Archive through April 26, 2007 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 6 » Ellen White never dies » Archive through April 26, 2007 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 466
Registered: 7-2005
Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is a report about how the adventists leaders spoke on both sides of the mouth in the current defense of their prophet.

Graeme Bradford published a scholarly apologetic work about Ellen White, "More Than a Prophet" (available online here)which is just a more detailed and documented work than his previous two booklets "Prophets are Human" and "People are Human". These books were well received even by the leadership of the church, and were endorsed by no other than two of the presenters at Ellen White's Summit, George Knight and John Paulien, and also by Bob Olson,Former Director of the White Estate, and Dr. Lester Devine, Director, Ellen G. White SDA Research Center (you can read their endorsements here)

Since the new book "More than a Prophet" is based on these previous books and don't change the approach, Graeme Bradford together with the editor and publisher, Samuele Bacchiocchi claimed that this book has the same endorsements, most importantly, it is endorsed by officers of White Estate, perhaps they mean those previously mentioned, Bob Olson and lester Devine.

To their surprise, White Estate denies that the book has been endorsed by their staff (the entire review is here)


quote:

The Foreword and advertising incorrectly state that the manuscript was evaluated favorably by officers of the Ellen G. White Estate. In actuality, while recognizing elements of the book on which we can agree, the White Estate staff has strong concerns regarding several of the viewpoints expressed in the book.




And now come the February issue of Minsitry, where on page 29, Michael Campbell, Ph.D. candidate in Adventist Studies, Andrews University, attacks in force Bradford's book.

He said


quote:

... an even more foundational problem is the view of Ellen White and Adventist history that he [Bradford] presents.

If the church were to accept his view of inspiration and the role and authority of Ellen White, it would certainly mark a real shift in the stance of the church toward her prophetic ministry. It is for this reason and several more that the Ellen White Estate has issued a disclaimer that it does not endorse the book, despite the foreword's mistaken claim that the manuscript was favorably reviewed by White estate officers. Other church leaders who had initially endorsed his two earlier books now seem to be distancing themselves from this volume




My opinion: Bradford exposed himself by presenting his views about Ellen's inspiration and role, which he had not disclosed previously. His apologetic books are based on the premise that Ellen White is indebted to the culture, and many of her prophetic utterances, health reform principles, and other ideas are only her human ideas, reflecting the culture. She is a prophet who has no doctrinal authority, and we are free to reject what is not biblical.

The truth, as Michael Campbell said is that this is not church's position regarding the role of Ellen White. Bradford argues for an Ellen which made mistakes because she was indebted to her culture, but this is not the position of the church. The leaders who used his apologetic previous books, backed off from endorsing this book because it will change the role of Ellen White in the church. They are not willing to let Ellen's role of doctrinal authority to be jeopardized. They want an infallible Ellen White.


quote:

So why is the book controversial? The answer lies in his understanding of the relationship between Christianity and culture




Bradford presented Ellen as a woman more "of culture", indebted to it, and this view cannot be tolerated.


quote:

In conclusion, a central argument for Bradford is that "there has consistently been a group that has a more enlightened understanding of her role, but they have not felt free to share what they know with the large body of believers" (193). Bradford presumes that he is part of this progressive and therefore enlightened group. Unfortunately his view of inspiration and Adventist history that he presents is fatally flawed. This book therefore does not contribute toward unearthing the real Ellen White and thus represents a step backward for the church in its progressive quest for truth




Now you have it, directly from the Ministry. Bradford speaks of those leaders presented at the 1919 Conference, like Daniells, Prescott, and others, who knew that Ellen White plagiarized, made mistakes in her writings, and her writings were improved, modified, by other helpers. They were enlightened about how much authority she had.
In my view, Bradford is indeed following in their steps.

But the current leaders of the church don't like his position, and they are going to cover the truth with more lies. They backed off from endorsing his book, not willing to let Ellen loose the high authority she has, the infallible interpreter of the Bible. When pressed, they are not willing to acknowledge that Ellen can be contradicted, that her views reflected her culture, and people are free to reject her ideas, if these ideas are not in harmony with the Bible.

I think that they are not allowing Ellen to be fallible, and in an indirect way, not explicitly, but implicitly, they are arguing for an infallible Ellen White, whose authority cannot be contested.

Any thoughts?

