Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[OntheDL]

Your comment about the "other side" sounds like you're Darth Vader.

Victor

Gone to the other side means the adversary position to the Adventist church.

The 'distinctives' have apparently divided you apart from His body.

Jesus said not everyone who says LORD LORD will enter into the kingdom of heaven except those who do the will of the Father.

Many profess to be followers of Christ. Yet their actions do not follow.

 

[tall73]

If this event was prophecied to occurr then it took the setting of the date to create the disppointment. God in His wisdom knew this and allowed it to go down that way. Certainly the preaching of a second advent happeneing soon wouldn't be a novel idea at all. However, when you put a time for it to happen and associate that time with Biblical support? Now you have the all the ingredients of a great disappointment.

A. you have yet to demonstrate this had to happen.

B. Ellen does not say God "allowed" it to happen. Why do you keep using this passive language? She said it was His design, that He did it on purpose to prove.

C. You are saying that God intentionally tested people on a false message, and that those who preached a false message that Jesus' words condemned were right?

Tall says that Christ didn't tell the disciples things to make them believe a false belief. I have to differ from that assessement in that He said things that could be taken wrong and didn't always make it very clear that they were wrong.

So now to defend Ellen you want to make Christ give a false message too? Jesus did not mislead them so that they would be disappointed. In fact He told them again and again the truth. He said later they were slow of heart to believe, but that was not because He gave a false message:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

Notice what He said:

Mat 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Mat 17:12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."

Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

Luk 22:15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

Mar 9:31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise."

Mar 10:33 saying, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles.
Mar 10:34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise."

Even the priests got the message:

Mat 27:62 Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate
Mat 27:63 and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.'

Jesus was very plain about what would happen to Him. And Jesus didn't change his story afterward, as did Miller and Ellen.


Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.

It is the same message, unlike Miller and White.


Jesus said that the kingdom was the heavenly kingdom:

Mat 10:7 And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Jesus told His disciples that He was going to go away:


Joh 14:1 "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.


Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Joh 14:29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.


Jesus told them these things before the disappointment.

 

[OntheDL]

I don't have an issue with thoughts that have a bearing on 1843 and Miller that were not included earlier. I just don't think whether Ellen's first name should be used, etc. is something that really applies to this topic.

It does help in a discussion you don't come across in a tune that puts the other group on the defensive. If everyone does things respectfully we can have a respectful and productive discussion. I think that's relevant and beneficial to a discussion.

 

[OntheDL]

The topic of this thread is specific. It is not the daily, it is not the historic's view of the sanctuary, it is not whether you can call Ellen by her first name, and it is not whether my wife and I understood the sanctuary message before. This topic is about Miller's 1843 message and Ellen's comments on it. Everyone please stick to the topic. Side topics may be directed to another thread.


A brief review:

Jesus did not come in 1843.

Miller's message included date setting for 1843.

Date setting goes against Jesus instruction that you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.

Ellen condemned people for rejecting Miller's un-biblical date setting message.

I made a reply to your questions earlier in post 125

"Was the Millerites' message false? What did they actually proclaim? The message found in Revelation 14:6,7,8.

The Millerites gave the 1st and the 2nd angels' message in 1843 & 1844.

This message was meant to be sweet as honey in the mouth but bitter in the belly. God had indeed in His divine wisdom covered the error of Miller's time setting even unto this day, save for the servants the prophets to discover the message to proclaim for the last days in fullness and in reality. "

 

[tall73]

The date was arrived at by looking at the prophicies fo Daniel, so that can hardly be false (and has not been proven to be false). What has been widely acknowledged is that they misunderstood what "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant and misattributed it to cleansing of the earth by fire with the second coming.

Daniel is not false. But their interpretation of it was.

Now you say the date was right. How can that be when she said God was in the proclamation of 1843? Was 1843 right?

What is widely acknowledged is that they preached Jesus' coming 1843 and were wrong. They went against the Scripture.

In any case your response didn't deal with my point.

Sure it did. Whether people knew Ellen makes no difference. She condemns them because she could not accept the rebuke they gave that was based on Scripture.

Assumes facts (which are unproveable) that aren't evidence.

No, actually it doesn't. If you read DL's posts you would see that Ellen did indeed defend Miller because she thought he was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation. Now you have been posting over at Maritime on my thread, and if you read it you would know we covered that more extensively there. Miller was necessary to the remnant theme. If Miller's message was not really the first angel's message, and if their leaving the churches was not really the second angel's messages then there is no way they could "prophesy again" unless they prophesied the first time.

