With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need Any Critics
by Carmen Holland
From literally the beginning of the Adventist tradition, varied understandings of the authority of Ellen White have been a constant source of controversy inside the small faith community she helped to establish. In the early years of this denomination, a series of schisms occurred primarily over whether individuals or groups accepted the "Testimonies" of Ellen White.
Please be assured that this blog is not going to address the topic of the authority of Ellen White in the contemporary Adventist Church. It's only point will be to suggest that Ellen White apologists often create more problems than they think they are solving while often seemly being totally oblivious to the ethical implications of some of the arguments brought forward to demonstrate that her opinions and views came directly from God.
As an example of this phenomenon, let us consider a book published in 1922 entitled "Divine Predictions of Mrs. Ellen G. White Fulfilled." The individual responsible for the book was F.C. Gilbert. He lists himself not as the author but as a "compiler" since most of the book consists of quotations from early Adventist leaders. (I will completely resist the intense temptation, obviously coming from the dark side of the force, to provide biographical information about Mr. Gilbert.)
The basic purpose of the book is stated in the title. In the introduction, it is stated that "The Lord promised that the remnant people of God [the Seventh-day Adventist Church] would have the gift of prophecy . . . He has surely fulfilled this promise beyond the possibility of question or shadow of doubt. He has affirmed that by ‘many infallible proofs' in the predictions [of Ellen White] which are so specifically and definitely fulfilled." (p. 20).
I would like only to note briefly one case of the many that Gilbert recites which, to him, illustrates "beyond the possibility of question or shadow of doubt" her fulfilled prophecies. The title of the chapter reciting the episode is entitled "He Disobeyed." Most of the text is a long quotation attributed to J.N. Loughborough.
The essential elements are as follows: The "He" in question was "a man who was a minister of the gospel." Along with other Adventists, he moved from the eastern region of the US to the Midwest. Ellen wrote that these individuals who moved should have done this "to advance God's cause" and not "lay up treasure on earth." This minister who moved to Illinois "disregarded this testimony" because he became involved in land investments. When questioned why he did that, he "laid the responsibility for his course upon his wife."
Let us now quote at length the following: "For the benefit of helping this brother [the minister], the Lord gave Sister White a vision for him, and she said: ‘If your wife is the cause of this course of yours, God will step over the threshold of your house.' Sister White and all the brethren who were familiar with this experience understood it to mean that his wife would be taken from him by death. Now as to this part of the man's experience, I [Loughborough here being quoted by Gilbert] will state that not very long after this, his wife was taken ill. It seemed that nothing could be done to save her and she died. With her taken away, the brother could certainly make no further claim that it was his wife who was continuing to hold him to this worldly course."
Did this event change the deportment of the minister? Not at all. He continued to hold on to his "earthly treasures." Ellen had another vision and "she told him that if he held on to his property and refused to use it for the advancement of God's work ‘God will scatter this property that you have withheld from the cause.'" Is that what happened? Well, the minister soon was taken ill with typhoid fever and died. The property was worth $10,000 [in 1856 dollars-a considerable sum] and it was willed to his daughter. But by this time, there had developed problems with the title to the land and the value was decreased to $4,000. The daughter invested the $4,000 in a flour mill which promptly burned down and "all that was left of the original wealth of the good brother was the ashes of the building."
What is the message that should be learned from this episode? Loughborough being quoted by Gilbert states that just as Ellen predicted "We see that the property was scattered, and what a sad result came in disobeying the testimony of God" meaning, of course, the testimony of, Ellen White.
The chapter concludes with the following quotation also from Loughborough: "Elder J. N. Andrews used to say, when referring to the case of this brother of Illinois who refused to follow the visions which were given to help his selfish disposition and to give him victory over his covetousness, that they were the great proofs of the divine origin of the predictions made by Sister White"
Reading this recitation extolling the "great proofs of the divine origin" of Ellen's predictions, one can only wonder about the absence of moral sensitivity of anyone who would actually suggest that the reason that the minister's wife died was because God wished it so that "the brother could certainly make no further claim that it was his wife who was continuing to hold him to this worldly course." But then the "brother" who held on to his property, promptly dies and his daughter lost the inheritance. All to show the "sad result [which] came in disobeying the testimony of God" as expressed through Ellen White.
This is moral confusion raised to absurd level. One might conceivably see the point if it was the minister who died, but the wife? The view of what God is like in this story is in line with what was believed by whoever wrote or edited the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Jesus obviously was not impressed by that line of argument.
My point: With apologists using such reasoning, there is really no need for critics of Ellen White to come up with their own criticisms. They can just use the words of the apologists. Or am I missing something here?
Comments
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
Doesn't this sound strangely similar to the voodoo curses that have similar results? If so, could EGW be the cause of such misfortune by "predicting" it?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 3rd, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Someone in the days of ancient Israel could use the same logic with the prophet Elijah in his dealings with the royal Israelite family
"You should listen to the prophet Elijah and look what happens if you don't." List Ahab, Jezebel, a hundred soldiers, plus a good many others.
Not pretty stories, but nevertheless true. I think the point would be pretty valid too.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 pagophilus says:
Is it because some of what she says hits too close to home that you want to denigrate and diminish Ellen White's role as a prophet (ie God's mouthpiece or spokesperson)? That way, what she writes doesn't have to apply to you.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Hansen says:
Erv, This story reminds me of a story I heard from a health reformer graduate of a self supporting school: A relative of hers, diagnosed with cancer, went to an institution and was put on a strict vegetarian diet [nothing wrong with that]. His cancer went into or was in remission. One Thanksgiving, months later, he ate some turkey with his family. The cancer returned and he died shortly thereafter.
Nice God these people serve, eh?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
False assumption that these people were teaching: When bad things happen due to natural consequences, God is punishing them.
Better assumption: When we do things that harm us, bad things happen.
Even Better: God is trying to keep us from harm. When we go against His revealed will, we are placing ourselves in harm's way. Don't be surprised when bad things happen and especially don't blame Him for it.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
Truthfully, had people simply read the same works as Ellen they would have found the identical advice she was writing; but because her words became "annointed" from on high, it was more firmly believed. Has anyone shown that any thing about health was absolutely original with her and not taken directly from other various sources? "Prophetess of Health" shows that nothing she wrote about health was original with her. Who you gonna believe? The other doctors who wrote these things, are second-hand from her because it came (as she wrote) directly from God?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
What is remarkable about what she has in her health writings is what she wrote…and what she left out that promoted by her contemporaries.
I have a friend of mine who is an athiest and I challenged him to take any world religion and/or philosophy and compare it to Adventism. I also told him to make sure that in this exercise that he made each group was consistent with their profession (not necessarily with the group's actions).
Pick a world problem that affects the planet and/or humanity.
AIDs
Overpopulation
Pollution
Obesity
Cancer
Diabetes
Global warming
Poverty
Hunger
World Peace
The list goes on…
Which group by consistently following their profession would help all of these problems?
All other groups that I have found only help some problems, leave other problems unaffected and some problems are made worse.
Adventism, if consistently practiced according to their profession would make all of them better or solve them. Adventism's problem is that we profess but we don't believe. We talk, but we don't practice. We whitewash the tombs of the prophets, but we don't follow.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 pastor David says:
What can we do Elaine ? as you said her words have been "anointed " and she is above scripture in many Adventist churches I found some many examples of Ellen white contradicting scripture but my professors would never admit that .for example the bible says that God gave his his son because he loved the world , Ellen white says in one statement that Jesus had to plead with God , that the Father didn't want to . I read the story of Ballenger a minister who was disfellowshiped and treated so bad by our church only because he disagreed with Ellen white on the sanctuary doctrine . read his story " A F ballenger a seeker of new light " by Land . this man and his family with young children , even a 2 year son , he was fired and how much he struggled to feed his family . then , the greatest theologian of the church , Dr. Desmond Ford also was fired . The most respected theologian , fired for disagreeing with Ellen White .What did they give us instead ? Hazel ? Samuel Pipim ? New generations like me , never had the opportunity to sit in one of his classes just because a bunch of ignorants from the GC made that decision .Now fast forward to 2011 , Ted Wilson is taking this church backward , did you know that many leaders who served under the former GC president were fired . When Ted Wilson came to the seminary in an answer and question session I asked him , why he gave his list " to the Nominating Comitee ? his answers was that Ellen White says that the GC president has the right to choose those who he want to work with . There was a class of "spiritual formation " at the seminary and it was taken out by orders of the Ted Wilson .
