Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[tall73]

I will start another thread to do that.




You are focused on the dating and the misinterpretation it represented but you have not said one thing about the truth of the message that included salvation and the grace of God.

Yes I have. I said they should have preached the grace of God without the time setting. That is what Dowling said too.

The tone and content of your posting on this has long been shown for what it is designing to do. That being to bash EGW as a false prophet and invalidate the sda church in general. Your words seem full of venom and your heart angry. There is no need to hash and re-hash the same things over and over again. You are convinced in your own mind what you think is right.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I see Ellen is not the only one to condemn hearts. Do you think you convince people by condemning your opponent?

 

[tall73]

let me be perfectly plain. I do think Ellen was wrong. I think this is a dangerous and false teaching. Now show me why that makes me angry or anything else.

Now everyone does look for motives as they read. And one of the dangers inherent in your own position is that you are defending a demonstrably flawed message. Miller's message was wrong. Therefore those who read this thread inevitably ask why someone defends this message so vehemently. And then one also wonders why they say they are not defending Ellen.

So let's be clear. I am attacking this doctrine. I believe it is wrong. No one need wonder if that is the case.

I do not think it is out of anger. But you can judge that for yourself. I don't think everyone will necessarily buy into your assessment of me. And do not doubt that they are not making one of you as well.

 

[Jon0388g]

Ellen herself quotes the ministers as saying that they have no objection to the preaching of Jesus' coming. They objected to the time.

Look closer at the quotes provided. She says these ministers "professed" to love the Saviour. Why did they object to the time? Because they did not want to hear the message of the nearness of Christ's advent. That is what she is condemning.

As to Jesus' coming being near had Miller stuck to that he would have been fine. But he did not. He added the preaching of time--1843.

Now since Ellen is writing after the fact she cannot assail the correctness of the minister's position. Therefore she questions their hearts. But in the final analysis they were right. Jesus did say that He comes at an hour you do not know.

The fact that she questions their hearts is not a matter relevant to this thread. If she was indeed a Prophetess of the Lord then she might well have had an insight on the condition of their heart.

In the final analysis they were right. When Satan told Eve she will be as a god, knowing good from evil, was he correct? Yes. Was his motive satanic? Yes.

And Ellen's explanation conveniently leaves out the fact that she along with Miller and all the movement did settle on a specific day. That was completely against Jesus' words.

And? When did Ellen recieve her first vision before or after 1844?

That is her contention. . Notice again Dowling's words, one of the ministers who opposed Miller:


I cannot but suppose that Mr. M. is a pious, well-meaning man. I would advise him, in conclusion, if he would escape the distress I know it would cause him in his old age to have been unintentionally instrumental in the spread of infidelity, to go home and preach Christ crucified to perishing sinners, which I have no doubt he is qualified to do, and to waste no more of a life which might be valuable if rightly spent, in vainly attempting to make known those times and seasons which God hath wisely concealed from the ken of mortals, and "put into His own power."


He says that they should preach repentance--but not times.

Yes that is his word. EGW says many professed to love the Saviour, and would not even consider the argument based on the prophecies. His words sound genuine, but it is one against the other.

They were resisting Miller's preaching of time which leads to needless discouragement when the time fails. This does not mean they reject the biblical message of repentance.

Notice Ellen later also spoke of the impact of setting times:


Many who have called themselves Adventists have been time setters. Time
after time has been set for Christ to come, but repeated failures have been the result. The definite time of our Lord's coming is declared to be beyond
the ken of mortals. Even the angels who minister unto those who shall be
heirs of salvation know not the day nor the hour. "But of that day and hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Because
the times repeatedly set have passed, the world is in a more decided state
of unbelief than before in regard to the near advent of Christ. They look
upon the failures of the time setters with disgust; and because men have been so deceived, they turn from the truth substantiated by the word of God
that the end of all things is at hand. {4T 307.1}
Those who so presumptuously preach definite time, in so doing gratify
the adversary of souls; for they are advancing infidelity rather than
Christianity. They produce Scripture and by false interpretation show a
chain of argument which apparently proves their position. But their failures
show that they are false prophets, that they do not rightly interpret the
language of inspiration. The word of God is truth and verity, but men have
perverted its meaning. These errors have brought the truth of God for these
ast days into disrepute.
Testimonies vol 4, pg 307

But for her to apply this to Miller would be to destroy the prophetic structure of Adventism. Therefore she does not.

