Deceiving the elect

[John317]

But if you remember how a few were taking over for a while? Were are they now? Gone as predicted. They had an agenda and when that agenda failed they left.

It's probable the people you refer to were suspended.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

To much hate on this forum, to many anti-Adventists allowed to run their mouth with to little control. Something needs to be done, or I'm outta here...

Ah, perceptions! Anti's run their mouth w/o control....pro's would never do that is the inference.

Actually, I don't see anti's as being anti-SDA, but more so about being not walking the talk of Christianity. Maybe you feel one anti is one to many? Freedom of belief is what this country is all about and this forum. There are 4376 registered users, a fraction of a percentage post.

Chill time.

[John317]

My position is clear v EGW. That, however, does not detract from her admirable pastoral qualifications and indeed, there are extant ordination papers to that effect with her name inscribed.

How about that? Pastor E G White!

Originally Posted By: John3:17

How could she have been a good pastor if she said God gave her visions and dreams which He did not give her? And how could she be a good pastor if she deliberately said so many other things about herself that were not true?

Originally Posted By: jasd

Ahhh, very good questions.

You utilize semantics. Pastor is simply shepherd.

Everyone uses semantics. "Pastor" can indeed be "simply shepherd," but it always means more than that when used as a title the way you used it.

Ellen White did use the word "pastor" in describing shepherding people through prayer and Bible study, yet that is not how you apparently used it in the title "Pastor E.G. White."

Originally Posted By: jasd

One may have an abominable character and still be a very good shepherd.

Do you mean a very good shepherd of God's people? Can a person who's deliberately teaching false beliefs be a very good shepherd?

Originally Posted By: jasd

The proof, aside from the subject of dreams and visions, that she had the qualifications to shepherd, lies with the fact that she, indeed, did a credible job shepherding those who followed her.

But if Ellen G. White was a false prophet, she was doing a good job of shepherding for the devil, not for God.

I can't see how anyone can believe she was a false prophet, or taught false doctrines as having come from God, yet that she was a good shepherd of God's flock.

[John317]

...because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more...

Originally Posted By: jasd

Okay, is this better? The word prophet signifies less than what she claimed that she was called to do.

What you wrote earlier was:

Originally Posted By: jasd

She vociferously denied being a prophet. Her stated position was that she was greater than a prophet.

Do you now see the difference between what you originally wrote and what Ellen White actually said?

She clearly did not deny being a prophet. What she denied is that she was claiming the title of prophet. Those are two very different matters. The title itself is nothing.

So, then, what did Ellen White mean when she wrote the above two quotes?

What she signified was that she wasn't only raised up to do the work of a prophet. "Prophecy" was not the only spiritual gift that God gave her to do. She was also a teacher and an evangelist. Her work obviously included that of prophet but it didn't end there.

Ellen White didn't want people thinking that her work was only that of predicting or prophesying.

So, yes, Ellen White was saying that the word "prophet" signifies less than what God called her to do. He raised her up also to teach, to write, to help found hospitals and the medical work, and to keep God's remnant people on the right road to the Kingdom. Something that is often overlooked is the fact that Ellen White was well-known in her own time as a public speaker on matters of health and temperance.

Without God's raising up Ellen White, there's no doubt that the SDA church would have collapsed or taken a different, wrong road just like so many other churches have. As it is, the SDA Church is the only one which came out of the Millerite Movement and is still vigorous and growing today. As a people we have SDAs teaching the gospel in more nations around the world than any other protestant church. All the other groups coming out of the Millerite Movement either disappeared altogether or stopped studying, developing, and growing.

[John317]

Freedom of belief is what this country is all about and this forum.

Freedom of belief, yes, but not freedom to say or do anything one wants to. No forum-- much less an SDA forum-- could last very long with everyone freely saying just whatever comes into their mind.

I don't believe Club is complaining about the beliefs people have so much as about the way some people are behaving and talking to those they disagree with.

[John317]

In those days, women who were traveling alone in the larger cities were often taken in by the police on suspicion of being a prostitute.

Originally Posted By: jasd

She was not blessed with the gifts of a Mata Hari. It was unlikely that anyone, police included, would have thought her a hooker...

Whether she was physically ugly or not is beside the point. There have been plenty of ugly woman who were hookers. Your statement here only shows your ignorance in the ways of the world (which, granted, may be a good thing). But the fact is that the police don't only suspect and arrest good looking women.