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
David, as a pastor, you have my sympathy. As only a member, I decided more than 25 years ago I could not be part of such a deceptive and hypocritical organization as you most adequately describe.
The iconography of Ellen has so distorted the Gospel message with her non-biblical constructions that it cannot be restored. Only those who have not been wedded to her, or even know about her have been spared the disillusionment that comes, as you so acutely recognize, and have made worship of her and the institution replace what should be the one: Jesus Christ.
Recall she was wrong on so many things that have scientifically been shown to be erroneous: coffee and alcohol in moderation is very beneficial; the age of the earth is far older than she acknowledged, and no one has demonstrated that she ever had an original doctrinal position: all were first espoused by other SDA foundrers, and when she "approved" it because dogma.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Al Good says:
It does sound similar to a voodoo curse. To the extent that the story is accurate, the death of the wife, and later the husband, are both coincidences; they both would have died anyway, and neither was the result of Mrs White's 'pronouncement'.
It does come across, though, as a kind of thuggery – as in bullying.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
I think you may be referring to the following quotation. If it isn't it, then please let me know…
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right. {EW 126.1}
Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others. {EW 126.2}
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. Angels were so interested for man's salvation that there could be found among them those who would yield their glory and give their life for perishing man. "But," said my accompanying angel, "that would avail nothing." The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercession of God's Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery. {EW 127.1}
It is interesting that Jesus in Gethesemane also struggled three times as to whether He would make the sacrifice for mankind. Notice in this quote that there is no mention that Jesus had to talk the Father into the sacrifice. Just that it was a struggle. Later in Gethsemane we see Jesus having that same struggle. Jesus said "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father." I don't find the Father's struggle as unbiblical, but rather very biblical.
The struggle with Ballinger and Ford was not over Ellen White, (although it spilled over to that) but in the interpretation of the Bible. Ballenger and Ford did not/does not believe in the Adventist interpretation of the Bible, they believe their own interpretation of the Bible. So be it, but if they want to believe their own interpretation and not the Adventist interpretation then it is fitting that they should no longer be Adventist ministers. If a Coke execuative wants to work for Pepsi, so be it, just don't expect to receive a salary from Coca-cola corp any more. Poor guys! I find it amazing that a person wants his cake and to eat it too and finds it unfair if he can't.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
So would you say the same of Moses in dealing with Korah, Dathan and Abiram? Elijah with Ahaziah (2 Kings 1), Elisha (remember the bears?), how about Peter in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)? Thuggery? Bullying?
I find the rebellious Israelites reaction to the deaths of Korah, Dathan and Abiram interesting. They didn't say that Moses and God were justified, they said:
Numbers 16:41 But on the next day all the congregation of the sons of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron saying, You have killed the people of Jehovah.
Ah, the blindness of rebellion. We love people that tell us what we want to hear and that encourage us to follow the evil of our hearts.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Dear pagophilus
I have to agree with your precise response on this blog regarding Dr Taylor's article, (and Elaine's expected response), of course. The article is clearly tailor-made for ‘children in a candy shop’, providing a field day for 'Ellen White bashers'. Also, we have been asked to respond with our hands tied behind our backs as he narrows down the debate to a corner by seeking to omit any argument that EGW writings are from Jesus Christ [God], as he clearly indicates that he is not addressing this, but rather makes assertion that this particular ‘Gilbert’ incident’ actually proves that Ellen White writings aren’t from God because they reveal such a ‘farfetched’ account, which can’t really be from God, as Dr Taylor purports to be an authority on what actually comes from God and bases his findings from a subjective human perspective. I have to credit him for his craftiness in this regard.
While the subject in discussion makes for juicy argument and debate it hardly reflects what ‘Adventists Today’ think and believe but sets out to merely discredit EGW as an inspired writer, that’s all. I think Dr Taylor is missing something here! Playing on people’s emotions on such subjective matter to argue that such an incident is farfetched in terms of these accounts been from God due to the ‘unnecessary’ death of the wife and ‘understandable’ death of the minister is just not credible evidence to discredit EGW. This makes his conclusions purely subjective and holds no water even to the extent of insinuating that he is some sort of spokesperson for God which I very much doubt.
Elaine’s reference to ‘Voodoo’ and her arriving at such a conclusion, even if tongue in cheek, reeks of a deep resentment from an antagonist in her quest to envisage her EGW smear campaign be fulfilled. No one can predict the untimely death of anyone who is living. Neither does the devil know the future. A weatherman makes a ‘prediction’ and suffice to say many times may not predict right weather patterns. And when they are right in their predictions does it indicate ‘Voodoo’ when someone dies in a flood or Tsunami or storm? Logic doesn’t necessarily guarantee truth. The majority go to church on Sunday, so Sunday observance must be the truth? No! Never is truth concluded so easily as it has to be in complete harmony with scriptures. Voodoo is known to be part of the occult and to insinuate such an absurd ‘farfetched’ fallacy by attributing this evil to EGW, leaves apologists not much to say concerning the true nature of her antagonists and those anti-EGW polemics we so often see on these blogs.
With that been said, firstly, the term 'apologist' doesn't actually fit Gilbert’s role as defender, supporter, champion, ally, protector of EGW writings or any doctrine as such. It’s just Gilberts compilation to inform readers and reaffirm the rather accurate evidence of EGW’s prophecies coming true, that’s all. Nothing more ,nothing less. He doesn’t champion any apologists postulation to prove doctrine or teaching of some sort but emphasises rather the accuracy of her prophecies been fulfilled irrespective of whether the story had a happy ending or not. His purpose was to compile accounts to highlight the accurate fulfilment of her messages . The argument against the accusation that EGW writings weren’t inspired by Jesus Christ is not in the context of Gilbert’s compilation and he doesn’t set out to prove this. The largely subjective blog article 'plays’ on the sympathy of emotions by sidetracking with regards ethical questionings and concludes that God wouldn’t ‘behave’ in this manner.
Remember the incident of Moses lying that his wife was his sister. God was not pleased. It nearly cost him his wife and his life. All of the following Bible incidents could also be classified in the same “absence of moral sensitivity” category. 1] Elisha curses the youth that mocked him and a bear came out from the forest and mauled them to death. 2] Uzzah who touched the Ark when trying to stop it from falling but died because he disobeyed. 3] Story of the flood. 4] Sodom and Gomorrah. 5] The death of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. 6] New Testament story of Ananias and Sapphira. If Dr Taylor’s “absence of moral sensitivity” test is used as a yardstick to measure what is from God then the Bible itself will be a much smaller book.
Because something was prophesied and came to pass irrespective of the absence of some moral sensitivity, based on this incident, doesn’t and can never obliterate the fact that the outcome came to pass and was true, which I might add, had to come from someone who knew the future, keeping in mind that only God knows the future and more than once He has revealed 'things' to His prophets, whether good or bad.
God Bless and Shabbat Shalom
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
" Dr Taylor purports to be an authority on what actually comes from God and bases his findings from a subjective human perspective."
Are you suggesting that we have the same perspective as God? Who among us was given that privilege? Each one us is limited to his humanity, and with that, a human perspective which God gave us in the ability to make judgments.
You mention Moses being cursed by God for lying about his wife being his sister. Yet, Abraham was recorded as twice playing this same trick and was blessed with great riches. Is God impartial in punishing and rewarding such sins?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
I was referring to Abraham. But I guess you didn't know that this didn't happen to Moses did you?! Maybe you're reading too much Ellen White rather than your Bible…?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
Trevor, this is what you wrote:
"Remember the incident of Moses lying that his wife was his sister. God was not pleased. It nearly cost him his wife and his life."
