icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

[RC_NewProtestants]

I knew you would disagree because you have a tradition and you interpret everything in light of that tradition. The fact is that the verse frequently used to say that Paul died daily to self does not say that. Then you assume all the other statements which say nothing about dying to self but talk about a new life lived in Christ is equivalent to dying daily to self which is something he never said to do and is frankly nonsensical.

Jim wrote:

Good suggestion, RC, do you accept Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross for your salvation?

Why do you think I have written extensively about the Atonement and reconciliation with God. How obtuse do you have to be to ask such a question. I have never asked you if you accept Jesus or any of the others on this forum as this is a Christian forum and I don't go around questioning others acceptance of the gift of salvation even if they hold to peculiar ideas. So to answer the inquisitor, I believe in Jesus Christ and the healing and reconciliation He offers.

This is a rather dramatic difference between Progressive Adventists and Traditional Adventists as TSDA are typically so concerned that their traditions be followed that if they are not followed then the person who does not follow them simply can't be a Christian. Kind of amazing when you consider the vast array of writings I have on my blog http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
On my Website http://newprotestants.com/
Yet it seems to many a TSDA no evidence is acceptable unless it agrees with their view of things.

Here is The Manifesto of Progressive Seventh-day Adventists I purposefully made it using Ellen White quotes so that even traditional SDA's could understand it or at least be willing to read it.

 

[freeindeed2]

Freeindeed, just a reminder, that only SDA's are permitted to debate in the SDA forum.

I assume you are no longer Seventh-day Adventist. So please obey the rules.

Jon

The writer of Hebrews, in the passage quoted, referred to his own time as the 'final days' or 'last days'.

Not a debatable point, but a fact from Scripture.

Also, do you think groups that have their own prophet, even making their prophet a 'Fundamental Belief', are open to their sons and daughters prophesying and their young men having visions?

Legimate question, not a debate, nor flaming. Do you think the SDA church is open to many of their sons, daughters, and old men prophesying?

Lastly, I think God speaking to us through his Son is where the rubber absolutely meets the road. Jesus is enough.

How is this debatable? Do you disagree with this? Is Jesus not enough? Is he NOT where the rubber meets the road? I'm curious of your response rather than a non-response.

I was very careful in what I posted. Why do you run to the rules and cry foul anytime someone you're opposed to makes any comments?

 

[Jimlarmore]

I knew you would disagree because you have a tradition and you interpret everything in light of that tradition. The fact is that the verse frequently used to say that Paul died daily to self does not say that. Then you assume all the other statements which say nothing about dying to self but talk about a new life lived in Christ is equivalent to dying daily to self which is something he never said to do and is frankly nonsensical.

Everyone has traditions but I reject your accusation that I have a tradition that guides my interpretation of scriptures. I wasn't born and raised adventist. Many of the things adventism accepts I had accepted before even knowing of adventism. I did this by studying the Bible.

Why do you think I have written extensively about the Atonement and reconciliation with God. How obtuse do you have to be to ask such a question. I have never asked you if you accept Jesus or any of the others on this forum as this is a Christian forum and I don't go around questioning others acceptance of the gift of salvation even if they hold to peculiar ideas. So to answer the inquisitor, I believe in Jesus Christ and the healing and reconciliation He offers.

Great RC that is good news so why do you reject some of the things Christ Himself supported in the old testament then?

This is a rather dramatic difference between Progressive Adventists and Traditional Adventists as TSDA are typically so concerned that their traditions be followed that if they are not followed then the person who does not follow them simply can't be a Christian. Kind of amazing when you consider the vast array of writings I have on my blog http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
On my Website http://newprotestants.com/
Yet it seems to many a TSDA no evidence is acceptable unless it agrees with their view of things.

If what you say does not align with what the scripture says then you are certainly correct in what you just said whether I be a TSDA or a Progressive SDA.

Here is The Manifesto of Progressive Seventh-day Adventists I purposefully made it using Ellen White quotes so that even traditional SDA's could understand it or at least be willing to read it.

If they believe as you do partner then I feel sorry for them. Having beliefs or teachings that Lucifer is a myth or that there is no such thing as demonic manifestations. The Bible's account of the Biblical flood is mere symbology, then confusing clear teachings in the Bible to make them appear to say what they don't. Naw, you have that mess, it's not for me.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You will notice in the things discussed here recently Jim my view has consistently represented the Biblical context while you have denied the Biblical context. For instance the usage of Paul saying he died daily, I hold with most other Christians that it is a reference to his being in bodily danger, while you assert it is about him dying to self. Clearly you are on a tangent not me. The same goes for the Scapegoat, I am again on the side of Christianity that says the symbol is fulfilled in Christ, you are on the tangent that the scapegoat represent Satan. Frankly an absurd argument but it is based upon the Ellen White idea that sins are laid on Satan at the end of time so that such an idea is taken and inserted into the day of atonement symbology even though there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about sins ever being laid on Satan at the end of time or any other time.

Then of course there is Isaiah 14 which is clearly a death dirge poem to the king of Babylon, it is a taunt just as it says:

Isaiah 14: 3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury [a] has ended!

Again it is you who have joined the folks who can't allow the context of the verses to speak for the verses themselves. With such a elastic view of the Bible it is no wonder that you assume that anything is a demonic manifestations if it looks in any way out of the ordinary. And you therefore feel compelled to assume that everything in the Bible that you want to take literally must therefore be taken literally. Yet the evidence suggests that you don't even take the Bible literally when context time and place require that the meaning is literal. Let alone your acceptance of distortions of the poetic portions of the Bible.

No I stand by my statement it is to tradition that you cling, it may not be the tradition that you were raised with but it is the tradition you have accepted and the consequences are the same. The one who rejects clear teaching of the Bible is you. Even the book of Genesis makes no claim to be a true recording of history, so is it really even rejecting anything to say that it presents stories to aid in understanding man and God. Of course not, it is merely a rejection of the tradition that you have accepted and ascribed to that part of the Bible.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Wow, that is some fantastic research icedragon!

Most troubling indeed. Some things I was aware of, others not.

Crosier actually repudiated the IJ and claimed it was made up? Wow, I did not know that!!!

I am not an EGW apologist, never have been, never will be. I am too much aware of the problems that are present. I remember when I was first told about the false prediction concerning the Fox sisters. It really upset me. EGW had claimed she was shown it was Satan who was behind the knocking phenomenah. It was finally revealed that it was, in fact, the Fox sisters themselves who were deliberately causing the knocking.

It was all a hoax.

And she claimed it was demonic in origin.



What does a person do with these sorts of things? I'm honestly asking...

I don't have the answers. What I do know is that the church will never be finished with these issues and they will always be there, waiting to be dealt with.

I cannot bring myself to write her off totally however. I can't explain it, but I just feel like there is more to this thing than I realize. There is so much surrounding her experience that I cannot explain, so many mystical and supernatural elements that give me pause and cause me to proceed with deliberate caution.

Graeme Bradford's book More Than Prophet came out during the lowest part of my relationship with EGW. It was rapidly deteriorating and I was on the verge of scrapping her altogether and just being done with the whole mess once and for all. I was, frankly, sick to death of the whole issue; back and forth, back and forth, is she a prophet, is she not? Yes she is, no she isn't, yes she is, no she isn't, yes she is...

The same battle has been raging for years and years and years and it shows no signs of abating one bit. It got to the point where I didn't even care anymore, both sides were so adamant they were absolutely correct and it was driving me right round the bend.

Elder Bradford breathed new life into my confidence in her when I was ready to give up.

But for all of his excellent work, neither he nor any of the vast EGW apologists in the church have yet adequately dealt with all of the glaring problems to my satisfaction (valiant attempts by Bob Pickle notwithstanding.)

Not by a long shot.

As for the EGW Estate, I have no use for them, so they are not even factoring into my search for the truth of the matter anymore. That whole organization needs to be disbanded and all of the employees relieved of thier duties. All of her materials then needs to be distributed to our college and university heritage rooms where they will be out of the reach of thier tight-fisted control. They lost my vote of confidence long, long ago, and have done nothing but make things worse by suppressing evidence, protecting thier interests, hiding documents, building up an unrealistic, airbrushed version of EGW absent of any difficulties and continually minimizing and downplaying the scope of the mess we are in.

They sort of remind me of the beef industry, telling the people consuming thier product to not worry, it's only a couple of cows that were infected with BSE, keep eating it, everything's alright...

Meanwhile, cows are dropping dead left and right and the tainted meat somehow manages to find its way into the human food supply.

Nothing to worry about....everything's alright....no worries....

But everything is not alright, and hasn't been for a long time.

How many more Adventists have to leave the church or go borderline insane grappling, struggling, desperately trying to come to terms with the inconsistencies before the EGW Estate wises up and squarely deals the issues? Of course, they are only apologists after all, so they have no real intentions of ever honestly facing the problems. Only recently have they reluctantly, grudgingly faced up to some things, but only because thier hand was forced by Walter Rea and the recent explosion of anti-EGW websites. They will not attempt to do a blasted thing until they are forced to!

Now they have the audacity to trash Bradford's book! That is a monumental amount of nerve on thier part, let me tell you.

So the journey continues...

Man, all I have ever wanted to do was preach Christ and Him crucified without all of this baggage. The rest of this just seems so inconsequential and a waste of valuable manpower and mental energy.

EternalNight,

In response to your post about Bradford's book and how it revived your belief in EGW, I direct you to a review of his book at the following links:

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot1.php
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot2.php
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot3.php

Your accusation against the White Estate concerns me, therefore, I hope you can substantiate such a serious accusation with one or more reliable sources, something for me to check out for myself.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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.

see answer 3-5 below. I answered the 2nd question first.

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.

I think your questions assumes the burden of explaining what she was is on me. It is not my burden to explain what she was. I have been nice and tried not to relegate her to the work of satan. My burden is to test her predictions and see if they come true or not. were they conditional or not.
She made predictions and they did not come true. Those are know facts. No one disagrees on that, suporters and critics alike. the questions is was it conditional or not. as of yet no conditions have been given. That constitutes a failed prophecy and a reason to reject. That is all I need to do.

Why she did what she did is left for other to figure out. My burden is to test the Mantle of Prophetic Authority. Once that Mantle of Prophetic Authority is stripped then it makes no difference. Tall73, Sophia7 and I have talked at length about this. It is not an easy conclusion to come to. Nor is it one in which I desire to come to. I am not Dancing in the street about it. But she does not pass the test. the following are your options what to consider about her "supernatural" manifestations.

Here are the options for you to consider
1. She was of the Devil and a deciever.
2. She was Called of God and was who she claimed to be.
3. She was Sick and had healt problems do to nerology.
4. She was minpulated by James and found herself in a postion that was not of her choosing and tried to make the best of it.
5. she honestly thought she was someone but was wrong. she would not be the first.


Also,

what is your view on the gospel

?
I find this to be a red herring. the assumption that you need the investigative judgement to overcome sin is utterly preposterous, or that to reject the IJ it to endorse sinning. If that is the case what did they preach before the investigative judgement was taught. You do know we are the only onse who have ever taught that? the investigative judgement was made up to explaing why the shuth door movement was still valid. Let me show you

1. Millers prediction that Jeuse was coming failed.
2. The Movement started to fracture
3. some believed Miller had give the final warning and Jesus was still coming very soon.
4. Of those who still beleved Jesus was coming soon were the "shut door believer"
5. The shut doors believed that Jesus was coming soon and that the door of mercy was shut for ALL who had rejected millers message.
6. Ellen white endorsed The Shut Door Movement in Prophetice vision. with an I was shown statment, or God showed me....
7. When Asked why Jesus had not come the "shut doors" came up with the expliantiaon that we are in the 'tarring time" and is in heaven reviewing the records of the saints, To see if they are really who they claimed to be. This is called the investigative Judgement.
8. When will this Investigative Judgement be over with. In 7 years in 1851 at the end of the "tarrying time"
9. At the end of 7 years jesus had not come, hense a the failed prediction of EGW. as such she is not who she claimed to be.

I've found that without exception, those who reject EGW had previously adapted an evangelical gospel (or something equally dangerous)

Exactly how do understand the gospel?

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.[/quote] Jesus said in John 3 "unless you are born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. for flesh give birth to flesh and spirit give birth to spirt"

Jesus also said" My words they are spirit and live and if you listen to my words you will have eternal life."

and in another place
"You are my disciples if you do what I command."

Jesus had come to walk the perfect life for you take the peanlty and curse for the violations and failurers in keeping his commandments.

He then invites you to come and be healed from your disease of sin, and to come and be made clean, so that you won't have the tendency to sin. He will sancitify you. make you a saint and fit for heaven. The sabbath is a promise that God will do that for you. You don't need the Investigative Judgement for 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.

I take it you have been around a long time???

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 tried to answer your question the best I could,but there was confusion due to the double post. If I missed something then re ask the question and I will answer it.

 

[Friend123]

Hey again Icedragon,

First of all, let me say that I don't come to forums often because it tends to be a haven for arguments galore and I hope that we can conclude our particular conversation here as Christian friends who simply disagree. So far so good......

Okay, while I DO appreciate your desire to be nice and not relegate her work to that of Satan, the truth is more important than my feelings. My point was that you seemed to have been trying to maintain a position which ultimately is impossible to sustain. All will find this out as they continue to debate it one way or the other. Good Christian people do not lie to those around them about visions from God. That totally rules out that option for her if she did, indeed lie.

I wasn't assuming that the burden of proof for what she is was on you, but rather wanted you to take a position one way or the other. You needn't prove anything to me, nor I to you. But we do, if we are going to dialogue about this, both need to make our positions clear, do we not? And again, my point was that your double position was not an option when it comes to prophets. Now it seems that you have clarified it a bit and indeed do feel that she was a total fraud. That makes more sense. It is more consistent.

Now regarding her "predictions that did not come true" which of those are you referring to? I have seen lists and I've seen explanations for those lists, and in the end they are easily answered. The biggest one cited is where she said that some who were alive in her day would be alive when Jesus returns. Is this really proof that she was a false prophet? Paul would, under this same "test" fail, for he plainly stated (twice) that he and others would be alive when Jesus returned (1 Thess. 4:15,17). And we can see examples that correlate with EGW's predictions in other places in the Bible as well. Are you referring to the "buildings in Chicago" issue with Kellogg? Again, that was answered (decades ago) if you are interested (no, I wasn't around back then, but there were others answering the critics, you know )

Have you considered things she said in the health field that HAVE come true and been proven since she said them? Again, either coincidence or the devil helped her (or she is a true prophet). Interesting that she chose the good and left out the foolishness that was being taught in the medical circles in those days.

You said:

the following are your options what to consider about her "supernatural" manifestations.

Here are the options for you to consider
1. She was of the Devil and a deciever.

Fair enough. I reject this one.

2. She was Called of God and was who she claimed to be.

This option makes the most sense to me, brother. I'll take this one.

3. She was Sick and had healt problems do to nerology.

Now this would be okay if we are just dealing with her saying she had visions, by my question dealt with the SUPERNATURAL events. A sick person can't hold her breath for as long as she did, neither can they hold up a Bible for as long as she did. There are other things I can list if you are interested, but these two things are sufficient to disprove the "sick in the head" theory. I will therefore reject this one.