Have you see the old photographs of the prostitutes who worked the gold fields of Alaska or the women who worked "out west" among the cowboys? Not too many were what anyone today would call pretty.

Fact is a lot of men are drunk or very desperate when they pay for a prostitute. Such men don't really care, and aren't good judges of, whether a woman is ugly or mediocre.

We're not, after all, talking Las Vegas.

Are you familiar with the saying, "Never mind the facts-- I got my mind made up"?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Ahhh, very good questions.

You utilize semantics. Pastor is simply shepherd.

>>Everyone uses semantics. "Pastor" can indeed be "simply shepherd," but it always means more than that when used as a title the way you used it.<<

How so?—one wouldn’t think ‘brakeman’ upon hearing or seeing ‘Pastor”.

I used the term correctly, as I’ve often stated that I think EGW was best suited by the term ‘Pastoral’.

>>Ellen White did use the word "pastor" in describing shepherding people through prayer and Bible study, yet that is not how you apparently used it in the title "Pastor E.G. White."<<

No, I intended “Pastor E G White” to provide the finial upon my dialogic argument.

You have probably forgotten the many times I’ve stated that she is best defined ‘pastorally’.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

One may have an abominable character and still be a very good shepherd.

>>Do you mean a very good shepherd of God's people?<<

Yes and no. It can cut both ways. It’s not a philosophical ideation of duality. It is clinical – in a mechanical sense.

>>Can a person who's deliberately teaching false beliefs be a very good shepherd?<<

Well, y’alls seemin’ to think so – the way the Pope is characterized whilst he shepherds his flock credibly well.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The proof, aside from the subject of dreams and visions, that she had the qualifications to shepherd, lies with the fact that she, indeed, did a credible job shepherding those who followed her.

>>But if Ellen G. White was a false prophet, she was doing a good job of shepherding for the devil, not for God.<<

...never said I thought she was a false prophet. I said that I did not think of her as a prophet – in agreement of her own estimation of herself:

Quote:

...my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies.

(...”don’t think me a prophet; my work is greater than what ‘prophet’ signifies”) [/paraphrasing]

>>I can't see how anyone can believe she was a false prophet, or taught false doctrines as having come from God, yet that she was a good shepherd of God's flock.<<

Again, I don’t think her a prophet, true or false. That said, y’alls don’t seem to have a problem with that line of reasoning vis-à-vis the Pope. Remember”—the Beast, the little horn, that man of sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist, devil seed, the Jellico-cat dude (oops, sorry, got on a roll...), ad nauseam... Shame, shame, shame, on top y’alls.

Dogmatology.

Anyway, by and large, EGW gave every appearance of being a faithful steward of the Lord’s and will stand in her own on that great day.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

What you wrote earlier was:

Quote:jasd

She vociferously denied being a prophet. Her stated position was that she was greater than a prophet.

>>Do you now see the difference between what you originally wrote and what Ellen White actually said?<<

Yes, I see it now, as I saw it then – with nar’ a tuppence difference except for the semantics involved. What I said was “measurably, significantly, or effectively” synonymous with that which she said of how she viewed her mission,

“...greater than a prophet.”

A burnt sky, a bruised sky, a carnelian sky, a fading sky, vesper’s light, twilight, sunset, ...a sailor’s delight, etc. All different, but all the same, all synonymous.

>>She clearly did not deny being a prophet. What she denied is that she was claiming the title of prophet. Those are two very different matters. The title itself is nothing.<<

Okay, as left-handedly as she draws the distinction, I grant the same to you.

>>So, then, what did Ellen White mean when she wrote the above two quotes?<<

Quote:

Quote:

My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more...

The same, were I to say, “Yeah, I may have filled the gas tank, but I am not a station attendant. I am much more...”

>>What she signified was that she wasn't only raised up to do the work of a prophet. "Prophecy" was not the only spiritual gift that God gave her to do. She was also a teacher and an evangelist. Her work obviously included that of prophet but it didn't end there.<<

No, John317, although I can admit to a pastoral mission for her, I decline to accede to the phrase “included that of prophet” – except as used in a loose sense. There is too, too much in too, too many writings that fail to meet the test of a Biblical Prophet. Jean Dixon, Joseph Smith, Wigglesworth (didn’t he even resurrect a/the dead?), and many, many others – prophesied correctly on occasion, but did not meet the test of a Biblical Prophet. (not making a direct comparison...)

>>Ellen White didn't want people thinking that her work was only that of predicting or prophesying.<<

Indeed not, “her work” entailed that much greater than that of a prophet.

