SDA please explain the failed prediction of Ellen White (SDA Prophet)

[tall73]

I have provided the post-response trail in this thread ... let the reader decide what they see ...

Those reading already saw it without your framing. I did not state the word "rebellion" except in quoting Ellen White, and her post was speaking to the EGW quote, addressing the word rebellion.

 

[tall73]

non-SDAs are first given a set of Bible studies and asked if they agree with the doctrines of the church. We don't just baptize them on day 1.

If someone starts to question their beliefs after joining we don't go back and "audit them". At some point when they have changed their mind enough so that some other denomination fits their new set of beliefs better than this one - they leave.

======================

But that is VERY DIFFERENT from paying them to teach false doctrine. We are all about NOT doing that.

Depends on the conference. Even in a conservative conference when I indicated to the conference leadership I could not in good conscience continue in the Adventist ministry due to my disagreement with the sanctuary teaching, one of the conference leadership suggested I could go to a conference where they wouldn't care about such.

I did not want to remain a minister in a church when I could not support the doctrine, so I left. But there are quite a few that I knew who did not accept all of the fundamentals, but did not leave. They urged me to say and just not speak about it. And there is the continuing trend of people who suddenly speak out after retirement, which seems to me to be the wrong way to do things.

 

[tall73]

Everyone is free to reject whatever they wish and join any group that better fits their views. I have no way to audit what someone claims is their history. I leave it to them . But I myself have been a member of a number of SDA congregations over the years and I have seen all sorts of folks in the church.

Yes, I saw a great many too. So I had no trouble at all believing that some were quite hostile to Adventist Heretic due to him no longer accepting Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

In fact Ellen White said not to make that a barrier to becoming an SDA

Which I quoted prior to you, along with additional statements from the White Estate, ministers, etc.

and she never said a person is lost if they do not understand the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy.

Which I never claimed.

Depends on whether that person ever had the understanding of what a true prophet is - and had come to the conviction that Ellen White was one.

Many people become convicted and fully accept some Bible teaching - only to later reject it. I suspect you and I both know this.

Yes, and of course, that is the point. She didn't condemn those who were not resisting her teaching, or might be still open to it. She condemned those who rejected it, and did not think they should be allowed to join the church. And I posted the statements of Adventist ministers who said the same.

But of course, if Ellen White is not inspired by God then none need listen to her at all.

And if she is not inspired then she would be like others who have used the claim of inspiration to control. And that is what some in her day indicated. People will indeed have to test all by the Scriptures and decide. Similarly someone must study the Scriptures and decide regarding what some claim are teachings of Scripture, and see if they match what it says.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes, I saw a great many too. So I had no trouble at all believing that some were quite hostile to Adventist Heretic due to him no longer accepting Ellen White.

Perhaps. Maybe it wasn’t about EGW but how presented. Not having a good attitude regardless of the subject can be challenging.

It’s pointless to continue to debate this as the people are not here to present their side of things and there are way more important topics to discuss like Jesus is Coming soon!

Happy Sabbath all!

 

[tall73]

If they take the time to actually read post 129 they may be informed in areas that you might find surprising.

Why would I find them surprising Bob? I have read them before, and they are not out of line with anything I have said about Ellen White's view, which I quoted already. She does not oppose those with little experience of the visions, or who do not openly reject them.

She does oppose those who reject them.

The reason I quoted the statements about testimonies in the first place was that Sabbathblessings was alleging she meant statements of the Old Testament prophets. But since you and I have read the comments, we know she was talking about the testimonies to the church that she alleges she was called to deliver.

She indicates to disregard testimonies, to reject them, to try to discern between "human" and "divine" elements will be rejecting light from God, and will be judged

 

[tall73]

Perhaps. Maybe it wasn’t about EGW but how presented. Not having a good attitude regardless of the subject can be challenging.

It’s pointless to continue to debate this as the people are not here to present their side of things and there are way more important topics to discuss like Jesus is Coming soon!

Happy Sabbath all!

I certainly hope all who discuss here are sharing the gospel and speaking of Jesus' soon coming in their daily lives.

You are free to choose where to post. However, we will still point out what Ellen White says about those who reject her writings. And I will note that I have seen some who condemn people merely upon being told that someone rejected Ellen White, without having heard any presentation whatsoever from the person themselves, where attitude had nothing to do with it.

And it was due to her statements that they reacted the way they did.