I didn't find Abraham mentioned in your post. If you meant Abraham, you, however, wrote Moses. The dissimilarity of God's treatment is less than expected for lying. But, at that time there were no Ten Commandments that had been given 😉
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Dear Elaine
Maybe some 'Voodoo' power changed the Abraham word to Moses? 😉
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 TXalchemist says:
Maybe some Voodoo power indeed. The Voodoo of "I'm a fundamentalist and can never admit to there being any mistakes in my interpretation of the Bible because if I ever did, then the whole thing would be shown to be nothing but a pack of lies."
Erv, I greatly enjoyed your dark impulse, though had to do a little research on Gilbert to understand. Born almost 100 years earlier, but several similarities! (For those of you too lazy to find Gilbert's biographical information, the Cliff Notes version is that Gilbert was born a Jew and converted to Adventism as a young man and became an Adventist departmental director, author and magazine editor of Shabat Shalom).
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Ervin Taylor says:
I'm glad that someone brought up the cases of "Moses in dealing with Korah, Dathan and Abiram? Elijah with Ahaziah (2 Kings 1), Elisha (remember the bears?), how about Peter in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)"
There is no question that whoever wrote these accounts attributed what happened to God. Given the world view of those living in the time and place where these were composed and to whom they were addressed, that would be a very normal thing to do.
It is interesting that acts that many humans would now find ethically suspect is attributed by many to God with no second thought.
The reaction to pointing this out seems to segregate along the typical lines of those who are Christian fundamentalists (every thing in the Bible is literally to be accepted without question) and Christians those who are not (every thing in the Bible should to be taken seriously, but not literally and must be understood in context of time and place. Sometimes what some human writer attributes to God is simply mistaken).
Because Adventism is a young form of Protestant Christianity still culturally attached to its sectarian roots, it will take us many, many more decades of continuing maturation in the First World before non-fundamentalist elements will decrease into a minority. There will be temporary setbacks along the way (e.g., the current GC President), but the course is set and the outcome inevitable. Unfortunately, many of us will not be around to see it come to pass.
PS. I see that "TXalchemist" discovered the nature of my dark impulse. The similarity of these two individuals is truly remarkable which really says something more about the nature of Adventism–then and now–than about these two.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Pickle says:
Erv, you write:
"The view of what God is like in this story is in line with what was believed by whoever wrote or edited the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Jesus obviously was not impressed by that line of argument.
"My point: With apologists using such reasoning, there is really no need for critics of Ellen White to come up with their own criticisms. They can just use the words of the apologists. Or am I missing something here?"
Yes, I think so. First of all:
"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:7, 8)
In the above text, Jesus clearly endorsed the view that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, since the passage they were referring to was Deut. 24.
And, since Jesus was the Angel in the burning bush that met with Moses, and the Angel in the cloud that guided Israel through the wilderness, and the "Rock that followed them" in the wilderness according to 1 Cor. 10:4, and the one who inspired Moses to write what he wrote according to 1 Pet. 1:10-11, of course Jesus would not be unimpressed with the very line of argument He inspired Moses to write in Deuteronomy.
Second, I see others have already brought up the story of Ananias and Sapphira. How is what Acts says happened to them significantly different from the story you relate?
Third, more importantly, after locating the story at https://www.adventistarchives.org/search.asp?CatID=-99&CatName=Search+All+Categories&Search=%22original+wealth%22 it seems that some of the details Loughborough gives round out the story a bit. From the incident related on p. 159, does it not appear that this minister had a pretty serious problem? Would what he did not be considered theft, even if Loughborough made no objections?
And what about the $300 referred to on pp. 160-161? When he owned who knows how much land? P. 157 mentions buying 480 acres. How much land did the average farmer own back then? My guess is that back then this was an unusual amount, especially for a preacher.
Any idea who this was? Based on https://www.illinoisadventist.org/article.php?id=149 it looks to me like it might have been Elon Everts. According to https://www.adventistarchives.org/ Everts died on Feb. 25, 1858, of lung fever, being only 51 years of age.
From https://www.adventistarchives.org/ it appears that his wife died on October 25, 1856. So Loughborough's chronology seems accurate, since he says that the Whites were in Illinois in Dec. 1856 after the death of his wife.
From it appears that maybe the tent meeting in southern Wisconsin at which the preacher exhibited such greed as to take all the money that had been collected for Loughborough, it appears that that tent meeting may have started on June 27, 1857. At any rate, it had to have occurred sometime between January 1857 and Evert's death in Feb. 1858.
Note also 1Bio 383 where it says that Loughborough took back to Waukon in 1857 $15 after 4 months of preaching. The following winter he got just $4 plus a lot of food (p. 384). So for wealthy Everts to take all of the $36 that had been collected for Loughborough was wrong.
Looking at Loughborough's account as a whole, I don't see a problem with it.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Pickle says:
Erv,
I'm glad that someone brought up the cases of "Moses in dealing with Korah, Dathan and Abiram? Elijah with Ahaziah (2 Kings 1), Elisha (remember the bears?), how about Peter in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)"
There is no question that whoever wrote these accounts attributed what happened to God. Given the world view of those living in the time and place where these were composed and to whom they were addressed, that would be a very normal thing to do.
Whoever wrote these accounts? Acts was written by Luke, and Numbers was written by Moses. Pretty basic stuff.
More importantly, since the authors were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, when they attributed things to God, they attributed them to God because God attributed them to God.
If your world view has a problem with what the inspired Bible writers wrote, then perhaps you should consider changing your world view so that it is more in line with Scripture.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
"Jesus clearly endorsed the view that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, since the passage they were referring to was Deut. 24."
Often, Bible writers referred to "Moses" as a euphemism for the Law, or for the books written about Moses. There is no positive evidence that Moses wrote the entire Torah; in fact since his death is recorded therein, it would make it impossible.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Is the purpose, then, of this whole debate, to push Adventism to becoming more conformist, for whatever reason? Keeping in mind that God calls his people (all Christians) to be a peculiar people 1 Peter 2:9 and not just conformist. I sense a strong sense of dissatisfaction in not been more like older protestant Sunday churches of which many Adventists have 'Come Out' from. And Ellen White stands in the way of this? Also, our heritage links us all in this present day to the Apostolic Church of Laodicea albeit a lukewarm spiritual one which has been given much remedy to make right what is wrong and it doesn't indicate conformity, but on the contrary rebukes compromised religion and conformity. So while we may be historically a 'new' protestant church, we are attached to the mainstream apostolic church by prophecy.
Is it to insist that although Elisha cursed those youth that mocked him, the incident with the bear was coincidence and God may have not 'ordered' the ‘hit’ [to put it crudely for those who reduce it to such, by questioning God's ethics]? One has to take into account that God is Sovereign Ruler over all time space, and the creation of His hand as most would agree. He therefore knows all that occurs in the open and in secret including the recesses of our minds. His ways and dealings are very dissimilar to man's in terms of His righteousness and perfect character which may not be understood fully by man this side of eternity. Nothing passes through His hands that happen to man or anything else for that matter, because of His Sovereignty. Man therefore isn't qualified to 'judge' God's ethical principals when dealing with His subjects. In fact satan operates in this way by portraying himself as acting in the best interest of God, but we know he isn't. To disassociate God's actions based on these ethical arguments implies that either He orders 'hits' on sinners if the 'prophecy' is from Him, or He isn't the Sovereign our all creation, of which both accusations aren't surely true, especially in terms of His righteous dealings with man.
Job's case is an example of this even though it was allowed by God in contest to satan's accusations. What a terrible experience it was for Job yet he didn't question the ethical principals of God?
God Bless Shabbat Shalom
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
I note a reckless discarding of Deuteronomy and surmising regarding the Torah, and the fallacy that Jesus didn't sanction much of what was written in those pages. Isn't this conformist thinking more in line with Catholicism, where the Church usurps authority over God and dictates what is authoritative in the Bible? Talk about 'words against the most high' [Dan 7:25]. Is this what Dr Taylor is proposing Adventism evolve into? Is this really a maturing of Protestantism? To become Catholic? I beg to differ!