Tall, was the second Advent message brought to the world with force before or after 1844? Did timesetting produce more unbelief before 1844 or after? Was the book of Daniel studied with such intensity before 1844 or after? When did God say to keep the book sealed until?


Mrs White said the Great Disappointment was a test. The trumpet was sounded for judgment right on time, just as the trumpets sounded DOA in the type. The time-setting was correct, the interpretation was not.



Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

The question you should be asking: What was the message that God sent the Millerites?

If it was the Second Coming of Christ in 1843, then you are correct: Adventism is a false movement and EGW a false prophet.


If it was in fact the unsealing of the book of Daniel, and the preaching of the Three-Angels' message, then your contention to disprove EGW as a prophet is again dismantled.



Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

BTW, my reputation is '1844'. I think that is also a sign from the Lord.


Jon


P.S. - joking

 

[Jimlarmore]

Yes I have. I said they should have preached the grace of God without the time setting. That is what Dowling said too.

I see Ellen is not the only one to condemn hearts. Do you think you convince people by condemning your opponent?

Your words and your motives are what condemn you not me. I simply point them out occasionally. I'll let my credibility lie in the hands/minds of those who read my words/thoughts. If you think I have stepped over the line I apologize.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

BTW, my reputation is '1844'. I think that is also a sign from the Lord.


Jon


P.S. - joking

I just had to give you rep for that one. But it is ok 1852 amd 56 are also predicted second coming dates so you can still use it in the future maybe, depending on how many you get at a time (which I don't know the answer to).

 

[OntheDL]

I know this.
This is the 'remnant' ideal, to divide themselves from the Body of Christ; chop it up into little pieces until we claim ascendency from Apollos or Paul or Peter or Ellen, bickering and fighting and consuming one another with petty divisions.

Luke 11:23
He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

What is the will of God, that He sacrificed His Son to make propitiation for the law and redeem us from its curse?

Victor

Adventism is not a denomination, but a religious movement. A movement of Separation and Calling-out.

Know this, Adventism diametrically opposes Ecumenism. There can never unity between the two such as light and darkness, water and fire.

 

[ricker]

Adventism is not a denomination, but a religious movement. A movement of Separation and Calling-out.

Know this, Adventism diametrically opposes Ecumenism. There can never unity between the two such as light and darkness, water and fire.

This says a lot about Adventism. It's kinda sad.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. Your belief of who is in darkness and who is in light may be different than mine, however.
God bless! Ricker

 

[VictorC]

Adventism is not a denomination, but a religious movement. A movement of Separation and Calling-out.

Know this, Adventism diametrically opposes Ecumenism. There can never unity between the two such as light and darkness, water and fire.

If Adventism isn't a denomination, then by your words you set it apart from Christianity. Would this not define it as a cult?

I have made mention a couple of times before of the desire the Christian has of following Jesus instead of a denomination, and in the post you answered I mentioned that doctrine doesn't save, only the Blood of Jesus does.

These words seem to have no appeal to you.
If you aren't following Jesus, who is the object of your faith?

Victor

 

[NightEternal]

You may think this is strange Nite but I am glad you decided to stay in the church. We are a diverse group anyway but I wouldn't want anyone to leave the fold unless they are completely turned away from the truth and the Lord. I don't think that is your case. I know the Lord loves you with a love beyond measure. You are so precious to Him that He would have died just for you if you were the only one who sinned.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

That's all well and good Jim, but would you still have the same kind words for me if I were to, for some reason or another, decide to leave the church for good and become a former?

