| Author | Message | ||
     Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 987 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
If you haven't seen the DVDs and weren't at the conference (Ellen White Summit 2005) you may want to check out what the four speakers (George R. Knight, Craig Newborn, Jud Lake, and Jon Paulien) had to say November 11-12, 2005 in Gladstone, OR. http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com I have listened to most all of these and it is interesting. My impression so far is that these leaders want to keep calling Ellen White a prophet but want people to use her in a pastoral way. Many times they will say you have to understand the context of what was happening around her when she wrote something. Of course to do that you have to depend upon the White Estate but of course they don't say that last part. They are very much against the use of the idea of verbal inspiration of Ellen White and point out the folks from her time like A.T. Jones who taught that she was verbally inspired and through pretty much 1890's to 1950's the idea of verbal inspiration of Ellen white was the main church leaderships opinion. And that this time period is now used as the formation of the historic SDA's standard for what the SDA church should believe. The worst presentation is the one on Ellen White and her critics. He tried to point out the logical fallacies of the critics but really mainly points out his own fallacies. A big one he uses is the A priori fallacy he says that the critics use because they begin with the assumption that she is not a prophet. Yet for some reason his own fallacy and that of all the presentors that EGW is a prophet are not considered to be A priori fallacies. A Priori:- More fancy Latin words, literally meaning, "from that which comes before." In argument it is where a person, in an effort to prove a further point assumes the validity of some other point. This other point, it is asked, should be accepted as one that may yet be proven, or which the propounder advances as axiomatic. In other words, one is asked to accept something as knowledge without the benefit of any prior experience (empirical evidence), this knowledge, it is said, comes about a priori. This approach is often the only way to begin any argument, but should not be resorted to during the course of argument; further, one should always bear in mind, that the resolution to any argument, must, of necessity, be dependent on the "beginning assumptions." While there are some things in this world that simply must be accepted without proof as being axiomatic, an assumption or assumptions always weaken one's argument and should be eschewed as a bad practice. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Argument.htm#Priori ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 994 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
The Ellen White Summit indeed has some interesting material. But there is a good deal of false information in there also. As time allows I will deal with some of the problems that come up. At least on my blog if not here http://cafesda.blogspot.com/ The first is from one of the lesser presenters at the summit. Here is what Jud says at about 34 minutes into his presentation on Ellen White and Inspiration (part 4): “Ellen White experienced numerous times the Prophetic model, dreams and visions. But some have taken this to an extreme, a number of the people in her day took this to an extreme and this is where the critics have made a big mistake. They’ve taken.. pushed this envelope I should say of this model. And gotten into what we discussed already, verbal dictation. Listen to Canright, remember who Canright is famed critic he wrote in his critical book on Ellen White I shared with you in my last presentation. Listen, every line she wrote he believed whether in articles letters testimonies or books she claimed and this is my bold she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost and hence must be infallible. This I think contributed to his great fall or some say he more took the position when he turned against the Adventist church but either way this is what he is saying here, he saying she claimed this well I think it is already very clear she did not claim this. Dr. Newborn touched on this…” -- Jud Lake Professor of Preaching and Adventist Studies at he School of Religion, Southern Adventist University. “Ellen White and Inspiration” 2005 Ellen White Summit Gladstone Oregon Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at: http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm “Her Writings All Inspired by the Holy Ghost Now read what Mrs. White claims for her writings. Defining her position, she says: "In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661). Here she places herself on a level with all the Bible writers, both prophets and apostles. (See Heb. 1:1,2.) Any one who rejects or opposes her writings is branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus she says: "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 66). Here she classes herself in authority with Moses. From this it will be seen that her followers have made no greater claims for her than she made for herself. She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God - "the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (same book, p. 67). Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken" (Testimonies, Vol. III., p. 257). She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those. . . who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, but against God" (p. 260). Again she says: When I went to Colorado, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting. . . God was speaking through clay. You might say this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, . . . I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (Testimonies, Vol. V., pp. 63-67). Notice that she claims to be simply the mouthpiece for God. They are not her words, but God's words, the same as the Bible - God speaking through clay. All through her writings designed especially for her own people may be found expressions of this kind. In her books prepared for the public, however, all these expressions are carefully omitted. It is not Canright who said that Ellen White’s words must be infallible it was his response to the followers of Ellen White who saw here as infallible and he gives examples: Canright writes also in chapter 3: Now read this from G.A. Irwin, many years president of their General Conference. On page 1 of a tract entitled "The Mark of the Beast", he says: "It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings] that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is Christ through this agency giving the real meaning of his words." It is possible that by the term “Spirit of Prophecy” Irwin means the Holy Spirit in which case his statement would be accurate but considering the common SDA usage of the term Spirit of Prophecy to refer to Ellen White’s writings we are left to take it whatever way we may prefer. In all this however we know that Canright did not have some wooden literal view of Ellen White being verbally inspired. As he wrote in chapter 9: continued next post ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 995 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mrs. White's visions ceased about the time of the change of life common to women. While she still had visions, she claimed that much that she "saw" went entirely from her mind at the time. Months, even years later, when she met a brother or a church that needed a "testimony," the part relating to these all came vividly to her mind, she said. She would then write out this portion of the forgotten "vision." This worked very well till years after her visions ceased. Finally this could not be stretched further. Then her revelations had to come in a different way; by a voice, by dreams, by "impressions," by some one on "authority" speaking, and the like. The following expressions, taken from the last volume of her "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IX., published in 1909, are examples of this. Page 13: "I was instructed." Page 82: "Instruction has been given me." Page 65: "In the night of March 2, 1907, many things were revealed to me." The room, she said, was very light. Page 66: "Then a voice spoke to me." Page 95: "The angel stood by my side." But she had no vision as formerly. Page 98: "Instruction has been given me." Page 101: "In the night season I was awakened from a deep sleep and given a view." Page 137: "In the night season matters have been presented to me." Page 195: "At one time I seemed to be in a council meeting." The expression, "I have been instructed," occurs over and over in these later alleged revelations, just as the expression, "I saw," does in her earlier writings ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2121 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
What's wrong with this picture? - Ellen White from above quote: In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit. (Testimonies Vol IV., p148; Vol V., pl 661) Hebrews 1:1-2: God, who at various times and in diferednt ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son ... | ||
| ArthurKlym (Artklym) member Username: Artklym Post Number: 386 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I was reading today a website where someone quoted from a couple of letters that EGW wrote to her children. While I recognize that some of it may be a different style of speaking, it almost made me nauseous to read them. In the letters she basically states that God will not, cannot, love you if you sin. I suspected that these could be misquotes. These were written to her six year old son, Willie. "God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest. . . . When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." (An Appeal to the Youth, pp. 42,62. This seemed to me a form of child abuse, the product of a sick mind, or both. I searched for these letters on the White Estate website. They are legitimate and real. I read several more letters which seem to say that if he behaves well, his parents will love him. No unconditional love here and no "god loves the sinner, but hates the sin." | ||
| Charles Parker (Chuck) member Username: Chuck Post Number: 186 Registered: 2-2005 Rating: N/A |
Based on the lack of "I was shown" or "I was instructed" maybe she was just having a bad vision. History is all in the mind of the teller; Truth is in the telling. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 996 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Actually I was going to be looking up that quote for one of my blog responses. Because that was mentioned in one of the presentations. If I recall the presentation indicated that the context of letters my change the meaning of the statement. In that for instance the quote above was that of an exasperated mother. And we should give them less authority then say something that she published. But of course your quote was from a book she published. At least I don't think that was a compilation, will have to check. Anyway she has another quote where she says that you are not to tell children that God does not love them when they do wrong. I need to find that quote I think it is actually from a letter. In which case using the presentations concept the published hold precedence over private letters, the God does not love those nasty children should have more authority. Of course if they both got published in her books I guess we just go with what we like most. Some of the presentations are very persuasive, but I tend to think that they use some very subtle distortions to affect the presentation, even more subtle then Jud's misquotation of Canright. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2673 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
