Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[John317]

If EGW is a false prophet like you say, then you can be sure that this is NOT God's church. God doesn't send his chosen people false prophets. Especially right from the get go.

I believe you're right. One of the identifying marks of God's true church in the end-times is that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself among it through the gift of prophecy. Ellen White was definitely an example of that gift in our time. Therefore, if she was a false prophet, I'm going to start looking for a people with the following characteristics:

They came on the world scene a short time after 1798, the end of the 1,260 year prophecy.

They rose up about the same time that the sea beast is going down and the earth beast is rising up (Rev. 13).

They obey all the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment.

They proclaim the Three Angels Messages of Rev. 14, which means they know the identities of the sea beast and earth beast of Rev. 13. So they are a people of prophecy, a people who study the prophecies and teach them to the world. So it will be a world-wide movement, not a movement that is limited to one area or one country.

They hold to the faith of Jesus, which may be the same faith that Jesus had and may also be the faith about Jesus. So it will be loyal to Jesus and teach the same basic message that Jesus and the first century church taught. (That church was also a church that kept the Sabbath and looked for Christ's visible return.)

They have the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of prophecy. That is, they have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through prophecy. I see this last point as being fulfilled in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White.

If she wasn't a true prophet, then it would prove that the SDA church is not the church of the last-days because God's true church will have all the identifying marks described above. If one mark is lacking, it isn't the true church of prophecy.

One final but very important characteristic of this group is that Satan makes war against it. No doubt this means that he will try to cause such confusion as to make many people in the group to have grave doubts about its mission and message.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

If EGW is a false prophet like you say, then you can be sure that this is NOT God's church. God doesn't send his chosen people false prophets. Especially right from the get go.

I believe you're right. One of the identifying marks of God's true church in the end-times is that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself among it through the gift of prophecy. Ellen White was definitely an example of that gift in our time. Therefore, if she was a false prophet, I'm going to start looking a people with the following characteristics:

They came on the world scene sometime after 1798, the end of the 1,260 year prophecy.

They rose up about the same time that sea beast is going down and the earth beast is rising up.

They obey all the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment.

They proclaim the Three Angels Messages of Rev. 14, which means they know the identities of the sea beast and earth beast of Rev. 13. So they are a people of prophecy, a people who study the prophecies and teach them to the world. So it will be a world-wide movement, not a movement that is limited to one area or one country.

They hold to the faith of Jesus, which may be the same faith that Jesus had and may also be the faith about Jesus. So it will be loyal to Jesus and teach the same basic message that Jesus and the first century church taught.

They have the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of prophecy. That is, they have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through prophecy. I see this last point as being fulfilled in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White.

If she wasn't a true prophet, then it would prove that the SDA church is not the church of the last-days because God's true church will have all the identifying marks described above. If one mark is lacking, it isn't the true church of prophecy.

Amen!

[Guest]

The thing is this; Satan will do what ever he can to deceive those close to the truth,

I agree 100% Rich. And that's why I believe Satan has lightened up off of you, and cut you some slack. Because you are not close to the truth.

In fact, you have not been close to the truth since I've known you, so I don't know how long Satan has had it easy with you. Whatever he did to get you to take your eyes off, and turn away from the truth was done very well. With long lasting effects.

So I guess he has earned his rest where you are concerned.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, it appears that you just can not resist the temptation to get personal in your attack. Shame on you. This is not about me or you--it is about the wicked deeds Satan has been up to.

Try this: IF Satan did not work thru some writers found in the NT and with the woman of Rev. 2:18-25, then someone please explain the prophecy of the wheat and the tares to me and identify who is who!

While your at it, identify those who called themselves apostles but were found to be false as found in Rev. 2:2. And identify who it is that is called "Jezebel" in Rev. 2:18-25! Good luck.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

As I recall ... our prophet Ellen White specified some denominations we shouldn't witness to.

Sounds like a memory leak to me - are you sure you have that right?

in Christ,

Bob

"The First Day Adventists are a class that are the most difficult to reach. They will generally reject the truth, as did the Jews. We should, as far as possible, go forward as though there were not such a people in existence. They are the elements of confusion. Immoralities exist among them to a fearful extent. It would be the greatest calamity to have many of their members embrace the truth. They would have to unlearn everything and learn anew, or they would cause us great trouble. There are occasions when their glaring misrepresentations will have to be met. When this is the case, it should be done promptly and briefly and then pass on to our work. " 13 MR 346

I think it's pretty clear here that we are to pretend "there were not such a people in existence" or you might use the word "ignore".