Jackob
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5726
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 2:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is very interesting, Jackob. I have a copy of More Than A Prophet, but I have not read it up to this point. I have read Bradford's earlier, smaller book, "Prophets Are Human".

After reading your post above, however, I've been reading some of his chapters at the end of his book. Bradford takes a position very much like the one I held regarding Ellen White about 20 years ago—and apparently, the church has been divided over Ellen's authority for a century or more. The "Evangelicals" led by Daniels and Prescott around 1919, those who wrote Questions on Doctrine in the 50's, by Edward Heppenstall in the 70s, and by progressive Adventists like Arthur Patrick and Graeme Bradford in Australia today, favor a view of Ellen that admits she was not completely reliable and that she was a product of her culture who was used by God to encourage and give a prophetic voice to a struggling SDA church in its inception.

The other side of the division is the fundamentalist one characterized by Andreason during the 50s who said that Questions on Doctrine sold Adventism down the proverbial river and by a continuous stream of Adventists who have insisted that Ellen's inspiration must be considered authoritative and her inspiration unquestioned.

My reaction to Bradford is this: while his explanation that Ellen is not to be considered absolutely reliable and authoritative gives "breathing room" to Adventists, it is still a disingenuous position. Bradford favors a "sola scriptura" position with Ellen as a pastoral, homiletical commentator (as opposed to a Biblical exegete). But this position requires a low view of Biblical inspiration. In order to see Ellen as a cultural phenomenon who encouraged the church but not necessarily with infallible advice, they have to understand the process of inspiration differently from the traditional evangelical understanding of inspiration. They have to allow the Bible writers to be products of their culture as well, recording things as they understood them but not necessarily as others in another time and place would understand them.

Here is a quote from "More Than A Prophet", page 215: "But she is also still, to some degree, a product of her culture. The general direction she led the church during its formative years was the right direction, but she was not infallible. She could make statmenets that were in harmony with the culture of her times, but were later shown to be incorrect. This should not cause concern if her role is seen as one in harmony with the statements made by Paul as to the function of prophets: 'But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort' (1 Corinthians 14:3). Her gift can never have the authority of an apostle like Paul. The church must take seriously the counsel of Paul that a prophet must speak in harmony with his writings (verses 36-38)."

I see that paragraph to be completely self-contradictory. On one hand, she was encouraging, as the Bible said NT prophets were to be, but she wasn't always reliable. On the other hand, she must speak in harmony with Scriptures if she's really a prophet.

I believe the above paragraph summarizes my problem with Bradford's position: if one rationalizes Ellen's validity as a prophet when one knows she was internally contradictory, if one insists her role was from God but that simultaneously we are not to take her writings as our authority for understanding Scripture, then we are holding onto a an illusion. No one can respect and honor Ellen and also respect and honor Scripture as completely reliable. Since Scripture exposes and denounces those who speak contrary to God's revealed will, holding onto Ellen in any capacity is rejecting the plain word of God.

Both sides of the Adventist camp actually "hold hands" behind their backs. Both refuse to face the truth about Ellen. Instead of rationalizing Ellen's importance and validity when she is revealed to have been contradictory or even dishonest, people need to stand on the wrod of God and renounce the false prophet. The "newer, gentler" version of Ellen is still the same old Ellen.

While the newer, gentler view of Ellen allows people to question, speak, and think more freely, in reality they are still bound by the deception. Yes, I see the church speaking out of both sides of its mouth. And I see a great many Adventists embroiled in retaining their identity instead of admitting freely that they do not need a prophet, that a non-biblical prophet must be renounced.

The truth about Jesus and salvation cannot be fully known or experienced when one stays married to "Ellen loyalty". Truth is found in Christ alone!

Colleen
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 773
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 2:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

***aaaaaaggggghhhh!!!***

What a headache!

What good is it to hear from "angels" if they don't tell you the Gospel? What good is prophecy if it is missing the spirit of prophecy--the Gospel? It's not so difficult!

God is so awesome in helping us all see clearly! Pray that more eyes will be unblinded and will see the Gospel is the rule for discerning spirits, prophets, and all things.
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 467
Registered: 7-2005
Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

very true, Colleen and Agapetos

My concern about this subject comes from very practical reasons. I'm constantly attacked especially by my adventist scholar friend, but also by lay members who are reminding me that I'm not fair toward Ellen White, because I'm not willing to judge the Bible by the same standards by which I'm judging Ellen White. Their goal is to make me recognize that I have an inadequate view of inspiration (verbal inspiration), and, if I will be consistent, I must reject the Bible on the same grounds that are the foundation of my rejection of Ellen White.