God Bless and Shabbat Shalom
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 Nathan Schilt says:
From the lofty heights of our 21st Century towers of Babel, Dr. Taylor finds the siren call to assert moral hegemony over Adventist history irresistible. It feels so good to impute our "enlightened" moral norms to God, superimpose them on history, and then presume to sit in judgment on the saints and prophets who spiritually dwarf us.
The truth is that historical distance does not give us keener moral vision. The changing landscape of history simply changes our moral blind spots.
I do not know whether there is any corroboration for the story attributed to J.N. Loughborough, or whether there is any verifiable historical referent for the tale. Nor can I tease out the extent to which this now obscure story is woven into the complex and diverse fabric that was transmitted to later generations. But in the words of Dan Rather, even if the facts are not accurate, the story is True. The perception of God that it reveals is thoroughly Biblical, whether one looks in the Old or New Testament. The fact that this Biblical view does not fit well within the grandeur of our postmodern ethical cathedrals should engender humility rather than moral vanity.
I am not an apologist for Ellen White. As heir to The Enlightenment, I am loathe to find a supernatural provenance at work in anecdotal evidence of the bizarre or paranormal that do not readily yield to naturalistic explanations. Nevertheless, as a Christian I humbly and gratefully acknowledge the sovereignty of the God whose ways are vastly beyond my powers of comprehension; the God who moves in dimensions outside space and time; and the God who speaks to me not so much to inform me as to evoke a response.
My mother passed away this week at the ripe old age of 95 1/2 – fully in possession of her ever sharp mental faculties to the end, peaceful and secure in the assurance of her destiny. The story Erv tells, assuming she was not already aware of it, would not have shaken my mother's faith or been a source of embarrassment. She was intimate with a God of infinite love and mercy; and she feared and reverenced the God of judgment and intolerance towards evil who peacefully coexisted with the God of love. Her faith was quite comfortable with the dichotomies, paradoxes, and inconsistencies of a God who acts through humans in time and space, but is not answerable to them. She felt no need to confine The Great I Am to historically conditioned manmade moral boxes or ethical norms. Was she wrong?
Must we create God in our own image before we can worship Him? Must history bow to us and fit into the procrustean bed of our moral sensibilities? What incredible arrogance!
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 4th, 2011 RonCorson says:
In all of this Ellen White is just a side issue, as others pointed out we can find these kinds of stories in the Old Testament as well. I have no doubt that we could find such stories attributed to the prophecies of Joseph Smith or numerous others who claimed prophetic status.
The real question should be is this the way God would act? Is it reasonable to assume such things of God particularly in light of the New Testament.
What often happens is people defend their prophet…their authority and ignore the intense philosophical conceptions their defense makes against God. That will always be the larger problem because after all we don't serve any prophet we serve God and no prophet indispensable to bring us to God. After all if every Adventist suddenly and completely rejected Ellen White would that stop them from following Christ? Think about your answer to that question and you will know who your savior is.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Let's boil it down to this:
Erv, Elaine and others of similar persuasion:
Truly inspired writings are not accurate or trustworthy.
Human reason is trustworthy. Science is more trustworthy and accurate than inspired writings.
"Conservatives":
Truly inspired messages are both accurate and trustworthy (The medium may not be though).
Human reasoning separated from the inspiration is flawed. Science where it disagrees with inspiration is wrong.
Please choose you this day…
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Pickle says:
Elaine:
Often, Bible writers referred to "Moses" as a euphemism for the Law, or for the books written about Moses.
Consider:
Mark 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
The law "wrote unto us"? The books about Moses "wrote unto us"? Such an explanation does not fit this reference to Deut. 25.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 hflynn says:
Nathan:
I am sorry for the loss of your mother. She sounds like she was a wonderful woman. Oh that we could all have the faith she had.
Let me commend you on the quality of this post. It is one of the finest examples of English composition that I have read in these blogs.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 hflynn says:
Trevor
Erv is baiting you people. I thiink that those responding should choose their arguments and expression of them very carefully. If they don't Erv will come across like the voice of reason while his readers will look like a bunch of red-necked reactionaries. This is exactly what he wants. My advice is to be cautious how you and others respond.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 RonCorson says:
Pickle wrote:
—
Elaine:
Often, Bible writers referred to "Moses" as a euphemism for the Law, or for the books written about Moses.
Consider:
Mark 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
The law "wrote unto us"? The books about Moses "wrote unto us"? Such an explanation does not fit this reference to Deut. 25.
—
In fact that is not even what the text in Deut says. The plea to Moses is the plea to authority to attempt to attack Jesus. The text in Deut says that if brothers are living together, not just if a man's brother dies.
"Dt 25:5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
Dt 25:6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
Dt 25:7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
Dt 25:8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,”
Dt 25:9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.”
Dt 25:10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."
But all this is an excellent example of people manipulating things because they don't want to rationally look at the information. Then when they use information inaccurately it becomes fodder for holding up their previously held inaccurate ideas.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Thanks Kindly for the advice hflynn. Point taken. (I hope Erv never sees it!);) Do you recommend I bow out?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Nathan Schilt says:
Thank you, hflynn, for your affirmation. Erv deserves some credit however. He has a gift for putting the contrast between the God of scripture and the gods of secular morality into sharp relief. His seemingly pathological obsession with what he perceives as the soft underbelly of traditional Adventism exposes the larger reality, observed by many other posts to this blog, that he is contemptuous of any religious claims which do not cleanly clear the rational hurdles his gods erect.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Pickle says:
Ron,
In fact that is not even what the text in Deut says. The plea to Moses is the plea to authority to attempt to attack Jesus. The text in Deut says that if brothers are living together, not just if a man's brother dies.
I think you are mistaken on this one. Just because the speakers in Mark didn't use every word that is found in the passage in Deut. 25 doesn't mean that they weren't citing Deut. 25.
For example, if I said, "The plea to Moses is the plea to authority to attack Jesus," it would be incorrect to say that I wasn't quoting you simply because I didn't also use the word "attempt."
But all this is an excellent example of people manipulating things because they don't want to rationally look at the information.
The problem with that logic is that it is the generally accepted view that the passage in Mark is referring to Deut. 25. So there isn't any manipulation going on.
The basic issue was who wrote Deuteronomy. We have texts in the NT that say that Moses wrote it. And that ought to settle the matter since the Bible is the ultimate authority for the Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
Nathan,
I offer my condolences to you and your family on the loss of your mother. Your post was profoundly insightful.
In answer to your question: no, she was not wrong. Would it have been possible for an intimate friend of God to have been wrong about Him? No.
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 5th, 2011 RonCorson says:
Pickle wrote:
—
I think you are mistaken on this one. Just because the speakers in Mark didn't use every word that is found in the passage in Deut. 25 doesn't mean that they weren't citing Deut. 25.
—
They weren't accurately quoting Deut and their purpose was to put their twisted version of Moses against Christ to which Christ replied:
Mk 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
But I imagine when one forgets things like context and culture it becomes easy to misuse texts such as this. No one is arguing that the first 5 books were traditionally thought and called to be the writings of Moses. That tradition however is clearly wrong since they include writing after Moses died and critically because the scholars can see the different writing styles. But citing tradition is not evidence it is merely tradition.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 Hansen says:
Nathan, I join others in offering condolence.
All,
My post above, was, more or less, an affirmation of Erv's narrative; however, after scribbling it, I, too thought of Ananias and Sapphira, especially because of its presence in Acts.
I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. The idea that God is just waiting for us to stumble so he can zap us, doesn't fit with numerous biographic narratives in Scripture. Abraham, for example, the man chosen by Paul (and James) to illustrate justification by faith.
Abraham made lots of mistakes, some serious ones. Scripture never says he lost his salvation. He certainly wasn't killed by God for his mistakes. The NT mainly refers to the things Abraham did right, rather than wrong, to illustrate how men are saved by faith.
Ananias and Sapphira were different from the believers who were of one heart and mind. There was fraud involved. Peter said that the money was theirs even after the sale; nevertheless, they apparently indicated that this was the total of the price. Their motives come into question. God must have known something about these people that others did not, so he made an example of them.
I don't believe that this was simply a mistake, a moment of weakness on their part, which brought death upon them. In the OT, high handed sin ,i.e. rebellion, not momentary lapses, brought death.