4. She was minpulated by James and found herself in a postion that was not of her choosing and tried to make the best of it.

Again, James would have had a hard time manipulating her into what I described above. In fact, he couldn't do it if his life depended on it. And it would take more than trying to make the best of it as her brain cells began screaming out for oxygen. I will thus reject this option as well.

5. she honestly thought she was someone but was wrong. she would not be the first.

Thinking that you are someone does not produce supernatural events, so I will rule this out as well.

So after examining all 5 options, we see that only two of them are possible. Those two are the same two that I started my post with -- that she is either of God or the devil (and it will always come back to that choice, too).

You later said that I implied that we "need the investigative judgment to overcome sin" and if you took that from my post, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

You are DEAD RIGHT that we don't "need" the Investigative Judgment to be going on during our lives to overcome sin, otherwise no Bible character could have ever overcome it, and they did. My point was not that one needs the Investigative Judgment or Ellen White's writings to overcome sin. My question was if you believed another gospel. Why did I ask this? Not as a Red Herring, but rather to see if perhaps your belief in another gospel could have tainted your view of EGW and the IJ. In my studies of this I have found that most critics do not pull their arguments out of the blue. Walter Rea did not wake up one day and say "Hey, Ellen White is a fraud!" Neither did Des Ford open his Bible and say "Wow, we've been wrong about Daniel 8:14!" No, as you study the theology of these gentlemen you see that they fell into a half gospel of once-saved-always-saved and thus they saw a need to get rid of the IJ, which disproves that gospel and also EGW, who supports the IJ. Ford takes the position of EGW being a good, Christian woman that "God used" but who was wrong about 1844. Again, this is an impossible position and I believe Ford knows it. But bless his heart, he doesn't want to cross that line. The Holy Spirit is still striving with Ford and he may yet come back into the light. He is on many prayer lists, I can assure you. The Holy Spirit is also striving with you as you have said that you really didn't want to reject her. Please pray about this.

Regarding the Shut Door issue, your points are all well taken, but have been around for years. They are nothing new, and it is these that I referred to (among others) that had been answered "decades ago."

For info on the Shut Door consider the following articles (please actually do this and don't just brush it off, for you seem like a studious fellow who is willing to look into things; it will benefit you greatly)

Go to WhiteEstate dot org and then /books/mol/Appendix%20E.html#Appendix%20E

This is from Herbert Douglass. Next same website, but after the dot org (also from Douglass):

/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#sth0

Now read /books/mol/Chapt44.html#The%20Shut%20Door—A%20Case%20Study (from the same domain)

Now this is from the book by Nichols, which I'm sure you have read (man, I hope so, since it does answer so many of these things):

/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#c13 (again, same domain).

There is more info out there discussing the Shut Door, if you (or any others) are interested.

You also mentioned Crosier backing down from his position re: the Sanctuary. Why would his actions cast doubt on Ellen White? So he recanted. So did Peter when he said he would never deny Christ. Do you not think that Satan was busy trying to get Crosier and other early Adventists (Canright, etc.) to turn against their fellow believers?

Many of the critics of Ellen White seem to have found "secrets that have been covered up" by the church, EGW Estate, etc. and they border on conspiracy theories akin to the whole Illuminati/Masons/Trilateral Commission fiasco. I said "akin to" and not "a part of" -- they remind me of them. The whole makeup is the same. The scenario is always that those who have studied, but who have not dug quite as deeply as the conspiracy theorists themselves, are in blind ignorance to the "real picture." This sort of thing in the "government conspiracy" circles normally leads to folks not paying taxes and being suspicious of the Rockefellers and Masonic Temples, as well as the triangles on our currency and the LTF officers at Ruby Ridge and Waco. They are "in the know" while all of the rest of us are just sheep, manipulated by the govt. The logic is, of course, that the govt buries the evidence and that is why it is not well known. With the SDA church critics it is the all-powerful mother church who has figured out a way to cover up all sorts of historical and EGW-related problems so that the blind fools in the church will continue paying their tithes and believing the ongoing lie. The BIBLE is the judge in this and it supports both the teachings of EGW and the Investigative Judgment. All of the anecdotes about Crosier or Canright or Kellogg will never change that fact. If Ellen White was a prophet and the IJ is biblical, then even if EVERY LAST ADVENTIST on the planet rejected them, would that make them any LESS true? One need only to look at Noah and the world's rejection of him to answer that question.

You see, the reaction of Ellen White's contemporaries does not diminish her gift in the least. It doesn't matter that Jones may have had issues. It doesn't matter if A.G. Daniels had issues. It wouldn't have even mattered if James White himself was not only a stubborn old codger who was mean spirited, but if he also ran off with Fanny Bolton, established a pig and tobacco farm and founded the Atheist Society of America. NONE of that would have mattered, my friend. What WOULD have mattered is if Ellen White lied about her visions and if her writings contradicted the Word, Law, and Will of God. Neither of these were the case. So speculation about all of her contemporaries is not what is important, nor was it ever important.