While on this side bar .... There are other examples of ignoring:

"since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster .... Then they will call to me but I will not answer" Prov. 1: 24-31

And from Ellen White ...

I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." 1 T 225

So it is clear that we are to ignor both entire church organizations and their people ... and also those individuals who ignore and reject our health message.

Edit: Since this is off topic ... I will start a new thread on it.

[Guest]

Try this: IF Satan did not work thru some writers found in the NT and with the woman of Rev. ....

But Rich, you have told me many times that the woman of Revelation is the Holy Spirit. Now you are saying that Satan was working through the woman of Rev. ...Which is it? It can't be both.

A woman in Bible prophecy represents a church. God likens His people to a "comely and delicate woman." Jeremiah 6:2. A virgin is God's pure church. A harlot (whore) is a corrupt church.

Jer 6:2 I have likened the daughter of Zion to a lovely and delicate woman.

Revelation 17:6 "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her I wondered with great admiration."

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready.

How do you reconcile what the Bible says the woman is, with what YOU say the woman is?

You have to let the Bible interpret itself. Especially when you are looking at Bible prophecy. Human opinion, conjecture, and speculation, have no place where prophecy is concerned. You should know that Rich, if you don't know anything else!

So again I ask you:

How do you reconcile what the Bible says the woman is, with what YOU say the woman is?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

As I recall ... our prophet Ellen White specified some denominations we shouldn't witness to.

Sounds like a memory leak to me -

No memory leak here. Perhaps it was your leak. Please see the above quotes as proof.

:)

[Guest]

THE CERTAINTY OF OUR MESSAGE

"It is as certain that we have the truth as that God lives" (4T.59). We "ought not to guess at anything" (GC.598).

"How did the pioneers of our Movement obtain the advanced understanding of the Word of God? "We would search the

Scriptures with much prayer . . . Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly

asking God for guidance" (GW.302).

"We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for truth as for hidden treasure" (RH.25-5-1905).

God's last-day Message is so fully established upon principles of interpretation that by these we can prove it to be of God.

[Woody]

We certainly do need to have faith.

[Musicman1228]

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen.3:15.

God is speaking to the serpent, which is a symbol for Satan. Therefore the term 'woman' must also be a symbol for something just as real in the same way as is he.

At the time God made this statement THERE WAS NO CHURCH ON EARTH. Therefore the meaning of the symbol 'woman' could not mean church. Does 'woman' symbolize a female human being as would be EVE? Well, if the serpent is literal (meaning a snake) then the offspring of the serpent must also be literal snakes, so this cannot be the correct interpretation. Who are the offspring of Satan? Those who believe and practice lies. Who then are the offspring of the 'woman'? They must be those that believe in and practice the truth.

Satan is a spirit being, therefore the 'woman' must also represent a spirit being that gives birth to spiritual offspring, just as does Satan.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6.

The woman dressed in Scarlet seen in Rev.17 gives birth to the spiritual offspring of Satan. The Woman of Rev.12 is seen giving birth to Jesus Christ, and the rest of her spiritual offspring (Rev.12:17). These women represent spirits, one evil and the other righteous. If the Scarlet Woman gives birth to offspring that are evil and practice lies then the Woman of Rev.12 gives birth to those that love and practice the truth.

One final note: If the woman seen in Gen.3:15 represents the church, then who are the offspring? The church? Does the church give birth to itself? I think not.

[John317]

I think it's pretty clear here that we are to pretend "there were not such a people in existence" or you might use the word "ignore".

While on this side bar .... There are other examples of ignoring:

"since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster .... Then they will call to me but I will not answer" Prov. 1: 24-31

And from Ellen White ...

I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." 1 T 225

So it is clear that we are to ignor both entire church organizations and their people ... and also those individuals who ignore and reject our health message.

Do you really believe this? Somehow I get the feeling you don't believe it but have other reasons for posting this.

What is your message?

I believe Ellen White's instructions mean that we are to ignore those who have heard the message and have had many years in which to allow the message to sanctify them but who have instead chosen to rebel against it. She is saying it would be a waste of time to continue to implore them to do what they know is right. The Bible teaches the same thing. We know that when God sees that people are determined to rebel against Him, there comes a time when He withdraws His Holy Spirit from them and lets them go.

