| Author | Message | ||
| Surfy Registered user Username: Surfy Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2007 |
Talking with an adventist friend of mine last weekend. Brought up a lot of EGW's outright blatant (and so called inspired) statements like masturbation leading to leprosy, wicked children being useless, not to pray for healing if someone hasn't been following the health message, and some others that we are all familiar with. I further told him that these teachings were directly opposed to scripture or just outright false and that there was no way it could have come from God Himself...thus the religion is false. His answer is one I had not heard before. He did not try to defend the writings. Instead he said that she had mellowed out by her later age and no longer wrote such controversial stuff. In essense, she had changed her stand on a lot of the things she written in her earlier years. My response was that God either gave her the words or not and his answer was that God did give her the words but that it was directed to the earlier adventists..another place and time. I then said that if she did change her mind that she should have recanted, in writing, so all would be aware of her new beliefs. His answer was that if you really read the later stuff you can tell there has been a change. Anyone else ever had this "logic" used? | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1751 Registered: 8-2004  |
Yep! I've heard it. Part of the 'bad morphs into good given enough time' idea. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 6157 Registered: 3-2004  |
Haven't we seen some of that on CARM?? I shudder when I see that "logic". Our awesome God does not start with bad and morph into good. I am shuddering just thinking about it. Diana L | ||
| Gcfrankie Registered user Username: Gcfrankie Post Number: 270 Registered: 1-2007 |
Doesn't this make God a liar? I do not know a whole lot of the ot but what I do know is the Prophets gave warnings to the people and they did come to pass but they certainly did not change their warnings as time went by. EGW. did not write anything without stating 'God says' or 'I was shown', and then change her writtings because she mellowed with age. God does not change. Gail | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2008 |
Interesting comments . . . I spoke with a dear friend of mine - mentor of sorts . . . I shared my concerns about EGW's writings. She asked me if I had read any of George Knights books on her . . . I answered no . . . she then informed me George Knight had documented that EGW's understandings had changed since her earlier writings . . . Not that I am defending this reasoning - hear that clearly . . . but EGW earlier writings are harder to follow and more bizarre - her later writings are a little different . . . at least in my short understandings . . . Funny, too, I just had a conversation with a non-SDA/Sunday Church member (pastor of an EFC & wife). I shared with them that one of the SDA understandings is that Sunday churches will persecute Saturday/Sabbath keeping churches right before Jesus comes a second time (Sunday keepers would try to kill Sabbath keepers) . . . I think her eyes crossed as I was telling her that . . . I felt pretty silly afterwards . . . then I wanted to go back to the source of that SDA understanding and picked up The Great Controversy . . . found the chapters and pages on the "persecution". . . man, that stuff is hard to read now-a-days . . . hard meaning ---hard to follow and make sense. I remember being so scared as a small child about that time of "persecution" and would I be able to stand up for Sabbath-keeping. Have any of you found that after not reading any EGW for awhile and just BIBLE only . . that reading her seems "weird" and hard to follow . . . Just an insight, JRT | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 597 Registered: 5-2002 |
When someone shows me a Biblical prophet who had this experience then I will give this explanation some merit. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 351 Registered: 7-2008  |
A prophet may change...but the message of God never changes. If it did, how then can God be fully trusted ?? How would we know what is truth and what is not truth ?? If the truth from God can change, then God can change as well. Such a thought scares me immensely. Our God is consistent and reliable. He will never change. Animal..God is always faithful to His Word of truth. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 6160 Registered: 3-2004 |
I have a difficult time reading just an EGW paragraph or 2 here or on CARM. I shudder when I do. Give me the Bible any time. Diana L | ||
| Mommamayi Registered user Username: Mommamayi Post Number: 698 Registered: 12-2007  |
I'm guessing that if her writings seem easier to understand/better lined up with the bible later on, it's because of better editing to protect the growing church.  | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9147 Registered: 12-2003  |
I think you're onto something, Mommamayi! I've also heard this reasoning. Dale Ratzlaff addresses is so well in Sabbath in Christ. I was taught this "morphing" was "progressive revelation". Dale points out that "progressive revelation" by definition means that ALL of the revelation was true revelation. It can never begin with falsehood and morph into truth. A prophet's revelation cannot begin as falsehood (read that NOT inspired by God) and gradually become truth. Black cannot ever become white. Rather, true progressive revelation begins with truth from God—just not a full revelation. The example of the temple ceremonies OT demonstrates this point. The temple service was directly revealed by God—but the reality of Jesus was a fuller, substantive revelation that filled out and enriched the OT revelation of the shadows that pointed to Jesus. tHAT is progressive revelation. God never begins with a lie, goes "Ooops!", and eventually comes up with truth. Further, Even in Ellen's later years (post 1900) she wrote that Jesus had been the highest angel in heaven...excuse me? The church has tried to whitewash Ellen, but she has never spoken consistently or truthfully. Colleen | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 253 Registered: 4-2007 |
Because the existence of Ellen as ‘the Prophet, is the base upon which the existence of the Adventist church rests, there is an unconscious refusal to connect the dots, the inevitable conclusion is too appalling to contemplate. I see this in my wife, a ‘sliding’ away from the reality of what many of Ellen’s ‘I was shown’ represent and the subsequent consequences: bizarre falsehoods and her ‘dethroning’. John Douglas | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 593 Registered: 11-2007  |
