| Author | Message | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3412 Registered: 3-2004  |
As I read the posts here and on CARM I started thinking, yes that can be dangerous for me, but I do it once in a while. I started thinking when and how long ago God started working on me and I did not realize it until I left adventism. God directed me in raising my son, He minimized the SDA material I read to him and He had me read the Bible stories to my son from the Bible. God put within me a dislike when I heard EGW quoted during a church service. In Sabbath school he had me ask questions that were not traditional SDA thoughts. He put me in a 12 step program that deprogrammed my brain of the dysfunction seen in the SDA church and which helped me to recognize the legalism. He put within me the desire to want something more than what was offered in the SDA church. Through my 12 step program I learned how to witness for Him. So, God has been working on me for at least 35 years. He probably was working on me before that and I just have not seen it yet. Oh, yes I do see it. He had me marry someone who was not really SDA. If I had married a "good" SDA I just might still be caught in the clutches of adventism. Because of my divorce I found that I did not feel guilty when I went dancing on Friday evenings. God has had His awesome hand on me from the beginning of my life. Another incident of God's hand on me. I had polio when I was 12. I was home a week with it before my parents realized it was not a bad cold or the flu. I was in the hospital only 3 weeks and have no after effects-NONE, ZILCH!!! So my question tonight is when and how long has God been working on you, as you see it? As I talk about how God has cared for me I am reminded that we do have an awesome God. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5367 Registered: 12-2003  |
Wow, Dianaóyou actually had polio and have no side effects! Praise God! I am aware that God was revealing Himself to me from the time I was very young. I wanted to serve Jesus even before I knew how to do that. He is so faithful. Colleen | ||
| Rejoyce719 Registered user Username: Rejoyce719 Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2007 |
Thank God you have no effects from Polio, Diana. I was raised in the SDA church and was so deeply indoctrinated that I did not question it until I reached a personal growth period that caused me to ask myself why I believed I belonged to the "one true church". At that time I believed that SDA was "the one" because of Sabbath-keeping, but then to my surprise many denominations do that. That was the first thing that caused me to look further. About 15 years ago I discovered proof that EGW had plagerized, but before the internent, I could not find enough info. to shake me free of the delusion of belief in her "visions" for many years. Now, of course, the evidence is overwhelming. But, I can remember for years trying to make sense of EGW statements that did not make sense. It is such a relief to not have to do that anymore, to realize that there was not something wrong with my understanding. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 104 Registered: 1-2006  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rejoyce719 I certainly agree with your post. For me it was the realization that she had made unconditional and unfilfilled prophecies, then compared her situation to Deut 18 in which God gives the test of a true prophet as no false (unfulfilled)prophecies. I went to the White Estate in Loma Linda to read firsthand. It was enough to convince me, although the article in the White Estate was very sly, it didn't deny the obvious. It was pretty much over for Ellen White after reading there. The specific article was a vision sometimes known as the "food for worms" vision. It was an unconditional and well documented and unfilfilled prophecy, closely monitored by SDAs for almost a century, since she had claimed that some who were present at that meeting (a vision, I think) would be translated, some would see death, some food for worms, etc. Someone wrote down the names of every person present, including children. So almost a century could pass before everyone present could eventually die. The article I'm referring to was written about 90 to 100 years after the vision. It has been years since I read it, but it convinced me that we indeed have a false prophet on our hands. Bob | ||
| Rejoyce719 Registered user Username: Rejoyce719 Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2007 |
Bob, I am aware of the vision that you mentioned. When I was entrenched in the SDA church I read this vision in an EGW book. I believed at that time that Ellen White was inspired by God equal to the Bible writers as I was taught. I can remember stopping and thinking that what EGW claimed an angel had told her was an unfulfulled prophecy. That, of course, even the babies at that meeting are dead. Also, she quoted the angel that had supposedly spoken to her in King James English. Why would the angel use King James English. Because the words had come out of her own mind and she assumed that an angel would speak that way? I rationalized for years to continue to accept EGW. What a relief to stop trying to rationalize. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1707 Registered: 10-2004  |
Just the crude language of "food for worms" should be enough to show that it was not an angel of God speaking! God does not refer to His children (which those people were supposed to be, if they were "good Adventists" anyway) as "food for worms"--in fact, no human is reduced to such non-existence as she taught! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on February 07, 2007) | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 513 Registered: 5-2002 |
Rejoyce 719, you said, "Also, she quoted the angel that had supposedly spoken to her in King James English. Why would the angel use King James English. Because the words had come out of her own mind and she assumed that an angel would speak that way?" It is for the same reason that an Angel also gave Joseph Smith golden plates that were written in ye olde King James' English... | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 235 Registered: 11-2005 |
I remember reading that "food for worms" vision and being confused about it. This was back before I began doubting Adventism; in other words, I figured it was something I just wasn't getting. I went to my Bible teacher at the time in Academy, and he began to explain the whole "conditional prophecy" thing to me (using Jonah as one of the examples). It seemed to satisfy my questions at the time. Now...outside of Adventism, I can think much clearer and see things completely differently. I KNOW EGW was a false prophet, but yet, I'm still not quite sure how one approaches that argument of "conditional prophecy". Really, any false prophecy given by anyone, could use that conditional prophecy excuse. So, I guess my questions are this. 1) What really constitutes a conditional prophecy? How do you differentiate a conditional prophecy that was unfulfilled from a false prophecy that was unfulfilled? 2) With a sovereign God, who knows the end from the beginning, and is in control of everything, is there really a such thing as conditional prophecy? Doesn't that kind of play into the whole great controversy theme (where we are in control, not God?) Yes, I understand that there is a mystery of choice involved, but do we have the power to change God's plan or convince Him? Any thoughts or possible answers? | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 726 Registered: 7-2004  |