I have no desire to compel you to proclaim EGW as a true prophet. I'm just giving you (and the others on this board) some things go consider. That's all. You seem quite intelligent and I hope that my points are well taken. I tried to make them semi- lighthearted so that you would know that I hold no ill will against you. There are too many "supporters" of EGW who fight every critic tooth and nail and reveal a wrong spirit. This is the devil's goal. I'll have no part of it.

So let's keep the conversation going as two brothers in Christ, shall we?

God bless you, my friend, and I look forward to hearing your reply.

Friend123

 

[Friend123]

Hey NightEternal,

I think we got off to a not-so-great start. If you are really confused about EGW and her roll in the Church, I recommend that you follow the links I have provided in other posts for more info.

Also, please don't ever visit any of the anti-Bible skeptics' sites, because if these few things about Ellen White have caused you grief and confusion and doubts you will REALLY have issues after reading their attacks on the Word. We need to know what we believe and then trust in the Lord with all our hearts. Spending time reading one attacker after another will just sink us further and further into misery, doubt, and confusion.

God bless you!

Friend123

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is really sad, Friend123 thinks that the verse of Paul reflecting the idea that people who are alive at the second coming is in any way similar to Ellen Whites food for worms prophecy are similar. Is this what has happened to Bible interpretations? In the general Christian community do we see them looking at this as a false prophecy, of course not it is only a method used by those trying to make it appear that Ellen White has the same authority as the Bible and to do that they have to demean the Bible like this verse taken as a false prophecy. Of course they don't even believe that it is a false prophecy it only comes up when they try to defend EGW. But let's give them some credit and ask them to prove that the prophecy is false, Has Jesus returned and have we who remained been caught up? No none of it has happened, yet for Ellen white we can say that they all are dead, all food for worms and none of them was subject to the seven last plaques and none of them were translated without seeing death. How can any body try and equate these two quotations. It is indeed sad.

(1 Th 4:15 NIV) According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

(1 Th 4:16 NIV) For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

(1 Th 4:17 NIV) After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

We who are still alive, does it say Paul was predicting he would still be alive? No it does not, it may be that Paul thought he would but that is not what the statement he made says.

Here is the very specific words of Ellen White:
But we were yet to pass through another severe trial. At the conference a very solemn vision was given me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death. Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, "I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms." The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work.
Vol 2 Spirtual Gifts page 209

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Hey again Icedragon,

First of all, let me say that I don't come to forums often because it tends to be a haven for arguments galore and I hope that we can conclude our particular conversation here as Christian friends who simply disagree. So far so good......

Okay, while I DO appreciate your desire to be nice and not relegate her work to that of Satan, the truth is more important than my feelings. My point was that you seemed to have been trying to maintain a position which ultimately is impossible to sustain. All will find this out as they continue to debate it one way or the other. Good Christian people do not lie to those around them about visions from God. That totally rules out that option for her if she did, indeed lie.

I wasn't assuming that the burden of proof for what she is was on you, but rather wanted you to take a position one way or the other. You needn't prove anything to me, nor I to you. But we do, if we are going to dialogue about this, both need to make our positions clear, do we not? And again, my point was that your double position was not an option when it comes to prophets. Now it seems that you have clarified it a bit and indeed do feel that she was a total fraud. That makes more sense. It is more consistent.

Now regarding her "predictions that did not come true" which of those are you referring to? I have seen lists and I've seen explanations for those lists, and in the end they are easily answered. The biggest one cited is where she said that some who were alive in her day would be alive when Jesus returns. Is this really proof that she was a false prophet? Paul would, under this same "test" fail, for he plainly stated (twice) that he and others would be alive when Jesus returned (1 Thess. 4:15,17). And we can see examples that correlate with EGW's predictions in other places in the Bible as well. Are you referring to the "buildings in Chicago" issue with Kellogg? Again, that was answered (decades ago) if you are interested (no, I wasn't around back then, but there were others answering the critics, you know )

Have you considered things she said in the health field that HAVE come true and been proven since she said them? Again, either coincidence or the devil helped her (or she is a true prophet). Interesting that she chose the good and left out the foolishness that was being taught in the medical circles in those days.

You said:

the following are your options what to consider about her "supernatural" manifestations.

Here are the options for you to consider
1. She was of the Devil and a deciever.

Fair enough. I reject this one.

2. She was Called of God and was who she claimed to be.

This option makes the most sense to me, brother. I'll take this one.

3. She was Sick and had healt problems do to nerology.

Now this would be okay if we are just dealing with her saying she had visions, by my question dealt with the SUPERNATURAL events. A sick person can't hold her breath for as long as she did, neither can they hold up a Bible for as long as she did. There are other things I can list if you are interested, but these two things are sufficient to disprove the "sick in the head" theory. I will therefore reject this one.

4. She was minpulated by James and found herself in a postion that was not of her choosing and tried to make the best of it.

Again, James would have had a hard time manipulating her into what I described above. In fact, he couldn't do it if his life depended on it. And it would take more than trying to make the best of it as her brain cells began screaming out for oxygen. I will thus reject this option as well.

5. she honestly thought she was someone but was wrong. she would not be the first.

Thinking that you are someone does not produce supernatural events, so I will rule this out as well.

So after examining all 5 options, we see that only two of them are possible. Those two are the same two that I started my post with -- that she is either of God or the devil (and it will always come back to that choice, too).

