EGW vs. Scripture: Did John The Baptist doubt?

[Sophia7]

The OP was purportedly quoting from the SDA Bible Commentary, not directly from EGW:

Acording to EGW and the SDA Bible commentary, it was not so. Check it out:

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

John did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see Desire of Ages 216). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples." (SDA Bible Commentary Vol.5, P.758)

Has anyone checked that volume of the commentary to see if it was quoted accurately in the OP? I would do it, but most of my books are in storage right now. Perhaps it was the SDABC that misinterpreted EGW's statements from DA, if, indeed, they have been misinterpreted or misquoted, as seems to be the implication by some in this thread.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't see why this is confusing, the Bible says John called his disciples with the question to ask Jesus. EGW says that the questions came from John's Disciples.

That what it comes down to. Not that difficult. The choice is who do you believe. It is very much like the story of Peter walking on the water. The Bible says that he saw the waves and was afraid, EGW says that he was prideful and looked back to the disciples to see if they were watching. Or when the bible says the teacher of the law that asked to follow Jesus and was told that foxes have holes but Jesus has no place to lay his head, he was described as a teacher of the law but EGW says it was Judas.

Of course the TSDA will always come back well it could have been. Because saying something could have happened is all they have regardless of what the bible says. Anyone can always add more to the story and say well it could have happened this way. And of course that is the technique which gives us baptism for the dead, the IJ, Peter as the first pope and a host of other things.

 

[RND]

The OP was purportedly quoting from the SDA Bible Commentary, not directly from EGW:

Originally Posted by NightEternal
Acording to EGW and the SDA Bible commentary, it was not so. Check it out:

"According to EGW" means what exactly?

see Desire Of Ages 214, 215

This means what exactly?

see Desire of Ages 216

This means what exactly?

 

[RND]

Here is what the text in question says:

"And John called two of his disciples to him and sent them to Jesus saying, Are you the One that is to come? Or should we look for another?" Luke 7:20

Actually, this is from verse 19, not verse 20.

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

Here's what is actually said by EGW:

"The life of John had been one of active labor, and the gloom and inaction of his prison life weighed heavily upon him. As week after week passed, bringing no change, despondency and doubt crept over him. His disciples did not forsake him. They were allowed access to the prison, and they brought him tidings of the works of Jesus, and told how the people were flocking to Him. But they questioned why, if this new teacher was the Messiah, He did nothing to effect John's release. How could He permit His faithful herald to be deprived of liberty and perhaps of life?

These questions were not without effect. Doubts which otherwise would never have arisen were suggested to John. Satan rejoiced to hear the words of these disciples, and to see how they bruised the soul of the Lord's messenger. Oh, how often those who think themselves the friends of a good man, and who are eager to show their fidelity to him, prove to be his most dangerous enemies! How often, instead of strengthening his faith, their words depress and dishearten!"

EGW is clearly saying that doubts which never would have reared themselves were originally brought to bear by the questions of John's disciples. But before that she says that the isolation of prison caused "despondency and doubt" to creep into his mind.

As one who has been in jail can attest this statement by EGW regarding John's response to being in prison is so true. Despondency and doubt are the first tools Satan uses against those that are in prison to shake their will and confidence.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

EGW is clearly saying that doubts which never would have reared themselves were originally brought to bear by the questions of John's disciples. But before that she says that the isolation of prison caused "despondency and doubt" to creep into his mind.

As one who has been in jail can attest this statement by EGW regarding John's response to being in prison is so true. Despondency and doubt are the first tools Satan uses against those that are in prison to shake their will and confidence.

So you are advocating that within the two paragraphs EGW is contradicting herself? I would think the more logical way of looking at it was the doubt and despondency were in relation to himself and his actions rather then to the Messiah. Otherwise as I say within a very short span of words she would be contradicting herself. Something most writers either inspired or not try not to do.

