icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

[RC_NewProtestants]

Friend123 wrote:

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.

This is what you had said:

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 )

So it was clearly you who introduced the idea of Paul as a false prophet. You said nothing of conditional prophecies. Now the only condition in Paul's statement is that there would be Christians alive at the time of the second coming. "We who are alive", the fact is it would not be a failed prophecy by anyone's estimation if they were not trying to use it to prop up their particular modern prophet.

Now what is the condition set out in Ellen White's food for worms 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.

Clearly you don't know much about the Jonah situation. Jonah said it would be "overthrown" and he likely said more then those eight words recorded in the story. In any case nations and kingdoms are subject to God relenting of an action if they repent. This is nothing like the case with the conference in 1856 that Ellen white and the angel were addressing.

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.

Please tell us what the conditions were in her prophecy. And also tell us the source for your information that Jesus could have, should have come in their lifetimes. Of course I know you source for that it is Ellen White. So you are allowing the prophet to explain why their failed prophecy failed. Which of course if that was the standard for testing prophets we would be a drift in prophets as each one could explain away why they failed with predictions.

But you have the chance to prove to me that I am wrong when I said you interpretation was sad. If you can show the condition in the food for worms statement.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

Really is that a quote from me or an abridgment, by the way I never said any TSDA here hate me. You should at least deal with what I say rather then editing things to reflect things differently then I said. I do have letters from TSDA's which I certainly would define as hate letters. Now you don't have to believe me but at least I have first hand knowledge and I don't think you do.

Here is what my quote really said:

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.

 

[Friend123]

Hey RC,

I guess I'm pretty bad at articulating myself. I'm sorry. I didn't say Paul made a false prophecy I said that according to that same, strict, no-conditional-prophecies-allowed test that you placed on EGW's statement that he would fail. I don't think for a moment that Paul failed the test. He passed. Also the concept that by saying "us" he meant "Christians" cannot be correct, because it is the Christians also that are raised. He was plainly differentiating between the dead and the living, and he placed himself among the living. He could have said (and don't think for a moment that the Bible skeptics have not pointed this out) "We dead in Christ will rise first, then those of you who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet us in the air." Ridiculous? Yes. But this line of reasoning that is used to criticize EGW's statement is the same line of reasoning used to criticize Paul by atheists.

BTW, I'll repeat this from another post: if you ever go to the anti-Bible websites you might be shocked and dismayed, for they spend endless hours picking over that precious Book day by day to find errors, contradictions, etc. and they are more than happy to plaster them all over their sites. Sure, you and I can usually answer them to our own satisfaction, but will it convince them? Absolutely not. A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still, as the saying goes. If you have trouble with EGW's writings just wait until you start dabbling in the doubts they will present about the Bible. I recommend not even going.

RC, I'm not going to debate the "conditional prophecy" issue back and forth with you. We have both made up our minds based upon the evidence that we have seen. You choose to say her statement was not conditional, and I choose to say it was. When it comes to the timing of the Second Coming, Peter makes it clear we can hasten (and, by definition, conversely delay) that event (2 Pet. 3:12).

The Bible writers consistently proclaimed the 2nd coming as "at hand" and "soon." John spoke this way and it has now been two millennia since his words. Is that "soon"? Was John wrong? Of course not.

Exactly what IS your position on Ellen White, anyway? I am new here, so I don't think I have heard it yet.

Thanks again,

Friend123

 

[Jon0388g]

I don't think any TSDAs here hate you.

I hate him.

"A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace." Ecclesiastes 3:8

Jon






P.S. JOKING!

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, I'm not going to debate the "conditional prophecy" issue back and forth with you. We have both made up our minds based upon the evidence that we have seen. You choose to say her statement was not conditional, and I choose to say it was. When it comes to the timing of the Second Coming, Peter makes it clear we can hasten (and, by definition, conversely delay) that event (2 Pet. 3:12).

Well maybe you are right, what is the reason that you say it is conditional, what or where is the condition stated? You have to have a reason or your disagreement is worthless. You say we have reached our conclusions by the evidence we have seen so why not present the evidence that you have seen that makes you say the prophecy was conditional. That poor lady who died soon after did not think it was conditional.

Did you ever notice the alternate reading of 2 Peter 3:12

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

b. 2 Peter 3:12 Or as you wait eagerly for the day of God to come

Did you notice the Chaism structure in the section, where it repeats what it says backwards and forwards:

A 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?

B You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b] (Or as you wait eagerly for the day of God to come)

A' That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

B" 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

Notice A and A' are about the destruction and B and B' are about about living righteously looking forward to being with God.
When you look at the construction it is likely that the alternate reading is more in line with the sections style.

In any case I find it highly unlikely that the members of the 1856 conference were the cause of a delay in the coming of Christ. Maybe if they were all fluent in Chinese and getting ready to go to China and spread Christianity to a land that had heard very little about Christ but really that is not too likely.

 

[djconklin]

This is what you had said:

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 )

So it was clearly you who introduced the idea of Paul as a false prophet.

This is a classic case of mis-reading what had been written. Let's try one more time and I'll add one word that makes it more clear:

"... 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, {if} 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? ..."

