Beloved Ellen

[asiyreh]

Ok so here's the last problem I mentioned in the other thread.

Ahhhammmmm ahhammm hmmhmamm

*Looks around nervously

Ahhammm

Ok there's no real easy way to say this so I'm just going to say it.

How to we explain the whole Ellen White thing in the light of -
1 Timothy 2 : 11-13

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, what do you do with Deborah--a judge and military leader even. What about " there is neither male, or female" in the eyes of God? Obviously there is a difference, He made us. And she was never the head of the church--she had visions and spoke and wrote about them. She gave her messages to the church, and often, they were ignored by the church leaders--and they ended up wishing they had listened. She did not even hold any office in the church. So what do you want to do with all the female sabbath school teachers?? You have to take into account the era and customs of the day. Women were not able to inherit property--yet when the daughters complained and went to Moses about inheriting their father's property, Moses went to God and God agreed they should inherit. Back then, just about everything was segregated, men in one area, women in another, even in church. Women now are also political leaders, and we are supposed to submit to civil authority, and God says He puts whom He will in power. There are women as the heads of countries--prime ministers, queens that hold the power (as opposed to kings--as the Queen of England, her husband is not the king of England, he is her husband, she inherited the crown). Good grief, if a woman can run a country, she can teach a sabbath school! If Paul were around today, I don't think he would have worded that in the same way. Still, Christ is the head of the church, and the husband the head of the family--but then we have the problem of women having to be the head of the family due to divorce, being widowed, or the guy just simply took off. Today we have the whole thing of the ordination of women--there are women pastors now. But people have a problem with a woman who 150 years ago, was writing and speaking about the visions she received from God!

 

[asiyreh]

Ok well I just want it to be noted that I haven't any personal problem with woman in pastoral roles myself. In point of fact if I'm honest I have to admit I live in a fairly matriarchal type family myself lol. I have no sons and three daughters... need I say anything more?

What I don't want however, is to be standing like a guppy if someone puts the question to me.

I'm not to concerned about this, on a personal level. Any type of loose scriptural defense would be great though if anyone has any ideas.

Thanks guys.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Ok well I just want it to be noted that I haven't any personal problem with woman in pastoral roles myself. In point of fact if I'm honest I have to admit I live in a fairly matriarchal type family myself lol. I have no sons and three daughters... need I say anything more?

What I don't want however, is to be standing like a guppy if someone puts the question to me.

I'm not to concerned about this, on a personal level. Any type of loose scriptural defense would be great though if anyone has any ideas.

Thanks guys.

this text is a problem in regard to egw...

let me give you an example:

Samson fell in love with a philistine woman... he married her... his parents were against it

BECAUSE they didnt it was caused by the Lord Himself, for He searched for an opportunity to cause some trouble to the Philistines...

this is plain bible teaching!

now the SDA comes up with how Samson broke God's law and his choice was bad...

now who do you believe? egw? or the bible?

of course egws explanation makes a lot of sense and is even closer to bible teaching (in regard to breaking God's law) but somehow declares the plain word of the bible (in regard to Samson's choice) null and void...

do you submit to egw? or the bible?

 

[asiyreh]

You a speakee no sensa my friend. Perhaps you could draw breath, and exhale. Are we calm? Ok, now what is it you wanted to say, try not to get excited.

In answer to your question btw, I have no creed but Christ and his commandments. See that little icon up
there........................... ^ it says Christian.

I wish to join the SDA church because in my opinion they're the only "church," who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Christ.

 

[Stryder06]

Ok so here's the last problem I mentioned in the other thread.

Ahhhammmmm ahhammm hmmhmamm

*Looks around nervously

Ahhammm

Ok there's no real easy way to say this so I'm just going to say it.

How to we explain the whole Ellen White thing in the light of -
1 Timothy 2 : 11-13

It's not a problematic verse if we understand the context of the time. Also one should note that God went to two men FIRST before He choose Ellen. Both of the men turned down the opportunity to be God's messenger. I can't remember the scripture but I do recall Paul speaking of a friend in the ministry with him who had daughters who prophesied. The text in my understanding, is really more about how a woman, during that time, was to conduct herself in the church. Notice how the text says she ought not usurp authority over the man. Ellen did no usurp any authority, but rather took up the role that God gave to her.

