Does the Thief on the Cross bypass the Invesigative Judgement..

JohnMarsten · Feb 6, 2012

Stryder06 said:
Why so sheepish?

There's only two sides in this spiritual conflict. And if she's lying that makes it easier to know right?

Now, would you come and say that all other religious figures outside of the SDA were inspired by the devil?

Would you say that everyone outside of the SDA who proclaims the message of their respective church was inspired by the devil?

I would never say that, because the logic 'either or' is not for me to decide...

there are many options here, maybe she was inspired by the devil, maybe she wasnt, I dont know that...

You might wanna check my thread 'just wondering' and see if you can answer the issue adressed...

Stryder06 · Feb 6, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
Sheepish?

You better check yourself!

Check myself? Didn't mean to offend. Why so angry?

Stryder06 · Feb 6, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
Now, would you come and say that all other religious figures outside of the SDA were inspired by the devil?

Would you say that everyone outside of the SDA who proclaims the message of their respective church was inspired by the devil?

I would never say that, because the logic 'either or' is not for me to decide...

If I'm not mistaken, you said that since she proclaimed to be a messenger form God, that invited scrutiny of her message. She also proclaimed that it was either wholly from God or not. So, unless I've been mistaken, you do not believe EGW was a messenger or God right?

there are many options here, maybe she was inspired by the devil, maybe she wasnt, I dont know that...

I don't see how you can say there are many options. What options are there?

JohnMarsten · Feb 6, 2012

Stryder06 said:
If I'm not mistaken, you said that since she proclaimed to be a messenger form God, that invited scrutiny of her message. She also proclaimed that it was either wholly from God or not. So, unless I've been mistaken, you do not believe EGW was a messenger or God right?

I definitely do not believe she was God... I have my doubts she was a geniune messenger, thats why I put it all behind me... I prayed to God many time to show me, because of the simple reason that I am a human being and might be in error, delusion, whatever, He never showed me to go back to the church, so I stick with that, who she was doesnt matter in the end to me. I will not say she was from the devil because I dont know that, so I will not pass judgment here. What she claimed about herself doesnt change/mean anything to me...

I don't see how you can say there are many options. What options are there?

Well, people can be mistaken, delusional, crazy, whatever... it doesnt necessarily mean you are from the devil... everyone proclaims what he or she believes...

of course there is the option that she was one of those false prophets that Jesus has warned us about... could be...

another option might be that they were out for profit, they have realized that a lot of people followed Miller and seen how easy it is to get a followship... who knows... times were hard back in the day and in the end I think they made quite a profit... I am not implying anything just presenting possible options...

another option might be that she partially from God and partially from the devil, even Jesus rebuked Peter when he said something that was against the Spirit. Yet I wouldnt say that Peter was from the devil. In the end I do not know how this devil thing works and I dont know if I wanna know, so I will not pass judgment.

Like I said egw is somewhat behind, should the Lord ever wish to make me believe her writings are genuine, worthy to be acknowledged, or implemented into my lifestyle, He will let me know... thats how I deal with. As seen I have presented my doubts and issues with her which are the base for my not taking her word as inspired. I prayed on it, so its up to the Lord, as of yet, He hasnt showed me to follow her writings...

JohnMarsten · Feb 6, 2012

Stryder06 said:
Check myself? Didn't mean to offend. Why so angry?

Not angry, just a little bit amused, you are sometimes hard to follow. IMO you are mixing things up very often... sometimes being afraid to answer things directly and stuff and then you come up with sheepish

Check yourself? Ok, that wasnt too nice I guess, I apologize, still you might wanna think things through before you write them down, they are not always on point and very often leading away from the topic, but I guess thats my problem as well at times...

Stryder06 · Feb 6, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
Well, people can be mistaken, delusional, crazy, whatever... it doesnt necessarily mean you are from the devil... everyone proclaims what he or she believes...

of course there is the option that she was one of those false prophets that Jesus has warned us about... could be...

another option might be that they were out for profit, they have realized that a lot of people followed Miller and seen how easy it is to get a followship... who knows... times were hard back in the day and in the end I think they made quite a profit... I am not implying anything just presenting possible options...

another option might be that she partially from God and partially from the devil, even Jesus rebuked Peter when he said something that was against the Spirit. Yet I wouldnt say that Peter was from the devil. In the end I do not know how this devil thing works and I dont know if I wanna know, so I will not pass judgment.

Like I said egw is somewhat behind, should the Lord ever wish to make me believe her writings are genuine, worthy to be acknowledged, or implemented into my lifestyle, He will let me know... thats how I deal with. As seen I have presented my doubts and issues with her which are the base for my not taking her word as inspired. I prayed on it, so its up to the Lord, as of yet, He hasnt showed me to follow her writings...

If EGW was out for profit or a false prophet, then she was an agent of the advesary. And it's not possible that she was halfway used by God and halfway used by Satan. God doesn't mingle with the adversary as such. Peter was rebuked but he was never on the Devil's side. He just had some issues that Christ had to work out of him.

It's just interesting to me that many will say that Ellen was a false prophet, but shy away from saying that she was being used by Devil. I mean, if she's a false prophet, then that's exactly what was going on right?

JohnMarsten · Feb 6, 2012

Stryder06 said:
If EGW was out for profit or a false prophet, then she was an agent of the advesary. And it's not possible that she was halfway used by God and halfway used by Satan. God doesn't mingle with the adversary as such. Peter was rebuked but he was never on the Devil's side. He just had some issues that Christ had to work out of him.