I think Satan would like nothing better than for us to spend all our time and energy on trying to persuade them and to answer all of their objections and doubts. Satan can invent enough of those so that it would take a whole lifetime to answer them, and in the meantime, God's real work that He has for us to do, of spreading the gospel to the whole world, would be neglected.

[John317]

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen.3:15.

God is speaking to the serpent, which is a symbol for Satan. Therefore the term 'woman' must also be a symbol for something just as real in the same way as is he.

OK, yes, the serpent there also has reference to his offspring --those through whom Satan works.

The offspring of the woman is Christ, and the woman in this instance is Eve. God would also put within man a hatred of Satan and sin, but those who chose to follow Satan would hate those who follow God.

[John317]

We certainly do need to have faith.

We need true faith & trust which always leads to obedience to God. False faith leads to disobedience while claiming all the promises.

Romans 1: 5 tells us the purpose of the gospel:

Romans 1:5

through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

It means "the obedience that springs from faith..." Paul repeats it in Romans 16: 26--

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

[John317]

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen.3:15.

....If the woman seen in Gen.3:15 represents the church, then who are the offspring? The church? Does the church give birth to itself? I think not.

That was God's first promise of a Savior to lost humanity.

The woman in Gen. 3: 15 primarily refers to Eve and secondarily refers to God's people. The Messiah came through Eve, of course, but Jesus also came through the Messianic line that included many people of faith, from Noah and Abraham to David and his own human mother Mary.

Eve's offspring, who would bruise Satan's head, is Christ. He's the One who gave the Devil his mortal wound.

[Rondo]

We have met the enemy and it is us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0

[fccool]

Quote:

I believe Ellen White's instructions mean that we are to ignore those who have heard the message and have had many years in which to allow the message to sanctify them but who have instead chosen to rebel against it. She is saying it would be a waste of time to continue to implore them to do what they know is right. The Bible teaches the same thing. We know that when God sees that people are determined to rebel against Him, there comes a time when He withdraws His Holy Spirit from them and lets them go.

John, what grounds do you have for such belief, when the context is clearly not helping poor people who use these substances.

Quote:

Some who are poor in this world's goods are apt to place all the straight testimony upon the shoulders of the men of property. But they do not realize that they also have a work to do. God requires them to make a sacrifice. He calls upon them to sacrifice their idols. They should lay aside such hurtful stimulants as tobacco, tea, and coffee. If they are brought into straitened circumstances while exerting themselves to do the best they can, it will be a pleasure for their wealthy brethren to help them out of trouble.

....

If these poor brethren take a humble course and are willing to be advised and counseled by their brethren, and are then brought into straitened places, the brethren should feel it a duty to cheerfully help them out of difficulty. But if they choose their own course, and rely upon their own judgment, they should be left to feel the full consequences of their unwise course, and learn by dear experience that "in multitude of counselors there is safety." God's people should be subject one to another. They should counsel with one another, that the lack of one may be supplied by the sufficiency of another. I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee.

The context is very clear

1) Some people are poor, but they still indulge in coffee, tea, and tobacco.

2) If they are willing to receive financial help, then they should be willing to change their ways

3) If they are not willing to give up these substances, then wealthier fellows have no duty to help them.

It has nothing to do with "keep trying to convince them to change their habits", and everything to do with withdrawal of financial support if they are known to consume these substances. There's no context of "after years of convincing".

Basically, what this text is... the poor have no choice as far as their personal preferences that are not clearly outlined in the Bible, and rather questionable.

E.G. White makes it a sin to drink coffee or tea, because it "harms the body". Yet, if we follow this logic, then it would be sin to:

1) Not sleep 8 hrs a day

2) Drink soda or other sugary drinks

3) Indulge in sweet deserts

4) Eat chemically modified soy substitutes that are made to taste meaty

5) Use cell-phones

6) Not exercise

7) Partake in Chemo Therapy or use symptom-covering medicine... i.e. pain killers and etc.

You name it. It's a slippery slope, and it's quite silly. The key is always been moderation. If what not, I'd defend her by means of saying that she's talking about people who are addicted to these substances that they abuse them to the point of not being able to afford food. That would be more reasonable than saying "if you drink coffee, then I have no duty to financially help you". It's silly and immature.