 

[Stryder06]

this text is a problem in regard to egw...

let me give you an example:

Samson fell in love with a philistine woman... he married her... his parents were against it

BECAUSE they didnt it was caused by the Lord Himself, for He searched for an opportunity to cause some trouble to the Philistines...

this is plain bible teaching!

You misunderstand this entire situation. God didn't WANT Samson to be disobedient to His law, for it was unlawful to marry a pagan. However, God worked with Samson even in His foolishness to bring trouble upon the Philistines.

now the SDA comes up with how Samson broke God's law and his choice was bad...

now who do you believe? egw? or the bible?

At what point in time does God ever approve of disobedience? This has nothing to do with EGW and everything to do with what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, versus what we want it to say.

of course egws explanation makes a lot of sense and is even closer to bible teaching (in regard to breaking God's law) but somehow declares the plain word of the bible (in regard to Samson's choice) null and void...

do you submit to egw? or the bible?

Again, you misunderstand what the bible is teaching. I've never read Sr White's statements on Samson yet I knew the bible wasn't saying that God was in favor of Samson's choices anymore then God actually wanting Pharaoh to fight against Him. However God has a habit of working things out to His glory, and according to His purpose, even when His chosen one goes the wrong way.

There is no either or when it comes to Sr White and the Bible. It's amazing how many people will swear they are understanding it and that she got it wrong, but won't consider the opposite to be true.

 

[Stryder06]

I wish to join the SDA church because in my opinion they're the only "church," who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Christ.

And don't let anyone tell you any different

 

[BobRyan]

Ok there's no real easy way to say this so I'm just going to say it.

How to we explain the whole Ellen White thing in the light of -
1 Timothy 2 : 11-13

If you ever manage to "discover" that there are no woman prophets in the bible - or that there are no woman judges in the Bible or that Priscilla and Aquilla do not instruct Apollos on matters of doctrine or that "Sons AND Daughters" are not included in Joel 2 as prophets, or that Paul ever said "do not listen to prophets if they happen to be a woman" -- then you have accomplished something few others have been able to do and then you have a problem with Ellen White's claim to be a prophet that is pretty solid.

On the other hand if you find harmony between 1Tim 2:11-13 and these other bible appointments by God - then we have Seventh-day Adventism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Samson fell in love with a philistine woman... he married her... his parents were against it

BECAUSE they didnt it was caused by the Lord Himself, for He searched for an opportunity to cause some trouble to the Philistines...

this is plain bible teaching!

now the SDA comes up with how Samson broke God's law and his choice was bad...

now who do you believe? egw? or the bible?

of course egws explanation makes a lot of sense and is even closer to bible teaching (in regard to breaking God's law) but somehow declares the plain word of the bible (in regard to Samson's choice) null and void...

do you submit to egw? or the bible?

The Bible says "not to be unequally yoked" -- Samson is in direct violation of that law.

Ezra forces the marriages with non-Jews in the OT to be broken claiming that they are all against God Word. Ezra 9, and 10. Nehemiah also declares this to be sin - a direct transgression against God in Nehemiah 13.

In David's day he numbers the people - in direct violation against God. David's own commander in charge of the army argues against it because even HE knows it is sin. But the Bible says it is of the Lord for He was seeking cause against Israel.

There is a plague to punish that sin - that kills 70,000 in Israel. David intercedes with God saying that it is HE who has sinned and that God should not punish Israel for HIS sin. A guilt and sin offering is made and the plague ends.

You are arguing this whole point as if these cases where the Bible says either "an evil spirit from the Lord" (in the case of king Saul) or "this thing was of the Lord" is able to cancel out the sin that is associated when evil men are tempted or moved to do something wrong.

The Bible never excuses their sins - not even in these cases.

There is a difference between the sovereign acts of God knowing the end from the beginning and the will of God stating that no man should ever sin or transgress His law. Yet He used wicked evil kings to punish Israel - was he excusing those evil kings of their sins and idol worship, and murders?



in Christ,

Bob

 

[JohnMarsten]

You misunderstand this entire situation. God didn't WANT Samson to be disobedient to His law, for it was unlawful to marry a pagan. However, God worked with Samson even in His foolishness to bring trouble upon the Philistines.

that is the whole problem here... Do we really know what God wanted?

lets take Ruth for example? Was she a pagan? maybe the law was meant to be understood in the general sense with possible exceptions...

what is most important here IMHO, is the transparency of the bible...

so... when the bible says

But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” 4 (His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)

I heard a preacher saying that the author of the book of judges doesnt want to present his here (samson) in the bad light, he apparently deserved, but rather passed the blame onto God.

