Coffee is good for U

[Tom Wetmore]

>>...from caffiene or stimulants in the bible.<<

Segueing from this – I am put to mind the fellow (I seem to recall he posted to this forum) who proffered that the drug of choice (especially among the priesthood) in OT literature was

cannabis.

Hoo-ah!—ya thinks?

He made quite an extensive study of it...

And it must be OK since EGW says nothing against it even though it was known, legal and used medicinally (and otherwise) in her day...

The stuff has been around a long time...

[skyblue888]

Are you sure about that Tom?

I have never heard it put this way.

sky :)

[Tom Wetmore]

Sure about what?

[shelly]

"There is no grey area with right and wrong."

Indeed they ARE a 1,001 gray areas in right and wrong! In many cases what is right or wrong for any given person at any given time is largely determined by the heart, the circumstances, the leading of the Holy Spirit.

As it concerns "how inspiration works", a study in itself, if your looking for doubts about the counsel the Lord has sent His people you will also find a 1,001 hooks on which to hang them.

I don't read Pauls epistles to this or that person or group and see them as applying only to that person or group. We look at the context, the time, the history, the people and compare verse to verse to understand the principles involved in his letters. How those principles apply to us, today. Ellen Whites writings are no different. She says the Testimonies themselves are the key to understanding them. Taking a single quote here and there is no different than taking a single bible verse and building your doctrinal point on that verse alone. If you REALLY want to understand what she has to say on any given subject you must first apply the same principles to the Testimonies you would apply to the Bible. Be open to the Holy Spirit and search diligently to come to a balanced understanding of the concept.

If that is what you believe then you have to go with that. I don't believe that EGW was inspired on her understanding of coffee, tea, ect from examining her works. Some of her assertions just don't hold water with what we know and understand today. No one today would suggest that tea and caffiene were in the same catagorey as opium-but she does. She also sees picca (eating non-food materials) as lack of control linked to drinking tea and coffee. We now know that is a symptom of vitamin deficiencies. But with everything there is a measure of faith. I don't try to argue with faith. If you believe that her statements were inspiried you should do what you feel lead to do. I just feel the opposite. I wish you luck in your endevors to grow closer to the Lord.

[ClubV12]

I'll take the Lords word over the word of science, as Noah did.

[shelly]

So will I-God's Word over EGW who has little biblical or scientific support for her views on this topic.

[ClubV12]

She is either a prophet or not, you believe or not. Simple.

[Tom Wetmore]

But what does that mean? What is a prophet? Is one infallible if one is a prophet? Is one a prophet 24/7/365 from birth until death? Does being a prophet mean never having to say you're sorry?

And what of everything a prophet does and says? When their mouth moves, is it God's voice speaking? When their pen moves on paper, is it God controlling the motions? Does God dictate word for word all communications made by a prophet?

What is inspiration? How does it work? Is it always the same every time? For every prophet? Do only prophets receive inspiration? Does God only channel His Spirit through special Oracles? Can a group of people be under inspiration together? If so, would each of their expressions of that be the same? Is a person inspired by God always aware of it?

It is not simple.

[shelly]

Prophet doesn't mean infallabile.

[ClubV12]

Applying that logic, one must conclude ALL the prophets were not infallible.

Which could mean, to some, we must pick and choose carefully from the bible what we want to believe and reject the rest as "personal opinion". Or, we can accept the counsel as it's written, regardless of the logic and reason in use to make it of no affect.

Understanding how inspiration works, there is no difference between Paul, Daniel or Ellen White, all prophets of God. Using their own words to describe what had been revealed to them and when applicable, quoting directly those things which were specifically told them. Ellen White employed the exact same technique.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, exactly! No prophet is infallible. All prophets are human. Only God is infallible. If you presume that EGW was without error, i.e. infallible, you are committing the same heresy of the Roman Catholic Church by its dogma of papal infallibility.

[shelly]

Applying that logic, one must conclude ALL the prophets were not infallible.

