What does this mean?

[Guest]

You are wrong on so many different levels, I will not attempt to cover them. But I will mention one or two.

1. EGW never said she was not a prophet.

2. You said: "He NEVER said to trust in anyone's words other than the eyewitnesses".

This is also WRONG.

Joh 5:46,47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And you didn't answer my questions:

Does your church know that you teach that EGW was inspired by Satan? Or do you keep that part under wraps while you're at church? I doubt that they do.

Do they know that you teach that most of the New Testament was inspired by Satan? I doubt it. Both of those beliefs are ANTI-Adventist.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard,

1) Are you sure?

2) Are you sure on this one too? Moses was an eyewitness. If this is wrong, then prove it.

a) We teach what was written in Revelation 2:18-29. We also agree with the last verse where it says "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches (all of them). You can believe what you want, we do not force anyone to believe what we do. AND--we did NOT write these verses-therefore do not blame us--if you have a problem with this then put the blame on the one that did write it. At this point in time we clearly understand that most (majority) will not have an ear to hear--especially when they refuse to take the time to actually be with us for six or more bible studies. You will NOT be able to say you did not have a chance.

We teach John 14:26 and 17:19,20. Then you can go figure this out for yourself. You have NEVER participated in any of our Sabbath School classes so you are making judgments that are absolutely not true!

[Robert]

Richard, our teaching is DIRECTLY from the words of Jesus Christ, NOT from Paul.

Jesus doesn't have a book......John, Luke, Matthew, Paul, etc do, but I can't find "Jesus".

[Robert]

I am in that process.

So until you become perfect you are breaking the law and hence you are lost....

[Guest]

1. Yes I'm sure

2. Yes I'm sure here too. Show me where Jesus said to believe only the eyewitnesses. That is a rule that you have made up. It is not in the Bible.

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

At this point in time we clearly understand that most (majority) will not have an ear to hear--especially when they refuse to take the time to actually be with us for six or more bible studies. You will NOT be able to say you did not have a chance.

Do you really believe that no one can understand the Bible unless they listen to you three? Can you not see that this is the height of arrogance, and ignorance both at the same time?

This means that you really have no idea whatsoever of how God really works with truth. If this were true, then the Holy Spirit has been doing nothing for the last 2000 years but twiddling his thumbs, waiting for you guys to come along, so that finally somebody can have access to the truth.

Is this really what you believe? Have you really not thought this through any further than what it seems? Satan may be laughing at you, (in fact I'm sure he is) but I assure you that God is not laughing.

And no I will not be able to say that I didn't have a chance to join the three wise men. (self professed) The only three on the planet that God saw fit to show the truth to. (according to you)

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "2. Yes I'm sure here too. Show me where Jesus said to believe only the eyewitnesses. That is a rule that you have made up. It is not in the Bible."

“These things I have spoken to you (the Disciples) while I am still with you (the Disciples). But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you (the Disciples) all things and bring to your (the Disciples) remembrance all that I have said to you (the Disciples). John 14:25-26.

There, that answers your above statement. You will, of course say that it doesn't, but I can't help you with that.

[John317]

I don't know why but it seems like about every few days, there's a need to post something on this topic, because people get confused about what Ellen White said concerning her work. Everyone should study 1 SM 31-48. If they do, they will readily see there is no confusion about her meaning. The only way anyone can be confused about her meaning is if they want to be.

She never denied that she was a prophet. She said she did not "claim to be a prophet." She did not "assume the title" (p. 36). But she said that "my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies" (p. 32, 36) She wrote that God gave her many, many visions and dreams and that the Holy Spirit helped her to write Christ's messages (1 SM 32, 35-37). That is the work of a prophet. Ellen White said that Christ personally chose her to be His messenger and to give His messages--not her messages-- to the church and the world.

Among her statements: "My Savior declared me to be His messenger."

"To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a message from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points to." 1 SM 34

If she knew she did not do the work of a prophet and that she was not a prophetess, she wouldn't have said that it was fine with her if people called her a prophetess. I realize I am not a lawyer, and therefore I would never tell people it's perfectly OK for them to refer to me as a lawyer. Does that make sense?

Remember that Jesus also did not go around claiming to be the Messiah, even though He was. Why didn't He make the claim? For the same reasons that Ellen White made no claim to the title of prophetess. Because so many people were abusing the name Messiah and also because his work included much more than the word "Messiah" signified in the minds of the people. If Jesus had announced He was the Messiah, people would immediately have projected their false ideas and expections on Him, and it would have kept Him from being able to perform His mission. I believe it was the same with Ellen White. She didn't want to be handicapped by the title and the false ideas people had of "a prophet."

"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet? --- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." 1 SM 32 (cf. 36)

There, for anyone who understands English, she plainly states that her work included the work of a prophet.

If you asked me whether I was a plumber, and I told you that I make no claim to the title because my work includes much more than the word "plumber" signifies, would someone be right to say I am denying that I am a plumber? Obviously not.

It would be the same if I had a paper route and someone asked me if I deliver papers on 5th street, and I replied that my route includes much more than 5th street. Would that be a denial of my work on 5th street? But such an absurd misinterpretation would make about as much sense as saying Ellen White denied she was a prophet, wouldn't it?

[Robert]

She also stated that if folks had studied their Bibles she wouldn't have been needed. She was the lesser, fallible light to get folks to study the infallible word of God.

The problem is that many SDA assume that EGW has all light and hence there is no need of Bible study. So she is studied and her word becomes final. But in reality her writings make up only a glimmer of light when compared to the Bible.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: She also stated that if folks had studied their Bibles she wouldn't have been needed. She was the lesser, fallible light to get folks to study the infallible word of God.

Don't forget, too, she said that if people had obeyed God's commandments, there would have been no need for the rest of the Bible.

She certainly did not want people to read her instead of the Bible. In fact, she urged people to concentrate most of their attention on the Bible. But let's not forget that she also said many times that all Adventists ought to have her books in their homes and be reading them. God did not inspire her and give her visions and dreams and help her write them only in order for people to ignore them. See 1 SM 32, 33.

It's true she never claimed to be infallible, and it's a good thing because if she had, it would prove her to be a false prophet. Instead, as any true prophet would, she totally supported Scripture and pointed everyone away from herself and to the Bible and to Christ.

She was a sinner in need of Christ and she was the first always to say so. Paul would have said and felt the same way. Paul never would have said he was infallible.

Happy Sabbath! And now

[Robert]

She was a sinner in need of Christ and she was the first always to say so. Paul would have said and felt the same way. Paul never would have said he was infallible.

Paul, through Christ, has more authority then was ever given to EGW. Read Paul.....

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So Robert, are you saying parts of the bible are wrong?

First, answer my question: "Jesus...thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself." Can you say the same?

Can't or won't answer? Come on dudes....Your silence speaks volumes!

[Guest]

Richard said, "2. Yes I'm sure here too. Show me where Jesus said to believe only the eyewitnesses. That is a rule that you have made up. It is not in the Bible."

“These things I have spoken to you (the Disciples) while I am still with you (the Disciples). But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you (the Disciples) all things and bring to your (the Disciples) remembrance all that I have said to you (the Disciples). John 14:25-26.

There, that answers your above statement. You will, of course say that it doesn't, but I can't help you with that.

That merely states who He is speaking to. There is nothing there at all about only believing eyewitnesses. In fact Jesus doesn't even touch on the subject of who to believe.

As usual you're adding something that plainly isn't there. Jesus said He would teach and bring to remembrance. (for the disciples) But even this is not exclusive to only eyewitness disciples, as you try to make out. Like I said: The "eyewitness only principle" is not in the Bible. You guys have made that up on your own, to try to be more exclusive with your new religion.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; (disciples)

[John317]

Quote:

John317:She was a sinner in need of Christ and she was the first always to say so. Paul would have said and felt the same way. Paul never would have said he was infallible.

Quote:

Paul, through Christ, has more authority then was ever given to EGW. Read Paul.....

Paul's writings are part of the canon. Therefore we are to take his writings above those of Ellen White. She would be the first to say this. Study Paul, and all the rest of the Scriptures, before and more often than we study Ellen White's writings. That's a given, or at least it should be. However, all true prophets of God have the same authority (once they pass the biblical tests of being a true prophet). I don't think it's a matter of difference in authority. For instance, Peter's writings don't have more or less authority than Isaiah's or Moses' or Paul's. The only real difference I see between Ellen White and Paul's writings is that she lived after the canon was closed. Therefore it is absolutely necessary to judge her by the Bible, the same as we would if someone came along and said God was giving them visions and dreams. They would need to be tested and judged by Scripture. But when tested we find they pass the Bible test of a genuine prophet of God, they would have the same authority as Ellen White (in my judgment).

Ellen White cannot "correct" Paul, any more than Joshua can "correct" Moses. Each prophet that comes along must be tested by what all the previous prophets have said. So the Bible "corrects" and "judges" Ellen White, and not the other way around. I don't believe Ellen White contradicts the Bible, but if we sincerely and honestly believe there is a clear and significant contradiction, we're obligated to go with the Bible.

[Robert]

TU

[John317]

Great!!

(By the way, I added a few lines that you may not agree with, so you might have agreed too quickly.)

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

What is it about the phrase "while I am still with you" that you don't understand? Jesus was addressing HIS disciples with this information, not anyone else. That being the case the the rest of the statement shows that the information that Jesus gave His own disciples must supercede the information that anyone other that His disciples received at any other time. This would include Paul and EGW.

EGW called herself a messenger of God. She had visions concerning prophecy. She gave interpretations of both her own prophecies and the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The net effect of this is that she (at the very least) strongly implied that she was a prophet of God. Other people have called her a prophet, and when this happened she did not deny it. To me that indicates that whether she stated it outright or not she considered herself to be a prophet.

[Guest]

Which part of "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you" says anything at all about believing only the eyewitnesses?

I have wasted enough time with you. Good luck with your new religion.

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "That merely states who He is speaking to. There is nothing there at all about only believing eyewitnesses. In fact Jesus doesn't even touch on the subject of who to believe."

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." John 17:17.

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matt.4:4.

"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” Matt.13;19-23.

"Thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” Mark 7:13.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

John 5:38.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples". John 8:31.

Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. John 8:43.

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. John 12:48.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.   (24) Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. John 14:23-24.

There are lots more than these that say specifically that we are to abide in the words of Jesus Christ as given to Him by His Father. In making the claim that someone is speaking for Jesus Christ, claiming that what they are saying are His very words, is declaring that Jesus was not competent to speak for Himself and say what was essential for eternal life, but it also says that you are declaring these other people to be en par or equal in stature with Jesus Christ as far as speaking the truth is concerned. This is a dangerous game and should be undertaken with great fear and trembling. Quite frankly, I don't have the stomach or courage to do what some of you on this forum do. To say that the words of Paul are the words of God is (to me) blaspheme. In saying that the Holy Spirit led Paul to the truth is (to me) the unpardonable sin. You may not like it (and most of you don't) but you will never convince me that anyone at any time that claims to be 'of' Jesus Christ and yet speaks words contrary to what He spoke is equal to what Jesus gave to His own disciples.

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Matt.24:5.

[Musicman1228]

Richard, you are a precious soul who has decided that you know all you need to know to find salvation and eternal life. Honestly, I hope your view of salvation IS true, because that would simplify salvation for all of us. I fear that you are being led astray by one that sounds 'just like' Jesus but who speaks not according to His words. I will pray for you, my friend, as I hope that you will pray for me.

[Guest]

I agree with all of the above except the part you wrote. It shows that we are to live by the word of God. But all of it put together does nothing to back up your claim that the eyewitnesses are the only ones we are to get it from. Jesus did not tell them everything. Nor did He tell us that they were to be our only source of truth from here on out. Like so many of your beliefs, it simply is not in the Bible.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, did you actually read John 14:26? How can the Holy Spirit cause someone to remember every word of Jesus IF they never heard it in the first place? Now don't go wasting you time with us anymore, (sob)

[John317]

Quote:

Musicman1228: EGW called herself a messenger of God. She had visions concerning prophecy. She gave interpretations of both her own prophecies and the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The net effect of this is that she (at the very least) strongly implied that she was a prophet of God. Other people have called her a prophet, and when this happened she did not deny it. To me that indicates that whether she stated it outright or not she considered herself to be a prophet.

She stated it outright by saying,"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet? --- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." 1 SM 32 (cf. 36)

Notice in the above Ellen White is saying that she would claim to be a prophet if there weren't so many false prophets and if she believed her work was only that of a prophet.

Since I am not a prophet, you would never hear me say those words, because if I did, I would be lying. She said them because she sincerely believed herself to be a prophet. Closely examine her life from 1827 to 1915. Read her books and articles, her letters and diary and the letters people wrote to her. Read several well documentated biographies. Read the things everyone who knew her said, including her self-declared enemies like D.M Canright. That will take you several years but it will be worth it.

So all we have to do is study the evidence and decide for ourselves if she was indeed who she claimed to be. The same as we do with Jesus and all the rest of the Bible prophets. I've already decided. Each person must decide. No one can decide for another. That's why I don't favor the gifts being a test of fellowship. If it was, people might say they believe when they don't.

[Musicman1228]

Wise council, John, and well stated. She did sincerely believe herself to be a prophet. My understanding of this is that at least part of what causes the Shaking of the Church will be how you this issue is decided. There are many SDA's today that want EGW to be a test of faith, even though she herself said that this was not to be. She is already included in the 28 Fundamentals of the SDA church, and it is my opinion that before the issue is decided it will be proposed and then made manditory that one must state that she is a true prophet of God or be disallowed membership or even excommunicated from the SDA church. It will truly be a sad day when that happens. The Church has many more pressing issues than this peculiar and parochial one.

[John317]

While I could honestly declare that I believe in her prophetic ministry, I would be opposed to making it madatory for people to state this in order to be members of the church. I'm sure both Ellen White and James White would have been opposed to it.

But I see a difference between declaring publicly one's belief in her and teaching people in the church that she was a false prophet. It would be like my coming to your church and standing up in the pulpit or in Sabbath School and agitating the view that the true Sabbath is Sunday, or that the dead are concious in heaven. It wouldn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if someone suggested that I'm not an SDA, even though I might be an official member.

What I'm saying is there's a difference between have questions or doubts about her, and encouraging people to have the same doubts and causing them to reject her. It's one thing for a non-SDA to do these things in our churches but it's completely different for someone who's a "leader" in good standing to do it.

It's similar to a Mormon teaching in their Sunday school classes that Joseph Smith was a false prophet or that the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price are fiction. I can't imagine someone saying those things lasting very long in their position-- probably not even one hour. I could be wrong, but that's my impression from my experience among Mormons.

The reaction would be even swifter and more serious, I'm positive, if a Jehovah's Witness taught in their classes that the publications coming out of Brooklyn teach false doctrines. If someone wants to teach that outside on the street or somewhere else, that would be fine, but why should an organization allow people to use their church connections and the facilities of the church to propagate doctrines and doubts opposed to everything the church is attempting to do? For me it would be a bit like allowing a rapist to live in my house with my children and use my name while they're destroying everything I love.

I would really like to know what you think and how you feel about this. I'm not angry with you at all, and in fact, having met you and talked personally with you, I like you and enjoy talking with you. I'm asking you to be as open and honest with me as I have been with you about this question. If you feel it would be best to answer me by PM, I invite you to do that, too,if you prefer.

[Musicman1228]

I know you are not angry with me, as I am not angry with you. We just disagree on this issue. Civil discourse is the hallmark of our relationship. Would that were the case with others on the forum.

Do you believe Joseph Smith to be a true prophet of God? and if not why not. Does not the LDS church make the same claims about him that we (as a denomination) make about EGW? What causes you to believe that one self declared prophet is legitimate and the other self declared prophet is not?

I have never and will never insist that anyone believe as I do about anything having to do with Truth. Yet just as do you I have strong evidence to support my own understanding, and this evidence is sufficient for me to take the stand that I do. Even EGW said that (to paraphrase) truth can stand the test or it is not true. Wishing and hoping does not truth make. As a denomination we have become lazy, fat dumb and happy with our notion of what is true. This has caused us to become lethargic and complacent about the process of discovering truth. After all, if you already have ALL the truth why search further, especially if that means seeing something that contradicts what you already know to be true. Most people (not just in our church) just want to go along to get along. So when faced with opposing points of doctrine, theology, or prophetic interpretation they would rather stick their heads in the sand and not rock the boat rather than have to make a decision and take a stand. Note that this goes right along with the 10 sleeping Bridesmaids of Matt. 25 and the attitudes of the Leodicean church in Rev.3. The similarities are uncanny.

This doesn't describe you, however. Having spoken with you personally I am sure you really do want to know the truth. Would that were the case with some others on this forum that apparently like where they are so much that they reject any new thoughts just because they are new, not because they have been allowed to stand or fall on merit.