As for turning away from the 'truth'...Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life. And I have no plans of ever turning away from Him no matter what denomination I find myself in.

 

[tall73]

Look closer at the quotes provided. She says these ministers "professed" to love the Saviour. Why did they object to the time? Because they did not want to hear the message of the nearness of Christ's advent. That is what she is condemning.

A claim for which she has no proof. You really want us to believe that every pastor was insincere who ever rejected Miller?

The facts are they were correct biblically and she had no answer to that, seeing as how Jesus did not come in 1843. Yet she still said the rebuke was out of false motives, since she couldn't refute the facts.

The fact that she questions their hearts is not a matter relevant to this thread. If she was indeed a Prophetess of the Lord then she might well have had an insight on the condition of their heart.

You need to establish first that she is a prophet. But to propose that
every person who rejected Miller's message ACCURATELY while quoting the Bible is just silly. She was wrong and had no other recourse but to question their motives.

In the final analysis they were right.

Yes, and in the final analysis Miller was wrong.

And? When did Ellen recieve her first vision before or after 1844?

And when did she write that God was in the false message of Miller? The volume was released in 58, so well after her first vision.

Yes that is his word. EGW says many professed to love the Saviour, and would not even consider the argument based on the prophecies. His words sound genuine, but it is one against the other.

One who was right on the Scriptures and one who was wrong. And the one who was wrong blamed God for the mistake.

Now it is not just one against another. It is up to the one making an allegation to prove it. Where is the proof that these people were all insincere? On the other hand the proof is quite manifest to anyone who knows what year we are in that Jesus did not come in 1843.

Tall, was the second Advent message brought to the world with force before or after 1844? Did timesetting produce more unbelief before 1844 or after? Was the book of Daniel studied with such intensity before 1844 or after? When did God say to keep the book sealed until?

Jon, if you are so convinced that the results of time setting are great, go set a date.

But Ellen herself points to the fact that after 1843 many could not get the faith back they had before for the next round. It did in fact discourage.

Mrs White said the Great Disappointment was a test. The trumpet was sounded for judgment right on time, just as the trumpets sounded DOA in the type. The time-setting was correct, the interpretation was not.

Jon

She said that God was in the WRONG time. The message was wrong, and therefore could not have been a test. The only way to pass the test would be to believe a non-biblical falsehood--hardly the way to pass a Godly test.

 

[tall73]

The question you should be asking: What was the message that God sent the Millerites?

If it was the Second Coming of Christ in 1843, then you are correct: Adventism is a false movement and EGW a false prophet.


If it was in fact the unsealing of the book of Daniel, and the preaching of the Three-Angels' message, then your contention to disprove EGW as a prophet is again dismantled.



Jon

Then read her own words Jon. She says that God was behind the message and even the proclamation of the time in 1843. And that certainly was Miller's message. Here are a number of statements from Early Writings:


I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was His design to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point, where they should decide for or against the truth.

I saw the people of God joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods.

God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment. 236


I saw the wisdom of God in proving His people and giving them a searching test to discover those who would shrink and turn back in the hour of trial. {EW 235.3}


Those who had neglected to receive the heavenly message were left in darkness, and God's anger was kindled against them, because they would not receive the light which He had sent them from heaven.

Jesus and all the heavenly host looked with sympathy and love upon those who had with sweet expectation longed to see Him whom their souls loved. Angels were hovering around them, to sustain them in the hour of their trial. Those who had neglected to receive the heavenly message were left in darkness, and God's anger was kindled against them, because they would not receive the light which He had sent them from heaven.

God designed.

God calculated

God covered a mistake

God designed that they should meet with disappointment

God gave them a searching test.

God had wisdom in testing His people.

God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843

It was His desire to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point.

