Why critics of Ellen G. White are "splitting hairs".

[djconklin]

If you had read the history of the era you would know that the 1848 revolutions (plural, not singular) are never called wars.

 

[djconklin]

the door of mercy had been shut and they were to just wait a little more.

Now who's teaching the shut-door?!?

When they "acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God" that means they recognized that they were led by God in 1844. It's just that the literal interpretation of the sanctuary being cleansed = Christ's Second Coming was wrong.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Post 34 from http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw1.htm sates that:
. (3) Ellen White had visions supporting this "shut door" doctrine see previous post http://www.earlysda.com/flock/lflock-jwhite.html
However true this extract may be in relation to reveries, it is not true in regard to the visions: for the author does not "obtain the sentiments" of her visions "from previous teaching or study." When she received her first vision, Dec. 1844, she and all the band in Portland, Maine, (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight-cry, and shut door, as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision, the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision to the band, and about sixty confessed their error, and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God.

OK, the 7th month movement was that christ came in 1844, but you see here is the problem,CHRIST DID NOT COME IN 1844. In case you had not noticed, the prediction failed we are still here. the believe the door of mercy had been shut for sinners, The door of mercy had not been shut for sinners. how could that be of God when it was wrong. I'm am not talking about 1844, the 2300 day I don't have a problem with i am talking about the door of mercy being shut for ever. it was not. That is problem.

When they confessed what were they confessing their error, that the midnight cry had been valid and the door of mercy was still shut, that was the work of God.

if they dropped the midnight cry and the door of mercy was still open for sinners, what was to be repented of? He was still coming and the door was still shut? How could they have been wrong when christ did not come and the door of mercy was not shut? christ did not come and the door of mercy was not shut it was still open. How could that be the work of God?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

If you had read the history of the era you would know that the 1848 revolutions (plural, not singular) are never called wars.

that is symantics. they are called wars if they succed, the americian revloutionary war succeded. You are walking a thin line on that one. more people did in 1848 revloutions that failed then in all of the revloutionary war.

 

[djconklin]

Words mean what they mean. This is not Alice in Wonderland. If you were taking a history course and persisted in calling "revolutions" "wars" you would not get a passing grade for the course. The numbers of people who died is irrelevant. The question is what happened. The American revolution created a new nation. NONE of the revolutions in Europe created a new nation. Changes in gov't, maybe. But, France stayed France, Austria stayed Austria, etc..

You are walking a thin line on that one.

You are the one who is going against the stream of scholarship on the issue.

 

[djconklin]

One more option that you did not consider:

The midnight cry was of God. They repented that they thought it was not of God.

The door of mercy is still open to sinners who had never heard of the midnight cry and did not reject it. For those who had heard the midnight cry but rejected it the door was closed.

 

[OntheDL]

but that is not what it says.

When she received her first vision, Dec. 1844, she and all the band in Portland, Maine, (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight-cry, and shut door, as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision, the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision to the band, and about sixty confessed their error, and acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God.
it says they the had given up the midnight-cry,and the shut door as being in the past. Does it mean that they revived it as being in the past or still present or still applicable. If they gave it up doesn't it mean that they stopped beleving it and they were going to go back to their chruches? The at was the point of the vision to engourage them to still believe that God was with them and this was not just a bigh mistake. the door of mercy had been shut and they were to just wait a little more.

You don't understand what 1844 teaches. Midnight cry is the central theme of the 1844 doctrine.

But early adventists (prior to Dec 1844) believed the door of mercy was closed. This is different from the biblical interpretation of the shutdoor. This error was corrected by God. The true interpretation was made known to the remnant of the 1844 movement.

Lets move on please.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You don't understand what 1844 teaches. Midnight cry is the central theme of the 1844 doctrine.

But early adventists (prior to Dec 1844) believed the door of mercy was closed. This is different from the biblical interpretation of the shutdoor. This error was corrected by God. The true interpretation was made known to the remnant of the 1844 movement.

Lets move on please.

no it is not different. that is the point. they believed the midnight cry had been given and they had gone into wedding and the door had been shut to those who did not believe. they were trying to keep the band of belever together and make sense of the whole thing. If you check out the thread on "shut door" we will talk there. Contiuned on another thread.