Which could mean, to some, we must pick and choose carefully from the bible what we want to believe and reject the rest as "personal opinion". Or, we can accept the counsel as it's written, regardless of the logic and reason in use to make it of no affect.

Understanding how inspiration works, there is no difference between Paul, Daniel or Ellen White, all prophets of God. Using their own words to describe what had been revealed to them and when applicable, quoting directly those things which were specifically told them. Ellen White employed the exact same technique.

I don't give the writings of EGW the same weight as I give the bible. So for me questioning and comparing her words to the bible are important. If I ever find a situation where I feel what she says is in opposition to the bible and her reasoning is dripped in historical contex I tend to believe she is expressing her opinion. Many SDA feel different and I believe at this point we will have to just agree to disagree. I can't believe that a true word from God would be as inaccurate as some of her reasonings behind the health message. I believe she often mixed what she was shown with her own understanding.

[shelly]

Yes, exactly! No prophet is infallible. All prophets are human. Only God is infallible. If you presume that EGW was without error, i.e. infallible, you are committing the same heresy of the Roman Catholic Church by its dogma of papal infallibility.

Because it needs to be said again.

[ClubV12]

"If I ever find a situation where I feel what she says is in opposition to the bible and her reasoning is dripped in historical contex I tend to believe she is expressing her opinion."

I've never seen anything in her writings that are in opposition to the bible. So I find that a rather curious, and perhaps revealing, response as it concerns your understanding of inspiration!

[ClubV12]

Tom, this thread may help shed some light on your questions about how inspiration works. Ellen White offers an explanation of it in Acts of the Apostles.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/454491/How_inspiration_works.html#Post454491

[CoAspen]

Excuse me!

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom, this thread may help shed some light on your questions about how inspiration works. Ellen White offers an explanation of it in Acts of the Apostles.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/454491/How_inspiration_works.html#Post454491

I wouldn't describe it as shedding much light. Of 18 posts in that thread, there were perhaps 2 that had any value. The rest successfully muddied the waters.

EGW's explanations tend to confirm the idea that there is a significant lack of precision or specificity in how inspiration works much of the time. It's a mixed bag of vague impressions, mysterious visions, brief flashes of insight, various sources, and a lot of hard work of sorting as it were through the pieces of a puzzle in a process pulling it all together all through the channel of an ordinary person given an extra-ordinary task. There are substantial human limitations and impediments to God's Spirit actually being made sense of.

[ClubV12]

I see the bible in the same light, how we read and interpret it. Just look at the 100's of other denominations coming to different conclusions using much the same verses! One can find whatever bible verse he needs to support his belief system.

That is one big reason why the counsel of the brethren on these various points of truth is so important.

[shelly]

I think that the point is that I don't find some of what she is written is truely inspired. I am not questioning on how inspiration works, I am questioning whether everything that we think was inspired actually was. Two different thought processess. I can't get over how some of her reasoning behind her health message and the problems caused by not eating as she specifies are actually discriptions of diseases. If she was speaking under inspiration at the time, surely she would have know that the actions she described were illnessess and not a lack of self control. God doesn't make mistakes so I have to conclude that in this case EGW was mistaken.

[ClubV12]

"I am questioning whether everything that we think was inspired actually was."

I understand and appreciate that. The examples offered in this thread are to vague to address. My position is that when dealing with a prophet's message, one has to be very careful in what we ascribe as inspired vs opinion. I'll go with inspired unless it can be conclusively shown to be opinion. In many cases, science is not conclusive proof. To often, the science itself can be debated and is not always agreed on within the scientific community. In that case you have an opinion of science vs what one may consider an opinion of a prophet. Faced with that you can base your opinion on logic or faith. I appreciate both, but will give the greater weight to faith.

[JawgeFromJawja]

"If I ever find a situation where I feel what she says is in opposition to the bible and her reasoning is dripped in historical contex I tend to believe she is expressing her opinion."

I've never seen anything in her writings that are in opposition to the bible. So I find that a rather curious, and perhaps revealing, response as it concerns your understanding of inspiration!