She calls Miller's message a heavenly message.

Clearly Ellen sees God as directly behind the preaching of time in 1843, and the setting of a date which resulted in disappointment. There is no doubt that Miller's message was Jesus is coming around 1843. And Ellen says it was God's doing.


So we see that Ellen blames God for them setting a time which the Bible controverts. And then they condemned those who had given them the warning that they should not set time, though they were right.



.

 

[tall73]

Your words and your motives are what condemn you not me. I simply point them out occasionally. I'll let my credibility lie in the hands/minds of those who read my words/thoughts. If you think I have stepped over the line I apologize.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You always apologize Jim. And then you go right back to the same accusing words that crop up in nearly every discussion we have ever had. But your personal characterizations do not change the real issue. Miller was wrong. Defending Miller's message is hopeless. Even he admitted he was wrong.

But I have already received a number of encouragements from onlookers who see how hopeless it is to argue that a message which clearly did not happen --Jesus coming in 1843, was somehow a true message.

 

[Jon0388g]

A claim for which she has no proof. You really want us to believe that every pastor was insincere who ever rejected Miller?

The facts are they were correct biblically and she had no answer to that, seeing as how Jesus did not come in 1843. Yet she still said the rebuke was out of false motives, since she couldn't refute the facts.

You need to establish first that she is a prophet. But to propose that
every person who rejected Miller's message ACCURATELY while quoting the Bible is just silly. She was wrong and had no other recourse but to question their motives.

Again, you make it very clear you believe she was not a prophet. What if she was? She could have been shown every one of their motives.

And don't even try and use the fact that they quoted Scripture 'accurately'. The devil can quote Scripture 'accurately' too, just look at the wilderness incident.


How many times on these forums have I had people in my face quoting 'accurate' Scriptures but portraying a satanic message and having satanic motives? We are not under law, but grace - one of many examples.

Yes, and in the final analysis Miller was wrong.

And when did she write that God was in the false message of Miller? The volume was released in 58, so well after her first vision.

Exactly Tall. So you cannot attempt to twist her own words against date-setting which were written way after the great disappointment, when the message of Christ's Second Advent was first preached on a wide scale. That is why it was a test.

One who was right on the Scriptures and one who was wrong. And the one who was wrong blamed God for the mistake.

Your manner is quite revealing. Ellen White 'blamed' God??

Jon, if you are so convinced that the results of time setting are great, go set a date.

But Ellen herself points to the fact that after 1843 many could not get the faith back they had before for the next round. It did in fact discourage.

Did they have their house built on the rock?? Or was their faith sifted as wheat?

Again, the disappointment (EGW says) was a test. You have not given any evidence/Biblical reasons to suggest otherwise, except the usual slurs and false allegations. Which I honestly thought you were above.



Jon

 

[tall73]

Again, you make it very clear you believe she was not a prophet. What if she was? She could have been shown every one of their motives.

And don't even try and use the fact that they quoted Scripture 'accurately'. The devil can quote Scripture 'accurately' too, just look at the wilderness incident.

So if I understand your point correctly you feel the Millerite date setting was both accurate and biblical?

How many times on these forums have I had people in my face quoting 'accurate' Scriptures but portraying a satanic message and having satanic motives? We are not under law, but grace - one of many examples.

So if I understand your point correctly you feel the Millerite date setting was both accurate and biblical?

Exactly Tall. So you cannot attempt to twist her own words against date-setting which were written way after the great disappointment, when the message of Christ's Second Advent was first preached on a wide scale. That is why it was a test.

The quote I was referring to in 58 was the one about Miller's message being heavenly.


And it was long after 1843 when they knew he was not right. But she attributed the error to God.

The test was Miller's message. The test included the time which God was in according to Ellen.

Your manner is quite revealing. Ellen White 'blamed' God??

Yes, the statements have been posted again and again that it was God's design.

Did they have their house built on the rock?? Or was their faith sifted as wheat?