>>So, yes, Ellen White was saying that the word "prophet" signifies less than what God called her to do.<<

‘swhat I said.

>>He raised her up also to teach, to write, to help found hospitals and the medical work, and to keep God's remnant people on the right road to the Kingdom.<< [/ed.jasd]

Did you type that without blushing?—I mean, they’s none but her flock who’s be the remnant... Oy, oy, oy.

>>Something that is often overlooked is the fact that Ellen White was well-known in her own time as a public speaker on matters of health and temperance.<<

As was Kellog, yes?

>>Without God's raising up Ellen White, there's no doubt that the SDA church would have collapsed or taken a different, wrong road just like so many other churches have. As it is, the SDA Church is the only one which came out of the Millerite Movement<<

I don’t think one ought consider the Millerite Movement as the nexus of Xtianity. Do you?

>>and is still vigorous and growing today.<<

Isn’t that the point I was making?—that EGW was a credible Pastor.

>>As a people we have SDAs teaching the gospel in more nations around the world than any other protestant church.<<

C’mon, there are many .orgs who preach in the same nations as do yours – whether by TV, Shortwave, Radio, pamphlets, etc.

Per “the gospel”, your .org teaches much more than the gospel, yes?—‘traditions’, as well...

>>All the other groups coming out of the Millerite Movement either disappeared altogether or stopped studying, developing, and growing.<<

Aw, the Millerite Movement: it was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John3:17

In those days, women who were traveling alone in the larger cities were often taken in by the police on suspicion of being a prostitute.

Quote:jasd

She was not blessed with the gifts of a Mata Hari. It was unlikely that anyone, police included, would have thought her a hooker...

>>Whether she was physically ugly or not is beside the point. There have been plenty of ugly woman who were hookers.<<

She may have been plain, but I didn’t say that she was ugly; I said that she was not Hariesque.

>>Your statement here only shows your ignorance in the ways of the world (which, granted, may be a good thing).<<

Not “ignorance” John317. ...ran my own stable.

>>But the fact is that the police don't only suspect and arrest good looking women.<<

What I implied was that – hookers sorted out – with the plain ones over there, and the ugly ones far and awaayyy over thataway. They couldn’t compete – and cops knew/know that.

>>Have you see the old photographs of the prostitutes who worked the gold fields of Alaska or the women who worked "out west" among the cowboys? Not too many were what anyone today would call pretty.<<

Tha’s what I said, “Far and awaayyy over thataway.”

>>Fact is a lot of men are drunk or very desperate when they pay for a prostitute. Such men don't really care, and aren't good judges of, whether a woman is ugly or mediocre.<<

You are only partially right. Most hookers try to develop their clientele, their book.

>>We're not, after all, talking Las Vegas.<<

No, I suppose not.

Are you familiar with the saying, "Never mind the facts-- I got my mind made up"?

Being introspective, John317? ;-)

I like this form of the adage: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

There are some problems with your assertion that Hebrews 10 declared the sacrificial system to be forever dead.

First, a portion of the animal sacrifices was given to the Levites and priests as their enduring inheritance instead of a portion of the Land of Promise. If God was planning to end the sacrificial system when Messiah died, the coming of Messiah would be bad news rather than good news for the Levites

As much as we be sad for the Levites - in Matt 23 Christ predicts the end of the Jewish System and in 1Thess 2 Paul confirms that they had already more than reached that predicted "end" from God's POV.

[ClubV12]

Ron says,

"If God's Word is so easily set aside, what part of it can we actually depend on to keep from being deceived?"

Which pretty much sums up the point of this thread in a nut shell!

[cheddar]

Quote:

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Gal. 4:21-31

Quote:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. 8:13

Any attempt to restart the old testament sanctuary service would be a form a blasphemy and a rejection of Jesus Christ as the true high priest in heaven.

[Ron Amnsn]

Any attempt to restart the old testament sanctuary service would be a form a blasphemy and a rejection of Jesus Christ as the true high priest in heaven.

The man-made traditions would have you believe that assertion, Cheddar, but neither of the passages you quoted support what you have stated.

The Galatians passage says that it is better to be not "under the law" (or at least it is better to not desire to be "under the law" if you aren't already that way), but it doesn't give us a definition of what "under the law" means. There are several possible definitions of "under the law". The common ones make Paul's letter disagree with the Old Testament. But there are better definitions that would give us an interpretation of Paul's letter that agrees with the Old Testament, which is rather important since Paul testified that his beliefs agreed with the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14). The passage goes on to compare the slavery of Hagar with those who try to attain God's promises through man-made devising.