 

[RND]

So you are advocating that within the two paragraphs EGW is contradicting herself? I would think the more logical way of looking at it was the doubt and despondency were in relation to himself and his actions rather then to the Messiah. Otherwise as I say within a very short span of words she would be contradicting herself. Something most writers either inspired or not try not to do.

One could only believe this RC if there was only one way doubt could be caused.

First, prison time caused John to doubt. Then, John'd disciples added even more by questioning the Messiah and His lack of help.

No contradictions. EGW was merely describing the different aspects of how John came to doubt. I mentioned this already:

"EGW is clearly saying that doubts which never would have reared themselves were originally brought to bear by the questions of John's disciples. But before that she says that the isolation of prison caused "despondency and doubt" to creep into his mind."

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If he already had them then the disciples could have not have caused "Doubts which otherwise would never have arisen were suggested to John."

 

[RND]

If he already had them then the disciples could have not have caused "Doubts which otherwise would never have arisen were suggested to John."

You know RC, I think you just love to argue and never really consider what you hear.

The doubts that John had that manifested themselves while he was in prison can certainly be different than the doubts caused by listening to his disciples while he was in prison.

For example, John may have had thoughts such as, "will I ever get out of here?" or "Will Herod kill me?"

Those doubts are different than the doubts he recieved and which were influenced by his disciples. The fact is the Bible is silent on how john came to doubt Jesus was the Messiah. It is not unreasonable to see where Mrs. White was coming from here.

Another example might be that a woman may have doubts as to whether she will lose 10 pounds. But she can also doubt whether she should have argued with a bank teller based on a conversation with a friend who influenced her by saying, "You should just tell off that bank teller..."

One set of doubts creeps in on it's own the other is influenced. Frankly, RC what Mrs. White was conveying isn't all that complicated.

BTW, did she steal your lunch money from you once when you were a kid?

 

[Dania]

its saddens my soul..

instead of disgust i would expect that.. but just sadness for real.. sad sad sad...
our own christians... sighs

 

[Sophia7]

"According to EGW" means what exactly?



This means what exactly?



This means what exactly?

OK, you're obviously not getting it. This part was something that he cited as a quote from the SDA Bible Commentary (which often includes references to EGW):

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

John did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see Desire of Ages 216). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples." (SDA Bible Commentary Vol.5, P.758)

Do you have a commentary set? If you do, please check volume 5, page 758, and see if that is an accurate quote from it. If so, your quarrel should be with the authors of the commentary, not with the OP. Ask them what they meant by "see Desire of Ages."

 

[RND]

OK, you're obviously not getting it. This part was something that he cited as a quote from the SDA Bible Commentary (which often includes references to EGW):



Do you have a commentary set? If you do, please check volume 5, page 758, and see if that is an accurate quote from it. If so, your quarrel should be with the authors of the commentary, not with the OP. Ask them what they meant by "see Desire of Ages."

Oh I get it Sophia. The OP is saying things that simply were not said or taken completely out of context.

I've explained, quite clearly, what was obviously being said.

 

[NightEternal]

Wow, who resurrected this old relic?

Sophia is correct. This entire quote in red is from the SDA Bible Commentary, including the references to DOA.

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

John did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see Desire of Ages 216). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples." (SDA Bible Commentary Vol.5, P.758)

It is the SDA Bible Commentary that says "see DOA", not me. None of this quote is my words.

Anyone who has issues with what the quote says needs to take it up with the authours of this particular volume of the SDA Commentary, as it is their supposed faulty, out of context interpretation of EGW that the OP was built upon.

Or can we now not trust what the contributors of our own commentaries claim?

 

[RND]

Wow, who resurrected this old relic?

Sophia is correct. This entire quote in red is from the SDA Bible Commentary, including the references to DOA.

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

John did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see Desire of Ages 216). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples." (SDA Bible Commentary Vol.5, P.758)

It is the SDA Bible Commentary that says "see DOA", not me. None of this quote is my words.

