity (for all) to examine that challenge: - Anyone who believes she was taken out of context can examine the wider context here. - Anyone who is sure that the wider context sinks her further can do the same. You know, I kind of wish I had titled the thread, "Taking Ellen Out of Context?" ... Or I wish someone would compile these things into a book! Wouldn't that be handy to have a book of the damaging quotes in context just for the sole purpose of nipping in the bud the oft-used "out of context" card? Blessings in Christ and free from confusion, Ramone | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3029 Registered: 3-2004  |
It looks to me that nothing was taken out of context. I cringe when I read anything written by her. No, they are not taken out of context. God is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 549 Registered: 10-2002 |
Diana, I completely agree, and I cringe, too. But... well, this is a chance for anyone who doesn't agree or doesn't yet know that same dread we know. Blessings & freedom in Christ, Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 552 Registered: 10-2002 |
My goodness... I re-read the "letter" from which Quote #1 is taken, as well as the very similar letter Jeremy posted, and wow, the plot does thicken... This part starts well, saying that Bible truth is our only safety. But then it becomes apparent that the "truth" she is referring to is "the Bible truth" that they arrived at. She defined what was truth & error. The "truth" to stand on, she says, is not necessarily "Bible truth" but rather "the truths/faith that they arrived at in their study." And we probably shouldn't merely say "study", but rather, their experience. If your own Bible study does not agree with their conclusions and their experience, then it is not "Bible truth". Again, the sanctuary "truth" that they held for those years ("so many years") is considered "truth". Collecting Scriptures which disagree with what they believed for those years is "misapplying the Scriptures". Anyone who does so is being sidetracked by the enemy. The Scriptures, she basically says, are given to for the purpose of strengthening the sanctuary doctrine & early SDA experience. Here it seems she is basically saying: "We were guided by God, and this is the truth He showed us. If you weren't there, then you should be quiet. The Holy Spirit showed it to us." In other words, "Hands off the sanctuary doctrine if you weren't there!" The net effect of these two letters---it is no longer merely "quotes" we're talking about anymore, but entire letters---the net effect is to build the reader's faith in the early SDA experience & beliefs. We are to trust that they were guided by God. If we reach different conclusions, or if Scripture seems to disagree, we are told we should "keep silent" because the enemy is sidetracking us and we are misapplying the Scriptures. And, the Scriptures were given to support the early SDA experience/teaching (not the other way around). Examining the early SDA experience/teaching by using Scripture is hence a forbidden activity unless you've determined to agree. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1620 Registered: 10-2004  |
And she's saying that the Scriptures are not allowed to disagree with her visions/teachings. Which is the greater authority? She's putting her writings ABOVE the Bible! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on November 14, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4952 Registered: 12-2003  |
I'm also really upset by her assertion that God spoke to people through the prophets of old, but in these days He has spoken through the Spirit of Prophecy. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Jesus is God's last definite word to us. No other revelation of God or of salvation is forthcomingóGod Himself has appeared to us! Her sacrilege in taking the essence of this passage and applying it to herself astonishing. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 554 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow, Colleen, I hadn't noticed that! (from Quote #6) Interesting, interesting, interesting! I wonder if she had the Hebrews opening in mind when she made that comment. If she did, it's notable that she missed the part about "the Son". He wasn't quite "on the radar", so to speak. The issue for her was "old prophets" and "today's prophets" (herself being the example in question). The more revealing thing is that she completely missed the contrast the author of Hebrews was making: "God spoke through the prophets in many parts" But now... "He has spoken to us by His Son, who is the exact representation and radiance of His being." The author contrasted the "partialness" of the old prophets with the completeness of the Son--Himself "the Word". I think this quote shows that she had not quite seen the completeness of the Son and that all Old Testament prophecy pointed to Him. She was still looking for "various parts" in modern times... still looking for God as if by the means of life in the Old Testament. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 555 Registered: 10-2002 |
Another thing I just noticed... In the "Quotes" post I made, I said that there are basically three possibilities that explain the presence of the "Damning Quotes" and the "Sola Scriptura Quotes" -- 1) SS quotes outweigh DQ 2) DQ quotes outweigh SS quotes 3) Doublethink - Both DQ & SSQ mean what they say; contradictory positions are held & taught However, after reading through the letters that we examined regarding Quote #1, I think there is a fourth possibility: 4) The SSQ quotes mean "Sola Scriptura" only inasmuch as they support early SDA experience & belief The "doublethink" comes to us today when we try to use the SS quotes in order to prove EGW meant "Sola Scriptura"... when instead, by reading her letters, we see that she didn't quite mean that at all. | ||
| Aliza Registered user Username: Aliza Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here's a comment on the new possibility between DQ and SSQ, "The SSQ quotes mean 'Sola Scripture' only inasmuch as they support early SDA experience and belief." I lived in Utah for five years and interacted with Mormon neighbors. This is exactly what they believe. The Bible is only correct insofar as it doesn't contradict the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants etc. It was so frustrating to speak with a Mormon because you couldn't use the Bible as the solid reference point. It ended up in circular reasoning. But I was so steeped in Adventism that I couldn't see the exact same thing in myself. But the reason was because I was totally convinced that all of EGW could be supported by the Bible. At least the Mormons are honest about it..... That was before the days of the internet so there's a whole lot easier way of researching and uncovering things now. Even if you never left the official EGW website, enough searching on topics quickly should certainly reveal things to an honest seeker. Anyone else ever wonder if they would have left Adventism a whole lot sooner if they'd had the internet? Aliza | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 636 Registered: 7-2004  |