It's just interesting to me that many will say that Ellen was a false prophet, but shy away from saying that she was being used by Devil. I mean, if she's a false prophet, then that's exactly what was going on right?

that is what everyone will have to decide for themselves... bileam was a prophet of God, yet he was doing some evil things, now wasnt he...

Stryder06 · Feb 6, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
that is what everyone will have to decide for themselves... bileam was a prophet of God, yet he was doing some evil things, now wasnt he...

He sure was. And he sure did. Being a prophet doesn't make you perfect. But when you speak for God you speak for God. David was called a prophet, and his reputation is less than spotless. Yet he was a man after God's own heart. So it's not a relative situation. Either she was wholly used by God, or she wasn't. That's all it comes down to.

OntheDL · Feb 6, 2012

Sophia7 said:
Then why did they need her at all? Why not just take the Bible at its word without her confirmation?

How is Christianity doing with that creed? 33000 denominations.

We believe EGW's writings are the testimony of Jesus which is a special testimony for His endtime church. The testimonies magnify the bible.

OntheDL · Feb 6, 2012

Sophia7 said:
But they needed her to confirm their beliefs even after the extensive Bible study that the founders of Adventism had engaged in? That's what doesn't make sense to me. Why, since they were paying attention to the Bible, did they still need her?

'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

OntheDL · Feb 6, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
You have an outstanding talent to mix things up, I will give you that!

I thought Tall is got all of us beat on that.

But let me try explain the obvious to you.

Taking advice is one things, explanations are allright, you know why? Because they are not binding. EGW on the other hand claims something more than mere advice, she is something like the pope for catholics... with millions following her so called advice, I guess you are critical about the pope, arent you? why cant we be critical about egw? Do you believe her writings are infallible? I guess you do...

I thought we are over with the EGW's stuff.

Is EGW's writing fallible? Yes, of course. But not when it's inspired. Is the testimony of Jesus infallible?

JohnMarsten · Feb 7, 2012

OntheDL said:
I thought Tall is got all of us beat on that.

I dont think so!

I thought we are over with the EGW's stuff.

I was over, and I am over, but that does not mean I cannot comment on something...

Is EGW's writing fallible? Yes, of course. But not when it's inspired. Is the testimony of Jesus infallible?

She actually claimed that everything she wrote was inspired, and even if some was and some wasnt, its kinda hard to perform a selection... things that make a sense are inspired and things that make no sense at all or simply failed arent inspired thats not the way it goes...

OntheDL · Feb 7, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
She actually claimed that everything she wrote was inspired, and even if some was and some wasnt, its kinda hard to perform a selection... things that make a sense are inspired and things that make no sense at all or simply failed arent inspired thats not the way it goes...

I didn't say it's for you to pick and choose.

Kira Light · Feb 7, 2012

One downside of claiming to be God's mouthpiece is you can't really make any mistakes.

JohnMarsten · Feb 7, 2012

OntheDL said:
I didn't say it's for you to pick and choose.

so what did you say?

didnt you say her writings are fallible? you did

did you say they are not fallible when they are inspired? you did

- so I asked you how to know when they are inspired and when they arent... mentioning that she claimed all of her writings were inspired

now you imply that its not for me to pick and choose, so who can choose?

she said all of her writings were inspired, if I were to follow your reasoning that would make them all infallible, but since you admitted her writings are fallible, it becomes unclear which are inspired/infallible and which become uninspired/and therefore fallible... I guess its kinda hard to follow that...

the basic problem behind this way of thinking is that there is no guideline on how detect fallible writings and people are rather left alonge to decide, even worse when there is a certain degree of disunity in the church about her and her writings...

You might wanna have a look at my thread 'just wondering' and see for yourself an apparent problem between the belief in her writings and the belief in the word of God

Stryder06 · Feb 7, 2012

Kira Light said:
One downside of claiming to be God's mouthpiece is you can't really make any mistakes.

Tell that to Moses.

EastCoastRemnant · Feb 7, 2012

Stryder06 said:
Tell that to Moses.

I was going to answer with a similar statement... God's patriarchs and prophets were hardly perfect. God can use us despite our frailities...

JohnMarsten · Feb 8, 2012

EastCoastRemnant said:
I was going to answer with a similar statement... God's patriarchs and prophets were hardly perfect. God can use us despite our frailities...

I think people are not writing against egw because she was imperfect or without sin, that would be absurd in itself.

The thing is always regarding doctrine and cousel which either go directly against bible teaching, bible logic or even might have dire consequences...

another point for me is that she is not like the bible prophets of old IMHO, while the others wrote down visions that were hard to understand egw was more of an autoritative commentary on the whole bible, that turns down private thinking, none of her prophetic visions ever really came to pass...

EastCoastRemnant · Feb 8, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
none of her prophetic visions ever really came to pass...

Again, you are making false statements without knowing your facts...

The civil war and the San Francisco earthquake are but two...

EastCoastRemnant · Feb 8, 2012

JohnMarsten said:
another point for me is that she is not like the bible prophets of old IMHO, while the others wrote down visions that were hard to understand

Any prophesy is hard to understand when it hasn't happened yet... thats why historical record is so important. You don't think the Sunday law prophesy is hard for people to understand?

Does the Thief on the Cross bypass the Invesigative Judgement..

Newbie

Check the signature

Check the signature

Newbie

Newbie

Check the signature

Newbie

Check the signature

OntheDL

Guest

OntheDL

Guest

OntheDL

Guest

Newbie

OntheDL

Guest

Shinigami love apples

Newbie

Check the signature

I Must Decrease That He May Increase

Newbie

I Must Decrease That He May Increase

I Must Decrease That He May Increase

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency