Ellen White a false prophet?!?!

[LifeHiscost]

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not."

Matthew 24:23 KJV

And thus my wisdom that is flawed submits to higher, that is not flawed.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6 KJV

Originally Posted By: cardw

the evidence will not allow me to believe it.

Often the evidence that is presented is, to some extent, the best men have to offer. Our Father has His own evidence.

"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]..." Romans 1:20 AMP

However, that isn't the greatest evidence.

"...so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. " John 15-17 NASB

A major step in my own experience with the best Friend I've ever had, was found in this verse.

"Then you will seek Me, inquire for, and require Me [as a vital necessity] and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13 AMP

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Those who claim that their ‘take’ on Writ are “The Truths” suffer following, the serious maladjustment of decrying all others of the body Jesus Christ of whom – He is the head.

There are men who have been given gifts that I do not have and for which I don't care to shoulder responsibility. Therefore I chose the easier task. However that doesn't mean there won't be those with strong desire to shoot the messenger.

"and he spake to them many things in similes, saying: `Lo, the sower went forth to sow,

and in his sowing, some indeed fell by the way, and the fowls did come and devour them,

and others fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth, and immediately they sprang forth, through not having depth of earth,

and the sun having risen they were scorched, and through not having root, they withered,

and others fell upon the thorns, and the thorns did come up and choke them,

and others fell upon the good ground, and were giving fruit, some indeed a hundredfold, and some sixty, and some thirty.

He who is having ears to hear -- let him hear.' " Matt 3-9 YLT

Regards!

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>If taken in its proper context, the Bible is pure truth. I don't believe it contains errors in terms of its teachings on matters of salvation and the gospel.<<

I don't think that the mere fact of the existence of these groups, or of their belief that they are right, means necessarily that they are "chauvinistic."

But have we reached a point in the history of the church where we are unsure of everything; where we cannot say anything, or at least very much of anything, with absolute certainty? Do we need to say, "I think Jesus lived and maybe he rose from the dead"?

Is there something wrong with having and expressing the conviction that God has revealed knowable, objective Truth? Or should we always say, "Maybe," or "I think possibly," etc., or add an "excuse me," after every positive declaration of Bible truth?

Does "political correctness" now require that we all say that everyone is equally right about virtually any interpretation or belief--- except, that is, for those who believe that the Bible is the true Word of God and can be understood? Is an apology necessary or desirable whenever we talk with assurance about Bible truth?

I hope you can see to whose advantage this state of affairs would work. I don't know about you, but I believe in the existence of the devil and of millions of fallen angels, and they would love to see the SDA church in particular, and the Christian church in general, entertain serious doubts about the truthfulness and validity of its message.

[LifeHiscost]

I don't think that the mere fact of the existence of these groups, or of their belief that they are right, means necessarily that they are "chauvinistic."

But have we reached a point in the history of the church where we are unsure of everything; where we cannot say anything, or at least very much of anything, with absolute certainty? Do we need to say, "I think Jesus lived and maybe he rose from the dead"?

Is there something wrong with having and expressing the conviction that God has revealed knowable, objective Truth? Or should we always say, "Maybe," or "I think possibly," etc., or add an "excuse me," after every positive declaration of Bible truth?

Does "political correctness" now require that we all say that everyone is equally right about virtually any interpretation or belief--- except, that is, for those who believe that the Bible is the true Word of God and can be understood? Is an apology necessary or desirable whenever we talk with assurance about Bible truth?

I hope you can see to whose advantage this state of affairs would work. I don't know about you, but I believe in the existence of the devil and of millions of fallen angels, and they would love to see the SDA church in particular, and the Christian church in general, entertain serious doubts about the truthfulness and validity of its message.

Excellent questions, John317. And my answer is, 'not in my world', not if I wish to respond to the great need of this world, which is rapidly losing all vestige of foundational reality as applying to the children of men.

"The officers answered, Never man spake like this man" John 7:46 KJV

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:38 KJV

Regards!