You later said that I implied that we "need the investigative judgment to overcome sin" and if you took that from my post, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

You are DEAD RIGHT that we don't "need" the Investigative Judgment to be going on during our lives to overcome sin, otherwise no Bible character could have ever overcome it, and they did. My point was not that one needs the Investigative Judgment or Ellen White's writings to overcome sin. My question was if you believed another gospel. Why did I ask this? Not as a Red Herring, but rather to see if perhaps your belief in another gospel could have tainted your view of EGW and the IJ. In my studies of this I have found that most critics do not pull their arguments out of the blue. Walter Rea did not wake up one day and say "Hey, Ellen White is a fraud!" Neither did Des Ford open his Bible and say "Wow, we've been wrong about Daniel 8:14!" No, as you study the theology of these gentlemen you see that they fell into a half gospel of once-saved-always-saved and thus they saw a need to get rid of the IJ, which disproves that gospel and also EGW, who supports the IJ. Ford takes the position of EGW being a good, Christian woman that "God used" but who was wrong about 1844. Again, this is an impossible position and I believe Ford knows it. But bless his heart, he doesn't want to cross that line. The Holy Spirit is still striving with Ford and he may yet come back into the light. He is on many prayer lists, I can assure you. The Holy Spirit is also striving with you as you have said that you really didn't want to reject her. Please pray about this.

Regarding the Shut Door issue, your points are all well taken, but have been around for years. They are nothing new, and it is these that I referred to (among others) that had been answered "decades ago."

For info on the Shut Door consider the following articles (please actually do this and don't just brush it off, for you seem like a studious fellow who is willing to look into things; it will benefit you greatly)

Go to WhiteEstate dot org and then /books/mol/Appendix%20E.html#Appendix%20E

This is from Herbert Douglass. Next same website, but after the dot org (also from Douglass):

/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#sth0

Now read /books/mol/Chapt44.html#The%20Shut%20Door—A%20Case%20Study (from the same domain)

Now this is from the book by Nichols, which I'm sure you have read (man, I hope so, since it does answer so many of these things):

/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#c13 (again, same domain).

There is more info out there discussing the Shut Door, if you (or any others) are interested.

You also mentioned Crosier backing down from his position re: the Sanctuary. Why would his actions cast doubt on Ellen White? So he recanted. So did Peter when he said he would never deny Christ. Do you not think that Satan was busy trying to get Crosier and other early Adventists (Canright, etc.) to turn against their fellow believers?

Many of the critics of Ellen White seem to have found "secrets that have been covered up" by the church, EGW Estate, etc. and they border on conspiracy theories akin to the whole Illuminati/Masons/Trilateral Commission fiasco. I said "akin to" and not "a part of" -- they remind me of them. The whole makeup is the same. The scenario is always that those who have studied, but who have not dug quite as deeply as the conspiracy theorists themselves, are in blind ignorance to the "real picture." This sort of thing in the "government conspiracy" circles normally leads to folks not paying taxes and being suspicious of the Rockefellers and Masonic Temples, as well as the triangles on our currency and the LTF officers at Ruby Ridge and Waco. They are "in the know" while all of the rest of us are just sheep, manipulated by the govt. The logic is, of course, that the govt buries the evidence and that is why it is not well known. With the SDA church critics it is the all-powerful mother church who has figured out a way to cover up all sorts of historical and EGW-related problems so that the blind fools in the church will continue paying their tithes and believing the ongoing lie. The BIBLE is the judge in this and it supports both the teachings of EGW and the Investigative Judgment. All of the anecdotes about Crosier or Canright or Kellogg will never change that fact. If Ellen White was a prophet and the IJ is biblical, then even if EVERY LAST ADVENTIST on the planet rejected them, would that make them any LESS true? One need only to look at Noah and the world's rejection of him to answer that question.

You see, the reaction of Ellen White's contemporaries does not diminish her gift in the least. It doesn't matter that Jones may have had issues. It doesn't matter if A.G. Daniels had issues. It wouldn't have even mattered if James White himself was not only a stubborn old codger who was mean spirited, but if he also ran off with Fanny Bolton, established a pig and tobacco farm and founded the Atheist Society of America. NONE of that would have mattered, my friend. What WOULD have mattered is if Ellen White lied about her visions and if her writings contradicted the Word, Law, and Will of God. Neither of these were the case. So speculation about all of her contemporaries is not what is important, nor was it ever important.

I have no desire to compel you to proclaim EGW as a true prophet. I'm just giving you (and the others on this board) some things go consider. That's all. You seem quite intelligent and I hope that my points are well taken. I tried to make them semi- lighthearted so that you would know that I hold no ill will against you. There are too many "supporters" of EGW who fight every critic tooth and nail and reveal a wrong spirit. This is the devil's goal. I'll have no part of it.

So let's keep the conversation going as two brothers in Christ, shall we?

God bless you, my friend, and I look forward to hearing your reply.

Friend123

Friend I will respond in detail later, but just a short word. I am very well aware of the information available on the white estate web site. I have read many of herb douglass article. with all due respect to MR. Douglass I do not trust him one bit. I have compared his articles with the facts and they are always slanted. He will intentionally add discription of event to make them say thing they don't say. I am well aware these things have been answered by the denomination years ago. They may be settled with them but they are new to me and I have not settled my mind on a definate postion. as of yet. I am leaning one way, but have not comitted to that way just yet. Your links I have probally already read and I was probally not convinced.