I heard this argument alot in the 1888 camp. They said after she was shown the true gospel of RBF with Jones & Waggoner (sp?) she then no longer took the hard legalistic line of teaching, and was ostracized by the denomination and quarantined in Australia for teaching the true gospel. They even claim she was always given the true revelation, just not a clear understanding of it till later. I found this to be a lie as well - since I have found just as serious legalistic error written after this time as before. She did not change, but continued to write contradictory things. Even if this were true there are still problems 1 - who gets to draw the line from where she is in error and when she is in "truth" - and where in the world will you find an SDA willing to challenge anything as error in the first place??? 2 - The doctrines in question were never renounced or changed. Very empty argument, but I'm sure it helps some people sleep better at night. =) Sondra | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2549 Registered: 10-2004  |
And if she had ever renounced "previous" doctrines, then that would only prove her to be a false prophet! Jeremy | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 354 Registered: 7-2008 |
Adventism just wont let their prophet die or diminish in authority and influence. It just aint gonna happen. Without her, there is no SDA church. And the higher ups know that. Such is why they try to rewrite scripture. What would happen if all Adventists set aside EGW writings for a year and only read the Bible, asking God to lead them in their study. Makes you wonder huh??..Dream on huh???...lol lol lol Animal...its a small world after all !!!! | ||
| Mommamayi Registered user Username: Mommamayi Post Number: 700 Registered: 12-2007 |
Colleen, LOL! That is SO true. The SDA re writing of history is called "progressive revelation". | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2550 Registered: 10-2004 |
EGW changed in her later years? As in...taught even worse heresy than she had taught before? Here's just a small sampling: 1898: "His example declares that our only hope of eternal life is through bringing the appetites and passions into subjection to the will of God." (The Desire of Ages, page 122, paragraph 2.) 1902: "Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." (The Signs of the Times, 07-23-1902, paragraph 14.) 1903: "But in the struggle for immortality we have a part to act. [...] We can never be saved in inactivity and idleness. We might as well look for a harvest from seed which we have not sown, and for knowledge where we have not studied, as to expect salvation without making an effort. It is our part to wrestle against the evil tendencies of the natural heart." (The Youth's Instructor, 03-05-1903, paragraph 4.) 1906: "He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in his power his people might also lead lives of sinlessness." (Atlantic Union Gleaner, 01-17-1906, paragraph 5.) 1906: "Christ came to this earth and lived a life of perfect obedience, that men and women, through his grace, might also live lives of perfect obedience. This is necessary to their salvation." (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 03-15-1906, paragraphs 8.) 1910: "Man is no passive being, to be saved in indolence. Let no one think that men and women are going to be taken to heaven without engaging in the struggle here below. We have a battle to fight, a victory to gain. God says to us, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.' How?--'For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' Man works, and God works. Man is called upon to strain every muscle, and to exercise every faculty, in the struggle for immortality; but it is God who supplies the efficiency." (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 04-28-1910, paragraph 3.) 1913: "He died a shameful death upon the cross, that we might have eternal life; and shall we dare to flatter ourselves that we may follow a course of sin, choosing our own way, shunning the cross, avoiding reproach and self-denial, and yet have a home in the kingdom of heaven?--No; through faith in Christ we must render obedience to all requirements of God; through his merits we may be elevated to keep God's commandments." (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 05-08-1913, paragraph 4.) 1913: "The great crisis is before us, and every one is to act as if his own soul was at stake. The most important question of all is, How shall I save my soul, for which Christ died? How shall I be holy as he is holy?" (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 05-15-1913, paragraph 2.) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on December 18, 2008) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 754 Registered: 7-2005  |
The verse that says, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," has puzzled me, especily when compared with, "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." This is a seeming contradiction. Ellen expounds and explains by telling us we must struggle and strain. But, how would Jesus explain it? He said, "Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light." I would rather look at it from Jesus' angle. Honestwitness | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 90 Registered: 8-2008 |
The text in Phillipians 2 ("work out your own salvation with fear and trembling") comes in the context of how how church members live together in relationship. The early NT church was much more tightly knit and relational than modern churches. These churches were likely quite small by modern standards (estimates I've seen have average size ranges from 20 to 40 people, so nowhere to hide from the nitty gritty of real life). Some scholars interpret this as meaning not that we have to work out a a salvation, but that he is saying that we should live in the reality of the salvation provided by Christ, so that the outworking should be love and unity in the body of Christ. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9160 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, thank you for those quotes. I get so tired of hearing that she "changed". Wrong! I've also pondered the "work out your own salvation" text...and I believe we saw it inside-out. Salvation, which God accomplishes in our own new birth, we "work outwardly" in our edifying the body and living in surrender to the Lord Jesus. Actually, it's what you said, Bskillet! Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 387 Registered: 1-2006  |
Great quotes, Jeremy! A sincere SDA recently made this comment to me: "Well, I know Satan is very powerful, but if I'm saved . . . " I have no memory of anything he said after that, just that I was thinking, Hey, do you think if you asked Satan real nice, sort of, you know, real friendly, that he might let you be saved? Ellen's influence is just stunning. Bob |