What do you want to talk about now. This is the thread about the critics issuse. So if you don't want to talk issues. well you know what not to do. this is controverted point and this is a controvertresal thread.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Words mean what they mean. This is not Alice in Wonderland. If you were taking a history course and persisted in calling "revolutions" "wars" you would not get a passing grade for the course. The numbers of people who died is irrelevant. The question is what happened. The American revolution created a new nation. NONE of the revolutions in Europe created a new nation. Changes in gov't, maybe. But, France stayed France, Austria stayed Austria, etc..



You are the one who is going against the stream of scholarship on the issue.

you are splitting hairs. The fact is that there was polotical unrest, characterized by violent minitary alteraction between 2 opposing sides, In which there was a winner and a looser and ten of thousands of people killed. 25000-70000. some people call that war. I cannot respect the line of reasoning on this your defence is very weak. If that is your best defence you are in big trouble my friend. I suggest you conseed and drop the poin, you are going to look real bad. Any reasonable person can see that someone might call that "WAR" uneducated people certianly would. They don't care about the term they care about the reality, and the realty looks like war, feels like war, must be war.

 

[djconklin]

I am not "splitting hairs." In the literature in the field there were "revolutions" in 1848. You are going against mainstream scholarship on the issue and trying to call them "wars." The opposing "sides" in these revolutions were typically the people vs. the established gov't--that makes them revolutions. If it was part of the country against another (such as we had in 1860-5) or if it was religion A vs religion B then it would be called a "civil war." The simple fact is that no such thing occured in 1848. My "defense" on this point is based on what scholars in the field have written. You haven't produced even one respected scholar in the field that "defends" your point of view. Therefore, you are unable to judge whose case is "weak." Typically wars don't last a mere 2 weeks. Instead of demanding that those who have actually taken history courses on the subject to concede you should consider registering for such a course or using Yahoo and/or Google to find the best and brightest in the field and read what they have to say.

 

[happy1sda]

whach ya talkin about?

 

[OntheDL]

whach ya talkin about?

You talkin' to me?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

what is the next topic ?

Isreal damond
the law in galations?
1902 san and review and herald fires
what about the fires in mt view and takoma park

 

[alandelillo]

I hope you SDAs sincerely search the life of Ellen White, as one said, we are commanded to test prophets. The more and more I examine her I find her to be a pathetic liar. Please read a 74 page paper I wrote on scribd entitled, Ellen White the Semi-Arian Ellen White the Trinitarian. I am not an SDA anymore nor a Trinitarian althouhg I still keep the Sabbath. It will clearly show she was an anti-Trinitarian like all the others and exposes another "I was shown".
Most of you are Trinitarians but I challenge you to read this document and try to refute it. I will defend it in front of anybody!
SDAs grow up learning how to defend Ellen White first and then the Bible and then when you bring up the contradictions of her SDAs then start putting down the Bible and weakening it to defend her.
This is not splitting hairs, it's exposing her false teachings.

 

[doc8645]

alandelillo;
Forgive me for being a little dense or slow, but I'm not quite sure of what your expounding? You state she was a pathetic liar and an anti-trinitarian like all the others and you challenge us to read and refute your writings? And also, SDA's learn how to defend her and put down the Bible and weaken it?

Ummm, I'm sorry to disagree if the above supposition is correct, but I'm an SDA and I haven't gotten around to "learning how to defend EGW". God and the Word are first and foremost with me and I view her as she herself stated "as a lesser light, and if anything she says contradicts the Bible to disregard it".

I read the paper mentioned and as far as I understood it, she at first was anti-trinitarian then became thru study, knowledge, or however it happened, became a trinitarian. Isn't that what it says?

I don't plan to "sincerely" search her life, I'm more interested in searching Jesus' life, if I find something she wrote that clarifies something I'm pondering then great, if not I'll search for others that could clarify a point, thus ever learning, but the Bible is my window to Jesus, the Law, and the Prophets.

God bless;
doc8645

 

[Castaway57]

I will defend it in front of anybody!
SDAs grow up learning how to defend Ellen White first and then the Bible and then when you bring up the contradictions of her SDAs then start putting down the Bible and weakening it to defend her.
This is not splitting hairs, it's exposing her false teachings.