[cardw]

Quote:

Are there any Seventh-day Adventist teachings that you agree with or feel passionate about?

I am sure there are things that I agree with that Seventh Day Adventists believe are true, but its not because its a Seventh Day Adventist belief, but because I can observe that its true.

I appreciate Seventh Day Adventist positions on the separation of church and state and there are a number of culture shifts that Seventh Day Adventists have made that are far ahead of other Christian groups, but these aren't based on Ellen White or the Bible, but are part of an honest seeking of truth. I believe this has come from the education system and a true goal of seeking what is true in honest ways.

Quote:

How about the Sabbath? Has your experience with Sabbath-keeping been a positive, enjoyable one?

And what about Jesus? I would like to know what you think of Him. Do you think the Gospels tell us the truth about Him?

These are non issues since I'm not trying to use the Bible as a basis of truth. I am more in the area of looking at how the Bible was put together and the evidence that I have read clearly indicates a human source of these documents. This is seen when one understands the true motivations, the context, and the theological debates happening at the time of the writing of the Bible.

We have an understanding that is based on literal interpretations that are far removed from the original intents of these books and what they were trying to address. It takes some time, but when you begin to understand the nature of holy books and how they come together, it becomes quite apparent that the Bible shows the same types of biases that other holy books present. It is not as unique in its form as we are led to believe.

[cardw]

Quote:

Would we be better off, and would we be doing God great honor, to disobey God's commands in any particular way?

This is not really a fair question since I find it reasonable to obey many of the commandments. Many of the commandments can be substantiated simply by reason and many cultures share many of the 10 commandments.

Now, if we take the 2nd commandment about not making any graven images, I think we can demonstrate that this commandment is not an advanced wisdom teaching unless we re-interpret it metaphorically.

I think we can stand a lot of sculpture before it becomes harmful. It is not hard to exceed this commandment in our own minds. Be kind to children or don't eat high fat foods would be far more instructive and beneficial than don't make sculpture. To me, this, and the whole slew of laws carrying the death penalty provide ample evidence that the Bible is the work of primitive men and no amount of metaphorical re-interpretation is going to make it Divine.

Quote:

Quote:

And within Adventism I believe there are cultural assumptions that make some Adventist's vulnerable to extreme cultic manipulation because they are taught to use a selective form of reasoning, particularly when it involves Ellen White.

Can you give an example of this?

I trace this quite extensively on my blog on Strong City. You can read how these Adventist's reliance on Ellen White created the expectations and beliefs that made them vulnerable to Wayne Bent.

Here is the link...

Cult think

Quote:

If this is true, wouldn't that mean SDAs and all others would be better off not to read Ellen White or pay any attention to her at all?

At this point in time I think there are far better sources than her writings on those things she got right. He tone and way of communicating is very negative and tends to reflect a lot of Victorian perfectionism. This can be seen in almost anything she has written.

She certainly can be studied to understand where Adventism came from and this is quite an interesting study in how she, as a woman, had such a profound influence. But, as you must know, she wasn't the only Victorian woman to have a profound influence.

Quote:

I find a lot of wisdom in some of the Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates, and there is wisdom also in the East. But the problem is that the wisdom in those sources is a mixture of truth and error. If taken in its proper context, the Bible is pure truth. I don't believe it contains errors in terms of its teachings on matters of salvation and the gospel.

Nothing is a pure truth. It is simply impossible to contain "pure" truth in a human technology such as language and writing, whatever "pure" truth means. There really is no observable example of pure truth.

One simple example of Ellen White's fantasy about being shown is the example she makes of the Fox sisters and their rapping. She states she was shown this to be the beginning of spiritualism and that the Devil and his demons were behind the rappings. Evidently Ellen White was taken in by this story and utilized it to justify the start the spiritualist movement, which is one of three great powers that were to unite to bring about the end. The Fox sisters themselves eventually revealed the rapping as a fraud. This directly contradicted Ellen White's statement in the Great Controversy that said...

Quote:

"The mysterious rapping with which modern spiritualism began was not the result of human trickery or cunning, but was the direct work of evil angels, who thus introduced one of the most successful of soul-destroying delusions."

And, in doing so, revealed that Ellen White did not have a special informant that told her the goings on of the spiritual battle for men's minds and souls.

You can read about it here...

Fox Sisters

But, there is always someone willing to find some obscure detail and make a conjecture, however unlikely, that would keep Ellen White in a position of authority on these matters.

Quote:

Do you believe that if someone can't prove or show good reason for every aspect of their belief system, that he ought to give it up and reject it?

I don't take beliefs in groups. I look at them one at a time and form my own views because no one has a perfect belief system. But when it is clearly demonstrated that certain claims are not true in the case of Ellen White, I think we can generalize that, while she may have some good advice, that advice has a much more human source.

In regard to Herbert Douglass's book, Dramatic Prophecies of Ellen White, and the following link to the chapter called Timely Instruction and Predictions found here...

Herbert Douglas on Ellen White's predictions

These so called instructions and timely predictions are all soundly debunked by her critics with loads of evidence that goes beyond the simple claims of Herbert Douglas. And because we have so many other examples where Ellen White was simply factually wrong, the benefit of the doubt goes toward her NOT being a prophet.

The quality of evidence provided by her most articulate critics is very high and well documented. I don't see this level of documentation in her defenders. I was once her defender and I couldn't find quality documentation in favor of her claims.

[cardw]

Quote:

All who look to EGW, Calvin, Moses, the apostle Paul, or cardw for their salvation will fall just as far into oblivion.

I don't claim to be a source of anyone's salvation. You are practicing a form of deception by willfully misrepresenting my position. Salvation is irrelevant to what I believe to be true.

I do know how to experience joy and happiness for myself. There is no guarantee that what is meaningful to me will be universally meaningful to anyone else.

I respect each person's ability to find truth for themselves and would consider it in very bad taste to impose or imply that I had anything close to THE truth.

I hope that is clear.

[John317]

How old do you believe Calvin was at the point referred to in pages 221, 22 of The Great Controversy? Is it your contention that John Calvin never had a "gentle, unpretentious bearing" during the time which Mrs. White has reference to?

Would you describe John Calvin when a youth as shy, reserved, not given to much talk, devoutly religious, and loved by his friends? If not, then how would you describe him when he was at the age about which Ellen White writes on p. 221?

[John317]

Have you personally read Douglass' book?

[LifeHiscost]

And just because something has parts of it that are true or beneficial does not make them Divine. This would take extraordinary evidence. And I don't see anything that looks like extraordinary evidence.

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." James 1:16 NASB

As a direct result of the leading and direction of Ellen White, a woman who sought guidance from God regularly, there today exists somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 health and educational systems, in over 200 countries throughout the world. I believe that would satisfy your criteria for belief.

OTOH, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31 KJV

It remains a serious choice for each of us to make.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and " Hebrews 11:6 KJV

Regards!

[messenger]

What do you consider to be extrodinary eveidence?

Do you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God? Or do you need ex...evidence for that too?

[cardw]

Quote:

Have you personally read Douglass' book?

The link I gave you is his book online. So yes, I have read the chapter and looked at other relevant chapters including the introduction.

The problem with his book is that it is a triumphal form of writing, not a historical critical one. He basically states his conclusions without answering all the critics and avoids the more difficult ones by either not addressing them or providing an unlikely conjecture.

This is not the best form of analysis or evidence. If you want a serious form of analysis Ron Numbers is a good example.

[cardw]

Quote:

As a direct result of the leading and direction of Ellen White, a woman who sought guidance from God regularly, there today exists somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 health and educational systems, in over 200 countries throughout the world. I believe that would satisfy your criteria for belief.

