Adventist Online

Shalom to all the saints

I have a question maybe has been addressed before, can one be an Adventist and not believe in the writings of Ellen White.commonly called the Spirit of Prophecy. I ask this because , there are facts that have been hidden from ordinary saints such as

1.) that Ellen White made false prophecies and plagiarized most of her works that even the things written as the inspired word of God were plagiarize. she also  made false prophecies. 

google the Bible Conference 1919" 

2.)  that the writings of Ellen white are the Spirit of Prophecy mentioned Rev 19:10 this is very unbiblical

3.) that the Investigative Judgement teaching does no hold water

4.) what are the implications on our baptism that have a condition that we accept EGW as being a prophet.

I have met and discussed with many fellow Adventists some who know about this, others who do not and amongst all these grouping are a section that will say they do not believe in the works of EGW. Thus may heading that can we be adventists that do not believe in Ellen White.

Views: 19742

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 According to Webster's to plagiarize is to steal another's writings. EGW could not steal that which was free. Writings in the days of Mrs. White were open territory. she admitted that she borrowed from others. There is little that anyone has not learned or borrowed from someone else. Even that which Mrs. White was given in vision was lent her of God.

Note that her husband was a little less enthusiastic about her literary borrowing. He didn't know about it or else he wouldn't have said that she would be a false prophet if she did.

He also stated that others could use the writings in the review if they had the COMMON decency to cite where they got it from. Seems like Ellen did not have this common decency.

What an absolute load of rubbish.

This document proves nothing either way. In fact the evidences that she used information from the books in her library is overwhelming. Plagiarism means to copy information from an unquoted source. This she did continually throughout her life. The biggest problem is that others are utilizing her work as though it has some extraordinary significance and claim on her behalf authority which she never had.

Instead of replying to the many conversations, I want to focus it all into one right here.

 

Some of you are getting offended, either from misreading what I’m saying or me not explaining what I mean effectively enough. This is not what I intended, I was rather trying to empathise from having travelled from one side to the other, but now I realise that this must sound condescending. Sorry if my attempt at empathy was interpreted that way, and my intention was not to hurt anyone’s feelings. So I’m sorry.

 

Therefore, I now hope to start afresh and just directly deal with some of the issues raised by Fidelis. The one in particular that I want to focus on was that Investigative Judgment holds no water. I think it’s well worth looking at since it has been at the very heart of controversy within Adventism ever since there was Adventism, climaxing in the biggest Adventist trial in its short history – the 1980 Glacier View Trial of Pastor Desmond Ford, which still has repercussions today. Even more importantly it has affected the Adventist Salvation experience almost irreparably to the point where many can’t claim the blessings of a guaranteed place in heaven through Jesus’ Atonement, according to Gospel expert Adventist Pastor Jack Sequeira in his book Beyond Belief.

 

I think the most appropriate test for this topic is the Speaking-According-to-Scripture Test. Since Ellen White endorsed Investigative Judgment pervasively throughout her earliest visions and writings, it will be easy to test whether or not she is a prophet simply by proving or disproving whether Investigative Judgment is even Biblical.

 

In order to test IJ, we have to define what it is. I hope the following definition is adequate to describe it, taken from IJ advocate Clifford Goldstein’s in his succinct book 1844 Made Simple.

 

[1] It is a particular Judgement only of the Saints (Dan. 7.22), [2] that Investigates each of their Life Record of Deeds in Books in Heaven (Dan. 7.10). [3] This Judgement will ultimately determine one’s salvation which is supposed to end in Vindication (Dan. 7.22). [4] This event is commenced by Jesus entering into the Most Holy Place, [5] which is to be calculated from the time of Artaxerxes’ decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in 457/8 BC (Dan. 9.25; Ezr. 7.8-10), [6] and adding 2300 years (Dan. 8.13-14) onwards which would add up to the date 1844.