The very sifting sand of Miller's message.

Again, the disappointment (EGW says) was a test. You have not given any evidence/Biblical reasons to suggest otherwise, except the usual slurs and false allegations. Which I honestly thought you were above.



Jon

You mean Jesus' words and the actual failure of the message don't cut it?

The test was Miller's message. Miller's message was false and involved anti-biblical time setting.

 

[Jon0388g]

So if I understand your point correctly you feel the Millerite date setting was both accurate and biblical?

So if I understand your point correctly you feel the Millerite date setting was both accurate and biblical?

1. Yes. His 'date setting' of 1844 was correct. The 2300 days ended in 1844.

2. I see you artfully dodged the point I was trying to make. You tried to imply that the opposition to Miller quoted Scripture 'accurately', when you and I can clearly read in our Bibles that demons quote Scripture 'accurately' just as well. So?

The quote I was referring to in 58 was the one about Miller's message being heavenly.


And it was long after 1843 when they knew he was not right. But she attributed the error to God.

So now its 'attributed'. Sounds a little nicer than 'blamed' but not much.

She did not 'blame' God for anything. God allowed a correct message - judgment - but a false interpretation - Second Coming. Their misunderstandin was prophecied to taste bitter in the stomach and so it happened. And what happened after? They were to 'prophecy again'. Those who's faith failed did not pass the test.

The test was Miller's message. The test included the time which God was in according to Ellen.

For the umpteenth time, the time was correct. Start up another thread and prove to me the 2300 days did not end in 1844.

You mean Jesus' words and the actual failure of the message don't cut it?

The test was Miller's message. Miller's message was false and involved anti-biblical time setting.

Sorry Tall, the prophecies of Daniel are for us to 'understand'. Time-setting is of course Biblical. How did the Magi know when the Christ was to appear? Surely they knew the time?!


Even as the disciples overlooked the fact that Scripture says the Messiah would be 'cut off', and on top of that Christ's own words to them of His death, the same Millerites overlooked their error in applying their correct calculations of 1844 to Christ's coming.



Jon

 

[tall73]

1. Yes. His 'date setting' of 1844 was correct. The 2300 days ended in 1844.

That is odd. Then what is all this fuss about 1844?

But you know well enough that his message was that Jesus was COMING to earth in 1843. And that was a wrong date-setting message.

2. I see you artfully dodged the point I was trying to make. You tried to imply that the opposition to Miller quoted Scripture 'accurately', when you and I can clearly read in our Bibles that demons quote Scripture 'accurately' just as well. So?

No I didn't dodge it.

Demons quote the text. But they make a false application.

Those objecting to Miller not only quoted the text but made a true application.

So now its 'attributed'. Sounds a little nicer than 'blamed' but not much.

She did not 'blame' God for anything. God allowed a correct message - judgment - but a false interpretation - Second Coming. Their misunderstandin was prophecied to taste bitter in the stomach and so it happened. And what happened after? They were to 'prophecy again'. Those who's faith failed did not pass the test.

Yes, she blamed God for Miller's mistake. She said His hand covered it--not just allowed--covered. She said that it was God in the message. Now the message was Jesus coming in 43. The message was wrong.

She said God was in the time--1843. Even Adventists admit that was wrong.

So again, she blames God for Miller's false, date-setting message.

For the umpteenth time, the time was correct. Start up another thread and prove to me the 2300 days did not end in 1844.

You just said 1843 a minute ago!

Now the point is Ellen also said God was in the proclaiming of 1843. And no one thinks that date was right.

And apart from that the time was related to Jesus coming which is precisely why it was rejected.

So again, those who would buy into Ellen's "test" would have to ignore the Scriptures and set a date for Jesus' coming.

Sorry Tall, the prophecies of Daniel are for us to 'understand'. Time-setting is of course Biblical. How did the Magi know when the Christ was to appear? Surely they knew the time?!