There are any number of people who have built hospitals and large charitable organizations that aren't Divine messengers nor do they claim that God guided them. This is nice, but she should be judged by her ability to provide accurate testimony that is not contradicted by history or by herself. She does not meet this requirement.

In other people's writings we evaluate each claim, one at a time, without accepting everything that person writes. In the case of Ellen White, I think we can dismiss her belief that she was a prophet, take from her what demonstrates itself to be valuable, and dismiss what is simply wrong.

In some respects I think Ellen White was not completely honest with herself, much like many of us at various times in our lives, and was a product of her times. I think we can appreciate what is remarkable about her as a person, without assigning her the status of special insight. We can take this view if we believe that her contradictions were not malicious.

I can't judge if she was being willfully deceptive or was motivated by the fear of "what if it is not true." She does express this fear in some of her letters where states that she is afraid that she is becoming an infidel, which would be her word for atheist. The times were not sympathetic to disgraced persons and she had a lot of people depending on her claim of prophetic ability. I can understand why the pressures of this might create a cognitive conflict.

This is a kind view of her. Others believe her to be more in the charlatan category.

[Stan]

If you would like to see what our Church would be like without the writings of EGW, you can.

Visit what is sometimes called the First day Adventist Church.

http://adventchristian.org/

See who their founder is, a guy named William Miller in 1844.

The proof is in the pudding..

[cardw]

Quote:

What do you consider to be extrodinary eveidence?

Well, good evidence would be original manuscripts. We don't have those for either Ellen White or the Bible. Independent witnesses including newspapers in the case of Ellen White, historians, and other writers. In the case of Jesus we have no independent histories available until 70 A.D. and some of these are clearly forgeries. In the case of Josephus, scribes added texts to include Jesus that were not present in early copies of Josephus.

In the case of Ellen White, independent articles are rather disturbing and support the facts that she was supporting setting new dates for Jesus' coming and acting in a way that suggested she was in favor of a shut door.

So, there is no quality evidence. Extraordinary evidence would be observable phenomena, such as raising of the dead, documentable healing, and other reproducible miracles. Basically, a clear consistent documentation and observable phenomena. One would think that a God would be able to provide this, rather than leave us with barely intact, statistically improbable, conjectures.

Quote:

Do you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God? Or do you need ex...evidence for that too?

I think that, by now, it is obvious that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God either.

[darlene]

Now that is very sad! Have you talked yourself right out of believing in the Bible? I believe in the Bible 100% and I am not ashamed to admit that I also believe that Ellen White is a prophet of God. There is no question in my mind whatsoever on either of those two points.

We have been warned that once we start having a critical attitude or spirit we will take ourselves right out of the church and out of God's plan of salvation. That little seed once sown grows into a mountain and blocks our whole view. What more can be said?!

[jasd]

>>However that doesn't mean there won't be those with strong desire to shoot the messenger.<<

There were of the Druids, Bards. Those Bards studied 20 years to memorize the histories, stories, and poetry of the peoples that they might recite without error. The Bard was not permitted mistakes.

Often, there were those within the hearing of the Bard’s recitation – who could ‘retell’ equally well.

Were the Bard to commit an error in his recitation – he was killed.

The Celtic Druids were pagans.

[jasd]

>>I don't think that the mere fact of the existence of these groups, or of their belief that they are right, means necessarily that they are "chauvinistic."<<

Generally, no, not merely; that is, until the assertions of testamentary possession so-called begins to be broadcast as “Truths” peculiar and particular to that certain .org, sect, or cult.

1 Cor 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. v19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body? v20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body. v21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. [...] v26 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another. v27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Pauline jibber-jabber? ...don’t think so. Note: the ‘truth’ in verses 26 and 27, ie,

“v26 That there should be no schism in the body; ... v27 Now ye are the body of Christ,...”

Is St Paul setting forth a principle relative only to one or another .org? or is he addressing the corporate body of believers – of whom the head is Christ Jesus, Redeemer?