 

[djconklin]

BTW, I'll repeat this from another post: if you ever go to the anti-Bible websites you might be shocked and dismayed, for they spend endless hours picking over that precious Book day by day to find errors, contradictions, etc. and they are more than happy to plaster them all over their sites. Sure, you and I can usually answer them to our own satisfaction, but will it convince them? Absolutely not. A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still, as the saying goes. If you have trouble with EGW's writings just wait until you start dabbling in the doubts they will present about the Bible. I recommend not even going.

I went to anti-Bible web sites/forums and dealt with them about a dozen years ago. I was able to convince them that SOS 2:12 isn't talking about hard-shelled turtles--that the word "turtle" there was a metaphor from 1611 for "turtle-dove." The interesting part there was that the renowned critics who had a web page on it never mentoined on the page that I was the one who gave him the necessary info!

It turns out that the Bible critics and those who are opposed to EGW and the SDA church share much in common:

1) They don't read much. By and large most of those opposed to the bible only read literature and web sites like their own beliefs. They didn't even know how to consult a lexicon to find out what the Greek and Hebrew words mean in English. Likewise, the anti-SDA church and EGW critics typically don't read anything other than what they already agree with.

2) The reading ability of all of the critics leaves much to be desired. We've already had an example on this thread alone.

{Interruption: When the squirrel want his peanut he will leap off the table and onto the back of my chair (to get my attention). And squirrels don't like it when you clean up other squirrels pee when they want a peanut!}

The critics reading of Scripture tends to be very simplistic, wooden and literalistic--no metaphors! Likewise, when critics read EGW they forget she wrote ab't a hundred years ago and they wrote differently back then. For example, the "if-when" combination is our "if-then" expression (see 1T 259 the "England "will" enter into the American Civil War "prophecy.").

In short, as Ellen G. White once said truth has nothing to fear from close examination (note that there are no quote marks and no source is given--that's because it ISN'T a direct quote!). So far, no claim of any critic of the SDA church or EGW has stood the test. And unlike the Bible critic I mentioned above they will not admit when they are wrong--because it reflects the level of reading, thought and study they put into their criticisms and if one goes they all go!

 

[NightEternal]

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

They can be lost if they willingly, consistently and defiantly shut themselves off from the Holy Spirit's voice and, or reject the salvation Christ offers.

Friend123, if you don't stop being so nice and polite, I may just have to reconsider my tolerance level for conservative SDA's.

LOVING Orlando right now.

I'm thinking of you all as I sit here soaking up the sun. NOT!

Disney World and Universal Studios tomorrow! WOO HOO!!!

 

[Friend123]

First of all, thanks to those of you who explained how to do the quotes thing. I appreciate it.

Now, RC, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You are correct that EGW didn't say "and now I'm going to give a conditional prophecy.....". Neither did Paul, when he said that "we" which are alive and remain will be caught up to meet "them" in the air...... No condition was given. He didn't say "unless you guys aren't ready for the Second Coming and God has to delay it, in which case I'll be dead." And yet was Paul a prophet? Yes. Why, then do we create a test that says "no declared c allowance for conditional prophecy (and thus no true prophet) for EGW but not for him? Consistency is what is needed and when we have it, we see no problem.

God told Moses with no listed conditions at all and under no uncertain terms that He would bring THAT GENERATION of Israelites into the promised land (Exodus 6:2,6-8). Then He even refers again to THAT GENERATION that He had promised ("predicted/prophesied" if you will) to bring in, when He says that He had a "breach of promise" (or change of heart based on their unfaithfulness -- an unfaithfulness that was never "given" as a condition) (Numbers 14:26-34). We can't say "well, He just promised to bring the children of Israel into the land and not any particular people" because God Himself specified THAT GENERATION when He said he had a "breach of promise" and that THEY would now die in the wilderness (as those Adventists have done) thanks to their decision not to trust Him.

When it comes to religion, if one person believes one way and the other another, what is the point of arguing anyway? Has anyone ever argued someone else into a belief? No. I have no desire to compel you to see things my way. If you choose not to believe in EGW as a prophet then that is fine. I'm not going to try and debate you into believing anything. I have, however, shown that conditional prophecies do not always have to be earmarked as such when they are given.

God bless you, my friend,

Friend123

P.S. You never told me your position re: EGW.

 

[Friend123]

Okay, have a good vacation. I'll be gone next week on vacation to guess where?....... Florida! Save some sun for me. I need a break. My work keeps me super busy.

As Adventists, I hope we can all work together to bring the Three Angels Messages to the world. I must admit that even when we disagree, I love my Adventist family

Now get some probably-much-needed relaxation at the beach and stay out of trouble, sister.

God bless,

Friend123

 

[NightEternal]

Hey friend123, see the icon at the top of my post box with the blue smiley face and the arrow pointed upward?

That means I am male.

No worries. Anyone could miss that.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I guess we had better pay more attention to those icons.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Icedragon,

You asked if I knew much SDA Church history.