I don't want to trifle with God in light of these things. Neither do I want to view God as just waiting for me to goof so he can slaughter me. This, like everything else in Scripture, needs to be understood in light of God's sacrifice for humanity on the Cross.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
The following insight might be helpful, at least it was helpful for me….
I have found that the first time God's people do something either good or bad, God reacts in a very strong demonstration. If the people do good, then God shows His approval in a very strong way: they are blessed financially, fire comes down from heaven, etc., etc. However, the first time God's people do something bad, God shows that this is not the way to go in also a very strong way. People die, plagues happen, etc., etc.
This all happens the FIRST time things happen. The second time? Not much happens. People do bad things and God doesn't seem to do much. Do good the second time, ditto. It is like God says, "Okay, you know what I think about this, now how are you going to react to that?"
I see that God wants His will to be clearly known, and then once it is known, then He doesn't want us to follow because of reward or fear, so He doesn't act. I can cheat on my church pledges and I am not going to get zapped. I can have a prophet stay at my house and not get more kids, etc.
God's actions are not for their immediate effect so much as for everyone's education. Physical danger illustrates the reality of spiritual danger. If God treats active disobedience with a slap on the wrist, then people will think it is no big deal, but when guys get drunk in the temple, Uzzah touches the ark and a couple cheat on their pledge, and it hasn't happened before then God shows that if you do this it is serious stuff with serious consequences down the road. Once demonstrated, it doesn't need to be demonstrated again. The lesson has been given. We know.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Below are some texts worth considering (like all other scripture, of course) in regards to why God does things that man can't comprehend. I think that we can only understand Him, at best, at the Cross! Seems the Apostle Paul acknowledged that finite man cannot fully understand the inner workings of God, let alone his ways and thoughts and I think we do too. Paul does not call this unknown mystery's of God 'farfetched' but accepts them for who God is.
- Isaiah 55:9
- Proverbs 14:12
- Proverbs 21:2
- 1Corinthians 3:19
- 1Corinthians 1:20
- 1Corinthians 1:19
- 1Corinthians 1:26-30
- 1Corinthians 2:13
- Isaiah 55:8-9
- Psalm 95:9
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 Pickle says:
Ron,
They weren't accurately quoting Deut ….
I didn't say they were "quoting" Deut. I said they were "citing" Deut. The word "paraphrase" would be acceptable too.
No one is arguing that the first 5 books were traditionally thought and called to be the writings of Moses. That tradition however is clearly wrong since they include writing after Moses died and critically because the scholars can see the different writing styles. But citing tradition is not evidence it is merely tradition.
It's not just tradition. Jesus Himself acknowleged that Moses was the author of Deuteronomy. He has the final say over everyone else, no matter how smart they think they are.
The attachment at the end of Deuteronomy of a notice about Moses' death does not negate Moses being the author. Just because someone other than a book's author writes a prologue, foreward, preface, epilogue, or appendix and attaches it to that book written by someone else does not negate the fact that that someone else was the author of the book.
Years ago someone told me that a preacher told him that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by two different people, no question about it, because of a difference in styles. I replied, "Something you wrote awhile back and somehting you wite today could look like they were written by two different people too." The argument doesn't make much sense to me to demand that no one in the entire history of the world but modern authors ever wrote two works using different styles.
I wasn't citing tradition. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, to my knowledge, has been the generally accepted view amongst scholarly believers for centuries. Of course, scholarly unbelievers would be a different matter.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 Pickle says:
My condolences as well, Nathan. I appreciated your post about your mother.
There was a little more to Ananias and Sapphira's sin then is apparent at first glance. Somewhere I ran across the following thought in the SoP.
When you sold your possessions and laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet in order to help support those who had lost their jobs, families, and/or homes because of accepting Christ, you then ended up in the same sort of situation like those in need and were supported by the church. It seems to have been like a charitable gift annuity or some such today.
Ananias and Sapphira claimed to have put everything into the treasury and were then going to live off the church, while still having the benefit of their private stash of money that they had held onto.
So it was a clear case of intentional, premeditated fraud against God.
I found the statement:
"This couple had noted the fact that those who had parted with their possessions to supply the wants of their poorer brethren were held in high esteem among the believers. They therefore, upon consulting together, decided to sell their property, and affect to give all the proceeds into the general fund, but really to retain a large share for themselves. They thus designed to receive their living, which they intended to estimate much higher than it really was, from the common stock, and to secure the high esteem of their brethren." (3SP 284)
It's worse than I remembered. They even overestimated what they needed to receive from the church in order to survive, and were hoping to score political points via the fraud.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 6th, 2011 RonCorson says:
Yes Pickle you were citing tradition. After all Jesus said a seed dies before it sprouts, he clearly used the knowledge and beliefs of the people at his time. Most of the evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is because of verses about him writing down the law etc. But of course there is nothing in those statements to indicate that the Pentateuch was what he wrote down.
From Religioustolerance website here is some good explanations why the Moses wrote it all view does not work:
Some clues that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, according to liberal theologians:
As mentioned elsewhere in this website, many Christian and Jewish conservatives believe that Moses is the sole author of the Pentateuch and that he was inspired directly by God to write text that is free of error. Other theologians have claimed that there is some internal evidences in the Bible that these conclusions are invalid:
-
Theologians were prompted to develop the Documentary Hypothesis as a result of observing the presence of doublets in the Pentateuch. These are pairs of stories which occur in two separate locations in the text. The doublets generally do not agree fully; there are usually minor differences between the stories. R.E. Friedman, in his 1997 book "Who Wrote the Bible?" lists a number of them:
- Two creation stories in Genesis.
- Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
- Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
- Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
- Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
- Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
- Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
- Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.
I too wish to express my public condolences to Nate's loss. As is usual with Nate and reflecting his training and experience as a distinguished member of the legal profession (an alumni of the UCLA Law School), he raises important issues in his comments, as does several others who have commented.
I take the centerpiece of Nate's concern to be the following: "The perception of God that it reveals [the story attributed to J. N. Loughborough that Gilbert quoted] is thoroughly Biblical, whether one looks in the Old or New Testament." There is no question that it reflects the majority view of the Old Testament. And there also appears to be several statements in the New that reflect that view.
On February 7th, 2011 klriley says:
"(My understanding is that Catholic scholars agree that some popes were more political than religious leaders in the MIddle Ages and did some very regretable things. There are a number of Protestant leaders including Adventist leaders who also have behaved in very regretable ways becauses of ethnic, cultural, and pollitical pressure.)"
The Catholic Church was not under any ethic, cultural and political pressure during the bloodbath they were directly reponsible for. They did it in the name of religion and operated similarly to organised genocide. There can be no excuses for such atrocities and shameful acts against other human beings, from anyone who commits them, period. This should not be watered down and made to look insignificant as done in the comment.
The comparison made in this comment is clearly a tactic to paint a false picture of the Adventist Church by trying to reduce it to the level of a persecuting church which it really isn't. Many Adventists, Pastors and their families, and members were killed by people they trusted and even worshipped together with. Yet the unspeakable happened, brother turned on brother, including the conference President and his doctor son, evil seemed to have consumed them. This does not, although as horrific as it was, decrease the vileness of the persecution of the Protestants by the Church of Rome.
The sexual abuse cases brought against Priests of the Catholic church has been going on for years without much been done about it. That is a current atrocity which even after Rwanda still continues without their church even batting an eyelid.
The deciding factor that will decide the real dichotomy at the end of the age just before Jesus comes will not be a debate on some blog about traditionalists and culturalists and whether EGW was a prophet or not; it will be those who choose to obey God and keep the fourth commandment and honour the true Sabbath and those who will accept and honour a spurious manmade decree to keep Sunday holy of which the church of Rome guards closely. It is their 'trump' card and sign of its power! All Protestants should therefore keep the true Seventh-day Sabbath that Jesus himself kept as a sign of obedience to God. Remember the Sabbath Day? Ellen White kept it too. But do her critics?
Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others. {EW 126.2}
—
—
I for one am grateful for the amplification, magnification, and application of the Scriptures provided by the Spirit of Prophecy; so that in a world where skepticism and every wind of doctrine abound, and where apparently some have adopted a life's mission of undermiing and destroying in others, especially SDA's, any semblance of faith in the Scriptures or an immanent God, we have such a "power boost" with which to maintain, and better understand, the faith once delivered to the saints.
"What is remarkable about what she has in her health writings is what she wrote…and what she left out that promoted by her contemporaries."
Is this meant to imply that she was given insight by god as to what to leave out from the materials promoted by contemporary health reformers? Perhaps god might have known enough to lead her away from phrenology, to realize that tea is a healthy drink instead of a poison as she claimed, that coffee is for many people a healthy drink in moderation, and that masturbation does not cause insanity (that is unless you are foolish enough to believe a supposed prophet who claims it does.)
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 12th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
RonCorson,
I’m sorry that this is childish, or nonsensical, or foolish to you; but it is quite a serious matter in my opinion. There are a number of things about which there is a total understanding. These things of course are generally, if not always, man-made. If man invented or manufactured a thing, it CAN be TOTALLY understood by the designer or fabricator. I’m sure the designers and manufacturers of my car have a complete understanding of it, and how/why it works.
The paraphrase/quote obviously presupposes that those who hear it or read it have awareness and basic understanding of what the plan of redemption is and what it's designed to accomplish. How can you believe something (which the latter part of the paraphrase/quote suggests you must) about which you have heard nothing or of which you have no basis for knowledge or familiarity? The paraphrase/quote directly and simply implies that the process of comprehending it is literally mind boggling (as in “lose our minds”); whereas not believing it is literally not a viable option.
You have implied that this is somehow a peculiarly Adventist opinion; perhaps because Rock is an Adventist, or because I am an Adventist, or perhaps Adventism has frustrated or angered you—or maybe because you did not read the original post carefully; who knows? You have also indicated that I have tried to change the meaning from your original interpretation, when all I have done was define “understanding” as more than a knowledge and awareness of the existence and purpose of a thing, in an apparently unsuccessful attempt to provide clarity to what seemed self-evident.
For what it’s worth, looking back on the posts, I suppose I could have emphasized the words “meaning” and “nature,” as in “know and understand the MEANING of the plan of salvation” and “know and understand the NATURE…;” but not even this was sure to have been effective, as you were determined to interpret the paraphrase/quote in the narrowest possible context, when in a sermon to Christians—the context from which it was actually extracted—it was obvious that the audience knew and understood what the plan of redemption and the Godhead were, from a definitional standpoint, from the very outset.
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
kriley:
"One of the problems with prophetic tests is that, if you simply list the ones the Bible gives and tick each off for prophets in the Bible, no one actually passes all the tests. I don't know that they would fare any better under your list."
Sir, that is an assertion that simply doesn't stand up to the data. John the Baptist doesn't stand up to these tests? John the Revelator? Come on man! Which tests do they not pass?
There are some prophets especially in the OT that their passing test #1 is simply not listed in the biblical record, but it is evident that their calling was clear enough for the people of that time to see them as valid.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Yes, He did lead her away from phrenology (she condemned it — RH Feb. 18, 1862, MR 666) although personally she experimented with it with her boys earlier on her own.
Tea and coffee are addictive and could I say, enslaving, substances. Caffeine is endorsed by some researchers as fine and by others as harmful. Personally I will go with the "Little Lady" with the good track record. If you like tea and coffee then I imagine you will go with the data you like.
Ahhh… masturbation! I really wonder why something so morally corrupt and so addictive is constantly defended by the attackers of Ellen White…
How can her critics say with such all-knowing authority that the cause/effect relationship between masturbation and mental illness is non-existent? How long and how difficult was it to "prove" that something as straight forward as lung cancer was caused by smoking? If that was the case with something so clear, how difficult would it be that a masturbation/mental illness link would be established scientifically? Especially when she says that the effect of masturbation is not the same on all minds! Evidently it doesn't cause evident mental illness in all minds.
Again, this is a poor attack. The jury is still out at the most for their case. And this is the best that they can do attacking her health record? How about taking where she was over a hundred years ahead of the scientific realm in her recommendations? (Could this be the same with masturbation? Tea? Coffee? I find that where there is a strong financial or desire interest the data is often skewed.)
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Scientists have always been divided regarding the harmful effects of caffeine laced beverages like tea, coffee and coca cola etc. This would include green tea which also contains caffeine. Second to water, tea is the most common drink on the planet so you know who will keep funding research to protect their interests. Here's a link with some information regarding the effects of caffeine allergy and research references: https://www.doctoryourself.com/caffeine2.html
So, does the use of tea, coffee, tabacco, alcohol and caffeine laced beverages make the difference between traditional Adventism and the matured neo-psuedo Adventists? Is that what it boils down to? Is that the reason for a total onslaught on Ellen White? To allow the use and practice of these.
Self sex or self abuse was included as a destructive practice that Ellen White warned about and also admonished many married men about. With all the crazies in this world one wonders where it all starts. Immorality almost always produces some sort of madness.
With critics like these, Ellen White doesn't need any apologetics!
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 aklym says:
Art
Trevor, do a search of EGW's writings and read all that she said about tea. Set aside your preconceived notions about her alleged inspiration. Weigh what EGW said against we know about tea today. A fair reading leads to the inescapable conclusion that she was simply wrong.
Of course, any drink or food can be harmful if overused. As can any practice. I suggest that the total and complete fixation on thoughts of god, as demonstrated in the brain-injured prophet, is also harmful leading to a life devoid of balance and joy.
It appears that nothing Ellen White said, no matter how absurd, can change the views of the SOP apologists.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Hahaha… if not drinking tea takes all of the joy out of life, then you need to get a life! 🙂
Excuse me, but if you read all of the literature on caffeine, I come to a different conclusion.
Yes, tea has some good things, but it also has some bad things. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had some good with the evil.
Do you remember that EGW used tea for medicinal purposes, just not as a dietary beverage?
Take away your hostility towards EGW and you will have a richer, better, healthier life!
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
aklym
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. The 'tea-attack' strategy to discredit her writings is an old argument that basically holds no water. Modern science even today is still inconclusive and hasn't really proven her wrong. Ellen White critics will always back the science that says tea is healthy yet knowing full well that caffeine is a harmful substance affecting one physically and spiritually.
Ellen White was spot on with regards to tobacco, alcohol and tea abuse, to name a few…
Your derogatory remarks regarding Ellen White is forgiven if you are on a caffeine high! We understand what mind-altering drugs can do.
Trevor
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
It appears that nothing EGW says, no information given, no support no matter how reasonable, can assuage the critics…
Satan is . . . constantly pressing in the spurious–to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.– Letter 12, 1890. {1SM 48.3}
There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.– Letter 40, 1890. {1SM 48.4}
What is it like to be a fulfillment of prophecy?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 RonCorson says:
I am only responding again to this because it shows how your understanding is so limited. You write:
—
I’m sorry that this is childish, or nonsensical, or foolish to you; but it is quite a serious matter in my opinion. There are a number of things about which there is a total understanding. These things of course are generally, if not always, man-made. If man invented or manufactured a thing, it CAN be TOTALLY understood by the designer or fabricator. I’m sure the designers and manufacturers of my car have a complete understanding of it, and how/why it works.
—
This to your mind shows that man has total understanding of something. Your example that the aggregate of a multitudes of manufacturing people in all kinds of different specialties indicates that a single "finite mind" can also understand the total of something is just silly. It is also completely wrong when you consider that even if there was something invented by a single person he would necessarily understand all the totality of ways it could be used or misused.
I do think I see the problem when you say "I'm sure" you don't take the time to actually think about what you are sure about. Very likely you have equally misunderstood the alleged quote/paraphrase. But that you try to defend this so hard tells me a lot about your thinking.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 RonCorson says:
I could not find the quote on a internet search but did find this:
—
I heard a highly skillfull preacher, the former President of the then Oakwood College, Dr. Calvin Rock say, “if you try to explain it, you'll lose your mind and if you don't believe it, you'll lose your soul.” I hope I have done justice to the quotation. https://pentecostwo.com/THE_C.I.A.html
—
Here is Stephens version:
—
However, regarding the Godhead and The Plan of Salvation, I will quote/paraphrase the great Dr. Calvin B. Rock, to wit: if we try to understand it, we will lose our minds; but if we don’t believe it, we will lose our souls.