 

[Leaf473]

non-SDAs are first given a set of Bible studies and asked if they agree with the doctrines of the church. We don't just baptize them on day 1.

If someone starts to question their beliefs after joining we don't go back and "audit them". At some point when they have changed their mind enough so that some other denomination fits their new set of beliefs better than this one - they leave.

======================

But that is VERY DIFFERENT from paying them to teach false doctrine. We are all about NOT doing that.

Is that a yes? You can reject any part(s) of the 28 fundamental beliefs and still be considered fully SDA? And all roles and offices in the church would still be open to you?

Suppose a person comes to reject some part of one of the 28 fundamental beliefs. But they still think the SDA Church is the best one, so they don't want to go somewhere else. Could they become an SDA pastor and work for change?

 

[Leaf473]

Depends on the conference. Even in a conservative conference when I indicated to the conference leadership I could not in good conscience continue in the Adventist ministry due to my disagreement with the sanctuary teaching, one of the conference leadership suggested I could go to a conference where they wouldn't care about such.

Meaning that you would not be welcome to continue as a pastor in that conference?

I did not want to remain a minister in a church when I could not support the doctrine, so I left. But there are quite a few that I knew who did not accept all of the fundamentals, but did not leave.

Ah, in your experience, then, there are people who remain SDA while disagreeing with some parts of the doctrine.

They urged me to say and just not speak about it. And there is the continuing trend of people who suddenly speak out after retirement, which seems to me to be the wrong way to do things.

I agree, that waiting to speak out until after one's retirement is not living out ones convictions.

 

[Leaf473]

non-SDAs are first given a set of Bible studies and asked if they agree with the doctrines of the church. We don't just baptize them on day 1.

If someone starts to question their beliefs after joining we don't go back and "audit them". At some point when they have changed their mind enough so that some other denomination fits their new set of beliefs better than this one - they leave.

======================

But that is VERY DIFFERENT from paying them to teach false doctrine. We are all about NOT doing that.

Wouy saying that White didn't have the gift of prophecy be considered false doctrine?

 

[tall73]

Question:

Would Tall73's readers fully expect to find these historic statements ??

I doubt that the readers would know what to expect from Ellen White. Apparently Sabbathblessings didn't expect them, because she didn't know what the testimonies referred to.

But I would expect you to cite the source of your list as this is not your own wording, and the forum rules include copyright provisions.

1. Do not use the Testimonies as proof for unbelievers (Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 119, 120; vol. 5, p. 669).

I think they would suspect this one! She wanted them to use the Bible which people would often accept as evidence, rather than putting her writings at the forefront.

And they probably picked up on the idea that Adventists talk about Ellen White pretty freely among themselves, but are cautious what they say about her with outsiders, because it would likely draw fire.

2. Do not use them as a test of fellowship (Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 327-329).

This one some would be familiar with because I quoted it prior to you referencing it.

3. Do not use the visions as a rule to measure all (Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 382, 383).

They may or may not be familiar with this one, but if they have followed our prior debates they would have likely seen you point out something similar.

And they would have likely seen me point out she did not actually follow it, but said to reject Scriptures if they went against distinctive Adventist doctrines:

First Selected Messages, pg 161

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

----

Ellen White in practice would not accept Bible evidence against Adventist distinctives, and urged others not to, based on experience.

4. Do not use the Testimonies as an iron rule or club (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 369).

Yes.

 

[BobRyan]

I doubt that the readers would know what to expect from Ellen White.

Explains a lot

 

[Leaf473]

Perhaps. Maybe it wasn’t about EGW but how presented. Not having a good attitude regardless of the subject can be challenging.

It’s pointless to continue to debate this as the people are not here to present their side of things...

...and there are way more important topics to discuss like Jesus is Coming soon!

Happy Sabbath all!

(This isn't addressed to you directly, SB, but feel free to respond of course )

That reminds me about White's prophecies about Jesus coming soon. White was saying that Jesus was coming soon back in the mid 1800s. As in, people alive then would still be alive when Jesus returned. So I've heard. But many see that as a conditional prophecy.

The idea today that Jesus is coming soon, is that also conditional? Is it possible the conditions won't be met for another hundred years? Or another thousand years?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[tall73]

Meaning that you would not be welcome to continue as a pastor in that conference?

Meaning it would be untenable. You could not avoid discussing such issues in a conservative Adventist church. And I would not want to. If I cannot believe any longer in those teachings, I would rather leave.

