Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where is that admonition in the Bible again?Avonia--If there were plays about the time of trouble--than whatever church did/or is doing that are going against EGW's admonition that 'NOTHING theatrical should enter the work'! She vehemently discourages plays and skits depicting biblical themes.
So see--she gets the blame for what others do.
Interesting that even herself she says the work is of God or of Satan. So who do you think it originated with?
How can we believe everything Paul or John said? They too were imperfect sinners.
My point being, though I don't think EGW was infallible, i think her writings were inspired by God. But how do we know which are inspired and which are just her personal suggestions, advice, and admonitions: Whichever are convenient or according to our desire? EGW wrote in her time and for her time, as well as ours. Jesus and the apostles did likewise. They discussed issues of that time.
How could 'human to human' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?
How could sexual relations between married human beings be considered 'base crimes'?
How could 'beast to beast' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?
EGW used the 'base crime' phrase in only one other instance, and it was to describe Potiphar's wife's advances on Joseph.
How could 'beast to beast' relationships 'deface the image of God'?
Why did Uriah Smith, in an attempt to defend EGW's statements, say that her amalgamation statements referred to "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country"?
If this is NOT what EGW meant, then where did she make the correction? Instead the Whites promoted Smith's publication at campmeetings!!!
Sometimes the desire to be right blinds one from the truth!
In Christ alone...
I think the bickering about trivial EGW things is just that..trivial.
Do you know of any kids who were threatened with hell fire for not accepting those myths?
First of all my question was addressed to RC. Who refuses to answer and I'm fine with that.Clearly, MVA’s question was addressed by Haggai:
On a further note, EGW received the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10) in the same vain as, for instance, Spurgeon, and NOT Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera. There can be no doubt by anyone who truly investigates her work that the “Testimonies” are NOT to be received on the same level as the latter OT authors! So the answer to MVA’s question is that EGW’s work was inspired by Yah, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.
She was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.
The problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who don’t embrace EGW’s work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to “progress” onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.
The question to MVA should be does she take EGW’s work on par with the prophetic gift given Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and etcetera?
Michael
First of all my question was addressed to RC. Who refuses to answer and I'm fine with that.
Secondly, EGW did receive visions like the Bible prophets. Her works are not canon. Also, if you happen to have the CD of her writings search for "I was shown" and see how many results you get.
Well, my conversation at the time was with RC and he has not answered the question. I don't consider it answered by him. Fine if someone else wants to share their opinion.One should expect on these forums that questions are up for grabs and not solely conducive to personal correspondence. Consider your question answered in full.
The phrase "I was shown" was commonly used by many Christian authors of the time, which did not elevate her inspiration above, for example, Spurgeon's, like I stated previously. Again, she was a fallible author to be taken on par with other men like Spurgeon but beyond that would infer a pope like status and entering into the perennial popery controversy of what is excathedra.
And again, the problem with the SDA institution is that its moved away from the foundation and upholds the same popery as the RCC and presents difficulty for those who dont embrace EGWs work on par with Biblical canon and for those who desire to progress onto greater light. And this is indicative of the issue of its incorporation and its friendship with the world, holding that the support and the name of the church are secular matters to be regulated or enforced by the two-horned beast.
Michael
I will admit to never having read that article, but I specifically mentioned searching for the phrase "I was shown."in the early 80s the Review published an article later to be known as the "I Saw" article... in it the church explained that not every time EGW said "I saw" was she in vision... sometimes when she said I saw she was relaying some type of information... the example used was the time EGW read in a newspaper about a boy almost drowning in Australia and then wrote to her son, "I saw that you were about to drown....."
RC or Senti might remember the article....
So far everyone else who has commented has said that I did answer your question. I don't know how to make it more clear for you. Personally I think you are afraid to deal with the issues so you are pretending that I have not answered you. It is frightening to see what lengths people go to to avoid facing reality.Well, my conversation at the time was with RC and he has not answered the question. I don't consider it answered by him. Fine if someone else wants to share their opinion.
I tire of this whole "popery" thing. Find me a trad that buys into that.
Again, the phrase "I was shown" was used by EGW to refer to times that she had been shown things by God.
I saw and I was shown.... were used interchangeably.I will admit to never having read that article, but I specifically mentioned searching for the phrase "I was shown."
So far everyone else who has commented has said that I did answer your question. I don't know how to make it more clear for you. Personally I think you are afraid to deal with the issues so you are pretending that I have not answered you. It is frightening to see what lengths people go to to avoid facing reality.
no need... I believe that you are comfortable with the premise that every time she said, "I was shown" she was "in vision."Stormy,
If you are interested I will try and find the quote where EGW writes about this very phrase.
Ok it is not pretending you simply are ignoring the issues.
Ok it is not pretending you simply are ignoring the issues.
so lets vote on that. Who thinks MVA is ignoring the issues in this thread?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?