Anyone who has issues with what the quote says needs to take it up with the authours of this particular volume of the SDA Commentary, as it is thier supposed faulty, out of context interpretation of EGW that the OP was built upon.

Or can we now not trust what the contributors of our own commentaries claim?

In light of Mrs. White's comments, the two SDA commentary quotes accurately reflect what Mrs. White stated in DA.

"The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John's disciples, NOT with John himself (see Desire Of Ages 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John's own testimony that Jesus was indeed the promised One (see Desire Of Ages 216).

The Bible is silent as to where John's doubt originated. It is quite possible, if not hightly likely that John's questioning of whether Jesus was the Messiah was influenced by John'd disciples. This statement is in line with what is stated in DA.

John did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see Desire of Ages 216). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples." (SDA Bible Commentary Vol.5, P.758)

Just because one experiences periods of doubt does not mean that they surrender their faith. This is something that virually any honest Christian can attest to. Again, in the context of what Mrs. White stated in DA this statement is quite accurate.

Here's what is actually said by EGW:

"The life of John had been one of active labor, and the gloom and inaction of his prison life weighed heavily upon him. As week after week passed, bringing no change, despondency and doubt crept over him. His disciples did not forsake him. They were allowed access to the prison, and they brought him tidings of the works of Jesus, and told how the people were flocking to Him. But they questioned why, if this new teacher was the Messiah, He did nothing to effect John's release. How could He permit His faithful herald to be deprived of liberty and perhaps of life?

These questions were not without effect. Doubts which otherwise would never have arisen were suggested to John. Satan rejoiced to hear the words of these disciples, and to see how they bruised the soul of the Lord's messenger. Oh, how often those who think themselves the friends of a good man, and who are eager to show their fidelity to him, prove to be his most dangerous enemies! How often, instead of strengthening his faith, their words depress and dishearten!"

EGW is clearly saying that doubts which never would have reared themselves were originally brought to bear by the questions of John's disciples. But before that she says that the isolation of prison caused "despondency and doubt" to creep into his mind.

As anyone who has been in jail can attest, this statement by EGW regarding John's response to being in prison is so true. Despondency and doubt are the first tools Satan uses against those that are in prison to shake their will and confidence.

 

[NightEternal]

I am not maintaining that John surrendered his faith. But the Bible clearly leaves the impression he did have fleeting doubts and his faith did waver. The details of that doubt are not explored. All Scripture says is that he sent a message asking whether Christ was The One or if they should wait for another.

"And John called two of his disciples to him and sent them to Jesus saying, Are you the One that is to come? Or should we look for another?" Luke 7:20

The SDA Bible Commentary wants to maintain, according to thier understanding of EGW, that John never for a second doubted Christ was the Messiah. Scripture does not say that anywhere, nor does it say anywhere that it was the disciples and not John who doubted Christ was the Messiah, nor does it say anywhere that John 'refrained from discussing his perplexities with his followers'. Indeed, it would not be possible for John to send his message of doubt with his disciples if he had refrained from informing his followers that he was having doubts. Furthermore, the Bible seems to imply that the cause of John's doubt went far beyond merely wether Christ was going to overthrow the Romans or not.

