| Author | Message | ||
| Schasc Registered user Username: Schasc Post Number: 39 Registered: 10-2004 |
I had a conversation with a friend of mine about Ellen the other day. As I was sharing with him some of my concerns he said something to this effect: How much do we really know about other writings of Bible writers? For example did a minor prophet such as Amos have other material that we dont know about that could have been rejected and not included in the cannonized scriptures. I asked him where he was going with this line of reasoning. He was not saying that Ellen should be cannonized, but that we need to maybe realize that not all she said needs to be considered inspired. His arguement is that we dont know what all was accepted from each Bible writer as inspired from God. What really bothers him is all the testomonies! He feels that these compilations should never have been put together because they have been misused in a way that was never intended. He says that it was never her intent to have personal advice and counsel be used the way it is used now in so many of our churches. Any thoughts? | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2005 |
I hate to say it, but it sounds like the sort of things I heard about the writing of Ellen White in sabbath school. Okay, everything she says isn't inspired (of course not). Yes, in the preface of the 1944 Testimonies it says "Testimonies No. One" does not contain the earliest visions. These were never published under that name; indeed, they occupied a position somewhat different from the Testimonies. They were, AS PERPORTED TO BE, "VIEWS" OF THE ADVENT WORK AND PEOPLE, OF THE PROGRESS AND FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE MESSAGE blah, blah, blah. Remember, the bible says that confusion is not sent from God. Satan can come as a light. That NOTHING should be ADDED or TAKEN AWAY from the Bible. With that said, what has been clearly added to the bible by Ellen White in her writings, Testimonies or not? THEY CLEARLY HAVE THE SAME MESSAGES. Whether written in 10,000 words or 100. Who defines what is inspired writings of hers in the church and who said these writings are not included in her inspired doctrines of this church? Praise God for the Truth, the Truth will set you free. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2005 |
Lastly, can we really compare Ellen White to other Bible writers? That is clearly adding to the Bible. Ellen White is NOT in the Bible! | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 438 Registered: 5-2002 |
"He was not saying that Ellen should be cannonized, but that we need to maybe realize that not all she said needs to be considered inspired." Well perhaps your friend would be willing to provide you with a specific listing of those writings that WERE inspired by God, and those that were NOT inspired by God, but were merely her own opinion or were copied from other authors. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1166 Registered: 7-2003  |
I have heard the same thing from B, and I think it is an attempt to rationalize the new things they are discovering about EGW and trying to rescue her in part, while discarding her in part. Problem is, who decides what to rescue? She said a lot of "I was showns" around things we know are wrong. The unwillingness to accept that EGW out and out mislead, if not lied to the people about the sources of her "inspiration" will prohibit the otherwise seemingly "honest" seeker to dismiss what they cannot face head on. There are many Godly writers today that say some really great stuff, or there are other historical writers, such as Martin Luther, that a lot of people hold to as great works...no one has yet decided to make them canon. To do to EGWs writings what has not been done to other, more widely recognized, great leaders in Christian history is a huge mistake. It's a compromise I don't think we should accept. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 40 Registered: 7-2005 |
First of all, Ellen White said that we can do something like this, that we cannot pick and choose what is from heaven and what is from her. But, from someone who want to do this, what she said means nothing. I have an answer: in the Bible we have only two cattegories of prophets, true and false. We know that false prophets were punished by God, and the true prophets in the name of the Lord condemned the sinful practices of false prophets. Also we know that, a true prophet who disobeyed the comandment of the Lord was killed by a lion, and a false prophet recognized that he was a true prophet!! From this example we can learn a lesson: God makes clear who is His prophet, and makes clear also the sin of His prophet, so that nobody could stumble. It's all up to God: it is His responsability to communicate clear messages. In case of Ellen White, if she spoke for God, and in other cases she spoke from herself, pretending at the same time to give a message from God, she lied in the name of the Lord. What could be more blasphemous than this? God is souvereign and he didn't allow Balaam to speak in His name lies, even if he wanted to. How can we imagine that He will allow true prophets to speak lies in His name and go unpunished, without a intervention from GOd? | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 566 Registered: 7-2004 |
Schasc, You inspire me! You find all kinds of people to open up and talk with. That is not an easy task, especially in this valley of ours! Whether or not you get any positive responses, I am confident that you are being used by God to share His grace, peace and joy to those who do not have a clear understanding of real rest in Jesus. My prayers are with you daily, my friend! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2840 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ellen said, as Jackob mentioned, that either all of her writings were from God or none of them was. She herself set up the "all or nothing" proposistion. The biggest problem with Ellen, in my opionion--the one that sets her in the "false prophet" category instead of in the merely "devotional writer" categoryóis that she claimed God inspired her with messages that contradicted the Bible, that taught a different gospel than that taught in the Bible, and that contradicted each other. God does not play games like that. He is constant, faithful, and unchangeable. Jesus is our final revelation of the truth about Him and of salvation. Any prophet who claims God inspires them with "new light" is not speaking truth. We have to call her a false prophet based on her own claims about herself. Colleen | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 224 Registered: 6-2001  |
I think we can apply the C.S. Lewis test to Ellen White. Either she was 1) A liar. 2)A lunatic. or 3) An inspired prophet. Like C.S. Lewis said about Jesus. You can't just consider him to be a good person and leave it at that because He Himself said He is God. And you cannot consider Ellen White to be a good person because she called herself a messenger of God and more encompassing than a prophet. Similarly, Hannah | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2047 Registered: 11-2002 |
Here's my two-cents on this topic. EGW herself said that what she wrote is from God, no if's, and's or but's in that comment. Therefore, taking her at her word then she is a 100% FALSE PROPHIT or a 100% TRUE PROFIT FOR THE SDA CHURCH. She herself is the one who clairfies this from her own writings. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 972 Registered: 3-2005 |
One thing is for certain, she made a true profit from her writings. Stan | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 302 Registered: 2-2001 |
Susan, She is very clear that you are to accept everything she says or reject everything. The problem lies in that the average SDA does not want to do that. | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2005 |
I have a relative who took a class at WWC on choosing the Books of the Bible, and he determined that it was about as phony as some church nominating committees chooseing leaders for the coming year, with lots of politics. He hasn't had anything to do with the church since then. I've tried to get him to tell me where they got their information, but I haven't had much luck. | ||
| Lindylou Registered user Username: Lindylou Post Number: 89 Registered: 1-2005 |
EGW herself says this regarding the testimony books: " This work is of God, or it is not......My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The 'Testimonies' are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil." 4T230 There's no room for picking and choosing! It's all or nothing folks in regards to EGW! | ||
| Lindylou Registered user Username: Lindylou Post Number: 90 Registered: 1-2005 |
P.S. Schasc, regarding your comments about movie going on another thread.... You can report to your faculty that this WWVA parent would be thrilled to have her daughter go to a preshowing of the Chronicles of Narnia.  | ||
| Schasc Registered user Username: Schasc Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2004 |
thanks Lindy!..........It will be interesting to see what happens at the next meeting. I talked more with my friend and got a little more insight into what he was thinking. He feels like 95% of what Ellen wrote should never have been published. He says that kowing what she said to Brother B for example is of no importance to him or us as a church. I think that he feels that if we had as much information about certain Bible writers and other documents that they had written, that there would be controversy about them as well. He contends that things she said such as the earth being 6000 years old and the number of moons on Jupiter was what was accepted fact at the time and he has know problem with her repeating it. He feels that the whole issue of inspiration is very complex and that God give us as individuals insight and wisdom to disern and make choices. His comment to me was that he trys to look for principles that take him into a closer realationship with Jesus. I know that at one time in his life he tried to keep all the "rules" by following every detail and he realized that was a dead end. Anyway thanx to all who replied. I had another friend call me "anti Sabbath" so now I have to try and clear that up with him as well! I dont know why it is so hard sometimes to get the point across. Maybe if I was more eloquent in saying it. Oh well......life goes on! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2883 Registered: 12-2003 |
Schasc, I know how you feel! I don't believe the problem is in your eloquence; the problem is that you're living and working in an Adventist environment (which is what my husband also does, by the way), and you're discussing subjects that Adventists CAN'T see without questioning their Adventism. I used to believe exactly what your friend believes about Ellen. I thought the church destoryed her impact by "canonizing" her and pushing much of her personal correspondence on the church as relevant for us today. The problem underlying that belief was that I refused to consider that she might truly NOT have been God's mouthpiece at any time. I continued to assume that she served an important function, even if only during her lifetime. I saw her as God's person whom the church "twisted". Only when I began to read about her earliest visions and confirmations of the very earliest Adventist doctrines and rationals for the Great Disappointment did I begin to admit to myself she might have been a fraud. God simply would not lead people to believe an untruth for the sake of stimulating them to "get ready" for His coming as she said He did when she "was shown" that God held his hand over William Miller's mistaken calculation that Jesus would return in 1843 instead of 1844. When I began to read the visions and confirmations and changes in God's messages to her during that volatile year between Oct. 1843 and Oct. 1844, I realized God wouldn't do that. He, being unable to lie, as the Bible states, would NOT have deliberately deceived the early Adventists for the ulterior motive of their getting ready to meet Him--which is exactly what Ellen claimed. How bizarre is that claim, anyway? God wants His people ready--perfected in character, as the SDAs would say--so He lies to them to get them to be "ready"?? Her revelations from God throughout that whole Great Disappointment and the subsequent development of the IJ theory are what finally got me to see that she couldn't have been a true messenger of God. She came up with NONE of the central doctrines or explanations. She merely "confirmed" what others said by having visions after they had their ideas. Have you read "the Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists" by Ratzlaff? It's awfully good--documented in detail. Colleen |