Miller being right is the only way for Ellen's remnant to be legitimate. Miller was the feast of trumpets to their new day of atonement. Unfortunately Miller was wrong.

I never said that "was all about the prophecies." As you had conceded above the preaching of Wm. Miller and others involved two major elements: time and the second coming.

As I have noted above many times the message was BOTH--Jesus is coming at a time. And it was the pairing of the second coming with a time that caused objection in the first place.

But again above you state that the 2300 days was the main thing, and they just misinterpreted the event. For Miller the two were synonymous. The main thing was that Jesus was coming in 1843.

But Ellen said God was in the preaching of the time.

Since He was the ultimate source of Daniel's time prophecies that would seem logical.

It would? Even Adventists say that 1843 was wrong.

God was testing the people to see if they were accepting the basic messages--Christ is soon coming and the prophecies of Daniel or were they "hedging their bets" as it were. Most turned out to be doing the later.

Following Scripture and Jesus' own words on not date setting is not hedging one's bets. The only way they could have passed Ellen's "test" was to dismiss the words of Christ.

 

[tall73]

It does help in a discussion you don't come across in a tune that puts the other group on the defensive. If everyone does things respectfully we can have a respectful and productive discussion. I think that's relevant and beneficial to a discussion.

So start a thread about it or report it. It is not the subject of this thread.

 

[tall73]

I made a reply to your questions earlier in post 125

Before I answer your specifics I do want to state that I appreciate that you take EGW for just what she says. There is no hemming and hawing with you. You acknowledge that it was God's doing in 1843, just as she says. You acknowledge that she is claiming Miller as the beginning of the first and second messages. Therefore Miller must be the feast of trumpets message, and therefore the Adventist movement is the outgrowth of that prophetic remnant.

Now I think all of that is completely untrue. But at least you are consistent with what she says.

We had a discussion on this on CARM and Maritme, and I am sorry that I didn't get a chance to follow up on your point in this thread.

"Was the Millerites' message false? What did they actually proclaim? The message found in Revelation 14:6,7,8.

Yes, it was false. Miller's message was that Jesus was coming in 1843, and it was completely false.

Ellen tries to preserve elements of Miller's message in order to retain for him prophetic significance. Without that their movement is just another little group trying to change the world. But with Miller they are now the remnant.

They need Miller to have been prophesying for them to prophesy again. They needed Miller's movement to be legitimate because it was the only thing at all that people saw on earth regarding 1844--even if Miller was wrong.

So you and I agree that Ellen was saying God did it, and that the church is an extension of Miller's movement, and the remnant pointed to.

But of course I disagree in that Miller's message was rejected because it was false. It therefore was not the test, and no feast of trumpets.

Those churches who "rejected the first angel's message" and therefore couldn't receive the second were RIGHT to reject it. The message which Ellen White called the first angel's message was a wrong message.

The Millerites gave the 1st and the 2nd angels' message in 1843 & 1844.

The Millerites gave a false time-setting message which was rebuked by Jesus' own words.

This message was meant to be sweet as honey in the mouth but bitter in the belly. God had indeed in His divine wisdom covered the error of Miller's time setting even unto this day, save for the servants the prophets to discover the message to proclaim for the last days in fullness and in reality. "

Yet it was the time setting which caused the message to be rightly rejected on the basis of Scripture. Miller's message was a false message.

But in order for Ellen White's movement to be written of in Revelation she had to prop up Miller.

 

[VictorC]

Gone to the other side means the adversary position to the Adventist church.

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.

Jesus said not everyone who says LORD LORD will enter into the kingdom of heaven except those who do the will of the Father.

Many profess to be followers of Christ. Yet their actions do not follow.

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

John 6:35-40
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

I know that Adventists love Israel's old covenant and try to apply it to themselves, but bear in mind that it is the old covenant that separates the Gentiles from God, as Paul explains in Ephesians 2:11-18:

11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

God's plans include salvation for the Gentiles as well as those within the covenant. It is presumptive to judge our brethren based on their knowledge, wouldn't you think?

Doctrine doesn't save.
Only the Blood of Jesus does.

Victor

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Quote:
Which goes back to the problem in the Adventist church which is that they have allowed EGW to be their interpreter of the Bible.


Blatant misrepresentation of the EGW's relationship to the the SDA church. She pointedly and repeatedly pointed people to the Bible, not herself.