 

[Friend123]

Dear RC,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I (or any other Adventist) was saying that Paul had a false prophecy. I'm showing the wording that Paul clearly said "those of us who are alive and remain." I was showing an example of a CONDITIONAL prophecy, not a false prophecy. There is a difference. Jonah said Nineveh would be destroyed, but it was not (in their lifetimes). It was CONDITIONAL on their repenting, although Jonah never stated this when he declared it.

Critics will simply have to find another example if they want to prove EGW a false prophet, for this one is simply conditional -- it just is. Jesus could have, should have, come within their lifetimes but He didn't because they chose not to be ready.

I'm sorry you consider my conclusion "sad" and that you can't just disagree. I don't find your position "sad," just incorrect. But I can still be sociable and discuss the matter. Let's give it a shot....

God bless,

Friend123

 

[Friend123]

Icedragon wrote:

Friend I will respond in detail later, but just a short word. I am very well aware of the information available on the white estate web site. I have read many of herb douglass article. with all due respect to MR. Douglass I do not trust him one bit. I have compared his articles with the facts and they are always slanted. He will intentionally add discription of event to make them say thing they don't say. I am well aware these things have been answered by the denomination years ago. They may be settled with them but they are new to me and I have not settled my mind on a definate postion. as of yet. I am leaning one way, but have not comitted to that way just yet. Your links I have probally already read and I was probally not convinced.

Hmmmmm...... Okay, I look forward to that. Most, if not all of those who see things the opposite way as Douglass, generally agree that he is, if anything fair.

I will say I am glad to hear you say that you are only leaning away from believing EGW's writings and have not yet taken the full step. I don't want to be the one, with a bad attitude, that causes you to take the leap. This is why I try to tread lightly and yet speak the truth. Jesus said to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I pray I am.

But now just a quick question regarding EGW's critics that you have read. Have you not noticed that time and time again they leave out portions of her writings that would have cleared things up when they quote from her to "prove her wrong"? I've seen it so many times, I get to the place where I say enough is enough. You just don't feel like even listening to any more because of the blatant disregard for honesty or truth. Did you see the picture of Ellen White supposedly wearing jewelry? It was proven doctored and it is on one of the MAIN anti-EGW sites. Now can you imagine that poor soul sitting at his computer, "thinking he doeth the Father a service" and doctoring that thing with glee in hopes that it will make EGW look like a hypocrite? (Here, RC, is where you could accurately and without shame add the word "sad" if you are reading this) I mean, this is the kind of thing we are dealing with. Have you not witnessed the spirit behind the anti-EGW sites? By their fruits you will know them.

Just keep praying about this as we all are, and I'm sure you have been and claim John 16:13, and you will, indeed come (back) into the truth.

I look forward to your reply. Take your time....

Friend123

(yes, it's a corny alias, but it kind of forces folks to call me "friend" before they shoot down my points! )


</IMG>

 

[Friend123]

Someone please tell me how to do the cool "quotes" feature.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Someone please tell me how to do the cool "quotes" feature.

use this tool. highlight the text and then hit this button

 

[Adventist Dissident]

cedragon wrote:

Hmmmmm...... Okay, I look forward to that. Most, if not all of those who see things the opposite way as Douglass, generally agree that he is, if anything fair.

I read his stuff and see him on 3abn and I don't trust him. sorry.

I

will say I am glad to hear you say that you are only leaning away from believing EGW's writings and have not yet taken the full step.

that is why I am posting here. I want evidence to show me why I should not take the next step. So far I am not getting any. Evedience not feeling, fact.

How is egw's prophecy conditional what is the evidence tha counter acts my conclusion. it must be fact based and reasonable.

I don't want to be the one, with a bad attitude, that causes you to take the leap. This is why I try to tread lightly and yet speak the truth. Jesus said to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I pray I am.

you are mild to say the least. you have at least tried to come up with answers. YOu should take a look at what some of the others do. look at my thread "The conditional nature of EGW prediction. it is crazy .

But now just a quick question regarding EGW's critics that you have read. Have you not noticed that time and time again they leave out portions of her writings that would have cleared things up when they quote from her to "prove her wrong"? I've seen it so many times, I get to the place where I say enough is enough. You just don't feel like even listening to any more because of the blatant disregard for honesty or truth. Did you see the picture of Ellen White supposedly wearing jewelry? It was proven doctored and it is on one of the MAIN anti-EGW sites. Now can you imagine that poor soul sitting at his computer, "thinking he doeth the Father a service" and doctoring that thing with glee in hopes that it will make EGW look like a hypocrite? (Here, RC, is where you could accurately and without shame add the word "sad" if you are reading this) I mean, this is the kind of thing we are dealing with. Have you not witnessed the spirit behind the anti-EGW sites? By their fruits you will know them.

I have only read a few of the critics. these things are minor points to me. I have seen evidence doctred both ways. I chalk it up to zelousnes on both sides to prove there points and to discredit. I have watched the denomination miniuplate evidence also. it is wrong on both sides. I don't accept it from either party.