The same approach was endorsed officially by the church in the Ellen White Summit, which had the endorsement of White Estate by the presence of Craig Newborn, a director of a branch office of White Estate. He showed how "belief in verbal inspiration by many Seventh-day Adventists negatively impacted Ellen White’s image as a messenger of the Lord and contributed to misunderstanding and misuse of her writings."
Formers are accused of clinging to verbal inspiration, and it seems that they reject the idea that Ellen White was infallible.

But when someone as Graeme Bradford comes with a view which presents Ellen White as fallible, the same people who initially endorsed his previous books, are distancing themselves from the new book, and said that his view of inspiration is flawed.

My problem is that White Estate and the church are not willing to assume their position regarding inspiration. If they stand for an infallible Ellen White, say this clearly, but if they reject an infallible Ellen White, why are they backing off when it comes to endorse a book which presents Ellen White as fallible?

Graeme Bradford's position regarding Ellen White had not changed in the meantime. When he wrote the two previous books, he received the endorsement of Bob Olson, George Knight and John Paulien (all three having the endorsement of White Estate), but his new book, which presents the same view, all these guys are no longer endorsing his views. Why? Because the new book presents clearly a view of inspiration which they are not willing to assume openly.

But nevertheless they assume tacitly this view when they denounce the critics of Ellen White, accusing them of having a flawed view of inspiration, having in the past believed in an inerrant Ellen White. The logical conclusion is that they believe in an Ellen White who was not inerrant, who made mistakes, since only two options exists. Ellen White made or didn't made mistakes, there is no middle ground. This view of an Ellen White who was not inerrant is implicitly assumed.

But when Bradford assumes explicitly this same view which they implicitly assumes, they denied any connection. And because they had not assumed this view, they are free to criticize the former adventists and make them feel their anger, and at they same time presenting Ellen as a prophet who has absolute doctrinal authority and her views cannot be questioned.

Jackob
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5731
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 4:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, you are absolutely right. Absolutely. The church is not willing to admit publicly what it actually believes. In fact, they do not believe in verbal inspiration, and they have a low view of Scripture. In fact, as you've pointed out, they are promoting a lowered view of inspiration (as at the Ellen White Summit in 2005) in order to bolster Ellen.

This deception—this "private" endorsement of views like Bradford's while publicly distancing themselves—is a continuation of the deception that founded the church.

Your assesment is exactly right. They want it "both ways", and they will "sacrifice" their own (as they are when distancing themselves from Graeme Bradford) in order to retain their public perception of doctrinal purity.

Richard said it so well a few days ago. There are so many different explanations and doctrinal understandings within Adventism that, when they are questioned, they can turn to any one of these different views to answer their questioners.

"See? We don't believe what YOU say we believe; we believe THIS..." and to the next questioner, they refer to yet another, different understanding. They can avoid "discovery" because they have so many different "subsets" of Adventism that they always have an answer for their critics.

The real Adventism has never changed. Only in people's minds has it changed. Yet these different people with their different understandings are useful because they help keep the public confused.

Colleen
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc

Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 2:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is not really the same subject, and it may well have been said before, but this prophet thing seems to have been put the wrong way round.

Anyone can claim to be a prophet, and many have done so, but it is not then up to the Christian world at large to prove that these people are not prophets, it is up to the claimant to prove that he or she is one. And as far as I can see, neither EGW herself nor the SDA church have been able to do this.

And in any case, in terms of subjecting the Bible to scrutiny, many apologists have done a great job of defending the Bible on many grounds, and as far as I can see, it passes the test of being inspired with flying colours.

Just for instance, it is historically accurate in terms of the places and persons involved (not like, for instance, the Book of Mormon), it contains many prophecies which have been and continue to be fulfilled (unlike EGW or Joseph Smith, Charles T. Russell, et. al.). It is internally consistent, even though it was written by many authors over many centuries (unlike these guys who cannot even agree with themselves).

Not to mention that it has radically changed the lives of innumerable people who have believed what it says. Positively, that is (unlike...)

Just a thought,
Adrian
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 776
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 3:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amen, Adrian, and it is the same subject!

Jackob, I'll be praying for you.