Why is that? why couldnt God just have the author write down how Samson disobeyed the law and how it had such an impact on the end of his life and that he could have achieved so much had he been obedient to the word of God, yet the bible says that it was from the Lord, so what was from the Lord, the confrontation? did God see Samson behaving foolishly and then decided to use it for His own purposes? I read it in the way that God made Samson fall in love with that woman, for he sought to confront the philistines... of course one might also come up and say that God knew before that Samson would fall in love and He didnt do anything against it, so as to confront the philistines lateron... one way or another the bible doesnt blame Samson for it, and neither should we...


[/quote]
At what point in time does God ever approve of disobedience? This has nothing to do with EGW and everything to do with what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, versus what we want it to say.[/quote]

Maybe this whole thing was just a guideline, like I said think about Ruth...


[/quote]
Again, you misunderstand what the bible is teaching. I've never read Sr White's statements on Samson yet I knew the bible wasn't saying that God was in favor of Samson's choices anymore then God actually wanting Pharaoh to fight against Him. However God has a habit of working things out to His glory, and according to His purpose, even when His chosen one goes the wrong way.[/quote]

so wouldnt the bible describe it in this way, then? why the cover-up?

[/quote]
There is no either or when it comes to Sr White and the Bible. It's amazing how many people will swear they are understanding it and that she got it wrong, but won't consider the opposite to be true. [/quote]

Everything is considered... do you ever consider the other way round?

 

[BobRyan]

Now for the bigger picture.

In every major crisis event in human history (for example the flood, and the coming of Christ, God the Son as Messiah) God sent a prophet like Noah or John the baptizer. We are now at the 3rd great crisis event - the 2nd coming is just upon us and lo and behold we find another claim that a prophet has been sent.

One with many large volumes if communication sent directly from God for His people in these last days.

Question - what should we "expect" in such a case? What should kinds of instruction, insight, warning, counsel should we expect God to be giving just before the 2nd coming?

So then if Ellen White is that prophet then what are the stakes in accepting or rejecting what God sovereignly chooses to reveal in that case?

It is worth taking the subject seriously -- no matter if you choose to accept or reject it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Stryder06]

that is the whole problem here... Do we really know what God wanted?

Actually the problem is second guessing the word of God. Yes we can know what God wants. Keeping the law = blessing. Breaking the law = curse. Doesn't get much more plain then that.

lets take Ruth for example? Was she a pagan? maybe the law was meant to be understood in the general sense with possible exceptions...

Your people will be my people and your God my God...She was an early convert

what is most important here IMHO, is the transparency of the bible...

so... when the bible says

But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” 4 (His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)

I heard a preacher saying that the author of the book of judges doesnt want to present his here (samson) in the bad light, he apparently deserved, but rather passed the blame onto God.

Why is that? why couldnt God just have the author write down how Samson disobeyed the law and how it had such an impact on the end of his life and that he could have achieved so much had he been obedient to the word of God, yet the bible says that it was from the Lord, so what was from the Lord, the confrontation? did God see Samson behaving foolishly and then decided to use it for His own purposes? I read it in the way that God made Samson fall in love with that woman, for he sought to confront the philistines... of course one might also come up and say that God knew before that Samson would fall in love and He didnt do anything against it, so as to confront the philistines lateron... one way or another the bible doesnt blame Samson for it, and neither should we...

Ok let's look at this again. "Keep My law and you'll be blessed. Break My law and you'll be cursed." In Exodus Moses says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I've seen people take that to mean that God forced Pharaoh to be disobedient and obstinate. Now is that the God I know? Would He FORCE a man to not accept His will and thus be damned? No.

Now I can't say why that Pastor explained it that way. I don't see that as necessary, but I do know that we can look line upon line, and precept upon precept to learn what the bible is actually saying versus what we think it might be saying.

Maybe this whole thing was just a guideline, like I said think about Ruth...

Or maybe God, again, just used Samson's foolishness to accomplish His will.

so wouldnt the bible describe it in this way, then? why the cover-up?