The bottom line is that EGW was speculating and in the process added to the Word. It's classic eisegesis. The SDA Bible Commentary takes that and runs with it, treating her assertions as if they were 100% proven elements of the account. This is not the only time she has done this either, not by a long shot. This is why we have Adventists everywhere asserting that Adam was ten feet tall, or whatever, and they do it thinking such a claim is verified fact, when the truth is that is was EGW's own assertion and it is not found anywhere in Genesis. Or the claim that Mary being caught in adultery was a carefully orchestrated plan laid by the Pharisees to trap Jesus (DOA p.461) Some SDA's have taken the liberty of embellishing the tale even further and claim that not only had the Pharisees led her into prostitution, the one who brought her to Christ and threw her at His feet to be stoned was actually her first customer! I have heard this from PULPITS by pastors who should know better! NONE OF THIS IS IN THE TEXT. But you would be suprised at how many Adventists are shocked to find out such an assertion is not found in the Biblical account. Of course, my favorite is the claim that the parable of the good Samaritan was not a parable but a true account. Why? Because the Levite and the priest in question who passed by the beaten man at the side of the road were actually in the audience when Christ related the story. In the Biblical account? Nope. In DOA? Yup. (DOA P.499) But, once again, many SDA's are suprised to learn that these fanciful added insights are not anywhere to be found in the Scriptural account. I could provide example after example I have observed in my 20+ years in the church. How many times have I watched in amusement as a Trad in Sabbath School furiously flips through the Bible to find back up for an assertion he has made to the class, swearing it is in Scripture. Of course, I know very well that is an EGW claim from start to finish, but I am not about to tell him that. Meanwhile the visitors from other churches are looking on in utter confusion, wondering which orfice he has pulled these ideas from.

It's the same with the John's doubts. I maintain her assertions are not found in the text anywhere and can only be arrived at through pure speculation on her part and not from a straightforward reading of the text itself. If you are going to deal with the text alone, you can only arrive at the conclusion that John had deep doubts, quite possibly doubts that Christ was the true Messiah.

And I take comfort in that. I don't see why we feel we have to portray John as some super-human oak of a man who had a faith of steel and never wavered for a second on Christ's true identity.

My question is, how far are we allowing this to go as a supposedly Sola Scriptura church, and what are the ramifications of adding all of this extra information that may or may not have taken place into the Bible accounts when Scripture warns that it should NOT be done?

<< Revelation 22:18 >>

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds anything to this, God will strike him with the plagues that are written in this book.
King James Bible
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
American Standard Version
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Bible in Basic English
For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book:
Douay-Rheims Bible
For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.
Darby Bible Translation
I testify to every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
English Revised Version
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Tyndale New Testament
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of prophecy of this book: if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
Weymouth New Testament
"I solemnly declare to every one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book, that if any one adds to those words, God will add to him the plagues spoken of in this book;
Webster's Bible Translation
For I testify to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
World English Bible
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
Young's Literal Translation
'For I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll, if any one may add unto these, God shall add to him the plagues that have been written in this scroll,

 

[NightEternal]

It's a shame some will read and study the anti-EGW websites more thoroughly than they will her writings themselves.

No, it's a shame when false claims are made against me in my absence.

Nowhere are anti-EGW websites referenced or mentioned in the OP, and yet you felt at liberty to interject an element into the conversation that is not even present. My reference source was the SDA Bible Commentary, not Dirk Anderson's website.

Furthermore, you really don't have a clue how much and how thoroughly I have read her materials, so why speculate?

 

[honorthesabbath]

No knowing what actually is transpiring in this text, it would be well to leave it to our own interpretation.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Night--if you notice, everyone of those texts you quoted say "the PROPHECIES" of this book.

The imprisonment of John was a PAST event. So you just gave us a prime example of your eisegesis. Thanks.

 

[NightEternal]

I am aware the text says 'prophecies'. There is no reason one cannot take the principal in that text and apply it to the whole of Scripture. Unless you want to maintain that the prophecies of Revelation are off-limits and the rest of Scripture is fair game to be tampered with and added to by anyone who feels at liberty to do so.

This is not adding to the Word nor is it eisegesis.

 

[NightEternal]

No knowing what actually is transpiring in this text, it would be well to leave it to our own interpretation.

Correct. But that has not happened, as many Trads have elevated EGW's interpretation of the doubting John account as incontestable and as 100% true as the words of the Bible itself.

 

[sentipente]

Night--if you notice, everyone of those texts you quoted say "the PROPHECIES" of this book.

The imprisonment of John was a PAST event. So you just gave us a prime example of your eisegesis. Thanks.

Prophecy can be both foretelling and forthtelling and the term is probably used in the latter sense in this case.