Ah, in your experience, then, there are people who remain SDA while disagreeing with some parts of the doctrine.

Very much so, ministers and lay people. In some places it is more accepted, and Ellen White is barely mentioned at all.

I saw one liberal church where they actually took church disciplinary action against a member who continually brought up Ellen White to rebuke them, while refusing to discipline actual gross sins.

On the other hand, in the majority of Adventist churches I have experienced if you express anything against the fundamentals then you will meet hostility.

So that it is clear, I think people should either believe the Adventist message or not. I think those who reject it should leave. But I do know many who try to stay and reform, and I understand their thinking, if not agree with it.

I was opposed to the split in the Adventist forum on these boards as well. I don't think they should have made separate traditional and progressive sections, and said so at the time.

The Adventist church is well aware that many do not accept all the doctrines, yet are members. The leadership has not in recent times taken wide-spread action to remove them all. Though in some particular cases whole churches have been removed for apostasy. The conference owns the property, so they can take it from a church if they teach against the doctrines.

As was pointed out by Bob and Sabbathblessings if you don't make an issue of it, usually people don't care. If you speak about it, they do care.

And of course, this fuels many of the "independent ministry" types, some who consider the leadership of the Adventist church to be Babylon, and apostate, but the doctrines and Ellen White to be true. The "remnant of the remnant" type.

I agree, that waiting to speak out until after one's retirement is not living out ones convictions.

Yes, and in one particular case the scholar had edited the SDA Bible commentary, worked for decades in publishing and teaching, and then after retirement came out against the sanctuary teaching which he had indicated he had been studying for decades because it was not supported in Scripture.

He had written the other scholars and some also found it was not supported. This was part of a long line of people who doubted it, rejected it, or left over it.

He memorized the key sections in Hebrew so he could consider them on the go. But all of his drawn up careful research on the subject he gave to the denomination to release when the time was right. Needless to say, they have not yet released it. And that to me is dishonest. If he thought the time was not right, he could remain silent. But once you say it is not biblical then you have an obligation to present your evidence to that point. Otherwise you have smeared the doctrine, but have not said why.

 

[tall73]

(This isn't addressed to you directly, SB, but feel free to respond of course )

That reminds me about White's prophecies about Jesus coming soon. White was saying that Jesus was coming soon back in the mid 1800s. As in, people alive then would still be alive when Jesus returned. So I've heard. But many see that as a conditional prophecy.

The idea today that Jesus is coming soon, is that also conditional? Is it possible the conditions won't be met for another hundred years? Or another thousand years?

Thoughts, anyone?

We are told Jesus is coming soon in Scripture. We are told no one knows the day or the hour, and He will come at a time you think not.

So we should always live as though He is coming soon. But we should not predict specific dates.

Jesus also gave signs of His coming, so it is not wrong to reference those.

There certainly are conditional prophecies. God is merciful, as shown in the book of Jonah.

So it is something that needs to be carefully examined. And to me it makes more sense to look at the doctrine they teach and compare it to Scripture first, as that does not involve such complexities. If they don't match up there, then that is enough.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

(This isn't addressed to you directly, SB, but feel free to respond of course )

That reminds me about White's prophecies about Jesus coming soon. White was saying that Jesus was coming soon back in the mid 1800s. As in, people alive then would still be alive when Jesus returned. So I've heard. But many see that as a conditional prophecy.

The idea today that Jesus is coming soon, is that also conditional? Is it possible the conditions won't be met for another hundred years? Or another thousand years?

Thoughts, anyone?

No, EGW never predicted the Seoncd Coming of Jesus, she was 17 years old, a Methodist in 1844 and the SDA church had not even formed until 20 years later. It was a Baptist Minster who predicted this based on a misunderstanding of prophecy.

Regardless, Jesus is Coming Soon according to His Word.

One can spend countless hours posting thread after thread about anti-EGW and keep that their focus instead of Christ, I do find it odd those who claim SDA’s spend more time on EGW are actually the ones constantly bringing her up over any teachings of scripture. Even EGW tells us our focus needs to be God’s Word.

Anyway, will leave you all to it.

 

[tall73]

No, EGW never predicted the Seoncd Coming of Jesus, she was 17 years old, a Methodist in 1844 and the SDA church had not even formed until 20 years later. It was a Baptist Minster who predicted this based on a misunderstanding of prophecy.

If you had read Ellen White she says that Miller's message was heavenly, and saving truth, and those who rejected it had a door shut on them and could not be saved. She indicated that God designed to test people.

