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.
Your comment about the "other side" sounds like you're Darth Vader.
Victor
Jesus said not everyone who says LORD LORD will enter into the kingdom of heaven except those who do the will of the Father.The 'distinctives' have apparently divided you apart from His body.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.In any case your response didn't deal with my point.
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.Assumes facts (which are unproveable) that aren't evidence.
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.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.
It would? Even Adventists say that 1843 was wrong.tall73 said: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.
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.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.
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.
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. "
I know this.Gone to the other side means the adversary position to the Adventist church.
What is the will of God, that He sacrificed His Son to make propitiation for the law and redeem us from its curse?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.
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.
I agree with your assessment of Ellen White.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.
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}
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.
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?
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:
[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.
That is her contention. . Notice again Dowling's words, one of the ministers who opposed Miller: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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, you would need to demonstrate 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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?