You know, I think all the arguments completely pale when you know God, when you see Him and how really real He is. In sight of Him, you just don't need to argue all this piddly stuff or make excuses for this or that. In sight of Him everything falls together, because in Him everything is held together.

Often I think of hairsplitting arguments and intricate disputes over theologies... and I think that there is often so little awe of God and experience of His very real presence. Standing in His great shadow (or rather, light) changes everything -- how you see Him, how you see the world, and how you see yourself.

Some people are called to certain 'arenas' to speak for the faith, but by and large I believe the nature of such things would change if we awed Him. I think many people are becoming unable to endure such hairsplitting disputes because they've been ruined by His presence, and they'll never be the same again.

Once you've seen the Light, it's just not fulfilling to divide up the shadows. Once you've tasted the Bread, you have a difficult time arguing over crumbs (or dust that looks like crumbs).

Anyway, sorry, just rambling. But I'll be praying for you & for your rest in His love, presence and reality. And for the people speaking to you & pressuring you, that they would be floored by His awesome presence and earth-shaking reality.
Nicole
Registered user
Username: Nicole

Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 6:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

too bad there is not a PR machine working to expose what adventism actually upholds to be "truth". this forum certainly is starting in that direction, and hopefully there will be a way to inform the "greater masses" who come upon adventism without knowing it (such as weight loss, nutrition, stop smoking seminars/classes, these revelation series, etc.). everyone knows mormonism, jehovah's witnesses for what they actually believe (for the most part). but the public has no idea of what adentism really is about (i sure didn't).
Rejoyce719
Registered user
Username: Rejoyce719

Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 8:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Will the SDA church ever accept realty? The realty that Ellen is simply not a prophet or messenger of God. It was a hard "pill for me to swallow", but I did. Ellen simply is not a prophet.

She said herself that every word she wrote was inspired of God. Therefore, she claimed that every word she wrote was and is infallible. Obviously, God is infallible. Therefore, this book, excusing her errors because she was human is even against Ellen's own claim.

But we all know that she contradicted herself, took other writers words (not words from God), and many prophecies did not happen. Examples: the rappings were real, not a trick. Girls confessed to creating the trick. At a meeting in the 1800s that she claimed that an angel told her that some attendees would become "food for worms", some alive and translated at the second coming. Of course, they are all dead. We all know I could go on and on with examples that disprove her claims to be a prophet.

It shook me to the core to realize that the so-called prophet that I turned to guide nearly every aspect of my life is not a prohet or messenger of God. But I have accepted it. Unfortunately, the SDA church just will not do so.
Rejoyce719
Registered user
Username: Rejoyce719

Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 8:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You are not rambling Agapetos. Speak on, you made it plain. I appreciate everyone's personal expression in this discussion.
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 695
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 9:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doc wrote: Anyone can claim to be a prophet, and many have done so, but it is not then up to the Christian world at large to prove that these people are not prophets, it is up to the claimant to prove that he or she is one.

Prophecy in the sense of "a prophet" before Christ and the advent of Pentecost, is not the same "after" Pentecost.

The Adventist claim Ellen White to be "a prophet" in the context of the old time prophets.
People are used to prophecy today for the edification and comfort of the church by and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Doc, I hate to disagree with you but in a sense you are partly flat wrong, here is how, Corinthians I 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
Corinthians I 14:30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
Corinthians I 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
Corinthians I 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Corinthians I 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
So when one prophecies today, he is to be judged on the spot by the body present as to whether the prophecy is true (from the Lord).
It will always and I mean always, line up with the scripture, it is up to those who hear it to judge that as in 1 Cor. 14:29.

Now the Adventist claim the above scripture as a source for justification of Ellen but she does not line up with the word, most, if not all of her supposed prophecy’s came from when she was in the privacy of her home or when she was “in a swoon”, both do not line up with the word, so Doc is wrong in that it is up to the one prophesying to prove up, it is up those hearing to judge it on the spot.
But then Doc was speaking in the context of the prophets of old and he is correct in that context.
However, that said, Ellen should have been ignored from the get go for she neither spoke as a prophet today through the gifts of the Holy Ghost nor as a prophet of old because with the advent of Jesus the prophets of old were completed in him and by him and there are no more prophets in that context, he is THE prophet.
The Adventist tried to stick a part from the “Old” puzzle into the “New” puzzle and of course it does not fit. In other words they try to mix the old covenant in with the new covenant (new wine in old skins) and the whole concept of their teachings breaks down in light of scripture.

