Icedragon,
First of all, I want to commend you on all of your research. Well done. While I disagree with your conclusions, I will say that you put some time in. I wrote a long reply with various questions but when I hit "submit" it told me I couldn't have a link to an outside site (I had one to an article about the "biological and neurological" allegation) and when I hit my back button it was all gone. It's late here and I need to get to bed so I'll shorten it.
How can you say there is "value" in EGW's writings if you believe she lied to us about 1844, etc. and how do you explain the supernatural events surrounding her visions? Even her critics said something strange was going on. The supernatural events surrounding her visions were not given to prove that she was a prophet, but rather to prove that it was not self delusion or mental disorder. These events were given so that a conclusion like the one you have reached (that she was a good woman but totally wrong on many things and also self deluded) would not be possible.
Also, what is your view on the gospel? I've found that without exception, those who reject EGW had previously adapted an evangelical gospel (or something equally dangerous) which allows for continued sin, right up until Jesus comes. Once this view is taken, then of course 1844 goes right out the window and if that is the case, then EGW, who supported both victory over sin before the close of probation and the Investigative Judgment, must be thrown out as well. I'm just curious about that.
Thanks again for all of your research. A few things on your list need to be looked at closer, but most of them were answered decades ago. Still, you did a great job and put some time in. Although I disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your work.
God bless,
F123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I found my original post in the spell check new window, so I'll post it below):
Icedragon ,
First of all, you should be commended on your exhaustive research. Well done. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I also have not yet read all of the material you mentioned in your post.
When a person crosses that line and decides to reject a prophet it is indeed a serious matter. I'm sure you have prayed about this and I will pray for you as well. I do not doubt your sincerity, but you make two statements that all-too-often reveal more than all of the other words combined. Please note the following from your previous posts in this thread (I don't know how to use the quote feature yet on this forum, so I'll just cut and paste it below):
---------------------------------------------------
Icedragon101 said:
As far as EGW's prophetic ministery I don't buy it. Was she a christian yes. I don't doubt her sincerity. I don't think you can attribute her work to the devil. but that does not mean she was a prophet either. I do think that she had some biological and neurological issues that expalin the visions. ibelieve that she sincerly thought she was a special messenger and so did everyone else around her. I do think there is value in her work but just not divine authoritiy. I would take her in the same way I would take other authors. For example the author of "My Utmost for His Highest" Chambers or AW Tozer "In Pursuit of Holiness" I have sensed the Holy spirit in there work as well, but that does not make them prophets.
-----------------------------------------------------
Later you write:
-----------------------------------------------------
I do not think that the claim to prophetic authority and character are things that can be seprated. The trustworthiness of a person is driectly linked to the crediblity of their message.
-----------------------------------------------------
Friend, setting "prophetic authority" aside for a moment, do you think that a "good Christian woman"'s writings and her character are things that can be separated? Do you not feel, as you state above that the "trustworthiness of a person is directly linked to the credibility of their message"?
Here there are some problems that can't be dismissed without examination.
1) How can you say that there is "some value in her work" and that you would "take her in the same way that [you] would take other authors" (then you go on to list a couple of them)? Friend, there is no value in someone who is as demented as you say she must be through biological and neurological issues as you call them. Her writings were so extensive that you are surely aware that she at the very least KNEW what she was writing most of the time. Why did she not recant on her own writings during those times when she was in a sound mind? Or are you saying that throughout her ministry she was continually under mental delusion? If so, then there is no "value" at all in her work. It cannot be both ways. Either she was in and out of mental derangement or she was consistently crazy. If she was consistently crazy, simply call her that. If she was in and out of delusions, then she was evil when she was in her right mind by not taking THAT opportunity to recant her insane visions. You place her in a position that is simply impossible, for you seem to fear crossing that line and flat-out calling her what she would have to be if your conclusions are correct. Why is there this continual fear among those who disregard her work to reject her completely? It can only be because deep inside they know better. It is sort of like the folks who say Jesus was a "good man" but not the Son of God. No, friends, Jesus could not have been that, for if He is not what He claimed then He was a total liar or crazy. With Ellen White we must reach the same conclusion.