All right, see for yourselves. Mrs. White was all over the road in contradictions of herself and of The Bible, not even to mention contradictions of science.

Do a Google on "Ellen G White contradictions Bible self". Dozens and dozens of contradictions will be found. Her apologists do not offer denials of the discrepancies, they just dance around them and offer feeble to ridiculous explanations that none but the most stone walling defender of Mrs. White find satisfactory.

Please do not respond to this post until you have checked out Ellen Gould White on the internet. Certainly there is a great deal of nonsense and ignorance on the web, but keep in mind that the charges of contradictions are not typically denied, but ineffectively defended.

Jawge

A heretical Baptist who loves God

[ClubV12]

"Dozens and dozens of contradictions will be found."

Been there, done that. Looked at a ton of them when I was considering joining the church, and again recently. MOST of them are in the realm of "ridiculous" and don't hold water. Some seem plausible, but a careful understanding of the full context puts them to rest as well.

"...but ineffectively defended."

I have yet to see ONE example of that. I have yet to see ONE contradiction as far as that goes.

As THIS thread is about coffee, good, bad, what did Ellen White say, I have reviewed the evidence, the apparent contradictions, the science, I find no problem with her counsel on the subject. Like studying the bible, you cannot take one verse or one scientific study and reach a conclusion. You have to compare scripture to scripture, science to science. The evidence over whelmingly supports limited use of coffee for medicinal purposes when NOTHING else is available. The facts are, we have plenty of medicial options available today that out weigh any potential health benefits of coffee.

In this thread we have various studies sited: Some for, some against. At best, science is inconclusive. Therefore, the weight of evidence must go toward the Lords prophet, unless you entirely reject the Lords prophet. In that case, continue to beat upon the rocks of uncertain science because you have no anchor.

[shelly]

ClubV12, I am glad that you have faith and are pursuaded in your mind. However, the assertion that someone who disagrees with you has no anchor implies limited thinkging. There are certain things that EGW is mistaken on. Her assertion that eating non-food items is due to the uncontrolled appitite that using coffee and tea brings is just wrong. It's called picca and is well documented as a sign of vitamin defficiency. There is no question or scientific ambuguity about this. Once the individual is given the correct nutrient the behavior stops. Do you really believe that under inspiration she was told to accuse malnutritioned individuals with having a lack of self control?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

"If I ever find a situation where I feel what she says is in opposition to the bible and her reasoning is dripped in historical contex I tend to believe she is expressing her opinion."

I've never seen anything in her writings that are in opposition to the bible. So I find that a rather curious, and perhaps revealing, response as it concerns your understanding of inspiration!

All right, see for yourselves. Mrs. White was all over the road in contradictions of herself and of The Bible, not even to mention contradictions of science.

Do a Google on "Ellen G White contradictions Bible self". Dozens and dozens of contradictions will be found. Her apologists do not offer denials of the discrepancies, they just dance around them and offer feeble to ridiculous explanations that none but the most stone walling defender of Mrs. White find satisfactory.

Please do not respond to this post until you have checked out Ellen Gould White on the internet. Certainly there is a great deal of nonsense and ignorance on the web, but keep in mind that the charges of contradictions are not typically denied, but ineffectively defended.

Jawge

A heretical Baptist who loves God

You will always find what you are looking for at those anti-Adventist web sites.

It's a sad day when we start to really believe that Google knows everything.

[ClubV12]

"There is no question or scientific ambuguity about this. Once the individual is given the correct nutrient the behavior stops."

There was no question the scientists of Noahs day said it had never rained and it was absolutely impossible based on all known scientific facts, they were right as well.

Such is the power of a prophet.

"Her assertion that eating non-food items is due to the uncontrolled appitite..."

Thats an obviously true statement you know. There are many reasons why people do what they do, uncontrolled appetite leading to such a profound condition cannot be ruled out.

Everyone of us needs some kind of anchor in our life, I have several and thank God for them. Relying on science? NOT an anchor.