The prophets of old spoke to Israel for the purpose if instruction and warnings and so forth and of Jesus.
The “Prophets” of today speak to the church body by the Holy Spirit for its edification and comfort. If I go to church next Sunday and God uses me in the gifts to stand and prophecy to the body does that mean that I can set myself up as a prophet? No, it is simply that the Holy Spirit used that gift through me at a particular time and space for it says in Corinthians I 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

These are the gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation in the church today under the new covenant. John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

Now some of you may disagree with what I am saying, I am only saying it the way I understand it but one thing I think you will agree with and that is context, context and more context.
I would think that you would agree that the Adventist do try to mix the old covenant with the new covenant, would you agree to that much?

The problem is that people today will challenge prophecy today under the old covenant challenge and burden of proof but we are not under the old covenant. Neither is a “prophet” in the context of Corinthians under the old covenant, his words are to be judged by those hearing him right there on the spot. If his words do not line up with scripture he/she should be ignored or corrected openly or by means of privacy and properly instructed in the word of God. Failure to correct would be the fault of the hearers, not the speaker.
When believers come together we learn together and all prophet by it.

As Ramone says, no use getting into hair splitting arguments but the old and new covenants are not a hair splitting argument, it is vital to good instruction to understand.
If the church body had judged Ellen’s so called prophecy’s correctly under the new covenant I dare say we wouldn’t be discussing Ellen on this forum, further more I doubt if this forum would exist.
If the church had done it’s job and assumed it’s proper burden of correction we wouldn’t be here discussing it.
Under the old covenant the burden of proof was on the profit, under the new covenant the burden of correction lays with the church body.
If Ellen had been properly corrected through the proper use of the Bible I just do not think her stuff would have survived to this day.
So Doc, it is up to the “church at Large” to judge the prophet.
If it’s not up to the Christian to contend for the faith then who will contend for it?
If we were to judge Ellen under the old covenant she would have been stoned to death, if under the new covenant, she would have been corrected openly or at least in private by others of the church body but other believers, (if they were even believers) (I even question that), let her get out of hand, unruly and uncorrected and that my friend has caused the grief of many. Caused children to grow up mixed up trying to mix the two covenants into one, cognitive dissonance on a grand scale was what their children were subjected to, all because others stood by and let her have her way and sway.

I tell you my big question is and has been, why wasn’t she corrected then and there? As Paul said to the Galatians, what went wrong? And the answer always lead back to 1 Cor. 13:29, I can come up with no other answer, Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
Failure to put scripture into practice in our churches can lead down a lot of wrong roads following all kinds of Ellens.
Now I say this in kindness of spirit, not to dispute with Doc. I understand where Doc is coming from.
In the olden days the prophet was judged, under the new covenant we judge the prophecy and not the prophet. Does that sound right?
So yes Doc, the burden of proof does lay with the prophet but the greater burden of correction lies with the church at large, understand what I am saying? What I mean is, is it proof that is required or correction that is required?
Well I hope I don’t start a stink with this.
River
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 777
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 9:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi River,

quote:

As Ramone says, no use getting into hair splitting arguments but the old and new covenants are not a hair splitting argument, it is vital to good instruction to understand.


Agreed! See this earlier comment I made:

quote:

What good is it to hear from "angels" if they don't tell you the Gospel? What good is prophecy if it is missing the spirit of prophecy--the Gospel? It's not so difficult!


The hairsplitting debates I was thinking of weren't mainly Adventist ones, but general ones between different theories & denominations.

The only thing they have in common with the Adventist hairsplitting is that both are done often (it seems) without much actual standing in God's presence and being awed by His reality.

I wrote:

quote:

Once you've tasted the Bread, you have a difficult time arguing over crumbs (or dust that looks like crumbs).


The "dust that looks like crumbs" refers to EGW, etc. :-)

Blessings in the awesome reality of Jesus,
Ramone
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc

Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey River,

I'm sorry if I didn't explain things clearly enough, I don't always. I just wrote that post quickly this morning before rushing off to work, so maybe I didn't think it through well enough.

The problem with dealing with complex questions is that it is not possible to mention all aspects and facets of an issue just in one single post of a few lines. I don't really think we disagree at all.

I was actually thinking about these 19th people who set themselves up as infallible prophets in the style of the Old Testament, as you mentioned. But the same point could be made in the context of any sort of teaching.