2) What is your position regarding the supernatural phenomenon surrounding her visions? Was that all fake? Did the critics that were present, who testified that something supernatural was going on have anything to gain by proving themselves wrong? The miraculous events surrounding her visions were not given to prove that she was of God, but rather to prove that there was a supernatural element at work. It was for the believers, then, to decide if that supernatural element was from God or Satan. There is no in-between work, as she herself said, and as any honest person must admit. It seems odd that you have read as many of her books as you say and yet you still conclude that her work has some value, but she is not a prophet. If I were to come across writings from someone who made things up like many claim she did, "of value" would be the very last phrase I would use to describe the liar's work. "Stay away from her writings" is the warning I would be giving. How could it be any other way? To put such a self-deluded individual on par with someone like Oswald Chambers shows some inconsistencies in your line of reasoning.
3) In every case that I have seen thus far, there is a root problem that creates the SYMPTOM of a rejection of EGW. That problem is a different view of the gospel than the one she and the Bible present. In other words, the Evangelical "gospel." Once one adapts this thinking, it seems an inevitable slippery slope into strangely finding fault with 1844 and EGW. Why? Because a gospel that removes victory in Christ and preparation for a close of probation is a gospel that quickly finds issues with any sort of Investigative Judgment. And since EGW clearly supported both victory over sin and the Investigative Judgment, the next logical step is to move her out of the way. This is often done without an all out rejection (which the conscience objects to in almost every case early on) but rather a relegating of her ministry to the sidelines as one who was suffering from some sort of mental disorder. What is your definition of the "gospel"? This will probably get to the root of the problem and clear up many other issues; it is the issue from which all other issues spring, let's face it.
Again, I appreciate all of your homework and I, myself, will look deeper at some of the points you raised. Most of them, however, have been answered decades ago.
God bless you, and I look forward to your response.
Friend123
P.S. If you go to whiteestate dot org (I can't post links yet) and then after the "org" put the following in your address bar you can read an article addressing the "biological and neurological disorder" issue (there are of course others, but look at this for now):
/books/mol/Chapt6.html#No%20Form%20of%20Mental
First of all, I want to commend you on all of your research. Well done. While I disagree with your conclusions, I will say that you put some time in. I wrote a long reply with various questions but when I hit "submit" it told me I couldn't have a link to an outside site (I had one to an article about the "biological and neurological" allegation) and when I hit my back button it was all gone. It's late here and I need to get to bed so I'll shorten it.
How can you say there is "value" in EGW's writings if you believe she lied to us about 1844, etc. and how do you explain the supernatural events surrounding her visions? Even her critics said something strange was going on. The supernatural events surrounding her visions were not given to prove that she was a prophet, but rather to prove that it was not self delusion or mental disorder. These events were given so that a conclusion like the one you have reached (that she was a good woman but totally wrong on many things and also self deluded) would not be possible.
Also, what is your view on the gospel? I've found that without exception, those who reject EGW had previously adapted an evangelical gospel (or something equally dangerous) which allows for continued sin, right up until Jesus comes. Once this view is taken, then of course 1844 goes right out the window and if that is the case, then EGW, who supported both victory over sin before the close of probation and the Investigative Judgment, must be thrown out as well. I'm just curious about that.
Thanks again for all of your research. A few things on your list need to be looked at closer, but most of them were answered decades ago. Still, you did a great job and put some time in. Although I disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your work.
God bless,
F123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I found my original post in the spell check new window, so I'll post it below):
Icedragon ,
First of all, you should be commended on your exhaustive research. Well done. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I also have not yet read all of the material you mentioned in your post.
When a person crosses that line and decides to reject a prophet it is indeed a serious matter. I'm sure you have prayed about this and I will pray for you as well. I do not doubt your sincerity, but you make two statements that all-too-often reveal more than all of the other words combined. Please note the following from your previous posts in this thread (I don't know how to use the quote feature yet on this forum, so I'll just cut and paste it below):
---------------------------------------------------
Icedragon101 said:
As far as EGW's prophetic ministery I don't buy it. Was she a christian yes. I don't doubt her sincerity. I don't think you can attribute her work to the devil. but that does not mean she was a prophet either. I do think that she had some biological and neurological issues that expalin the visions. ibelieve that she sincerly thought she was a special messenger and so did everyone else around her. I do think there is value in her work but just not divine authoritiy. I would take her in the same way I would take other authors. For example the author of "My Utmost for His Highest" Chambers or AW Tozer "In Pursuit of Holiness" I have sensed the Holy spirit in there work as well, but that does not make them prophets.