No; this is not true. SDAs do not do this; and it is not a part of their official teachings to do so. Of course, if one looks hard enough they will find an individual or two who go over board with this subject; but the general idea of our official teaching is the Bible first.

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.-Fundamental Beliefs, 18

 

[Castaway57]

what is the next topic ?

Isreal damond
the law in galations?
1902 san and review and herald fires
what about the fires in mt view and takoma park

How about Jesus? We could try talking about Him? This is whom Ellen White talked about the most.

The Fulfillment of God's Purpose

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. Eph_3:10-11.

We should consider that it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to earth, it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded, but it was to demonstrate to all the worlds that God's law is unchangeable and that the wages of sin is death.

There is a great deal more to this subject than we can take in at a glance. O that all might see the importance of carefully studying the Scriptures! Many seem to have the idea that this world and the heavenly mansions constitute the universe of God. Not so. The redeemed throng will range from world to world, and much of their time will be employed in searching out the mysteries of redemption. And throughout the whole stretch of eternity this subject will be continually opening to their minds. The privileges of those who overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony are beyond comprehension.

We have each to battle with the fallen foe. . . . Begin the warfare at once by gaining victories over self. Do not give place to the devil. . . . Throw all the weight of your influence on the side of Christ.

When you look at the cross of Calvary you cannot doubt God's love or His willingness to save. He has worlds upon worlds that give Him divine honor, and heaven and all the universe would have been just as happy if He had left this world to perish, but so great was His love for the fallen race that He gave His own dear Son to die that they might be redeemed from eternal death. As we see the care, the love, that God has for us, let us respond to it; let us give to Jesus all the powers of our being, fighting manfully the battles of the Lord. We cannot afford to lose our souls; we cannot afford to sin against God. Life, eternal life in the kingdom of glory, is worth everything. (That I May Know Him, Dec 27th)

 

[stinsonmarri]

alandelillo;
Forgive me for being a little dense or slow, but I'm not quite sure of what your expounding? You state she was a pathetic liar and an anti-trinitarian like all the others and you challenge us to read and refute your writings? And also, SDA's learn how to defend her and put down the Bible and weaken it?

Ummm, I'm sorry to disagree if the above supposition is correct, but I'm an SDA and I haven't gotten around to "learning how to defend EGW". God and the Word are first and foremost with me and I view her as she herself stated "as a lesser light, and if anything she says contradicts the Bible to disregard it".

I read the paper mentioned and as far as I understood it, she at first was anti-trinitarian then became thru study, knowledge, or however it happened, became a trinitarian. Isn't that what it says?

I don't plan to "sincerely" search her life, I'm more interested in searching Jesus' life, if I find something she wrote that clarifies something I'm pondering then great, if not I'll search for others that could clarify a point, thus ever learning, but the Bible is my window to Jesus, the Law, and the Prophets.

God bless;
doc8645

doc8645:

If you would be so kind to provide the source where EGW became a trinitarian. I have never seen it and I have all of writings, maybe I over look it??? I do not agree with the other things alandelillo stated. I know she was not a prophet because she say she wasn't but she was a inspired messenger by ELOHIM, that is her visions. However she herself admitted that she has made errors and not to be taken as equal with the Bible. Except those things that were given her can be prove equated with the Bible that I will always stand firmly upon.

Blessings with love,
stinsonmarri

 

[doc8645]

stinsonmarri;
That was in answer to alandelillo's post above mine (#234) where alandelillo asked anyone to refute his claim on a paper entitled " Ellen White the semi-arian Ellen White the trinitarian". I read it, wherein it was the source material. I just googled the source title and examined the reports.

God bless;
doc8645

 

[JohnMarsten]

Well, hairsplitting depends on the position you are looking at a certain object. If you are a mormon for example you will find other churches hairsplitting because none of the problems they present to you are serious problems, you may regard all accusations as moving away from truth or whatever, same goes here for the sda.

Even though I rather drink on rare occasions, the grape juice thing is one of my favorite arguments

Is it really hairsplitting? I mean the difference between juice and wine is a small one, yet it is a very important issue for the sda... so important as to make God's word void... so important as to bend the word of God... making juice out of wine...

Think about it!