When the same writer makes totally contradictory statements, just pick the one you like best. What other alternative is there? Except to recognize schizophrenia (of the writer or the one who believes it). | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 997 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well you could always allow that a person could be wrong with at least one of the comments. That would be my first choice. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 757 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Ron thanks for starting this excellent thread. So far I have only had time to listen to Jud Lake's presentation about "Ellen White & Her Critics." Here is my response; I was very disappointed in this weak, ineffective, and less then honorable presentation that seemed more like self-serving cheerleading for the White Estate's views than an honest attempt to rebut the critics and set the record straight. In fact, I found his presentation hypercritical, lacking the necessary spirit of humility and candidness that the White Estate needs to exhibit if they expect to have any success with their attempt to rehabilitate Ellen White, much less her theology about the Three Angels Messages. It was very sad to see that at no time did the White Estate take any blame for anything that has gone wrong with Ellen White's writings or the Adventist Movement. The apologist didn't mention Arthur White, the 1888 fiasco, or even Glacier View, much less the fact that the White Estate was caught hiding thousands of documents about 1888 for generations. And unless these issues are honestly addressed and openly dealt with, there is no chance to turn things around and convince the growing number of critics that the White Estate is credible. So this presentation, like most everything that the hierarchy undertakes, failed miserably to deal with the issues, and thus it was ineffective and worthless. The critics should actually be encouraged because not only are their ranks growing tremendously, as the lecturer admitted, but the White Estate is pursuing non-effective and counter-productive tactics that only strengthens their cause and gives them more reasons to carry on their fight for truth and justice against the SDA church. Another major flaw with this presentation is that all the problems were always the fault of the critics, never anything that Arthur White, AG Daniels, Froom, or even Ellen White did. To believe their story, the church has made no mistakes whatsoever. Thus they blamed everyone else for their present troubles but themselves. But such a delusional defense in not realistic nor honest because they are the ones that have created this Public Relations disaster about Ellen White and they have no one to blame but themselves. But they sure tried. First, this apologist for the White Estate makes a remarkable observation that speaks volumes. He correctly notes that the present legion of critics were all former SDA's. They did not come from the outside world, but from within the church. While this observation is a sure sign that something is wrong with the church, this myopic apologist overlooks this obvious point and starts bashing the critics for their past loyalty to Ellen White and even claims that their problems began because they were too obsessed with her and believed in her too much. This is a very strange and disingenuous response that is just a self-serving attempt to avoid the issues about how such a widespread phenomenon could have materialized. For example, he chides the critics because at one time many of them were "faithfully preaching from the writings of Ellen White," and he cites this as the reason for their downfall. But yet he fails to explain that they were just following the instruction and encouragement of the White Estate that promoted such obsessive behavior. All these scores of former EGW supporters did not become obsessed with Ellen White without the encouragement and support of the White Estate. In fact, the White Estate promoted Ellen White so much, and published so many of her books and study materials that they are the guilty party that produced these fanatical EGW followers. They are the ones that made her out to be the greatest modern prophet of all time and they are the ones that turned generations of SDA's into fanatical and obsessive EGW believers. But now the modern White Estate conveniently forgets all this as they call these former supporters of Ellen White "dysfunctional." Talk about hypercritical? Talk about dishonest? Such a spin on history is despicable and I found it revolting. Thus the White Estate refuses to admit that they are the ones that promoted Ellen White in such a dysfunctional manner, choosing instead to lambaste those that were gullible enough to buy into Arthur White's obsession and deceit. I was very disappointed to hear this unfair and incorrect analysis by this amateur apologist who does not know what he is talking about. At this point the critics would have all turned away in disgust at this typical misinformation and obvious lack of candor from the White Estate apologists. But if anyone were still listening, they would have heard even more nonsense about how the critics, ignore the context, repeat fallacies, and use the straw man argument as well as pursue personal attacks against Ellen White. All time honored strategies that the White Estate has turned into an art form over the years. So while the critics may well be guilty of using these less than honorable tactics, the White Estate did it first and still does it today. Therefore, the White Estate does not have clean hands in this debate. They have done more character assassination, on D. M. Canright for example, and promoted more false issues, like Glacier View, even as they have ignored the real points at issue, like Ellen White's theology of 1888. They have even committed a massive criminal fraud by hiding thousands of documents from the church for generations, in direct violation of the instructions of Ellen White's will and in violation a their corporate charter. At this point the White Estate has no room or right to criticize others, because they are even guiltier of the same sins, and even greater ones. And thus the teachings of Jesus and the fundamentals of the Christian Faith do not support their criticism whatsoever. Matt. 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Matt. 7:4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? Matt. 7:5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. As this ridiculous and hypocritical presentation continues, it is full of sarcasm, complete with the response of cheap laughter from the friendly audience, which I also found disturbing and phony. And it was clear to me that such a worthless presentation will only make matters worse, giving the critics more ammunition to make their case to the world. Continued (Message edited by tom norris on February 21, 2006) | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 758 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