It's the cult thing. Someone just comes up with a new teaching, not really based on the Bible, and then expects the church at large to accept it. If they don't then they condemn everyone else as being fallen, or not really loving God, and say everyone has to join them to be saved. The best thing to do is probably ignore them, which is just what they can't stand.

For instance, how do you actually prove that EGW was wrong about Enoch living on Jupiter, or wherever it was. No-body had been there to check, had they?

As to the New Covenant gifts of the Spirit, I agree with you completely. I'm not a Cessationalist.

God bless you mate,
Adrian
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5735
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In women's Bible study this year we're doing an overview of the OT. One provocative statement Elizabeth gave us, as we began looking at the major and minor prophets, was this:

"1. Because they spoke God's word, the prophets were ambassadors to relay God's divine soveriegn will to the people. They were NOT radical reformers or innovative religious thinkers. What God expected had ALREADY been communicated in the covenantal law; they were sent as enforcers to a disobedient nation, to remind them of the seriousness of sin and the joy of obedience.

"2. Because they were forth telling and foretelling, the prophet's message was not original. They were inspired by God, not reacting to a situation. In this sense, there is nothing genuinely new in what they say and they are in 'agreement' together. The prophets concur with each other; they are consistent in their warning about judgment and promise of blessing to leaders and remnant."

Actually, that description of the OT prophets also meshes with the NT gift of prophecy. I especially was struck by the idea that a prophet's message was NOT NEW. What the prophets fortold or forth told was a reminder or an application or a prophetic glipmse of what God had ALREADY communicated to His people through His covenant law.

In the NT, that "covenant law" is the New Covenant Law of Christ revealed in the gospels and epistles. Anyone who doesn't agree with these, is false.

River, the reason the early Adventists didn't "correct" Ellen is because they themselves were incorrect. Both James White and Joseph Bates, who with Ellen founded the church, came out of the Christian Connexion, a movement of the "restoration movement". Their ambition was to purify the church, to dismiss all doctrines passed down to the church from history and "start over" by reading the Bible and interpreting it themselves. One of the tenets of the Christian Connexion was that people could individually interpret the Bible, and membership was on the basis of "Christian character" (sound familiar?). No mention was made of the new birth, being justifed by faith through the blood of Jesus, etc.

The early Adventists were intentionally starting a movement reflecting their own thoughts—and they were not Bible scholars. Ellen served their purposes. They could validate any of their doctrinal decisions with one of her visions, and they NEEDED her. Without her, they would have had no "authority". They were "visionary", yes; entrepreneurs, yes. But spiritually alive and grounded in the word of God? Apparently not.

Colleen
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 696
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I knew what you were trying to get too Doc and I also knew what you meant Ramone, I know you know this stuff and was not trying to pick any nits, what I really was trying to do is expand on the points that I hopefully did expand on and try to lay it out straight at least the best I could.

I wanted to bring on the point of Adventist mixing old with new and then trying to make that fly, that dog don't bark.

I also wanted to bring on the point of the failure of the church body to judge and deal with people like Ellen White.

I wanted to bring out the importance of understanding the old and new covenants, but not at either one of you brothers expense.

I just really felt the need to expound on some of these points so I expounded. Hope no one was taken aback, not my intention.
That said,
God bless you two mates too. (double smileys)
In him
River
P. S. Sand blasting a tractor today, I oughta get on dirty jobs.
P.S. Not sand blasting humans today, Ha.
Lucybugg
Registered user
Username: Lucybugg

Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I love this text: Hebrews 1:1-4
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but 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. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

This was the memory text for the SS discussion I attended and those people NEVER got it.
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 468
Registered: 7-2005
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 3:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll try to look at the things from Ellen's perspective, putting myself in her shoes.

If I will claim that God discovered me in dreams or visions a message for others, message which is basically an interpretation of Bible passage, I'll never invite people to analyze my message and decide if my message is biblically or not.

It's very simple; my authority consists basically in authority to interpret the Bible for them, why should I let them interpret the Bible and decide if my interpretation is correct or not?

From the start my position will demand full surrender from others WITHOUT biblical study, searching, testing. Testing my message will be by itself a negation of my authority to interpret the Bible infallible. My inspired interpretation cannot be subjected to an uninspired interpretation. It's nonsensical, and destroys from the start my claims of having a better, inspired, infallible interpretation. People have no right to test my messages, since they cannot test them without rejecting their inspiration and infallibility.