If you think the SDA chruch does not do it
look up the isereal damond incident and compare it with what the anit-egw site report it and how egw reports it. Ellen was passed out on the floor. and they try to make it look like she is just napping quietly.

the same with Hiram Edson. They make it look like he just happened to be out for a lesiure walk in a cornfield when he hand his idea,vision, revelation,conviction, spiritual slaying about the heavenly sancturary and jesus entering in to the most holy place.

He was actually taking a short cut from his friends house in order to avoid being taunted and ridiculed by the skeptics and unbelievers. He was humilated, embarrassed, confused and afraid. You don't hear that coming out of the denomination.

They make the Great Disappointment sound like it was just like a big let down. oh i was expecting this great present and i did not get it. It was religous shipwreck and a total disaster not just a let down. peoples lives were dashed and religious belifes broken, some live never recoverd, the stress of failuer was so bad. Under that kind of pressue and intensety people will do a lot of things. people were desprate and you don't hear that being said.



As far as leaving, I am not to concerned about it. I was convicted about 3.5 years ago by the lord that I was not going to be and SDA anymore. I just dismissed it, but I see now that it may be a reality. One I did not anticipate.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Someone please tell me how to do the cool "quotes" feature.

Another way is just to hit left bracket type quote then right bracket on the top of what you want to quote then hit left bracket then a / followed by quote then a right bracket on the bottom of the quoted part. That will place the parts in a quote box.

Hope this helps

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[TrustAndObey]

This is a rather dramatic difference between Progressive Adventists and Traditional Adventists as TSDA are typically so concerned that their traditions be followed that if they are not followed then the person who does not follow them simply can't be a Christian. Kind of amazing when you consider the vast array of writings I have on my blog http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
On my Website http://newprotestants.com/
Yet it seems to many a TSDA no evidence is acceptable unless it agrees with their view of things.

Here is The Manifesto of Progressive Seventh-day Adventists I purposefully made it using Ellen White quotes so that even traditional SDA's could understand it or at least be willing to read it.

I've been coming to this forum for a while now, and I'm glad to see something that shows what Progressives actually believe, because mostly all I hear is how much they disagree with Traditionals.

Your blog is similar to that, but at least it does give me some insight into the progressive beliefs, so thanks.

That being said, I just don't think it's wise to give out something that lists your full name and the town you live in.

Some people really don't care for Adventists and they won't care if you're traditional or not.

Anyone could do a search on you and have your information (including your home address) in about 5 minutes.

I think you're a very intelligent man, and I know you do too , but I also think you should apply some common sense here. It's better than all the book smarts in the world!

Online safety is very important.

God bless,
~Lainie

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think you're a very intelligent man, and I know you do too , but I also think you should apply some common sense here. It's better than all the book smarts in the world!

Online safety is very important.

Yes safety is important but I, and I think many others would have no interest in reading the blog of some unknown and therefore irresponsible person. When I have articles published in Adventist Today or even the Spectrum magazine website they want a bio. So it is necessary I think for responsible communication. I am not too worried, as even though TSDA's frequently hate me they are not so unbalanced as to think they should hurt me physically. I am in the opposite camp of the people at Great Controversy.org and they have the courage to posts their names and maybe more I have not really looked.

Thanks for you concern.

 

[Friend123]

Hello NightEternal!

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate it. I am, however, sorry to hear that you feel what I am talking about is legalism. Legalism stems from motive, otherwise all who obey are trying to earn salvation. There must be a difference between the two. I can't get into anyone's head and judge their motive when I see that they no longer steal, or cheat on their wife, or cuss when they get a flat tire, or keep the Sabbath. Who am I to judge between the Holy Spirit's work of transformation and the carnal mind trying to earn a spot in heaven? All I see is an improvement in the life. I can only know my own motives, not those of others. I have weaknesses. I thank God that I'm not left alone in these weaknesses and that I can turn to the Word for promises that will help me.

Once a person accepts Christ as their substitute and Savior, how can they later be lost, according to your view of the Evangelical gospel? Perhaps I don't understand your position on this well enough.

I wish you the best as you continue to study and may your walk with Christ be ever more blessed day by day. If you have been turned off by militant, mean-spirited Adventists who happen to also believe victory in Christ as I do then please accept my apology on their behalf. In the end, we all want Christ within us, for that is our only "hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). May we all have that sweet experience daily. God is too good.

Have a fun and safe vacation!

Friend123

 

[TrustAndObey]

Yes safety is important but I, and I think many others would have no interest in reading the blog of some unknown and therefore irresponsible person. When I have articles published in Adventist Today or even the Spectrum magazine website they want a bio. So it is necessary I think for responsible communication. I am not too worried, as even though TSDA's frequently hate me they are not so unbalanced as to think they should hurt me physically. I am in the opposite camp of the people at Great Controversy.org and they have the courage to posts their names and maybe more I have not really looked.

Thanks for you concern.

I don't think any TSDAs here hate you. I'm sure they're all quite sick of comments like "I even put in some EGW quotes so TSDAs could understand it", but I know no one here would ever even consider harming you.

And honestly, I wasn't even talking about Adventists at all.