[Gordon1]

Of course it's sinful to disobey God - rebellion is the very root of the Great Controversy.

But Satan labels obedience silly and immature: "Thou shalt not surely die"

[fccool]

I'm not merely describe obedience as immature. I describe unwillingness to recognize that moderation is the key to Biblical law... is in fact a sign of immature Christian. The people who run around pointing fingers that that guy is drinking a cup of coffee once in a while, or participates in wine tasting parties... that attitude is silly and immature, because it rather tries to strain gnats, while in reality there are camels being swallowed.

It was not enough for Pharisees to keep the Sabbath by not working. They had to make sure that people did not carry their mat, or opened their own doors on that day.

Likewise, it's not enough for some that we live healthy life by maintaining our bodies and exercising and eating properly. They have to go to such extremes as saying that drinking coffee and tea is a sin. It's immature use of God's law, just like extra Sabbatical laws were immature use of God's law.

[Gordon1]

...moderation is the key to Biblical law...

This approach has been tried before, better known as compromise with sin: "Let's be moderate, we'll keep nine out of ten, even eight is still pretty good."

Here's the critical juncture fccool:

The Law is Perfect & Complete. God the Creator shaped a universe to fit His Divine Law - where Benevolence and Truth held sway. Perfect Love.

Then man (the intended steward of Creation) decides to moderate this Law, instead of his assigned role to communicate the Law as given.

While man could have used all his faculties to uphold and illustrate the Perfect law, instead he chose to moderate or dilute Perfection with his own wisdom.

And here we are today.

[Gail]

I know people who won't give homeless people anything, for fear of abetting a drug habit. Non Christian, non-SDA. I know Christians who feel the same way even without EGW.

If they are like me they might wonder what is the BEST way to help? The short-term answer might be very different than the long-range one in terms of effectiveness.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

...moderation is the key to Biblical law...

This approach has been tried before, better known as compromise with sin: "Let's be moderate, we'll keep nine out of ten, even eight is still pretty good."

Here's the critical juncture fccool:

The Law is Perfect & Complete. God the Creator shaped a universe to fit His Divine Law - where Benevolence and Truth held sway. Perfect Love.

Then man (the intended steward of Creation) decides to moderate this Law, instead of his assigned role to communicate the Law as given.

While man could have used all his faculties to uphold and illustrate the Perfect law, instead he chose to moderate or dilute Perfection with his own wisdom.

And here we are today.

It's very easy to take several words of what I've said and ignore the point about Jews adding to Sabbath keeping law to "keep it holy".

It's very easy to make up a comprehensive set of rules and them call trespassing them "sin". The point I'm making that there's neither smoking, nor coffee nor tea in the Bible. Sure there's no drugs either, but there's a principle that a certain law is enough. There's no need to add or take away from it.

So, if God permitted people to eat meat... we have that freedom. It's not sinful to do so IN MODERATION! Likewise, we have permission to drink soda IN MODERATION! We have permission to eat cake IN MODERATION! Every substance will be more or less harmful in large amounts.

So, when we are going to the issue of coffee and tea, these were unknown to Israel at that time. What was know is Shekar, or Strong drink.

The interesting study is that God in certain instanced permits Israelites to drink Shekar, once again, not to be drunk... but to exercise self-control and freedom in certain things that are permitted.

You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

There's really no confusion here. It's not an "apple cider". It's shekar... could be lightly fermented, or fermented.

Why would God permit his people to do this "great sin" in his eyes? Because it was not a sin, and the issue had nothing to do with "dishonoring God" or "getting drunk". The issue was celebration of unity and solidarity that God provides for.

What Pharisees were trying to do is to grasp control over people, but means of guilt and manipulative tactics in such a way that it would lift them us as the "holy people"... And Christ called such people vipers who can't keep up with their own demands. I don't think you'd like to dive into that crowd.

Spirituality and tea have nothing to do with each other. I've yet to meet a person who was so addicted to tea that it consumed his life. If the issue is control, then let's preach self-control... and not ascribe new sins that are not found anywhere in Biblical canon.

PS. the synonyms to moderate would be: medium, normal, balanced, adequate

Moderate and Moderated... two different adjectives.

[fccool]

I know people who won't give homeless people anything, for fear of abetting a drug habit. Non Christian, non-SDA. I know Christians who feel the same way even without EGW.