—
It could well be that neither one of them knows what they are saying or has the quote or paraphrase correct. Either way the statement is poor because it juxtaposes the idea of trying to explain and/or understand something with the loss of ones mind. Which is pretty clearly a hyperbole. Then it moves to if you don't believe it you lose your soul. With it appears that the loss of the soul is not meant to be compared to the hyperbole of losing ones mind.
Trying to explain it to a dim mind or someone so sure of themselves could figuratively drive one crazy. in the common metaphor we use of crazy today as something really annoying and frustrating.
But that is all I will say on the subject unless someone actually shows me the accurate quote. For now we can take it as a lesson in the confusion of the minds of those who don't think to critically.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Ervin Taylor says:
It is a continuing source of wonder to me how one simple blog on one subject can spawn such a plethora of reactions going into so many directions. But I guess that is the genius of the human brain/mind.
For example, a blog about the strange antics of EGW apologists got us to a discussion of the Christian Trinity. Is the connection that EGW and her husband started out as Arians and then she changed her mind?
I wanted to respond to Tom about never having anything good to say about EGW. That is simply incorrect.
In my view, Ellen (can I call her Ellen?) was absolutely sincere in what she said and did. For example, she obviously had what she, but more importantly the people around her, called "visions" and she believed that they came directly from God. From whereever they came, they were vivid and she remembered a lot of what she had viewed and felt and heard (and she reported also things she remembered smelling) while in these out-of-body experiences. (It seems to me that there is absolutely no evidence of her being a conscious fraud. Let's take that off the table as completely untenable. However, may I suggest that we still need to known more about the role of her early brain injury in all of this.)
Ellen seems to have had a very emotionally sensitive, perhaps neurotic, but certainly a histrionic personality. (I wish someone who knows well the personality profile literature would write a straightforward description of her personality characteristics–perhaps using the Myers-Briggs taxonomy or some other well-regarded typology.)
Regretfully, there were people around Ellen who turned her into an oracle. Since she was human (obviously!), she usually went along with that especially in her younger years. What insecure teenager or young woman in 19th century America could resist being the center of attention with adults hanging on your every word?
Since she was human, she held to and expressed some opinions and adopted positions that were simply wrong from a factual perspective. She held and advocated some ideas that need to be forgotten, or quoting a recently deceased General Conference president referring to some another point of view, "put [some of Ellen's views] into the dust bin of [Adventist] history".
However, may I submit that she did come to hold and advocate some ideas that contributed to creating a faith community with some very helpful concepts that merit continued support and advocacy if we could ever disentangle them from a fixation on sectarian and apocalyptic themes. None of them are original, but that's not the point.
For example, her "God is Love" theme has much that has been and can be expanded upon. Her view that physical and emotional or psychological (Ellen called it "spiritual") health are directly related has great merit. "Her rejection of the idea of the eternal burning Hell should be more appreciated. Also, her rejection of the idea that humans have separate eternal "souls" should certainly be celebrated.
I continue to suggest that the problem with Ellen is primarily how her apologists have used her. At the same time, this does not let her off the hook for some unfortunate things that she said and did. But, in my view, they pale into relative insignificance when we see the uses to which her words have been put by those whose motives were not as pure as Ellen's–at least most of the time. Also, we need to compare how she expressed certain ideas in comparison how these same ideas were being expressed by contemporaries.
All of these kinds of comments are obviously premature and tentative until we get a thoroughly scholarly, non-apologetic, comprehensive biography of Ellen. We don't have that as yet. There are some excellent major scholarly works (e.g., Numbers "Prophetess of Health" and the Bull and Lockhart "Seeking a Sanctuary") but they don't pretend to be a comprehensive treatment of Ellen's religious career.
The forthcoming volume on her containing chapters by both Adventist and non-Adventist scholars is being edited by distinguished American religious historians and should provide some additional data from a number of perspectives that will allow us to be able to put her much better into the theological, historical, and cultural contexts of her place and time. We should then be able to ground our views about her on a more nuanced and objective basis.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
"Trying to explain it to a dim mind or someone so sure of themselves could figuratively drive one crazy."
Perhaps we have finally stumbled into partial agreement, or at least the reason for the disagreement. Personally, I might substitute “figuratively” with “literally,” and I would prefer not to classify any minds as “dim.” Other than that, I believe we’re onto something.
Thank you for actually taking the time to try to find this online. It may be that you can’t really explain something that isn't, or can’t be, understood; in which case the two versions are not far apart. I defend it because it is an important statement from an important individual.
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 klriley says:
@ Brian Holland
Take any list of specific 'tests' that a prophet must pass compiled from the Bible (you will find such lists in numerous SDA publications), and then 'test' the Bible prophets by it. By insisting on taking into account 'conditional' prophesies, etc, you can gain a passing mark for each, but if applied literally, then the major prophets almost all fail on the issue of "if what the prophet prophesies does not come to pass, they were not sent by God". We change the rules because we know they made it into the Bible, but what was there to tell the contemporaries of Ezekiel, for example, that his failed prohecies would be picked up and reinterpreted 500+ years later to apply to the end of the world? Prophecy is a much messier and complicated business than we want to believe. That is true of modern as well as ancient prophets.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 RonCorson says:
Stephen wrote:
—
"Trying to explain it to a dim mind or someone so sure of themselves could figuratively drive one crazy."
Perhaps we have finally stumbled into partial agreement, or at least the reason for the disagreement. Personally, I might substitute “figuratively” with “literally,” and I would prefer not to classify any minds as “dim.” Other than that, I believe we’re onto something.
—
No we are not anywhere close to partial agreement because you want to put literally drive one crazy instead of figuratively drive one crazy. Because I have never heard or read any reports of anyone being driven crazy by trying to explain something to anyone no matter how dim, bright or self righteous that person may be. So if there are not occurrences of something it is really poor reasoning to say that something like explaining something to someone can or will drive a person literally crazy.
I mean really, do you think about what you write?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
One premise of higher criticism of the Bible is that the supernatural is taken off of the table – the only explanations that are allow are the natural. Thus the miracles of the Bible are either myths or have a natural explanation that was merely exaggerated.
I find the same type of thing among some when it comes to "Ellen". Even though very clear supernatural phenomena was demonstrated and tested in front of many types of people — supporters, critics, enemies and skeptics, in many different locations and venues, that evidence is discounted as seizures, brain injury, mercury poisoning, you name it.
How can the following be these mental dysfunctions?
Not breathing for hours, yet maintaining normal skin color, bodily function, heart rate, etc.
Not blinking for hours, yet having no eye disability afterwards.
Being able to speak while in vision without exhaling
The joints being held so strongly so that the strongest men in the congregation cannot move them, yet at the same time the movements are free and graceful.
Her movements cannot be impeded by others yet it seems like it is without effort on her part.
Being able to point to and quote texts from the Bible which is held by her for hours outside of her range of vision.
These kinds of thing happened not just once or twice, but over and over!
Then after the open visions ceased, testimonies arriving that were sent months earlier arriving in the perfect moment.
Secret society signs given of which she had no knowledge.
John 20:27-29 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (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.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Jeremiah 18:5-10
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, (6) O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. (7) At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; (8) If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (9) And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; (10) If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
Local prophecies are always conditional. These apply to local Israel and Judah, specific people, etc. There are local prophecies that Ellen White makes as well. The "food for worms" prophecy is one of these. It applied to local people in that room.
Then there are apocalyptic prophecies that are unconditional. These apply to the first, second and third comings of Christ. There are clear differences between these two types of prophecies.
Daniel and Revelation (except for Daniel chapter 4) are examples of apocalyptic prophecies. The Great Controversy is also an example of an apocalyptic prophecy.
Testing local prophecies should always look for the conditional element to be fulfilled as to test the prophecy. If the conditional element is not fulfilled, then having the prophecy fulfilled would be a false fulfillment. Jeremiah 28:1-17 is a classic example of this.