The bible explains it just fine. It's the Glory of God to hide a thing, and the glory of a king to seek it out.

Everything is considered... do you ever consider the other way round?

Sure have. And it can only be one of two things, either Ellen was totally used by God or she was totally used by Satan. God doesn't tag team with the adversary and use one person for a span of time, then let Satan use them for a span of time. Either it was all inspired or it wasn't. And I don't know about you, but reading what she says sheds light on the adversary, brings glory to God, and points one straight to the scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

that is the whole problem here... Do we really know what God wanted?

lets take Ruth for example? Was she a pagan? maybe the law was meant to be understood in the general sense with possible exceptions...

what is most important here IMHO, is the transparency of the bible...

We also have the point that the Bible tells us that Ruth was the servant of God and Delilah was the servant of evil. So even if they were both Jews - it would be "unequally yoked" to marry Delilah.

It is just like the story of 1Sam 28 where we are told that Samuel is speaking -- but the context is a seance conducted by a witch - something God condemned. This tells us that in fact it is not really Samuel speaking - but the familiar spirit of a witch. We are informed by the context as to the real meaning because the text itself says God was forbidding communion with the dead AND God was forbidding any prophet to speak to Saul (much less to jump at the beck and call of a witch) and that God had condemned the witches to death. Thus we can know that even given the 1Sam 28 story - prayers to the dead are not valid, that conjuring dead saints is not something witches can really do etc, and that this is not what is going on in 1Sam 28.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JohnMarsten]

Actually the problem is second guessing the word of God. Yes we can know what God wants. Keeping the law = blessing. Breaking the law = curse. Doesn't get much more plain then that.

so why would God let people write it was His doing, if it was that plain?

[/quote]
Your people will be my people and your God my God...She was an early convert [/quote]

maybe the philistine woman was in the state of conversion... and God knew that... and in order to get the confrontation He wanted, He just added a few twists to the story to make it more, lets say, confronting...


[/quote]
Ok let's look at this again. "Keep My law and you'll be blessed. Break My law and you'll be cursed." In Exodus Moses says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I've seen people take that to mean that God forced Pharaoh to be disobedient and obstinate. Now is that the God I know? Would He FORCE a man to not accept His will and thus be damned? No. [/quote]

well at first pharao hardened his heart himself, it was only later that God added to the hardening

[/quote]

Now I can't say why that Pastor explained it that way. I don't see that as necessary, but I do know that we can look line upon line, and precept upon precept to learn what the bible is actually saying versus what we think it might be saying. [/quote]

what we think it might be saying? are you serious? so am I reading into it when it says, 'it was the Lord's doing'...


[/quote]
Or maybe God, again, just used Samson's foolishness to accomplish His will.[/quote]
yeah maybe...



[/quote]
The bible explains it just fine. It's the Glory of God to hide a thing, and the glory of a king to seek it out.[/quote]

great context


[/quote]
Sure have. And it can only be one of two things, either Ellen was totally used by God or she was totally used by Satan. God doesn't tag team with the adversary and use one person for a span of time, then let Satan use them for a span of time. Either it was all inspired or it wasn't. And I don't know about you, but reading what she says sheds light on the adversary, brings glory to God, and points one straight to the scriptures.[/quote]

I think I dont need to comment on this one...

 

[BobRyan]

Did I stop being "SDA" in that last post?? What happened?

 

[JohnMarsten]

We also have the point that the Bible tells us that Ruth was the servant of God and Delilah was the servant of evil. So even if they were both Jews - it would be "unequally yoked" to marry Delilah.

It is just like the story of 1Sam 28 where we are told that Samuel is speaking -- but the context is a seance conducted by a witch - something God condemned. This tells us that in fact it is not really Samuel speaking - but the familiar spirit of a witch. We are informed by the context as to the real meaning because the text itself says God was forbidding communion with the dead AND God was forbidding any prophet to speak to Saul (much less to jump at the beck and call of a witch) and that God had condemned the witches to death. Thus we can know that even given the 1Sam 28 story - prayers to the dead are not valid, that conjuring dead saints is not something witches can really do etc, and that this is not what is going on in 1Sam 28.

in Christ,

Bob

however, I cannot find a text in the bible that states that it was the Lord's doing, to make saul visit a witch. \ the bible just states what he did

So from what I understand, we use reasoning in order to declare the word of God null and void (or at least the sentence I am referring to). Why couldnt the author just leave out that sentence then? was it really that necessary to blame God? I mean all israelites would have understood it the way it is presented by the SDA, the israelites would have known that Samson was disobedient and the dire consequences he had to face lateron in the game would have been a wonderful deterrent, it would have made a point. and YET the bible declares it in this, well, obscure manner, blaming God -

and when you think of it, Samsons parents were reacting according to the aforementioned principles, they were against it... but if they had known that it was the Lord's doing they wouldnt have been against it. right?