If they are like me they might wonder what is the BEST way to help? The short-term answer might be very different than the long-range one in terms of effectiveness.

Are fears of these people justified? To certain extend, yet? Can they give homeless people something other than money? Like a helping hand, some food, a lift, a smile... or even some sound advice or encouraging word? Yes they can.

Do you think it really benefits anyone to assume that giving actually harms them? Does it sound more like an excuse not to give rather than a legitimate issue at hand?

How can we carry this issue over to the Christian circles? Should we stoop down to the level of unbelievers in this regard and think that it's ok to ignore the less fortunate because of their assumed drug habit... or delegate this job to the state where we already paying taxes into?

You decide.

[Gordon1]

In this context moderation kills.

See Genesis 3.

[John317]

As I recall ... our prophet Ellen White specified some denominations we shouldn't witness to.

"The First Day Adventists are a class that are the most difficult to reach. They will generally reject the truth, as did the Jews. We should, as far as possible, go forward as though there were not such a people in existence. They are the elements of confusion. Immoralities exist among them to a fearful extent. It would be the greatest calamity to have many of their members embrace the truth. They would have to unlearn everything and learn anew, or they would cause us great trouble. There are occasions when their glaring misrepresentations will have to be met. When this is the case, it should be done promptly and briefly and then pass on to our work. " 13 MR 346

If people will read the entire letter that Ellen White wrote to J.N. Andrews, they will understand what she is talking about. Andrews wrote a series of lengthy articles in opposition to a man who raised many objections against the Sabbath, and Ellen White told him that it would be better not to publisize those objections. She said that the Devil would like for SDAs to stay so busy refuting the objections that we have no time to do the work that God has for us to do. I think we can find many examples of the truth of this statement on the Adventist Forum.

Originally Posted By: Woody

(quoting): "since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster .... Then they will call to me but I will not answer" Prov. 1: 24-31

Yes, people have to realize that there are consequences to their bad decisions, particularly after they have received a multitude of warnings and reproofs which they ignore.

Tough love will not always rescue a child from the consequences of their actions but will sometimes allow them to go through some unpleasant experiences in order to teach them not to do certain things if they persist in doing them after being warned over and over again.

If God kept people from experiencing the consequences of their sins and mistakes, they would never understand the evil of sin and wrong.

This is one of the themes of Proverbs.

Originally Posted By: Woody

And from Ellen White ...

I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." 1 T 225

So it is clear that we are to ignor both entire church organizations and their people ... and also those individuals who ignore and reject our health message.

The statement was written about 1861. It always helps to read enough to get the context of what is being said. When we do that, I believe it will be readily apparent that what she said is true and good advice.

Quote:

Some who are poor in this world’s goods are apt to place all the straight testimony upon the shoulders of the men of property. But they do not realize that they also have a work to do. God requires them to make a sacrifice. He calls upon them to sacrifice their idols. They should lay aside such hurtful stimulants as tobacco, tea, and coffee. If they are brought into straitened circumstances while exerting themselves to do the best they can, it will be a pleasure for their wealthy brethren to help them out of trouble.

Many lack wise management and economy. They do not weigh matters well, and move cautiously. Such should not trust to their own poor judgment, but should counsel with their brethren who have experience. But those who lack economy and good judgment are often unwilling to seek counsel. They generally think that they understand how to conduct their temporal business, and are unwilling to follow advice. They make bad moves, and suffer in consequence.

Their brethren are grieved to see them suffer, and they help them out of difficulty. Their unwise management affects the church. It takes means from the treasury of God which should have been used to advance the cause of present truth. If these poor brethren take a humble course and are willing to be advised and counseled by their brethren, and are then brought into straitened places, the brethren should feel it a duty to cheerfully help them out of difficulty. But if they choose their own course, and rely upon their own judgment, they should be left to feel the full consequences of their unwise course, and learn by dear experience that “in multitude of counselors there is safety.” God’s people should be subject one to another. They should counsel with one another, that the lack of one may be supplied by the sufficiency of another. I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee.

How are people ever going to learn the errors of their ways if someone is always there to help them avoid the consequences of their mistakes?

[fccool]

What does drinking coffee or tea, or using tobacco has to do with making poor economic judgments? Is there some sort of a link between using these things and being poor?