 

I’ve numbered each component to make it easy to address. So here’s where the problems are (I’ll make them as brief as possible to give room for further discussion):

  1. The defendants on trial in the Judgement Scene of Dan. 7 are not the Saints but rather The Beast and The Little Horn.
  2. The Books in Dan. 7 are not of the Good but of the Wicked.
  3. The Vindication in Dan. 7.22 is the result of the Sentence Passed of The Beast and The Little Horn for persecuting the Saints and thus the Award of Compensation for their suffering so-to-speak is The Kingdom Handover.
  4. Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place upon His Ascension according to Hebrews 9 and therefore not in 1844.
  5. The decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem is nowhere to be found in the Book of Ezra but rather Neh.2.1-8, which is 13 years later in 444/5 BC.
  6. The 2300 years and not days-to-years but a total of 2300 sacrificial service evenings and mornings, numbering actually to 1150 days.

That of course is a summary but if true, leaves the Investigative Judgement without any foundation to stand on and therefore without any Biblical basis. If IJ is false, then Ellen White who sanctioned it with ‘Divine Visions’ is false, and therefore she fails the test of a Prophet.

Amen.

 Many are in reality already out of the SDA church and do not know it. Their theology is  contradictory. 

They work against the fundamental beliefs of the church and yet say it is the right church. One of the identifying points of the remnant church is that it would have a modern day prophet.

The following is a statement in this week's Sabbath school lesson.  There is nothing new under the sun.

"Amos’ home was Tekoa, in Judah, but God sent him to prophesy in Israel. He had gone to the northern kingdom and preached with such power that the land was not "able to bear all his words" (Amos 7:10). Certainly many Israelites looked at Amos with suspicion and rejected him as God’s messenger. In spite of that rejection, he faithfully performed his prophetic ministry."

Very true.. I think this mostly happens when someone is raised in the church, and even though they don't agree with / like a lot of our beliefs they stick with the church, because they were raised on it.

Well Kevin, I've been accused of putting everyone into one pot, but I always find this strange because it is my experience that those who hold the traditional line like yourself are guilty of this very act, usually first, and no one seems to have a problem with it (I say this is a general sense not every single individual on the planet, incase I get accused of that). It is my experience that what you say is not true of all opposers of the traditional position. So instead of getting into labelling, is it not better to look at the Biblical evidence for the opposing position and then look at the ones that support yours and be open to allow the truth to reveal itself whatever direction it goes? Prove all things, as 1 Th5.21 says. So, as Fidelis raised Investigative Judgment, I've put forward some of the points that support what he has said, and Aquila has amiably tried to respond. He respectfully pulled out of it, and I respected his decision to do so. What do you believe is more important, following the truth or following a denomination or tradition?

If you were right about this, that would discredit not only Ellen White's prophetic gift, but the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well. In all integrity, you would have to leave the church. In fact, we'd all have to leave it as we saw that you were right.

This is exactly right.  And wouldn't you know it, Des Ford told the pastors who bought into his teachings to stay in the church. If what DF taught was truth, he would of said to those pastors "come out of her My people," but he did the exact opposite.  He wanted to influence the church from within.  It is so easy to spot the works of Satan when you learn about his methods from the bible and SOP.  But God allowed him to do it for a purpose.  

That doesn't disprove what either him or anyone else said Jay. That was their attempt to try and not label Adventism and try and reform it from within, just like the Reformeres tried to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within. Based on your logic that influencing the church from within is "the works of Satan", perhaps you believe the Reformers of the Reformation were also the works of Satan since they tried to reform the church from within. Therefore, you'd be on the Roman Catholic side with that attitude, not the Reformers.

 

1 Th.5.21, Prove all things. Why not just prove your position that what I say is untrue instead of making these labels that all of us are doing the work of Satan? Didn't the Pharisees accuse Jesus of the same thing?

No correlation.  Jesus and his followers were common people.  The pharisees and Sadducee were the scholars who were mistaken in their doctrine.  If there is any comparison, it would be Des Ford and his followers filling the role of the Sadducee. 

Also, all things have been proven. It is the mistaken idea that Des Ford actually proven something worth refuting.  He has not. 

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service