That is funny, You mean she wrote 50,000 pages to point to the Bible. You know you don't even believe that. Otherwise what would be the point of defending EGW to other Christians, they already accept the Bible. I won't bother to post the quotes from prominent Adventist which say that she is a divinely inspired commentator on the Bible. To some people reality is the myth.

 

[VictorC]

Twist, contort, spin whatever it takes! The infallible prophetess dream must be kept alive no matter what the cost. No matter WHAT. They just clutch the EGW towel with white knuckles and refuse to throw it in already.

She was WRONG.
She ERRED.
She WRONGLY REBUKED AND CONDEMNED MINISTERS WHO WERE RIGHT.
She CONTRADICTED A CLEAR ADMONISHMENT OF SCRIPTURE.
She DROPPED THE BALL.
She BUNGLED AND BLEW IT.

Is it so hard to just admit and move on?

Apparently so.

I agree with your assessment of Ellen White.
So, why does your posting identity say you're an "evangelical SDA"?
Why do you retain the SDA identity?

Victor

 

[tall73]

I started a new thread for discussion on the role of Ellen White. Direct quotes regarding her work, disputes on what her name should be, etc. there.


http://christianforums.com/t7094005-the-role-of-ellen-white.html#post45554604

 

[Jon0388g]

Interesting. Compare these two quotes:

God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, ​

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1-2, KJV)​

_____________________________________________________​

In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit. There was never a time when God more earnestly instructed his people concerning his will, and the course that he would have them pursue, than now. But will they profit by his teachings? will they receive his reproofs and heed the warnings? God will accept of no partial obedience; he will sanction no compromise with self. {RH, June 9, 1885 par. 10}​

You would write this knowing full well the Bible also says

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" Acts 2:17

in order to deny the spirit of prophecy was manifested in the writings of EGW?



Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

The topic of this thread is specific. It is not the daily, it is not the historic's view of the sanctuary, it is not whether you can call Ellen by her first name, and it is not whether my wife and I understood the sanctuary message before. This topic is about Miller's 1843 message and Ellen's comments on it. Everyone please stick to the topic. Side topics may be directed to another thread.


A brief review:

Jesus did not come in 1843.

Miller's message included date setting for 1843.

Date setting goes against Jesus instruction that you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.

Ellen condemned people for rejecting Miller's un-biblical date setting message.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Wolff believed the coming of the Lord to be at hand, his interpretation of the prophetic periods placing the great consummation within a very few years of the time pointed out by Miller. To those who urged from the scripture, "Of that day and hour knoweth no man," that men are to know nothing concerning the nearness of the advent, Wolff replied: "Did our Lord say that that day and hour should never be known? Did He not give us signs of the times, in order that we may know at least the approach of His coming, as one knows the approach of the summer by the fig tree putting forth its leaves?" GC p360.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The proclamation of a definite time for Christ's coming called forth great opposition from many of all classes, from the minister in the pulpit down to the most reckless, Heaven-daring sinner. The words of prophecy were fulfilled: "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 2 Peter 3:3, 4. Many who professed to love the Saviour, declared that they had no opposition to the doctrine of the second advent; they merely objected to the definite time. But God's all-seeing eye read their hearts. They did not wish to hear of Christ's coming to judge the world in righteousness. They had been unfaithful servants, their works would not bear the inspection of the heart-searching God, and they feared to meet their Lord. Like the Jews at the time of Christ's first advent they were not prepared to welcome Jesus. They not only refused to listen to the plain arguments from the Bible, but ridiculed those who were looking for the Lord. Satan and his angels exulted, and flung the taunt in the face of Christ and holy angels that His professed people had so little love for Him that they did not desire His appearing. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"No man knoweth the day nor the hour" was the argument most often brought forward by rejecters of the advent faith. The scripture is: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36. A clear and harmonious explanation of this text was given by those who were looking for the Lord, and the wrong use made of it by their opponents was clearly shown. The words were spoken by Christ in that memorable conversation with His disciples upon Olivet after He had for the last time departed from the temple. The disciples had asked the question: "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Jesus gave them signs, and said: "When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." Verses 3, 33. One saying of the Saviour must not be made to destroy another. Though no man knoweth the day nor the hour of His coming, we are instructed and required to know when it is near." GC p370-371[/FONT]


Ellen White condemned the people for not willing to be ready for the coming of the Lord. Miller preached the judgment hour - a correct message - based on a misunderstanding of the prophecy of Daniel, just as the disciples preached the coming of the kingdom of Heaven - a correct message - based on a misunderstanding of Christ's words.