-----------------------------------------------------
Later you write:
-----------------------------------------------------
I do not think that the claim to prophetic authority and character are things that can be seprated. The trustworthiness of a person is driectly linked to the crediblity of their message.
-----------------------------------------------------
Friend, setting "prophetic authority" aside for a moment, do you think that a "good Christian woman"'s writings and her character are things that can be separated? Do you not feel, as you state above that the "trustworthiness of a person is directly linked to the credibility of their message"?
Here there are some problems that can't be dismissed without examination.
1) How can you say that there is "some value in her work" and that you would "take her in the same way that [you] would take other authors" (then you go on to list a couple of them)? Friend, there is no value in someone who is as demented as you say she must be through biological and neurological issues as you call them. Her writings were so extensive that you are surely aware that she at the very least KNEW what she was writing most of the time. Why did she not recant on her own writings during those times when she was in a sound mind? Or are you saying that throughout her ministry she was continually under mental delusion? If so, then there is no "value" at all in her work. It cannot be both ways. Either she was in and out of mental derangement or she was consistently crazy. If she was consistently crazy, simply call her that. If she was in and out of delusions, then she was evil when she was in her right mind by not taking THAT opportunity to recant her insane visions. You place her in a position that is simply impossible, for you seem to fear crossing that line and flat-out calling her what she would have to be if your conclusions are correct. Why is there this continual fear among those who disregard her work to reject her completely? It can only be because deep inside they know better. It is sort of like the folks who say Jesus was a "good man" but not the Son of God. No, friends, Jesus could not have been that, for if He is not what He claimed then He was a total liar or crazy. With Ellen White we must reach the same conclusion.
2) What is your position regarding the supernatural phenomenon surrounding her visions? Was that all fake? Did the critics that were present, who testified that something supernatural was going on have anything to gain by proving themselves wrong? The miraculous events surrounding her visions were not given to prove that she was of God, but rather to prove that there was a supernatural element at work. It was for the believers, then, to decide if that supernatural element was from God or Satan. There is no in-between work, as she herself said, and as any honest person must admit. It seems odd that you have read as many of her books as you say and yet you still conclude that her work has some value, but she is not a prophet. If I were to come across writings from someone who made things up like many claim she did, "of value" would be the very last phrase I would use to describe the liar's work. "Stay away from her writings" is the warning I would be giving. How could it be any other way? To put such a self-deluded individual on par with someone like Oswald Chambers shows some inconsistencies in your line of reasoning.
3) In every case that I have seen thus far, there is a root problem that creates the SYMPTOM of a rejection of EGW. That problem is a different view of the gospel than the one she and the Bible present. In other words, the Evangelical "gospel." Once one adapts this thinking, it seems an inevitable slippery slope into strangely finding fault with 1844 and EGW. Why? Because a gospel that removes victory in Christ and preparation for a close of probation is a gospel that quickly finds issues with any sort of Investigative Judgment. And since EGW clearly supported both victory over sin and the Investigative Judgment, the next logical step is to move her out of the way. This is often done without an all out rejection (which the conscience objects to in almost every case early on) but rather a relegating of her ministry to the sidelines as one who was suffering from some sort of mental disorder. What is your definition of the "gospel"? This will probably get to the root of the problem and clear up many other issues; it is the issue from which all other issues spring, let's face it.
Again, I appreciate all of your homework and I, myself, will look deeper at some of the points you raised. Most of them, however, have been answered decades ago.
God bless you, and I look forward to your response.
Friend123
P.S. If you go to whiteestate dot org (I can't post links yet) and then after the "org" put the following in your address bar you can read an article addressing the "biological and neurological disorder" issue (there are of course others, but look at this for now):
/books/mol/Chapt6.html#No%20Form%20of%20Mental
Upvote
0