Greg - 17 April 2008 11:29 AM

Ellen White claimed a specific prophetic gift and presented hundreds of her “visions” as evidence. The Adventist church sustains her claims to this day by uniquely identifying her (not Philip Yancey or any other author) as a source of truth.

In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist church claims her evidence as their evidence!

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
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

“There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil.” Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 671. (1889)

Since I threw away all my SDA books, EGWs books included, I did not have that quote.  Thanks Greg.

That quote tells me that EGW said all her work is from God.  That includes her contradicting the Bible, failed prophecies and plagiarism.  Because of the contradictions, failed prophecies and the plagiarism, I cannot/do not believe God showed her.  GH, you said in a post that because I do not believe in her that is judging her.  I speak only for myself.

GH, I did not say what she wrote was of God.  I said she wrote some beautiful stuff.  Please quote me accurately.
Diana

Since you haven’t provided the quotes ... I don’t know if you are quoting me accurately or not or what the context was. Please quote me more accurately.

BrianL - 17 April 2008 11:51 AM

Greg - 17 April 2008 11:29 AM

Ellen White claimed a specific prophetic gift and presented hundreds of her “visions” as evidence. The Adventist church sustains her claims to this day by uniquely identifying her (not Philip Yancey or any other author) as a source of truth.

In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist church claims her evidence as their evidence!

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
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

This would indeed be accurate. For she certainly did provide prophecy. But the rest of her writings ... you can just toss.

Flyinglady - 16 April 2008 09:20 PM

Glorify Him,
I have been reading this post for the past week.  I just want to ask a question.  How many errors/untruths/failed visions/things you do not agree with, do you have to see before you will say EGW is a false prophet?
Diana

I will readily admit that some of her writings are false. She was not infallible. I will also say that some of it was from a true prophet.

Phen B - 15 April 2008 12:30 PM

Glorify Him, Ellen White is usually mentioned in the same breath as John the Baptist, Elijah and Jesus, in Adventist circles.She is not in the same class as any of the other “ordinary” people you mentioned, so it is not fair to say you find her just a “very good author.” This is misleading isn’t it?

In my 50 years of Adventism ... I’m never heard of anything like you describe. Many just ignore her and find other authors such as Philip Yancey for their light reading.

G.H,
There are many things I did not discover until I was leaving or had already left Adventism. There are a lot more things I am discovering that are part of the Adventist belief system that I did not know. I am sure you have not heard all the angles SDAs use, in fact some of the things you say are from a totally different angle as well.

Anyway, there are people who believe that Ellen White is a true prophet and therefore the things she said are on par with the biblical prophets. Thus when they say things in casual conversations like “some have considered that John the Baptist, Elijah, EGW, and Jesus offended some with their speech” I take the silence of the others, including the pastor, as an affirmation that they believe that they are all in the same category, meaning they are all biblical prophets.

You know G.H, it is apparent that no matter what is said on this topic, you will play it the way you see it, through Ellen’s eyes, even though you deny that.. Only the holy spirit can break through. When a person has their cup full, there is no room for anything else. Adventism has their “truth” so they do not believe there is anything else needed.

I don’t understand how Ellen White can “grow in her understanding” of visions, unlike the bible prophets, but the people in the pews cannot grow in their understanding of the bible, by reading it with the aid of the Holy Spirit. If this happens, people are said to be used by the devil, especially when they cannot in good conscience support the SDA church any longer.

people are said to be used by the devil, especially when they cannot in good conscience support the SDA church any longer

I am confused at where you got this idea. During my 50 years of Adventism ... I’ve always been told that there are many in the flock and many will not be of this fold (The SDA Church). What counts is that you are a Christian. What Church you belong to is not important unless God is leading you somewhere you don’t want to go. Since my church does not teach that you are lost unless you belong to OUR church ... I just can’t understand how you got this idea.

I guess any church will have those who are confused and mislead. But I can assure you that there will be many who are not and who have never been SDAs in heaven.

The question that is asked .... Do you accept the sacrifice of Jesus on your behalf? And if you say yes ... you are saved. Doesn’t get any easier than that. It is far easier to be saved than to be lost as Morris Vendon used to say while I was at PUC.

G.H,
Have you questioned the SDA understanding of the I.J or any other specific doctrine in your church?

If your answer is NO, then you won’t know what it is like to hear that the devil is making you question the faith.  So I could probably agree that you have never heard it said. I never did either until I questioned in 2006. Before that, I was oblivious of the unbiblical nature of that doctrine because I grew up assuming that it was biblical. I read Daniel many times but never did I even put forth the effort to read and compare it to the lesson study, you know that dastardly 1844 made simple stuff?

By the way, have you read the context of that scripture you quoted about “other sheep?” John 10:16.

Remember that Jesus said repeatedly that he came to the lost sheep of Israel? The context is not the SDA church, brother, it was referring to the Gentiles who the word was to be preached to as well.  The church Jesus has, is the world wide church consisting of believers everywhere.

That is another scripture that the SDAs and others as well have tried to use to lay a guilt trip on people by having them think that their organization is the one the bible is talking about.

You are correct when you said that “ I’ve always been told that there are many in the flock and many will not be of this fold (The SDA church).” At least you are not denying that the SDA church believes that they are “the fold” the bible is talking about, as quoted in the Foundamental Beliefs.

G.H, Do you think that God gave Daniel that vision of the cleansing of the sanctuary, and he never saw the fulfillment of it, since as the SDA church believes the sanctuary was the one in heaven?

Another question: How can the word “determined” in Daniel 9:24 mean “cut off” and the word determined in Daniel 9:26 NOT mean “cut off “ as well?

Conversely, do the words “cut off” when referring to the Messiah in verse 26 mean “determined?” I do not know Hebrew or Greek , all I know is the English.Just wondering out loud?

G. H., I grew up in adventism and went to SDA schools from first grade through graduating LLU.  We were taught that to be saved, one has to be an SDA/keep the sabbath.  I was never, in the time I was an SDA, taught that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.  I was taught I had to work for my salvation, i.e., keep the sabbath and eat certain foods/abstain from others, and a bunch of other things.  I grew up in Southern California.  Individuals have changed, but the doctrine of the church has not changed.
Diana

Phen B,

The word translated as “determined” by the KJV in Daniel 9:24 is “chathak” in Hebrew and translated by Strong’s dictionary, means “to cut off, i.e. (fig.) to decree”.

The word translated as “cut off” by the KJV in Daniel 9:26 is “karath” and translated by Strong’s means “to cut (off, down or asunder); by impl. to destroy or consume...”

The word translated as “determined” by the KJV in Daniel 9:26 is “charats” and translated by Strong as “to point sharply, i.e. (lit.) to wound; fig. to be alert, to decide: - bestir self, decide, decree, determine, maim, move.”

In my opinion, cut off would have been a more accurate translation for Dan 9:24 than determined.  Fortunately, I don’t have to decide all these things!

Phen B,
Have you questioned the SDA understanding of the I.J or any other specific doctrine in your church?

If your answer is NO, then you won’t know what it is like to hear that the devil is making you question the faith.  So I could probably agree that you have never heard it said. I never did either until I questioned in 2006. Before that, I was oblivious of the unbiblical nature of that doctrine because I grew up assuming that it was biblical.

Is it ok for me to comment on this Phen B? 

Matthew 16:27, “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.” How can He reward each according to their works if their works have not come into judgment?

From what I have read on other threads on this site, others here believe in some form of pre-advent judgment and not just SDA’s.

Why do you believe the “I.J” is unbiblical?

Diana,
G. H., I grew up in adventism and went to SDA schools from first grade through graduating LLU.  We were taught that to be saved, one has to be an SDA/keep the sabbath.  I was never, in the time I was an SDA, taught that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.  I was taught I had to work for my salvation, i.e., keep the sabbath and eat certain foods/abstain from others, and a bunch of other things.  I grew up in Southern California.  Individuals have changed, but the doctrine of the church has not changed.

Diana,

I hope you don’t mind me responding…

I am not questioning that you were taught this, but this is definitely not a teaching of the church.  I personally have never been taught that I am saved by works but have been taught that works are a response to already being saved.  I agree with you that the doctrine of the church has not changed.  The church has never taught that we are saved by works!  If you study on the 1888 general conference in Minneapolis the issue was not that we are saved by faith in Jesus, but that this was a ‘new’ teaching.  In other words, the older preachers were offended that it was being presented as ‘new’.  What took place was a change in emphasis from the ‘law’ to ‘grace’ and that change was unfortunately not accepted easily.  However, it was always accepted that we are saved by faith in Jesus.

In regards to keeping the Sabbath, I like something I heard by Doug Batchelor:  “The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and our approach to this commandment should be the same as any other commandment.  The question is are we keeping any commandment to be saved?  Or, are we keeping the commandments because we are saved.  Once we know the truth the Bible says, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Heb 10:26).  “Anyone that contends that you can willingly break God’s commandments, and still be exempt, is not Biblical”.

Hi Bill,
Thanks for the mini Hebrew lesson. One does not have to be computer savvy in order to quickly discover what these words mean however, brother.
The thing is, that the SDA church gives their interpretation and this becomes the standard and the laity usually will not go to “Babylon” to discover a wider meaning, at least they are discouraged from getting any other meaning.

In the lesson study I refered to, the author seemed dogmatic about his assertion that the word meant ‘cut off’ as well, since he felt that there was this connection to the 2300 day period, and the 70 week period . In fact this has been the stance of the SDA church from its inception. There is no allowance for any other interpretation, even though the word has a variety of other meanings.

One meaning of chathak , Strongs 02852, is :  a) to divide, determine, b) to be determined , be decreed, to be settled, be marked out.  Daniel 9:24, seventy weeks are determined (and shall come ) upon thy people.

One commentary: seventy weeks are “cut out” upon thy people; cut upon- a phrase in Hebrew, taken from the practice of numbering the cutting of notches.

determined- literally “cut out “ namely from the whole course of time, for God to deal in a particular manner with Jerusalem.

My point is that Adventism insists that their ‘version’ is the correct one, since they need to get the 2300 day year period connected to this 70 weeks which will be ‘cut off’ from that time period, thus connecting the 1844 prediction that was endorsed by Ellen White.

From The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment, SDA study guide 2006.” The basic rendering of the text is “70 weeks are cut off.” Cut off from what? What else other than from the other time prophecy? What other time prophecy? Obviously, the mareh, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, the longer of the two prophecies.” p.57

If they could get the people in the pews to just read the lesson study book and swollow this calculation instead of checking all resources, then things will go on as usual. Start questioning anything SDA and there is a problem. Imagine questioning people who say they have all the answers, but won’t answer your questions when you ask about something that seems to cast doubt on their understanding!

So pardon me if I read it in the English language to mean, ‘seventy weeks are decreed, or settled, or marked out, since I no longer connect that verse to the 2300 days in chapter 8. Slight difference, but important nevertheless.

When a denomination has a stake in how someone interprets a certain verse, then it is a red flag, and one should look deeper and wider in order to decide for ones self what that verse says.  You see, I no longer believe that the pastorate, who study these languages have a vested interest in truth, the bible way. It is only concerned with interpreting things the way their denomination sees it, no matter if they see it differently.

This emphasis and obsession with Daniel and Revelation at the exclusion of other books like Zephaniah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many others which could shed some more light on Daniel’s prophecies, is amazing. Being stubbornly exclusive about “the Adventist Christians’ understanding of this prophecy,” and the “powerful link between the two chapters” so that you must make sure “everyone understands what is covered,” should also send up red flags, but when one is steeped in that culture, it is only the influence of the Holy Spirit of God that will make one start to question.