>>But have we reached a point in the history of the church where we are unsure of everything; where we cannot say anything, or at least very much of anything, with absolute certainty?<<

No, of course not. There remain the shared and perceived ‘absolute’ credos; ‘Trinity’; Gd come in the flesh; Jesus Christ, Son of Gd; the Crucifixion; the Resurrection; etc... Nonetheless, that said,

one might note that the Jews who are, admittedly, closer to the original language than you or I – know of an absolute certainty the ‘truth’ of the Shema; whereas, we know that absolute certainty to reveal the compound unity – Trinity.

>>Do we need to say, "I think Jesus lived and maybe he rose from the dead"?<<

Not to a like-believer for whom there are ‘shared’ credos – or when proselytizing.

>>Is there something wrong with having and expressing the conviction that God has revealed knowable, objective Truth?<<

One might express to heart’s conviction and heart’s content – without that expression, necessarily, bearing upon “Truth”.

Knowable objective Truth is not always so easily defined. Disabuse me should I err but... the Greeks saw the Mediterranean Sea in colours green rather than blue. What colours might most closely define the colours of that same Sea for you? Nevertheless,

it is water, yes? A large body of water, yes? Upon that point I think all might agree.

>>Or should we always say, "Maybe," or "I think possibly," etc., or add an "excuse me," after every positive declaration of Bible truth?<<

Sometimes, “positive declarations of the Bible” are not so easily apprehended – note: the wording of the Hebrew re Genesis 1 and its variable uses of the definite and the latent articles per days. Or, the “tohu va bohu” controversy. Or, subscribing to the timeline of ‘generations’ vis-à-vis creation – how does one explain the alternating salt-sediment strata beneath the Mediterranean? (wouldn't that imply a complete evaporation of the Sea - severals of times recurringly? and, what ages might that imply? Pre Genesis 1 or post?)

>>“Does "political correctness"<<

Sorry, I’d not meant to imply an equation between “political correctness” and the chauvinism of the dogmatic assertion or purport.

>>...now require that we all say that everyone is equally right about virtually any interpretation or belief--- except, that is, for those who believe that the Bible is the true Word of God and can be understood?<<

No one has said that everyone is equally right about ‘interpreting’ Writ; rather, it is painfully obvious that .orgs are more often than not, equally wrong. Witness: those wrested ‘truths’ from the book of Daniel, which same book Gd specifically sealed until such time as men traveled by means other than mare’s shank (running to and fro) and possessed knowledge transcending such as scarification and bloodletting as efficacious for any and all ailments.

Methinks that ‘interpreting’ the book of Daniel in times partially defined by a surgeon’s remedy to a tot or two of spirits as a sufficing anesthetic for himself – moreso, than for his patient. I mean,

until the late 1860s, germ theory didn’t exist! Does that represent an increase in knowledge tandem men running to and fro? Yet men presumed to wrest the book of Daniel.

>>Is an apology necessary or desirable whenever we talk with assurance about Bible truth?<<

No, except where assurance may be more fancied that factual.

>>I hope you can see to whose advantage this state of affairs would work. I don't know about you, but I believe in the existence of the devil and of millions of fallen angels, and they would love to see the SDA church in particular, and the Christian church in general, entertain serious doubts about the truthfulness and validity of its message.<<

Indeed I can. Accuracy re Bible ‘truths’ is desirable. On the other hand, I take your meaning.

Millions? That is rhetorical, is it not? why not quadrillions? or more?

>>...the devil and of millions of fallen angels, and they would love to see the SDA church in particular,<< [ed.jasd]

Chauvinism?

[cardw]

Quote:

Now that is very sad! Have you talked yourself right out of believing in the Bible? I believe in the Bible 100% and I am not ashamed to admit that I also believe that Ellen White is a profit of God. There is no question in my mind whatsoever on either of those two points.

I am very far from sad. There is nothing wrong with questioning. In fact doubt is a very helpful thing when someone is not telling you the truth. It helps to keep you from harm.