The passage you quoted from Hebrews says that the Old Covenant had not yet passed away when the book of Hebrews was written. The demise of the Old Covenant was still future several decades after the resurrection of Jesus. We know that the New Covenant incorporates many of God's standards from the Old Covenant because the New Covenant doesn't offer a new definition of sin-- it just says that God will forgive sins. Nor does it offer a new definition of righteousness. Even if you say that Jesus is the new definition of righteousness, it ends up being the same definition of righteousness as the Old Covenant because that's what Jesus actually lived perfectly. We also know that even at this late date, the New Covenant has not yet been fully implemented because we still have neighbors and brothers who do not know the Lord (Jer 31:34).

So even though the Old Covenant is old and venerable, like the foundations of the earth, it is not yet obsolete. That really shouldn't be a surprise because God made it clear through Moses that His instructions for Israel would last throughout the generations of Jacob's descendants, and they're still producing descendants. Jesus confirmed that too by telling us that not even a stroke would pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away. Speaking of God's Old Testament instructions, Jesus said, "whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). However, you're saying the opposite -- that anyone who now tries to follow God's instructions regarding the worship system that God himself established would not be called great but would be called blasphemous.

What does it take to legitimately "undo" some God's Old Testament instructions? Can anyone show us from Scripture where it teaches us what to accept as proof that God has changed his mind?

[cheddar]

We know that the New Covenant incorporates many of God's standards from the Old Covenant because the New Covenant doesn't offer a new definition of sin-- it just says that God will forgive sins.

[BobRyan]

As much as we be sad for the Levites - in Matt 23 Christ predicts the end of the Jewish System and in 1Thess 2 Paul confirms that they had already more than reached that predicted "end" from God's POV.

[Ron Amnsn]

The difference is that under the old covenant the law was written on stone while under the new covenant the law is written into our hearts.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

The issue isn't just that a few Levites lost their inheritance. According to what you're saying, God was already planning to take away the perpetual inheritance of the Levites

Hint - the days of "owning land" in Israel - ended for all Jews when Hadrian made it illegal for a Jew to live in Palestine and that last for 500 years! Longer than the entire dynasty of Judah and Israel prior to their being taken away in captivity.

Furthermore - it is unlikely that the Levites were going to suffer more than the Apostle Paul.

It's true that the Israelites have not lived consistently in the land that God promised to Abraham and his descendents. That has happened according to the terms of the covenant God made with Israel. It stipulated that it they could only live there if they were faithful to the covenant. When they were not faithful they would go into exile until God brought them back to the land.

When the Israelites temporarily lost the right to live in the land of their inheritance, it was the result of a choice they made themselves, with the consequences laid out by God clearly ahead of time. That's quite different than what you are saying happened to the inheritance of the Levites. You are saying that the Levites permanently lost their inheritance because of something God was already planning to do, but never told them (even after the fact). The Levites were given the special inheritance as a reward for their faithfulness during the golden calf incident at Mt. Sinai. But as you explain it, the Levites' special inheritance would not be something better than the inheritance of the other tribes, but something only temporary at best. An inheritance that sounded special when God promised it, but with a secret termination point where God would revoke the perpetual inheritance no matter what choices the Levites made.

Your explanation doesn't sound like the way the God of the Bible deals with people he wishes to honor. If you were correct, it would make me wonder what disappointing surprises God has in store for the 144,000.

[cheddar]

This reminds me of the Dr. Rich arguments – do you two know each other? I see that you constantly want to exalt the Old Testament and then try to assert that the New Testament is basically saying the same thing. Well, the apostle Paul would definitely disagree with that but he’s controversial so let’s just stick with what Jesus said.

Jesus did say that we needed to keep the commandments but he also said many more times that we need to exercise faith. I guess you see commandment keeping and faith as the same thing? The centurion that came to Jesus and asked for his servant to be healed was commended for his faith not his actions. He simply said speak the word only and my servant will be healed. Jesus marveled at this man and his faith - he wasn’t a Jew, he didn’t keep the law or offer sacrifice (well, he might have offered sacrifice to his pagan gods) – he simply believed in Jesus and according to Jesus himself that’s all he needed to do.

[BobRyan]

Furthermore - it is unlikely that the Levites were going to suffer more than the Apostle Paul.