It is all spelled out in this thread, where you can discuss it:

Ellen White: William Miller's message of Jesus coming in 1843 was "heavenly".

William Miller, who started the Millerite movement, preached that Jesus' second coming would occur around 1843. Jesus did not return in 1843. Then the Millerites revised it to 1844. Jesus did not return in 1844. Eventually the Millerite movement settled on the date of Oct. 22, 1844. Jesus did...

www.christianforums.com

Or people can just google "Ellen White Early Writings" and read her explaining it all in considerable detail. It will also give the biography of her early life in her own words.

Regardless, Jesus is Coming Soon according to His Word.

One can spend countless hours posting thread after thread about anti-EGW and keep that their focus instead of Christ

Or posting on the immaculate conception, or the assumption of Mary?

People can certainly focus on Christ in their life and discuss particular points on a forum.

It is obvious to all reading here that your church includes Ellen White in their fundamental beliefs. I would be quite happy to never discuss her again if that was dropped. Nor can the Adventist sanctuary doctrine be understood in isolation from the history of the church, and the fulfillment they see in it. Ellen White sees the first and second angel's messages as beginning to be given during the Millerite movement.

If someone alleges that they are giving a message from God we are to test it. And discussing that is not wrong.

, I do find it odd those who claim SDA’s spend more time on EGW are actually the ones constantly bringing her up over any teachings of scripture.

I have discussed for many thousands of pages the Scriptures on this forum. But more to the point, these forums are not the only place people discuss.

But of course we bring up the doctrine Adventists don't want to discuss with outsiders. And even those Adventists who admit they are not familiar with her writings still try to defend her. Why? If you have evidence to believe she may be inspired, why not read what she wrote and test it by Scripture before attempting to defend it?

 

[tall73]

The Writings of Ellen G. White - Adventist Research

The writings of Ellen G. White are an integral part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While the Adventist Church holds the Bible as its only creed and

www.adventistresearch.info

Quote:

In 2013, a survey of church members around the world was conducted under the direction of the General Conference Office of Archives, Statistics, and Research. The study was designed to assess the experiences and attitudes of church members regarding different aspects of their personal spiritual lives and their participation in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Among the questions that members of the global Church were asked, was how frequently they read the writings of Ellen G. White.

While this might seem a little discouraging, especially considering the emphasis the Church puts on the messages Ellen G. White shared, other survey responses indicate that beliefs and spiritual practices don’t go always hand by hand. Responses to the next question “Ellen G. White was an inspired messenger to the Adventist church” proved this even more:

• Nearly three-fourths (74%) of church members responded that they wholeheartedly embrace the statement.
• Only a fraction (4%) of church members stated that they do not accept Ellen White’s status as an inspired messenger.

It would be good to have the data broken down by Division, as they note that in some places those who don't read do not because of lack of translation.

 

[Leaf473]

I doubt that the readers would know what to expect from Ellen White. Apparently Sabbathblessings didn't expect them, because she didn't know what the testimonies referred to.

But I would expect you to cite the source of your list as this is not your own wording, and the forum rules include copyright provisions.




I think they would suspect this one! She wanted them to use the Bible which people would often accept as evidence, rather than putting her writings at the forefront.

And they probably picked up on the idea that Adventists talk about Ellen White pretty freely among themselves, but are cautious what they say about her with outsiders, because it would likely draw fire.



This one some would be familiar with because I quoted it prior to you referencing it.




They may or may not be familiar with this one, but if they have followed our prior debates they would have likely seen you point out something similar.

And they would have likely seen me point out she did not actually follow it, but said to reject Scriptures if they went against distinctive Adventist doctrines:

First Selected Messages, pg 161

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years.

I found this next part especially interesting:

And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

----

Ellen White in practice would not accept Bible evidence against Adventist distinctives, and urged others not to, based on experience.




Yes.

If someone finds something in the scriptures against one of White's teachings, they must have the wrong application (today we might say interpretation). This would make it impossible in practice to find anything in Scripture that would go against her teachings.

 

[tall73]

I found this next part especially interesting:

If someone finds something in the scriptures against one of White's teachings, they must have the wrong application (today we might say interpretation). This would make it impossible in practice to find anything in Scripture that would go against her teachings.

Yes, not impossible for someone to find, as they did again and again over 50 years to that point. But they should not be entertained--don't consider it--because our experience shows otherwise.

That is how she handled things in practice.