Quote:

We have been warned that once we start having a critical attitude or spirit we will take ourselves right out of the church and out of God's plan of salvation. That little seed once sown grows into a mountain and blocks our whole view. What more can be said?!

Looking for answers is not being critical or having a critical attitude. This type of belief keeps people ignorant and prevents leadership from being questioned. I went into these investigations with the intent of proving the Bible and Ellen White to be true. In an honest investigation, the claims of Divine source cannot be maintained unless one is willfully ignorant of the facts. There are simply too many contradictions, myths, rewrites, falsifications, and history written by the winners.

This doesn't negate wisdom teaching, but it certainly becomes obvious that the source is human.

[darlene]

Hi Cardw/Richard. I assumed from your statement: "....it is obvious that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God either," that from your studies of the Bible you had come to the conclusion that you do not believe in the Word or in God. Perhaps that is not an accurate conclusion.

There is definitely nothing wrong in looking for answers. It is when our looking for answers becomes a critical search and we become unwilling and judgemental of other's beliefs that there is a problem. It is when we overstep what God is trying to teach us and guide us to that there is a problem. It also becomes a problem when "I" get is in the way of what God is trying to teach us.

Today I spoke to a person who has been a member in but who no longer comes to church. He said "I want to believe what I want to believe, not what the church teaches." Isn't that a problem that some of us have....? I want to believe what I want to believe. We are all entitled to believe what we want to believe God never forces anyone to believe what He teaches, does He?

[cardw]

Quote:

It is when our looking for answers becomes a critical search and we become unwilling and judgemental of other's beliefs that there is a problem. It is when we overstep what God is trying to teach us and guide us to that there is a problem. It also becomes a problem when "I" get is in the way of what God is trying to teach us.

This is common myth about unbelievers. And unbelievers would say that there is far more judgement about what they don't believe from Christians. The problem is that no one is absolutely clear about what God is trying to teach us. There are so many versions, and everyone is so sure their belief is the correct one, that it is impossible to actually know what God really wants.

Quote:

Today I spoke to a person who has been a member in but who no longer comes to church. He said "I want to believe what I want to believe, not what the church teaches." Isn't that a problem that some of us have....? I want to believe what I want to believe. We are all entitled to believe what we want to believe God never forces anyone to believe what He teaches, does He?

That doesn't make sense. I can't choose what I want to believe. You can tell me that red is green all you want and I will still see red. My unbelief is based on evidence or lack of evidence. My interest is in what is true, not what I want to be true. In my observation most Christians want the Bible to be true and they want to have a story that helps them make sense of this world. I can understand that. A shift to unbelief is not an easy one for a person who was taught to believe. It requires a rebuilding of meaning.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Richard, i totally agree with your attitude. I have got the same type of problems in my search for truth. It seems almost impossible to gather the right facts because 99 percent of the people begin with a conclusion and then start giving arguments. Concerning Ellen white there has been a lot of things written, some of her supporters have made her a goddess, some opponents have identified her as a satanic sheep in wolves clothing. It would be impossible to ever find out the truth so i think we have to base our conclusion on the fruits of the church. I have heard of people with cancer being healed, of a prof. of evolution theory who now teaches creationism, about David Gates who miraculously was able to spread the gospel in developing countries through satelite, i have heard about an ex-satanist (Roger Morneau) who became a sda after God intervened in his life. These are miracles we should not take lightly. Of course it would be better if God worked more powerfully so there was no room for doubt, but that has implications as well. For instance, people would come to God because of fear of self interests without willing to change their hearts. When Jesus came to die for us he fullfilled prophecies with small happenings. For instance, it was prophecied that he rode on a donkey. The people back then didn t realise that prophecy was being fullfilled before their own eyes because their vision was too worldy.

Now when we think about the facts concerning Ellen White i think the chances are high she was working for God. I think that she gave her message a victorian twist, just like i would give it a liberal gracefull positive twist.