She also condemned the opposition because it served to stop the wake-up call it was giving people at the time. She wrote thousands were coming to repentance - and the scoffers who opposed the message were unrepetant at heart and unready for the coming of Christ. They used the Scripture 'of no man knoweth the day or the hour' - which in itself is correct - for a satanic purpose: stop the consciences of the people and make of no-effect the trumpet of judgment.



Jon

 

[Jimlarmore]

A. you have yet to demonstrate this had to happen.

That the fulfillement of the prophecy in Rev 10 had to happen? We can make a separate thread to discuss this if you want but I think I can show that the little book was indeed the book of Daniel and this prophecy of the 2300 evenings and mornings was the start of the time of the end. The unsealing of this book is when the great disappointment happened.

B. Ellen does not say God "allowed" it to happen. Why do you keep using this passive language? She said it was His design, that He did it on purpose to prove.

C. You are saying that God intentionally tested people on a false message, and that those who preached a false message that Jesus' words condemned were right?

You like to put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. I have not said God tested people on a false message, that is your wording. What I said was God allowed this to happen so prophecy could be fulfilled. Obviously, they had a false interpretation of what the cleansing of the sanctuary was. Without setting a date the great disappointment couldn't have happened.

So now to defend Ellen you want to make Christ give a false message too? Jesus did not mislead them so that they would be disappointed. In fact He told them again and again the truth. He said later they were slow of heart to believe, but that was not because He gave a false message:

I'm not defending Ellen. What I am doing is clearly showing that misunderstanding of what Christ and the Bible said in some cases did indeed lead to disappointments in the past. You want to make a major issue out of this one because it suits your purpose of EGW bashing and invalidation of the sda church in general.


God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Wolff believed the coming of the Lord to be at hand, his interpretation of the prophetic periods placing the great consummation within a very few years of the time pointed out by Miller. To those who urged from the scripture, "Of that day and hour knoweth no man," that men are to know nothing concerning the nearness of the advent, Wolff replied: "Did our Lord say that that day and hour should never be known? Did He not give us signs of the times, in order that we may know at least the approach of His coming, as one knows the approach of the summer by the fig tree putting forth its leaves?" GC p360.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The proclamation of a definite time for Christ's coming called forth great opposition from many of all classes, from the minister in the pulpit down to the most reckless, Heaven-daring sinner. The words of prophecy were fulfilled: "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 2 Peter 3:3, 4. Many who professed to love the Saviour, declared that they had no opposition to the doctrine of the second advent; they merely objected to the definite time. But God's all-seeing eye read their hearts. They did not wish to hear of Christ's coming to judge the world in righteousness. They had been unfaithful servants, their works would not bear the inspection of the heart-searching God, and they feared to meet their Lord. Like the Jews at the time of Christ's first advent they were not prepared to welcome Jesus. They not only refused to listen to the plain arguments from the Bible, but ridiculed those who were looking for the Lord. Satan and his angels exulted, and flung the taunt in the face of Christ and holy angels that His professed people had so little love for Him that they did not desire His appearing. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"No man knoweth the day nor the hour" was the argument most often brought forward by rejecters of the advent faith. The scripture is: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36. A clear and harmonious explanation of this text was given by those who were looking for the Lord, and the wrong use made of it by their opponents was clearly shown. The words were spoken by Christ in that memorable conversation with His disciples upon Olivet after He had for the last time departed from the temple. The disciples had asked the question: "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Jesus gave them signs, and said: "When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." Verses 3, 33. One saying of the Saviour must not be made to destroy another. Though no man knoweth the day nor the hour of His coming, we are instructed and required to know when it is near." GC p370-371[/FONT]


Ellen White condemned the people for not willing to be ready for the coming of the Lord. Miller preached the judgment hour - a correct message - based on a misunderstanding of the prophecy of Daniel, just as the disciples preached the coming of the kingdom of Heaven - a correct message - based on a misunderstanding of Christ's words.

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

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.

Are we to know when Jesus' coming is near? Yes. Are we to be ready all the time? Yes. Are we to set times? No.

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.

She also condemned the opposition because it served to stop the wake-up call it was giving people at the time. She wrote thousands were coming to repentance - and the scoffers who opposed the message were unrepetant at heart and unready for the coming of Christ. They used the Scripture 'of no man knoweth the day or the hour' - which in itself is correct - for a satanic purpose: stop the consciences of the people and make of no-effect the trumpet of judgment.

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.

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.

 

[NightEternal]

I agree with your assessment of Ellen White.
So, why does your posting identity say you're an "evangelical SDA"?
Why do you retain the SDA identity?