As I said, this is how I would think if I'll be in the position of Ellen White, and I believe from my research regarding her, that this was her mentality. She never tolerated dissent and didn't bother to sustain her position on the authority of the Bible, because she never claimed that her authority is derived from the Bible. Her authority was to interpret the Bible for others, not let others interpret the Bible for themselves.

I think that this attitude is the explanation, at least in part, for the spiritual bondage in which adventists are kept. As this attitude is not easily visible, the same is true regarding the effects in the lives of those who are under Ellen's authority.

And I'm having in view also the liberal adventists, like Graeme Bradford. Uriah Smith took a similar position regarding Ellen White as Bradford, he distinguished between visions and non-visionary messages. But both, Uriah Smith, and Bradford gave Ellen the authority to interpret the Bible, never rejecting her as a prophet.

I'm becoming more and more aware that this "veil", no matter how thin is, as long as it is, will prevent adventists from seeing the truth. As somebody must have first the veil removed from his face before seeing the glory of Christ, the same is true about Ellen. Without this veil removed, no adventist can be happy in the presence of the glory of the Lord. This glory is an insult for him, because God's liberty in imparting grace to whom He wills without any regard to human achievement, His sovereign grace, is too much for someone who's believing that by his exercise of his free will can save himself from sin, being his own savior.

I dislike the idea that I'm splitting hairs, and the implication that if I'll spend more time in the presence of the Lord, I will loose the taste for the above mentioned hair-splitting.

Jackob
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5736
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 9:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, I totally understand what you're saying about Ellen, and I agree with you. I've also spent a lot of time thinking about this issue because, as you've mentioned, the effect of Ellen is profound—and unconscious—on Adventists and even on many who are no longer Adventists.

I realize that this can appear to be "hair splitting" sometimes, but I've found it necessary to think deeply about this in order to understand the spectrum of reactions I receive on pretty much a daily basis from a lot of different people.

I can't slide away from the unpleasant fact that Ellen was not just damaged but devious. If I slide away from that fact, I give tacit "permission" for people to hold onto some level of respect for her. And as long as people are holding onto any respect for her, they are still blinded behind that veil you mentioned as thin as it might seem to be.

Jesus was not speaking metaphorically when He said the truth sets you free. Yes, He IS the truth—and He brings us face to face with the truths about our lives and beliefs. When we are finally willing to look at things and allow Him to teach us what He wants us to know and show us what He wants us to do, we find we move into amazing levels of insight and freedom.

We have to know and admit the truth about Ellen. Holding onto her absolutely obscures the truth about Jesus. And this fact is not possible to "see" unless one lets her go completely.

God is faithful.

Colleen
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 778
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jackob,

Sorry about the hair-splitting comment -- I did not mean that *at all* about you. I was thinking of a lot of other denominational arguments, and I was also thinking of all the rhetorical junk that EGW defenders are putting out. They are splitting hairs in order to defend her -- straining at gnats yet swallowing camels. I was marvelling at how they can argue about prophecy--God's voice--and nitpick about it, saying this and saying that. Just imagine doing all that and then suddenly GOD walks in the room!

On the note of seeing things from Ellen's perspective... I think I've never thought deeply about that. But now that I think of it, I cannot do so with a rational outlook or in a logical way. It has to have some strong measure of mental instability. It helps if you know people who are very firm about their own right-ness in everything, who are able to mentally block out what disagrees with their ideas, and who are able to re-write their own history to suit what they want to believe about it. For me, I think it's difficult to look at Ellen any other way than this.

Colleen, I haven't heard of the "Connexion" thing before... can you tell me more about that? It's news to me.

Blessings to you all in Jesus,
Ramone

(Message edited by agapetos on April 25, 2007)
Timmy
Registered user
Username: Timmy

Post Number: 180
Registered: 8-2006


Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 5:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, This is an excellent thread and I have been watching it very close. These very issues have bothered me for years, even way before I left SDAism. While "in" my wife and I had sold our souls to EGW, we complied with all the lists, all the dietary stuff, all the Sabbath regulations and so on. But while doing this we received negitive feedback from the church members for being so strict. Now that we are "out" we of course are getting negitive feedback from the old church for rejecting the S.O.P.

This has boggled my mind but I think you hit the nail on the head with your original post.

"a report about how the adventists leaders spoke <speak> on both sides of the mouth"

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration