| Author | Message | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2005 |
Dear friends When talking to Historic Adventists the position is often taken that you have to be careful - Satan may deceive you. Any new idea, or tradition that not fits into the traditional view could be dropped just by that argument. The real spirit of worship music is the Devil and so on. Or they find an enemy - like the Jesuits - that is trying to influence the church with evil traditions. One can track this view to fundamental protestant thinking and of course to the Great Controversy concept with the fight going on between Satan and Christ. But what is Biblical - and the true Satan? He is conquered by Christ once for all at the Cross and we shall not fear him according to Rom 8:38-39. If we read about Lucifer in Isaiah - and follows the historical turns how the "Morningstar" was wrongly translated with Lucifer in the latin Vulgata - one can wonder what else that is not in place with the Adventists Satan. Ellen White does not make any differences between the use of these two names (Lucifer and Satan), she follows the knowledge of her days – despite her “inspiration” directly from Heaven. In short – does Adventist have a true picture of Satan, and do they dismiss the power of Jesus that conquers the power of Satan. Does Adventists actually risk to go against the Holy Spirit when they effectively dismiss an inspired idea with the accusation of a devil spirit? Any out there that what to fill in your comments and quotes from appropriate sources? /Dinolf (Message edited by Dinolf on May 22, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5868 Registered: 12-2003  |
Dinolf, really good questions. Yes, Adventism has misrepresented Satan...but the most effective way they have done this is by misrepresenting Jesus. Ellen has said that Satan was the highest angel in heaven next to Christ, and he became jealous that God "exalted" Jesus and not him. Ellen further said that when Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 to begin the investigative judgment, Satan took His place on the throne of the Holy Place, and those who are lost (read that anyone who does not accept the Adventist message) think they are praying to Jesus, but in reality Satan is answering their prayers instead. (This is where Adventists get the fear, I believe, that Satan will trick them, that if a person leaves Adventism or embraces new ideas, they are wandering from the truth, and Satan now is answering their prayers instead of Jesus.) And yes, Dinolf, I have also thought many times about the implications of Adventists accusing "satan" of being the source of blessings that really come from God or of ideas and leading that really come from the Holy Spirit. This sin—attributing the work of God to Satan—is the unpardonable sin Jesus described in Matthew 12 when the Pharisees accused Him of casting or demons by the power of Beelzebub. Now, I'm not saying Adventists collectively have committed the unpardonable sin. But I am saying that when people look right at Jesus, and His obvious work and at truth that is obviously from Him and is based in the word of God, when they do this and say it is from Satan, they are in danger of committing this sin. The unpardonable sin is not an accident. It is a decision that occurs when a person sees Jesus clearly in view, knows who He is, doesn't like the implications of what he sees, and refuses to believe. Oh, yes--there's another way Adventists have grossly misrepresented Satan and exalted his importance: Ellen actually identifies him as the scapegoat on whom the sins of the saved are laid, and then he burns in hell longer than anyone else as punishment for causing their sins. Satan NEVER bears the sins of humanity, let alone the righteous. Jesus is the only Sin Bearer. Satan is punished for his own sins, and he does not bear punishment on our behalf nor carry the weight of our sins into hell. Jesus Himself bore all the consequences of our sin in His flesh. Period. Jeremy, can you help with some quotes? Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5869 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dinolf, here's the Ellen quote re: Satan taking the place of Jesus in the Holy Place and answering the prayers of those who don't accept the Adventist message: ""I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne [those who rejected the new 1844 EGW doctrine]; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, 'Father, give us Thy Spirit.' Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God's children." (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 56, paragraph 1.)" Thanks, Jeremy, for your webpage where I found this quote! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1802 Registered: 10-2004  |
Here are a few EGW quotes where she exalts Satan and denigrates Jesus:
DID YOU CATCH that last quote?! She says that ALL of the other angels (except for her "christ" angel!) thought that satan was GOD!!!! She even capitalizes "Ruler of heaven" in talking about satan!!!!! Here is a previous post of mine which contains EGW quotes about the scapegoat. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 22, 2007) | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 36 Registered: 5-2007 |
But Christ is GOD, NOT an angel. Do SDAs really reject the full divinity of Christ? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5873 Registered: 12-2003 |
My goodness, Jeremy--I had never seen that (or at least noticed it!) before. What I think is especially interesting is the date of that quote: 1906. This was relatively late in her career. The Desire of Ages had already been published (1898), and that book was/is said to be the turning point from Ellen's Arianism to her embracing Jesus as fully God. This quote in 1906 shows that at no level did Ellen see God as sovereign, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. First, as you point out, Jeremy, she states that the other angels thought Satan was God, or the Ruler of heaven. The Bible clearly says that God does not share His glory with another (Is 42:8). Never did the angels think Satan/Lucifer was God. Second, she states that Satan presented his "suggestions" to God so "artfully" that they seemed to be coming from the angels. Huh? God would never have been fooled into thinking Satan was not presenting his own arguments. Further, God's sovereign power and omniscience were completely known to Lucifer. It doesn't make sense that he would try to deceive God by presenting his ideas as coming from somewhere else. Third, this whole "conversation" is made up. Nothing of this nature is recorded in the Bible. Ellen makes Satan out to be more important, more clever, and God to be less discerning and limited than the Bible supports. The Bible is very clear that NOTHING can hide from God. For Ellen even to write this shows that her view of God was not biblical, and her view of Satan was not biblical, either. And ironically, even whle she presents Satan's supposed sins, she manages to make him seem somehow admirable, like a person of great potentila, intelligence, and cleverness who "went bad"—the scoundrel we love to hate. It's NOT TRUE. God alone is sovereign, and there are no secrets from Him. Colleen | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2005 |
Yes - Christ is a full part of the Trinity. This is also what SDA teach today if you look at 28 the fundamentals. Therefore officially the standing today is not an Arianistic view. But the view of a less godly Christ is easily coming back among the historic SDA´s since this was the standing of EGW in early years where you have the core of the 1844 stuff. I had to look up the context of the quote from Early Writings since it really made me turn on. It makes me feel 100% shure she is not an prophet. She really have a good information about first God leaving the throne, then Jesus leaving it to go to the most holy. Then Satan is taking over the throne. I wonder - was he not captured on Earth with one third of the angels? Now he is back in Heaven again. A good story. But just one question - where is the support from the Bible about all this... /Dinolf | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1803 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen, you wrote: "And ironically, even whle she presents Satan's supposed sins, she manages to make him seem somehow admirable, like a person of great potentila, intelligence, and cleverness who "went bad"—the scoundrel we love to hate." Colleen, that is one of the things that makes it clear that she was inspired by evil forces. A brain-damaged, mentally ill woman could not have so cleverly tried to disguise what she was saying, and so subtly find opportunities to try to exalt Satan throughout her writings, make him seem "admirable" as you said, make the reader feel "sorry" for him, etc. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 22, 2007) | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2007 |
Jeremy - Thanks? (I think I'm going to be sick) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 772 Registered: 9-2006  |
I would have quaffed up my breakfast if I would have had any to quaff up after reading that. Jonvil you are going to have to beat me to the bathroom. AAArg. I woke up this morning with my Adventist friends on my mind and those who follow it. I woke up this morning with a statement playing over and over in my mind “A form of Godliness” “A form of Godliness” A form of Godliness but denying the power there of”. I got up this morning and read this thread and what was running through my mind when I awoke seems to fit into this thread somehow although I don’t exactly know why. Is there something about Adventism and those who practice it (Adventist friends) that I have just refused to let myself look at? Is there something that the Lord wants me to see about them? I remember when I first met them, I thought, they really sound like a Holy and pure people, a people to be copied, who want to live clean lives and yet the more I uncovered the more corruption of the word I uncovered not to mention E.G.W. I did go to 2nd Timothy and started reading in chapter 2 and reading the context of chapter 2 and 3. The part where it speaks of “Having a form of Godliness” is referred too in chapter 3 verse 5, as I read both these chapters it all seemed to just jump out at me. I used my Zondervan’s amplified version to try to study it closely. What really seemed to speak to me this morning was Chapter 2 verse 24, 25 and 26. The servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome and preserving the bond of peace; he must be a skilled and suitable teacher. Verse 25: He must correct his opponents with courtesy and gentleness, in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and come to know the truth. That my friends are my first objective and I think I have followed that pretty well so far. Ain’t no feather in my hat though, give the Lord the credit! Verse 26 reads “ And that they may come to their senses [and] escape out of the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him, [henceforth] to do his [Gods] will. Now beginning chapter 3, verse 1 he goes on to state “But UNDERSTAND THIS, that in the last days there will set in perilous times of great stress and trouble – hard to deal with and hard to bear. Well, Adventism is about as hard to deal with AND hard to bear as about as much as one could ask for. Anybody agree with that statement? Now I want to get to the meat of where I am trying get to here. Brother Zondervan’s reading of verse 5 goes like this. 5: For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it- their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession. Avoid [all] such people-turn away from them. Now in verse 15 it reads like this “And from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the SACRED writings which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding of salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus [that is, through the leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in his POWER, wisdom and goodness]. There’s that word POWER again used I think in connection with Jesus keeping power which must be key to our confidence and not judging by our own righteousness and works. Now I realize that your Bible version won’t read like that. Now if anyone out there has the time or the dime, I would like you to tell me in your own words how Adventism and those who follow it would fit into verse 5 II Timothy, or, if you don’t think it fits, tell me why. River P.S. A note to Dinolf “This is also what SDA teach today if you look at 28 the fundamentals. Therefore officially the standing today is not an Arianistic view.” I hate to burst your bubble but I think those statements in the 28 fundamentals are just a result of attempting to fit into the general evangelical world view and so that they will appear Christian to the rest of Christian Dom. Its just another attempt at camouflage I am afraid. Does it sound like I don’t trust them? Well I don’t. | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 46 Registered: 5-2007 |
River, it's exactly what you said that makes Adventism so dangerous. At least with the Mormons and JWs the errors are obvious. Adventism is subtle in its errors, the whitest fleece of any of the wolves out there. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5883 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, it's interesting to me that you awoke with that verse about having a form of godliness but denying the power running through your head. I have frequently associated that text with Adventism—in fact, more and more frequently within the past year or two. Now, in one sense, God has asked Richard and me to continue to "have [s]omething to do with them" through the ministry of Proclamation and FAF. But He has clearly asked us to remove ourselves from the identity of being Adventist. As far as dealing with individual SDAs, many of them we have to resist arguing. We get so many letters making firm, offended, angry statements that accuse us of not knowing Jesus or honoring Bible truth, of attacking the truth, warnings that we will have to give an account to God in the judgment for the people we have led to hell, etc etc. There is absolutely no way we can answer these people or have a discussion with them. When people are curious, we respond. When they move to arguing, we bow out. There really does come a point when to continue to show them Scripture and to reveal the truth about Jesus is casting, as Jesus said, pearls before swine. Now, I am not calling Adventists "swine". I am using a metaphor that Jesus used to describe a spiritual reality: truth poured upon deaf ears is resisted, and people actually harden more by continued exposure when they're in that mood. Even Jesus stopped directly preaching to the Pharisees. In Matthew 12 He began using parables in their presence after they accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. He no longer clearly proclaimed His fulfillment of prophecy to them. They had refused the truth, and He no longer plied them with it. And you're right, River...the 28 Fundamentals are carefully worded to sound "orthodox" but to accommodate the still-unorthodox (and even heretical) beliefs about Jesus, the Trinity, and the spirit of prophecy. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 773 Registered: 9-2006 |
Colleen, I think that the Holy Spirit wanted me to zero in on this part of the scripture "For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it"- and not last line which reads "Avoid [all] such people-turn away from them." What I get a sense of in the last line is what he is saying is more in the context of avoiding support of their views and their teachings turn away from them if they are false. I think this because of other scripture which indicates that we should minister to the best of our ability to those who would hear the word and he just got through talking about being an apt and gentle teacher "in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and come to know the truth." (Zondervan) and not that we should turn our backs on them, God has NEVER led me to do that and unless I am rejected altogether I don't think he ever will. No, my dealings with them is not what this is about. Instead it has to do with denial of the power of God. If it was the Holy Spirit leading me to get up and read verse 5 and I say "if" it was the Holy Spirit , what the key words were "A form of Godliness" and "But denying the power there of". Now maybe it was just me but I usually get up with thoughts of "where's my tea!" Not "A form of Godliness but denying the power. This was really being impressed on my spirit and I came in immediately and looked it up, then thought "Where's my tea!. There is something in that denial of Gods power, I sure won't deny they have a "form" of Godliness at least. What is so very strange is this "Form" of Godliness that my friends possess, strict to the "T" and I have no doubt of their sincerity either. Actually their "form" of Godliness beats my form of Godliness I suppose although I must depend on Christ blood to make up for my unworthiness and that may be where it's at right there. Failure to recognize God's power to save would be a serious thing, the power of the blood unto salvation and not only that, failure to glorify the Lord Jesus and to give him his due honor for having suffered and died that we might live. Well I guess I am rambling but at the finish of the day I still feel very much like I have been spoken to through the scripture. Maybe thats where this fits this thread. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5889 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, I completely understand what you are saying. I believe you are right; God has spoken to you through Scripture. Colleen | ||
| Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2006 |
Check it out...Jesus "the answer Man" says " how terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law...hypocrites! "...you won't let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and you won't go in yourselves. You ignore the important things of the law - justice, mercy, and faith." Matt 23: 13;23 So much for Adventism, its bigotry and its "remnantistic" pride. Steve | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 61 Registered: 5-2007 |