Richard would you please check out the following link and tell me what you think about it, i want an honest evaluation, i am not writing this to you because i want you to say that what i think is the truth, but because i, just like you, want to finally know the truth, if there is one.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-...9TvDg&hl=nl

[John317]

Speaking of which, you have not answered my question about John Calvin. You used what Ellen White said about Calvin as evidence that she didn't know what she was talking about and did not receive visions as she claimed.

How old do you believe Calvin was at the point referred to in pages 221, 22 of The Great Controversy? Is it your contention that John Calvin never had a "gentle, unpretentious bearing" during the time which Mrs. White has reference to?

Would you describe John Calvin when a youth as shy, reserved, not given to much talk, devoutly religious, and loved by his friends? If not, then how would you describe him when he was at the age about which Ellen White writes on p. 221?

[darlene]

Oops, I guess stepped into a thread where angels fear to tread?!

[cardw]

Quote:

Speaking of which, you have not answered my question about John Calvin. You used what Ellen White said about Calvin as evidence that she didn't know what she was talking about and did not receive visions as she claimed.

This would be a relevant question if you had some external source that indicated that John Calvin was this way as a youth. I did look this up for you and found the following...

Quote:

He is described as having been of a shy and retiring nature, very studious and punctual in his work, animated by a strict sense of duty, and exceedingly religious. He early showed himself possessed of an intellect capable of clear, convincing argument and logical analysis. Through excessive industry he stored his mind with valuable information, but undermined his health. He advanced so rapidly that he was occasionally asked to take the place of the professors, and was considered by the other students as a doctor rather than an auditor. He was, at this time, a devout Cathode of unblemished character.

This is a young man who is a religious fanatic, hardly the sympathetic preacher of God's love. This is a young man out of balance. It should be noted that he was a devout Catholic. He was a skilled at debating, not the understanding of the love of God. His concern was with technical accuracy, duty, and loyalty. These are the very characteristics that would set him up to do the things he did while in Geneva. He basically took the very same methods the Catholic church was using and brought it to the Protestant reformation. It was the literal interpretation of the Bible combined with a clear lack of empathy that created this monster.

If Ellen White was any prophet at all, she would have understood this.

Now here is another analysis...

Quote:

Calvin is often pictured by his opponents as hard, cold, stern and calculating. He was actually a man of meekness and peace who avoided all dissension so long as it pertained to private affairs. He was a very meek and shy person, and always felt that he was not equal to the task set before him.

However, when God and his kingdom were attacked, Calvin rose to exert the authority of his calling to the ministry that God had given him. Then he felt himself the instrument of the Most High and became relentless. All gentleness disappeared.

CALVIN’S TEMPERAMENT

Calvin, at times, could be quite irritable, but much of this can be attributed to his ill health. He was plagued with constant headaches which hardly ever left him. The pain was so intense that many nights he could not sleep. He also had some kind of disease of the trachea which, when he spoke too much, caused him to spit blood. Several attacks of pleurisy prepared the way for consumption, of which he finally died. He had acute hemorrhoids, the pain of which was unbearably increased by an internal abscess that would not heal. Several times intermittent fever laid him low, sapping his strength and constantly reducing it. He had gallstones and kidney stones in addition to stomach cramps and wicked intestinal influenzas. To top it all off, he had acute arthritis. In one of his letters to a friend he said, “If only my condition were not a constant death struggle.”

This man was able to accomplish great things even though he was sickly much of his life.

From the diseases that he suffered, it is clear that internally this was not a man of peace, but a man of obsession and deeply ingrained shame. His natural peaceful disposition seemed to disappear when the influence of religious belief entered him. This is a testament to the danger and evil of religious fanaticism and my guess is that he was trying to make up for the shame based self view he was taught to believe by his literal understanding of the Bible.

You can see how this was set up from his youth.

Now you seem to think that I have not done my research and yet it is I who looks up the evidence and it is you who have totally ignored the fox sisters problem which is plainly documented.

This is why I have no confidence in the so called research done by Ellen White's defenders.