 

[Stryder06]

so why would God let people write it was His doing, if it was that plain?

Ever consider that perhaps the translations are only so good considering the age of the text and that just maybe WE'RE the ones who need to figure out what the text is actually saying?

maybe the philistine woman was in the state of conversion... and God knew that... and in order to get the confrontation He wanted, He just added a few twists to the story to make it more, lets say, confronting...

The same Philistine woman who was wed to a Philistine man? Does the bible say she was in the midst of conversion? Perhaps Delilah was on her way to Tabernacle when Samson bumped into her? Somehow I don't think God's plan for Samson was for him to die buried under rubble, without his sight.

well at first pharao hardened his heart himself, it was only later that God added to the hardening

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, forcing him to remain obstinate? Or did God simply withdraw His Spirit from Pharaoh, and leave him to believe what he wanted?

what we think it might be saying? are you serious? so am I reading into it when it says, 'it was the Lord's doing'...

Oh, I'm very serious. If it's as you say it is, God lead Samson to sin. That's not how God operates.

yeah maybe...

Oh, it's not so hard to believe.

great context

Wonderful context. Thank you.

I think I dont need to comment on this one...

You never do. It's easy to call out Sr White about being wrong, but not so easy to commit to calling her an agent of the Devil. I wonder why that is.

 

[mmksparbud]

You have to have some understanding of the way people talk at any point in history and in context with the area. At that time, everything was done by God. If it rained and flooded, it was of God. If lightening struck your son dead, it's an acgt of God----they still say "acts of God" in insurance forms--Remember Joseph? He told his brothers, you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good---So--did God tell the brothers to attack Joseph, or to throw him in the pit?? Did he force them to sell him as a slave, or did He provide the slavers to be there at the right time to provide a way to get Josph to Egypt knowing what would happen? Does that mean He approves of slavery? God uses our choices to take us to the next step, but we have to choose wether to take that step towards Him, or away from Him. He takes the fruit of Satans leading and makes apple pie for His followers--hmmm---I think I like that!! It's like my other favorite saying--God takes the shattered peices of our broken lives and makes a beautiful mosiac.--Poetic, ain't it?
God doesn't force people to say things exactly as He says things--He uses the language of that individual at the time. A rapper might be given the same message as EGW--but they will not be worded the same when they write it down!! But the general idea would end up the same.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Ever consider that perhaps the translations are only so good considering the age of the text and that just maybe WE'RE the ones who need to figure out what the text is actually saying?

Well, that surely makes egw a necessity...



[/quote]
The same Philistine woman who was wed to a Philistine man? Does the bible say she was in the midst of conversion? Perhaps Delilah was on her way to Tabernacle when Samson bumped into her? Somehow I don't think God's plan for Samson was for him to die buried under rubble, without his sight.[/quote]

you never know what the plan is, so many people have been martyred, died horribles deaths etc. was this God's plan for them? and besides he killed quite a few guys when he died

[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, forcing him to remain obstinate? Or did God simply withdraw His Spirit from Pharaoh, and leave him to believe what he wanted?[/quote]

what does the bible teach on it?


[/quote]
Oh, I'm very serious. If it's as you say it is, God lead Samson to sin. That's not how God operates. [/quote]

think about ruth


[/quote]
Oh, it's not so hard to believe. [/quote]



[/quote]
Wonderful context. Thank you.[/quote]


[/quote]
You never do. It's easy to call out Sr White about being wrong, but not so easy to commit to calling her an agent of the Devil. I wonder why that is. [/quote]

An agent of the devil? well, I dont judge anyone... I just discuss specific cases of being right or wrong... would you say that all other denoms, sects etc, were founded by agents of the devil? like LDS, JWs, and what have you