In the EGW prophecy, nothing hints of conditionalism. In contrast, God tells Jonah he will destroy Ninevah because of their great wickedness. Jonah 3:5 says "Then the people of Ninevah believed in God." Verse 10 says God saw "they turned from their wicked way." So if they were going to be destroyed for their wickedness, but now they are believers who who turned away from wickedness, then the original reason is no longer there. Of course God knew all along what the Ninevites would do, so it was really a message to get their act together or else, rather than a specific prophecy of what would definitely happen. I'm not even sure it was a prophecy, but more of a wake-up call or a threat. It's nowhere close to the same thing as EGW's failed prophecy. And no, I don't think there is such a thing as conditional prophecy, and I don't think anyone has the power to change God's plan or the timing of any of His plans. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 727 Registered: 7-2004 |
Here's a good article on open theism that touches on how the sovereign, all-knowing God sometimes appears to change His mind in Scripture: http://www.founders.org/FJ46/article2_fr.html | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1708 Registered: 10-2004 |
All of the cults try to use Jonah as an excuse for their false prophets' failed predictions. Here is a link to the CRI Perspective on Jonah: http://www.equip.org/free/CP1401.htm Jeremy | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 81 Registered: 8-2005 |
I believe the SDA tactic is to try to apply Jeremiah 18 to the "Food for Worms" prophecy. I believe this does apply to the Ninevites as they were specificilly told to repent "or else"! There is no condition implied or stated in EGW's prophecy. Jer 18:7-10 HCSB At one moment I(God) might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, and destroy it. (8) However, if that nation I have made an announcement about, turns from its evil, I will not bring the disaster on it I had planned. (9) At another time I announce that I will build and plant a nation or a kingdom. (10) However, if it does what is evil in My sight by not listening to My voice, I will not bring the good I had said I would do to it. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 728 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks for posting those verses in Jeremiah, Brian3 - amazing that God even gave an explanation covering the Ninevah scenario! | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 236 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thanks for the thoughts and for the links. They were helpful. Raven, your point about it being more of a threat or wake-up call rather than a "prophecy" is kind of how I see it, too. God uses all sorts of ways to bring people to Himself. Just for the sake of following this line of argument a typical SDA would give, the next rebuttal they would have is that although there are no conditions directly implied or stated in this particular prophecy, other statements and writings from her would imply God "holding out" in His mercy for as long as possible for more people to repent and turn to truth before He returned. So, when you take her writing as a whole, and not "out-of-context" as SDAs would put it, then it's clear this was a conditional prophecy. (This was told to me when I brought up that no condition was stated in her prophecy). I want to make clear that I understand that this is a bogus, rationalizing type of argument. But what would be the follow-up argument to that? I guess, it would come down to them taking her writings as a whole as they themselves suggest, so that they could see how many inconsistencies there are. It basically comes down to a useless circular argument that will continue to go nowhere unless they are willing to know truth and not rationalize everything. You can just about defend any argument to "protect" what you know. | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 84 Registered: 8-2005 |
I would reply that God in Jeremiah 18 makes it very clear that His "Conditional" prophecies apply to Nations and Kingdoms and not Conference Attendees! :-) | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 237 Registered: 11-2005 |
Good answer  . | ||
| Lrcrabtree Registered user Username: Lrcrabtree Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2007  |
There is no follow-up argument. This is because you are arguing with a person or persons whose mind is already made up - they will not be convinced by any fact or facts. You could DISCUSS this with someone whose mind is open to re-thinking their own understandings, but arguing with someone whose mind is made up already is a futile exercise. Just my two cents. Larry | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1709 Registered: 10-2004 |
EGW's statements about Jesus delaying His coming because the Adventists hadn't gotten their act together, etc., were written as excuses for why her predictions had failed and He hadn't come yet. In other words, they were written after the fact to cover up her false prophecies and certainly cannot be used to sustain them!! Jeremy | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 442 Registered: 6-2006  |
Jeremy, after reading your post, I can't help but remember these lines - "I am the great Oz!! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am the great Oz..uh..he..hm" Sigh | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 825 Registered: 8-2004  |
Raven, thanks for the link to the article about 'Open Theism'. It contained things I needed to read today. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5391 Registered: 12-2003 |
Raven, that article on open theism is extremely good. Thank you for posting the link. As I read it, I realized that my Adventism was marked by pretty much an open theistic view of God. He really wasn't the sovereign, almighty God over All who is in charge of all things. It is SUCH a relief to me to know that the Bible is completely reliable, and God is completely in control. Instead of making me distrust God, I find that knowing He is Sovereign over all is a great comfort and relief. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1710 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen, you're right that Adventism is very "open theistic" in its theology. Just reading about Open Theism on Wikipedia, I became more aware of this fact. One of the key teachings of Open Theism (besides the general denial of God's sovereignty) is that "God" is not timeless but instead exists within time, which is exactly what Adventism teaches. Of course, the founding leader of the contemporary Open Theism movement is an SDA theology professor, Richard Rice. Jeremy |