Victor

In a nutshell, simply because I do not buy into the black and white, LOVE IT ALL 100% OR LEAVE IT ALL 100% mindset of both the hardcore Trads and the hardcore Formers.

And with that, I am pretty much done with this discussion, as someone has nailed me with yet a second report in this thread.

I don't need this spite-reporting garbage. If the point was to drive me out of the exchange here, it worked. I hope someone is happy.

 

[tall73]

That the fulfillement of the prophecy in Rev 10 had to happen? We can make a separate thread to discuss this if you want but I think I can show that the little book was indeed the book of Daniel and this prophecy of the 2300 evenings and mornings was the start of the time of the end. The unsealing of this book is when the great disappointment happened.

Yes, you would need to demonstrate that.

You like to put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. I have not said God tested people on a false message, that is your wording.

Indeed, and the message was false. The fact that you phrase it more softly does not change the issue.

What I said was God allowed this to happen so prophecy could be fulfilled. Obviously, they had a false interpretation of what the cleansing of the sanctuary was. Without setting a date the great disappointment couldn't have happened.

Without setting a date that controverts Scripture.

And my continued objection is that you say God "allowed" it to happen. You should read DL's posts. It was not just allowed but designed according to EGW for Miller to preach error.

Now you say that it had to be done. Why did it have to be done? Only if you want to support Adventism as the fulfillment of Revelation.

I'm not defending Ellen.

You are clearly defending Ellen.

What I am doing is clearly showing that misunderstanding of what Christ and the Bible said in some cases did indeed lead to disappointments in the past. You want to make a major issue out of this one because it suits your purpose of EGW bashing and invalidation of the sda church in general.

And you want to make EGW right so that you can support the Adventist remnant theory.

See where reading motives gets us?

Now, Ellen says God designed to give a false message in 1843. I have already shown that Christ gave an accurate message in His time regarding His death, His leaving and going to the Father, etc.

 

[Jimlarmore]

In a nutshell, simply because I do not buy into the black and white, LOVE IT ALL 100% OR LEAVE IT ALL 100% mindset of both the hardcore Trads and the hardcore Formers.

And with that, I am pretty much done with this discussion, as someone has nailed me with yet a second report in this thread.

I don't need this spite-reporting garbage. If the point was to drive me out of the exchange here, it worked. I hope someone is happy.

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

 

[Jimlarmore]

Yes, you would need to demonstrate that.

I will start another thread to do that.

Indeed, and the message was false. The fact that you phrase it more softly does not change the issue.
Without setting a date that controverts Scripture.

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.

Now you say that it had to be done. Why did it have to be done? Only if you want to support Adventism as the fulfillment of Revelation.
And you want to make EGW right so that you can support the Adventist remnant theory.

See where reading motives gets us?

Now, Ellen says God designed to give a false message in 1843. I have already shown that Christ gave an accurate message in His time regarding His death, His leaving and going to the Father, etc.

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

 

[VictorC]

In a nutshell, simply because I do not buy into the black and white, LOVE IT ALL 100% OR LEAVE IT ALL 100% mindset of both the hardcore Trads and the hardcore Formers.

When you identify the primary distinctives of Adventism as their apology for 1844 and the binding nature of a sabbath ordinance from a covenant done away with (see Hebrews 10:9), determining these 2 as false doesn't leave very much gray area that matters.

At least this is the manner employed by most formers. We haven't really conversed before, but I suspect you have done at least a good portion of this. It is from a rejection of these doctines and then viewing Ellen White's comments regarding them that lead to identification of her prophetic claim as phony. Disassociation from Adventist fellowship usually manifests itself in the right boot of fellowship by those who hang onto Ellen once that point is reached.

And with that, I am pretty much done with this discussion, as someone has nailed me with yet a second report in this thread.

I don't need this spite-reporting garbage. If the point was to drive me out of the exchange here, it worked. I hope someone is happy.

I travelled over here from CARM, to see for myself the comments the traditionals had been reported to make concerning those of us who post there. The general feeling here is that CARM is a hate site.

You appear to be illustrating the reverse of that assessment. CARM is moderated by a person who is not a participant on the forum they moderate. They don't have a vested interest in the comments, as long as they don't violate established rules. I read the rules here, and they are remarkably similar. Their application may not be uniform (I don't know what you were cited for), and that is likely because those moderating this forum do have a vested interest in the arguments presented.

I invite you to visit CARM's forum.
If your approach is more toward academic discourse, you may like it there more than here.

Victor