Regarding your question, Aliza, about if having the internet would have caused an earlier departure from Adventism -- I don't know how much it would have helped in my case. I actually began researching on the internet some questions I had about EGW probably 5 or 6 years before we left and it really didn't help much because I wasn't ready to see it. All I could see were what seemed like viscious, over-the-top attacks on everything SDA and I figured they couldn't be right. Also, I was so certain then that the SDA teaching on the Sabbath and state of the dead was not even debatable, that I figured there was no point in taking seriously what anyone had to say who was Biblically incorrect in these important areas. Once God was ready to lift the veil, it all fell into place quite rapidly. And I think He led up to that very slowly over the years, by showing me inconsistencies every so often between what the Bible says and what SDA teaching says. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3034 Registered: 3-2004 |
I doubt if the internet would have helped me. I had it about 7 years before I decided not to rejoin the SDA church. Plus my son had been influenced by an SDA minister who left the SDA church and told me about it. I was too sick at the time with such cloudy thinking that all I told my son, was to pray about it. Plus, God had been gently pulling me away and I did not know that was what was happening until I finally decided not to rejoin. The pulling away started about 30 years before I decided not to rejoin. It was done in God's time and not mine. But thank God it was done and He does redeem all our past. Diana | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 134 Registered: 8-2006  |
"Anyone else ever wonder if they would have left Adventism a whole lot sooner if they'd had the internet?" I would not have left sooner, but it probably would have taken me longer to leave without it. Does that make sense? When I finally read the NT without the tracts and outside propaganda, I realized there was a problem with what I had been taught. It was then that I had to look at those 'anti' sites to see what they had to say. It was very disturbing to see that the same issues I had come up with were posted there (plus hundreds more). Aliza, I have read a lot of the Mormon material and it very intriguing to see how similair their movement is with SDAism. The most interesting part is to read what the Mormons have to say about those who have left due to doctrinal differences. The similiarities and attitudes will give you chills! http://www.exmormon.org/lovemor14.htm Example! "...hopefully when we meet you'll be able to look me in the eyes with SPOTLESS robes." | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 135 Registered: 8-2006 |
"Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be SPOTLESS..." {GC88 425.1} | ||
| Aliza Registered user Username: Aliza Post Number: 79 Registered: 8-2006 |
We can only hope and pray that internet sites keep sincere seekers from ever joining Adventism in the first place. Perhaps that's where the real value of some of the "anti" sites rests. | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 835 Registered: 1-2003 |
now that you mention it... I remember several years ago that we were counseled by the church not to get the internet because they can "track" you with it. I think I understand why they were so desperate that the "flock" not have access to it!!!!!!! The truth comes out! | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 361 Registered: 5-2004 |
I left as a direct result of the internet. I probably never would have seen anything contradictory to Adventism with stumbling across Dirks site. So, for me, yes. The internet played a huge part. And then I spent months reading everything online I could google  | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3037 Registered: 3-2004 |
When my thinking was clear, that was when God directed me to Andersons's web site. It was at that time, Dec 2003, that the SDA minister challenged our SS class to read the NT without anything else, including EGW. So I was doing that at the time I was directed to Anderson's web site. A God incident, I call it and the rest is history. Like Esther, I read everything I could google, with my Bible beside me. I was not ready for the change when my son told me what he had learned. God is so awesome. He knows exactly when to bring changes into our lives. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4958 Registered: 12-2003 |
I really don't know whether or not I (or we, for that matter) would have left sooner with the internet or not. Like Tim, however, it surely helped us when we began to "see". Simultaneously with beginning to study the Bible with no outside interpretation, Richard began to find stuff on the then-brand-new internet. He started bringing me stacks of papers to readóand those, in conjunction with Bible study, were powerful. I remember one of the documents that impacted me early on was Pat Darnell's online book, "All Dressed Up with Nowhere to Go". It was her personal story of growing up Adventist and finally leaving. Yes, God is so faithful! Colleen | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 152 Registered: 8-2006 |
Colleen, I remember reading Pat's story in late 1998/early 1999 myself and it was so amazing that I read it I don't remember how many times! It would have taken me a lot longer to process out of Adventism without the internet. While I was learning truths of the bible in my college class and the Holy Spirit's influence, I was voraciously reading everything I could find on the internet, as Esther did. Having such lightning speed access to such varied material and abundant testimony available, made the "crash and burn" of Ellen so final and irreversible. I checked everything in my EGW books (I even had facsimilies of original writings and most every version of GC, for example) and was able to confirm the information I was finding on sites like Dirk Anderson, Janet Brown, and others. I also added in this edit how much the internet helped me to dialog with people on the old AToday site like Dennis and Loneviking, and again to say how much FAF was a blessing to me. I would not have had those resources if not for the internet, so instead of thanking Al Gore, I thank God. Ramone, I vote for possibility #4 out of the ones you have given. (Message edited by SusanS on November 15, 2006) (Message edited by SusanS on November 15, 2006) |