Amen, Steve. The bigotry and "remnantistic" pride were in fact the final nail in the coffin for my being an Adventist. I had already found the IJ and Sunday Law stuff to be contradictory to the Bible and a denial of the Gospel. I got to the point where I could no longer stand the intolerant attitude toward other Christians. Where's the love that Christ taught? Just look at the hateful things EGW wrote about Christian churches in her writings. It truly makes me ill to think about it. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 228 Registered: 1-2004  |
I happened to remember reading about the fall of man from Irenaeus in the 2nd century. I had to go look it up again after reading through this thread... In "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" Irenaeus writes; 16. "This commandment the man kept not, but was disobedient to God, being led astray by the angel who, for the great gifts of God which He had given to man, was envious and jealous of him, and both brought himself to nought and made man sinful, persuading him to disobey the commandment of God. So the angel, becoming by his falsehood the author and originator of sin, himself was struck down, having offended against God, and man he caused to be cast out from Paradise. And, because through the guidance of his disposition he apostatized and departed from God, he was called Satan, according to the Hebrew word; that is, Apostate: but he is also called Slanderer." If Irenaeus is correctly telling the Apostolic tradition, Satan was indeed envious but it was man he envied, not Christ. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1823 Registered: 10-2004 |
What Reb said on the new thread he started, made me think more about that quote I posted above. EGW says that all of the angels (including those that are still "unfallen"!) were "tricked" by Satan into thinking that he was "the Ruler of heaven"! So what that means is that, according to EGW, even the angels that are still "holy and unfallen" worshipped Satan as their god!! EGW is saying that worshipping Satan is something holy and not sinful--since those angels never sinned! What satanic blasphemy!!!! How can anyone claim that this woman was not demon possessed?! (Especially when the Scriptures, such as 1 John 4, tell us that false prophets are demonic.) Jeremy | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 97 Registered: 5-2007 |
I agree it's blasphemy, Jeremy. However I still believe EGW was so insane she just didn't know truth from error. I guess that's just where I'm at in my recovery from Adventism right now. I truly believe that EGW may have been a Paranoid Schizophrenic. She was definetly delusional and there was paranoid ideation in much of her writings, especially things like the Sunday Law doctrine. And remember Paranoid Schizophrenics are often able to function at a higher level than some other types of psychotics. I really do think EGW was psychotic. (Message edited by Reb on May 29, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5927 Registered: 12-2003 |
Psychotic or not, her writings still have power over the SDA church. The seamless way the doctrines fit together in their details (the IJ depends upon soul sleep depends upon "spirit = breath" which supports "Jesus had no advantage we don't have" and we can become perfect and stand without a Mediator which is proven by our loyalty to a DAY...) continues to dazzle and charm people into deception and bondage. The power of her legacy is not psychosis—her followers are certainly not all psychotic! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1824 Registered: 10-2004 |
And how could she "just happen" to so subtly and cleverly glorify satan throughout her writings (the above example being one of many), if she was just a psychotic rambling brain-damaged woman? Jeremy | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 100 Registered: 5-2007 |
You have a point Colleen and Jeremy. But EGW was delusional, very delusional and delusions are a sign of psychosis. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5939 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, Reb, I have no desire to argue this point...Ellen was certainly disturbed. She may well have been delusional...but actually, I don't have any evidence that she actually was delusional. She was vulnerable, probably even a victim of some sort of abuse that set her up to be used and misused; she was prone to self-hypnosis and even wrote some comments to the effect that she worried she was mesmerizing herself (in today's language we would likely say she was highly dissociative)--but I'm just not seeing any positive proof she was delusional. She certainly shows evidence, however, of being highly manipulative and manipulatable! Frankly, the stories I've read of her, some of her more private writings, the writings of contemporaries such as Dudley Canright...these remind me a lot more of a handful of young women I've known over the past 25 years who have had serious dissociative identity disorders (DID) than they remind me of psychosis. There may well have been several things at work here, including temporal lobe epilepsy. But I can't dismiss her opus as the ravings of a psychotic mind. They're far too organized and consistent! It's quite possible she would have had a distinct diagnosis if she were alive today. This possibility, though, does not remove her personal responsibility to deal with the Lord Jesus as He called her to have integrity. I believe there are spiritual issues at work in her, not just physical. Colleen | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 105 Registered: 5-2007 |
I agree EGW did have issues both mentally and spiritually. I will leave it for God to judge her, but I agree her writings contain mostly error. Error that is especially poisonous because it has enough truth mixed in with it to decieve those who are not well grounded in scripture. Disturbed, diagnosible, or not, EGW was very clever and intelligent. Again, I will just let God judge her. |