As a 1st generation SDA, I did a lot of research after first coming into contact with an SDA couple, and did even more research after that, however, as that was many years ago now, I probably need to go over it all again.

 

[Jimlarmore]

On iidb I was repeatedly called a "fundie" or someone who believes in the fundamental aspects of the Bible. Here I have been called a TSDA and have been accused of essentially the same thing. In both cases the title was applied with very negative connotations.

I will repeat again, if accepting the literal accounts of things like the global flood in Genesis, demonic manifestations and the clear prophesies of the Bible makes me a "TSDA" or "Fundie" then so be it. I'll carry those titles with honor to my grave.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[DarylFawcett]

I will do the same thing, Jim.

Other than the 3ABN stuff, we seem to be on the same page.

 

[NightEternal]

I believe in all of the things you have listed and I am in no way an SDA fundamentalist.

I may be a CHRISTIAN fundamentalist, yes, but nothing within a country mile of a TSDA.

A TSDA is one who believes that EGW has doctrinal authourity and is equal to, or, in some extreme cases, above the Bible. They usually also venerate EGW and believe in heresies such as the sinful nature of Christ and sinless perfection before glorification.

In addition, they revere the IJ and have made an untouchable idol out of it. They have also attached salvific significance to the IJ and made our Heavenly inhereitance conditional upon passing that inspection. They are also literalists in regards to the Sanctuary doctrine, ignoring the beautiful symbolism which points to Christ and the phases of His ministry in favor of a literal building with literal rooms which Christ literally moves around in.

They adore the moral decalogue and despise the Reformation Gospel and interpret sanctification as a process that our salvation is conditional upon instead of an accomplished fact. They believe Christ's righteousness is imparted rather than imputed to us, a clear violation of the Protestant position.

Diet is salvific and a way to attain righteousness. Some are vegetarian most are vegan and they regard any meat eater as disqualified for Heaven, especially at translation. Non-salvational lifestyle issues are made a strict test of Adventist authenticity and no one who disgrees on any point will qualify as a genuine SDA. Thier standards on music, food, entertainment and jewellry are all brutally set forth as the plumb line that no SDA should deviate from.

They hate women's ordination, contemporary worship styles and CCM and they consider Questions On Doctrine to be on par with the Satanic Bible.

For a good profile of TSDA's in thier raw, horrific form, please consult Great Controvesy.org, SDA Defend or Revival Sermons.

That is my personal understanding of what a TSDA fundamentalist is. If the shoe fits...

I didn't think that this needed explaining for any Adventist who has been in the denomination for any significant amount of time.

 

[djconklin]

Hmmm, then I'm not a "traditional"! Not a Bible fundie either, but I take it literally where it is meant to be taken literally.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Friend 123 wrote:

Now, RC, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You are correct that EGW didn't say "and now I'm going to give a conditional prophecy.....". Neither did Paul, when he said that "we" which are alive and remain will be caught up to meet "them" in the air...... No condition was given. He didn't say "unless you guys aren't ready for the Second Coming and God has to delay it, in which case I'll be dead." And yet was Paul a prophet? Yes. Why, then do we create a test that says "no declared c allowance for conditional prophecy (and thus no true prophet) for EGW but not for him? Consistency is what is needed and when we have it, we see no problem.

well I think I have shown how wrong your idea about Paul was but you don't seem to want to admit it. But really there is a huge condition in the verses of Paul. "We who are alive" it is a comparison to the living believer as opposed to the dead believer. You simply want to add to that that Paul meant that he would be alive, but there are clearly better ways to interpret it and the use of "we" has a long history of inclusion the person saying we even if that person had no part in the activity, such as we won world war two. Yet I was not even I live then.

This brings to mind what you said about anti-christian forums. They tend to be very narrow in focus and can't see any other possible interpretation then the one that they have chosen. This is why I have frequently said that atheists are often as fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist Christian. And now you have hung so much importance upon your very narrow view of this verse in Thess. that you have to use it in only a narrow and frankly contextually irrelevant way for the purpose of propping up a belief about a prophet.

If that is all the evidence you have, and you did say you came to your belief by evidence then your evidence is so biased as to be useless. In other words you evidence is not based upon seeing any conditions in EGW's prophecy but imagining that Paul's prophecy can and was meant to be taken in a narrow way.

Read my post on the conditional nature of prophecy thread to answer your thoughts about Moses.

P.S. You never told me your position re: EGW.

I don't recall the question you may have to repeat it. But then if you won't give me any of your evidence for the conditional nature of the EGW prophecy I may equally refuse to answer your question.

 

[djconklin]

well I think I have shown how wrong your idea about Paul was but you don't seem to want to admit it.

Actually, it is you who are wrong as I have shown in post #107.

 

[Jimlarmore]

That is my personal understanding of what a TSDA fundamentalist is. If the shoe fits...

I didn't think that this needed explaining for any Adventist who has been in the denomination for any significant amount of time.

The shoe does not fit me, and I personally don't know of anyone who hold the SOP over the Bible in the SDA church. The IJ needs some work in our church, that is obvious but most of the conservative SDA's I know are more than willing to take another look at what the IJ is really about.

God Bless
Jim Larmore