Time setting for Jesus coming is not biblical and was rightly rejected.

Even as the disciples overlooked the fact that Scripture says the Messiah would be 'cut off', and on top of that Christ's own words to them of His death, the same Millerites overlooked their error in applying their correct calculations of 1844 to Christ's coming.

It was not just a human mistake according to Ellen. She says God designed it, He held His hand over the date, etc. Now, why do you keep saying it was just them doing it?

And as you correctly note Jesus did NOT give His disciples a false message but a true one over and over and then said how little faith they had in the Scriptures when they still didn't understand.

That is far different from Ellen calling Miller's date setting message a heavenly message and saying God was behind it.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by Jon0388g
Look closer at the quotes provided. She says these ministers "professed" to love the Saviour. Why did they object to the time? Because they did not want to hear the message of the nearness of Christ's advent. That is what she is condemning.

A claim for which she has no proof.

Ah, but she was there. She could hear the tone in their voice and heard far more from them than we will ever hear.
====
From Arasola's dissertation, pg. 13:

"Within nineteenth century North American Protestantism an interest in last things was not a fringe phenomenon. There was intense millenarian speculation by some of the leading theologians(37) as well as by many popular preachers.(38) Several ventured to calculate the time of the eschaton."

(37) Apocalyptic speculation was promoted by e.g. U. Ogden (rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Newark NJ), S. Langdom (president of Harvard), Timothy White (president of Yale), O. Elsbree (professor at Buckland), E. Nott (president of Union College), Lyman Beecher (president of Lane Theological Seminary), etc. See PFF IV, 56-133. [PFF=Prophetic Faith of our Fathers]

(38) E.g. S. M'Corkle (Presbyterian pastor), Father John Thayer, Jedidah Morse, .... [One source given was PFF IV, 56-133. I'll get the rest later.]

 

[tall73]

Ah, but she was there. She could hear the tone in their voice and heard far more from them than we will ever hear.
====
From Arasola's dissertation, pg. 13:

"Within nineteenth century North American Protestantism an interest in last things was not a fringe phenomenon. There was intense millenarian speculation by some of the leading theologians(37) as well as by many popular preachers.(38) Several ventured to calculate the time of the eschaton."

(37) Apocalyptic speculation was promoted by e.g. U. Ogden (rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Newark NJ), S. Langdom (president of Harvard), Timothy White (president of Yale), O. Elsbree (professor at Buckland), E. Nott (president of Union College), Lyman Beecher (president of Lane Theological Seminary), etc. See PFF IV, 56-133. [PFF=Prophetic Faith of our Fathers]

(38) E.g. S. M'Corkle (Presbyterian pastor), Father John Thayer, Jedidah Morse, .... [One source given was PFF IV, 56-133. I'll get the rest later.]

The tone of voice provides us no proof. That is still her subjective opinion. Any speculation on what their tone was is fruitless as evidence because we can't hear it now. So it still boils down to Ellen's testimonial evidence regarding their intentions, which is not proof. We have only a claim by someone who was deeply invested in Miller's movement, and who along with him, eventually bought into a specific day and hour of Jesus coming. She also uses Miller's movement as evidence of the remnant status of her own movement. She therefore has an interest in defending their decision to go against Scripture. But since the facts clearly bore out that they were wrong her only recourse is to say they were insincere. But her claim is not proof. So did she present any proof for us to consider that they had wrong motives for their correct statements? And more importantly, what was Ellen's motivation for going against the words of Scripture and eventually settling on even a date and hour of Jesus coming? We can't know her heart either. And I would even grant that she was sincere. But she was wrong. And they were right.

As to motivation, while we can't hear Dowling's voice, we can view what he said. He seemed to grant that Miller was sincere. He granted that Miller was preaching to save souls. But he objected to the time. And this evidence of objecting to time is even admitted by Ellen. That is something tangible. That is something we can look at as evidence.