This pathetic presentation concluded by warning the faithful to avoid confronting the critics, because they were too powerful and would not listen. They were actually told never to e-mail Ratzlaff because he has such a "dysfunctional" view of Ellen White that no one can help him. In fact, they were instructed not to tell any critic that "they are being deceived about Ellen White" because this (once standard and approved White Estate line) only makes matters worse. So the conclusion of the lecture urged the faithful to "study the works of the critics," and especially "the answers given by the approved church apologists." These included the older books by Daniels and the others as well as the latest one from Clifford Goldstein (that was laughed at on this site for his absurd attempt to claim that the church had misunderstood the church's teaching about the IJ.) Of course, all the faithful were instructed to read lots of Ellen Whites writings, preferably a "book at a time, from start to finish." As the presentation ended, an emotional and anecdotal appeal was made to essentially trust the White Estate's version about Ellen White. Why? Because the former GC President and colleague of Ellen White, A.G. Daniels, had endorsed her way back in 1935. He claimed that her life "transcended any life he ever knew." And that she was "always pleasant and serious, never flippant or boastful" about her prophetic status, even as she gave "God all the glory." Too bad the White Estate failed to explain that Daniels was the architect of a massive cover-up in the White Estate that kept thousands of Ellen White's documents about 1888 hidden from the church for generations? Too bad this apologist didn't condemn Daniels for helping the White Estate set up a system of deception and deliberate fraud whereby her unpublished writings would be carefully and systematically hidden by the White Estate and the General Conference, with only certain writings being cleared for publication? Too bad that Daniels, Froom, and Arthur White were not all censured for misinforming and misleading the church about Ellen White's theology for generations? A fraud that is still taking place today! If Ellen White's life was so wonderful, why the need to hide her most important theological writings from the church? And after Daniels passed from the scene, why did the White Estate continue to hide thousands of her documents all during the RBF debates and even during the Glacier View trial of Dr. Ford? They even denied that this is what they were doing, even as they dishonestly claimed that certain documents did not exist at all, when the documents in question were sitting in the White Estate files all along? Wow! Is this is the fault of the critics? Is this an honest way to represent Ellen White and the Three Angels Messages? Too bad that the White Estate is till playing games with Ellen White's writings and church history. Too bad that they are still refusing to tell the truth and come clean about their many sins and errors, confessing to the church for misrepresenting Ellen White's theology without her knowledge or permission. Too bad that they are wasting everyone's time with absurd attacks on the critics when they are the problem and they are the ones that have done the most damage, not only to Ellen White, but to the Adventist Movement. Only when the church leaders find the courage to tell the truth and confess their many sins and errors in humble repentance, will any critic be convinced to give Ellen White, or Seventh-day Adventist theology a second look. Until that time, no one should waste his or her time reading Ellen White or trying to figure out SDA theology. Nor should anyone take the White Estate seriously or think that they are being honest or truthful with the facts of Adventist history or theology, because this is obviously not the case. So the critics have little choice but to continue on with their mission to warn the world about the deceptions of the White Estate and the dishonesty of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. And perhaps one day, the church leaders will take the Pre-Advent Message, which is the Laodicean Message, to heart and zealously repent instead of blaming everyone else for their own sins and mistakes. But until that day, the Adventist Movement that Ellen White loved so much, will continue to self-destruct, thanks in large part to the corruption and incompetence of those in charge. Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform (Message edited by tom norris on February 21, 2006) | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1001 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Tom Wrote: First, this apologist for the White Estate makes a remarkable observation that speaks volumes. He correctly notes that the present legion of critics were all former SDA's. They did not come from the outside world, but from within the church. While this observation is a sure sign that something is wrong with the church, this myopic apologist overlooks this obvious point and starts bashing the critics for their past loyalty to Ellen White and even claims that their problems began because they were too obsessed with her and believed in her too much. This is a very strange and disingenuous response that is just a self-serving attempt to avoid the issues about how such a widespread phenomenon could have materialized. What I found to be a common thread throughout the presentations was that Ellen White is not to be taken as Verbally inspired. Interesting some of them noted that the idea she was verbally inspired was held by the leadership from the 1890's to the 1950's and that idea makes up what many think of as Historic Adventism. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1002 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Here is a response to Lake's presentation from SDAnet: The Ellen White Summit in Oregon was great. I downloaded all eight presentations and converted them to wave and burned them. After listening to them, I contected professor Lake at Southern via email and let him know how appreciative we are to have this level of apoloetic work going on. We don't hear this kind of stuff too often from our college and university teachers and its encouraging. I shared with him my work in EGW apologetic and how it brought me back to the church after 22 years of running away from God. Its good stuff!!  and I'd like to encourage everybody to give them a listen. Blessings, Interesting huh? ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1003 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Of all the presentations this one everyone involved with the SDA church should listen too. Unlike Lake who ignores the role of the church leadership this presentation lays out just how much the SDA church came to put Ellen White as equal or above the Bible: A Path to Disengagement By Craig Newborn Oakwood College This presentation explores some of the factors that contributed to the ever-increasing disengagement of many Seventh-day Adventists from Ellen White. Particular attention is given to how belief in verbal inspiration by many Seventh-day Adventists negatively impacted Ellen White’s image as a messenger of the Lord and contributed to misunderstanding and misuse of her writings. http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/Part2%2832Kbps%29.mp3 It's one problem is that it does not hold Ellen White herself accountable for statements she made which caused people to hold her in such an unhealthy way. (Message edited by ron on February 22, 2006) ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1010 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
More from the Ellen White Summit presentations Moderator’s question: “How do you respond to people who use Deut. 18:21 to disqualify Ellen White in the light of her vision where an angel told her that some present at Battle Creek would not die before Christ returned?” George Knight response: “That’s one I want to take. We’re finding a lot of people are finally realize that Ellen White had a lot of prophecies that never come.. came true. And we used to teach …Deuteronomy that when a prophets prophecy did come true then you know they were a true prophet. What these people fail recognize is the Bible is full of unfulfilled prophecies. You take a look at the old testament woooph most of the prophecies in the huh prophets are unfulfilled. Why? Ellen White gives the answer in Manuscript 4 1883. That all of God’s prophecies are conditional. If Israel would have behaved itself and done God’s will then those old testament prophecies would have been fulfilled. And I personally believe if God’s Church would have done God’s will we wouldn’t be here. But all prophecy and this is Ellen White herself, all prophecy is conditional prophecy and maybe the best article in all the articles of the 7 volumes of the SDA Bible Commentaries in volume 4 on conditional prophecy. Read it. That is a jewel.” --Question and answer period (part 8) 2005 Ellen White Summit beginning at 24 minutes into session. When you hear this statement of George Knight you realize why elsewhere he said that he did not hold to any old tests for a prophet. ““You know why I believe Ellen White’s a prophet I don’t go for any of the old tests number one she points me to Jesus number two she points me to the Bible. That’s it! She never points to herself…I can’t get off on that.” --From Using and Interpreting Ellen White by George Knight {Part2} 2005 Ellen White Summit 33 minutes in George Knight’s position is not much different from the White Estate’s position. First let us refresh our memory about what Ellen White actually said: “But we were yet to pass through another severe trial. At the conference a very solemn vision was given me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death. Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, “I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms.” The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work.” Vol. 2 Spiritual Gifts p. 208 I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: “Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” Vol. 1Testimonies p. 131 When EGW saw her prophecies fail she created the idea of all prophecy as conditional: Selected Messages Book 1, page 67, paragraph 8 Chapter Title: An Explanation of Early Statements “The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.” Now the White Estate has published a response to those who bring up this quote. They say that if people had truly repented and followed God, He would have come and fulfilled the prophecy, but since they didn’t God in mercy extended time. However where do we get the information that if they had followed God, He would have come? We get it from Ellen White, thus she is allowed to explain why her false prophecy was not correct. This is complete circular reasoning. If you allow a so called prophet to explain away why their predictions do not come to pass, there will never be anyway to test any predictive prophecies. In fact we will be forced to hold to scores of today’s so called prophets because we have no way to test a prophet anymore. We will be reduced to saying that person must be a prophet because he or she points to the Bible and points to Jesus. Yet it is questionable with Ellen Whites presentation that all prophecy is conditional that she is pointing to the Bible at all since she is actually refuting such verses as Deuteronomy 18:20-22. continued ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1011 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Concluded: Is it wise to put the Biblical principles against those of Ellen White. If God had ever truly meant for all prophecy to be conditional why would the statement in Deuteronomy even have needed to be recorded. The Bible record would have to be held responsible for the rejection of prophets who were merely giving conditional prophecies. “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”(Deu 18:20-22 NIV) Yet the Bible instead of treating all prophecy as conditional gives the principles that create some prophecy as conditional. A useful illustration is found in Jeremiah: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.” (Jer 18:7-10 NIV) Another is found very early in the Biblical record when Israel was offered the choice between blessing and curses. “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse-- the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known.” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28 NIV) Jeremiah who had his own struggle with false prophets does not produce the idea that all prophecy is conditional but he notes that since bad things happen all the time someone predicting bad things will be right quite often but it is only God’s prophets who are able to predict the good things also. Ellen White’s prediction of being translated would in most anyone’s estimation be considered a good future prediction. Jeremiah 28:8-9 says: “From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true.” (NIV) There is not any better prophecy of peace than to be with Jesus at His coming. Determining the accuracy of a professed prophet is part of the Biblical tests of a prophet. Unfortunately many SDA’s don’t want people to use that test. Many will quote Ellen White saying that Christ would have come ere this if only the people had done their work. So using the ever present circular reasoning they completely destroy the Biblical test by saying if what the supposed prophet says does not come to pass, then the supposed prophet is allowed to give an explanation as to why the prophecy did not come to pass. If you allowed the supposed prophet this ability there is not ever going to be a prophet anywhere or any time with a false of presumptive prophecy because they will simply explain it away. However the Bible does not offer up that option, so we can be objective about testing a prophet. Finally if all prophecy is conditional maybe God is not preparing a place for us, maybe Jesus is not going to return. Maybe even the condition of God’s love and acceptance will not be met and the whole Gospel is meaningless because we have not met some unlisted conditions. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1282 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Jud lake presented a response to my comments on his presentation, you can read them and my response at http://cafesda.blogspot.com New Protestants.com | ||
| Geoffrey Marshall (Geoffrey) member Username: Geoffrey Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2006 Rating: N/A |
As long as Jonah is considered to be a true prophet, one cannot discount the existence of conditional prophecies. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1284 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Clearly there are conditional prophecies that is not even part of the debate. The difference is that Ellen White says that all prophecies are conditional. so when Jesus says He will come again...well that now has to be a conditional prophecy. Does that fit with what the New Testament says? New Protestants.com | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 3232 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
A prophet has practiced CYA when all are called "conditional." | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 420 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
"God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest I find I must apply the same patterns to Ellen White's writings that I do to Jeremiah, for example. Jeremiah 18:19-23 Listen to me, O LORD; hear what my accusers are saying! 20 Should good be repaid with evil? Yet they have dug a pit for me. Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them. 21 So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle. 22 Let a cry be heard from their houses when you suddenly bring invaders against them, for they have dug a pit to capture me and have hidden snares for my feet. 23 But you know, O LORD, all their plots to kill me. Do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger. Jeremiah shows some pretty mean-spirited thinking here, yet he is a highly regarded prophet, now. The prophet is not God. They are weak frail humans with blind spots and wrong thinking. When we read the "Prophet" we do not throw out our own safeguards against wrong thinking. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1285 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
So Don you think that Ellen's letter to her son is equavalent to the poetic language of Jeremiah? You assert that the plots to kill Jeremiah are equivalent to Edson White acting up and influence upon Willie. Do you believe that Ellen White learned nothing from the New Testament about love? A little on the background of Jeremiah 18 from the Expositor's Bible Commentary: c. The plot against Jeremiah (18:18-23) 18-20 Unable to tolerate Jeremiah's drastic preaching, the leaders of Judah decided to hound him to death. Their opposition is spelled out: (1) slandering him and turning a deaf ear to his words (v. 18), (2) digging a pit for his soul (vv. 20, 22), (3) setting snares for his feet (v. 22), and (4) planning to slay him (v. 23). The very three groups he had to condemn were in the forefront of the plot against him (cf. 11:18-23; 12:6; 15:10-11, 15-21 for other conspiracies against him). They boasted that because they had priests to instruct them in the law, wise elders to counsel them in the affairs of daily living, and (false) prophets to give them the word (supposedly from God), they had no need for Jeremiah. They could not conceive of a time when such ungodly leaders would be unable to fulfill their functions. So their aim now was to silence Jeremiah after they had rejected his message (v. 12). They were certain that his words would not be fulfilled. Why should they listen to him and thereby reject the advice of all their other leaders? By a charge of treason, the leaders of Judah hoped to effect Jeremiah's downfall. His messages against Judah's policies provide ample basis for accusing him of treason. So he pleads with the Lord to pay attention to him and to hear his enemies' plots (v. 19). In so doing, he was using the same words as his foes but now in the affirmative sense (v. 20). He wanted his prayers answered. Verses 19-23 give Jeremiah's reaction to his enemies' conspiracies against him. Some scholars labele |