Ezekiel's prophecy is local to Israel, although it may have an apocalyptic typology aspect to it as well. The local aspect would definitely be conditional on Israel's faithfulness. The apocalyptic typology, if present, would be unconditional.
This is not trying to get a prophet out of a hard place, it is common sense, unless one believes in predestination and the idea that God's sovereignty removes free choice and will. A false prophet would make a prophecy of blessing, and the people were disobedient and the blessing happened anyway, or a false prophet makes a prophecy of a curse, and the people repent and are obedient and the curse comes anyway.
Thus a prophet makes a prophecy that certain people will live to see Jesus come, but the people do not do what is necessary for Jesus to come, then for Jesus to come anyway would be the sign of a false prophet, not a true one. It is a fulfillment of the Jeremiah 18 principle.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
It is amazing that because of "reports" made more than 100 years ago and never substantiated, in fact some clearly reputed, only shows that what one desperately wants to believe, he will believe. There should be more proof than what "someone said." Who, when, what, and where were such events documented?
It might be good to read Ron Numbers "Prophetess of Health" to find the truth about "holding a heavy Bible for "hours" and pointing to texts. Of such myths true believers are convinced. For belief in such, how about a raffle for Golden Gate—real cheap!
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
RonCorson,
I guess it’s safe to assume that you didn’t “get it”?! By the way, are you angry, or have I offended you; or do I not “get it” and misread you?
Again, and perhaps finally, if anyone has the plan of redemption and/or the Godhead figured out, we should congratulate them and hope that they are sharing their unique knowledge and wisdom; and call it a day.
Peace, brother.
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
To Ron and Stephen, "Cool Hand Luke's famous message:
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
I got out my copy of Prophetess of Health and searched for his comments about the Bible holding episodes. I couldn't find anything in the book. Maybe somebody could give me the page?
In searching I did find the following. Sometimes you need to read both sides and not just the critics. What account has be reputed? How would we have an account that wasn't over 100 years old? With Jesus the accounts are over 2000 years old. Never substantiated? There is plenty of evidence to support the claim. How much substantiation does one need? If one is determined not to believe, then no amount is enough.
Today it has become fashionable among the critics of Ellen White to call for a “demythologizing” of Adventists’ historic prophet. One critic in particular recently called for the burying of legendary tales involving “magic.”
Concerning stories of Mrs. White holding a large Bible for an extended period of time on her outstretched, upraised hand while in vision, this critic alleges that at the 1919 Bible Conference it was declared emphatically that the event never really happened, that no one had ever seen it; indeed, no one was even there to witness it! 48
If, however, we go to the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference, 49 we notice, first of all, that the record has been substantially misquoted by the critic. We find General Conference President Arthur G. Daniells discussing the use of physical phenomena as “proof or evidence of the genuineness of the gift.” And he opposes such use as proof of legitimacy—a position the White Estate continues to hold today!
Instead, said Daniells, “I believe that the strongest proof is found in the fruits of this gift to the church, not in physical and outward demonstrations.”
Then, addressing more directly the question of the stories about Ellen White holding a large, heavy Bible on an outstretched hand while in vision, looking away from the pages, and yet quoting the texts to which a finger of the opposite hand pointed, Elder Daniells declared: “I do not know whether that was ever done or not. I am not sure. I did not see it, and I do not know that I ever talked with anybody that did see it.” 50
One does not need to look far to discover why Daniells had not witnessed such an event. This writer has uncovered four instances thus far where Ellen White held a Bible in vision: three times in 1845 and once in 1847. 51 Arthur Daniells was not born until 1858, at least 11 years after the latest recorded Bible-holding incident took place.
Research shows that physical phenomena was more characteristic of the earlier days of Mrs. White’s experience. Indeed, the last “open vision” of record took place at a camp meeting in Portland, Oregon, in 1884, only six years after Daniells entered the gospel ministry. 52
We should not be surprised, then, that Daniells never witnessed Mrs. White holding a large Bible in vision. He probably saw very few other manifestations of physical phenomena, which ceased shortly after he entered the ministry. Nor is it surprising that he had not met any contemporaries who had observed such phenomena—they were probably too young, too!
Some critics hold that the evidence behind at least two of the Bible-holding stories is not reliable because the stories were not recorded until 45 years after the events took place; and because they were written down by one denominational writer who was not a trained historian. While there may be some validity to this concern, the fact remains that the White Estate still holds in its vault an eyewitness account of the event, known to have been written sometime between 1847 and 1860. The observer was Otis Nichols, and the incident he reported took place during what was probably Ellen White’s longest vision, at Randolph, Massachusetts, in the winter of 1845.
During this vision, which lasted approximately four hours, Ellen Harmon (who was unmarried at the time) picked up “a heavy large quarto family Bible” and lifted it up “as high as she could reach.” The Bible was “open in one hand,” and she then proceeded “to turn over the leaves with the other hand and place her finger upon certain passages and correctly utter their words”—all this with her head facing in another direction! In this activity “she continued for a long time.” 53
Ellen White believed this account to be an accurate record of a genuine experience, because she quoted three paragraphs from it in an autobiographical account published in 1860. 54
Arthur G. Daniells never said that the event did not happen, as the critic alleges. Instead, he simply said that he didn’t see it and didn’t know anyone who had. However, had Elder Daniells (who was a member of the White Estate board of trustees) taken the effort to go to the vault and examine the documentary evidence that still is preserved there, he would have had no doubt about whether Ellen White ever held a Bible in vision, or about whether she breathed while in her open visions of the day. 55
We must emphasize at this point that the position of the Seventh-day Adventist church today is the same as it has always been. Physical phenomena are an evidence of supernatural activity, but it should never be used as a proof because Satan can counterfeit much of the work of the Holy Spirit. — Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works pp. 49, 50
Early in 1845, while in vision at her parents' home in Portland, Maine, 17-year-old Ellen Harmon (later White) picked up their large family Bible and held it on her outstretched left arm for 20 to 30 minutes. The story was documented by J. N. Loughborough who interviewed those who witnessed the vision, including Ellen's father, mother, and sister. The Bible (on display at the Ellen G. White Estate) weighs 18½ pounds (8 kilos) and was printed by Joseph Teal in 1822. W. C. White, Ellen White's son, also reported hearing of the incident from his parents. There are other reports of Ellen White holding large Bibles while in vision, including an eye-witness account printed in Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 77-79.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Martin Schratt says:
Trevor Hammond asserts:
"No man or woman can foretell the future unless God reveals it to them"
Nonsense!
People in Las Vegas collect lots of money doing just that.
I, myself, can assure you that although Melakwa lake is currently completely frozen over today, by the end of August there will not remain so much as an individual ice cube anywhere on this lake.
I find that predicting the future is a tricky business which often involves some creative communications. The whole 2300 day prophesy is a great example. Does anyone really know with 100% certainty that 1844 was the end of the 2300 days? Of course not! And that is just the first of a long list of uncertainties. This means that the prophesy can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. In fact when studing the NT one can see some rather novel interpretations of prophecy. Finding a detail in the story of the shepherd in Zec 11 to be a prophecy of the price for betrayal. Yet there is no similar interpretation of the prophecy that "three sheperds were 'cut off' in one month"
Even assuming that all that Loughborough's story is completely correct, what does that mean for us today? Does it guarentee that everything else she wrote is 100% reliable? That would be a strange conclusion indeed.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Eyewitness accounts even 150 years ago have always been an important factor that historians have had to use when documenting an account. Elaine, unless you and Dr Taylor invent a 'time travel machine' to go and see for yourselves, then we will have to deal with these faithful eyewitnesses.
Remember too that the way things were done then (150 years ago) in terms of studies, writing practices and eyewitness testimony were not the same as they are done today. But they were done nonetheless!
I guess now, as Dr Taylor suggests, we have to wait for the the modern day 'scholars' to make the decision regarding whether Ellen White is for real or a fake. Those Adventist historians, involved in the new study with some non-Adventist religious historians, are they from the "maturist Adventist" school of thought, or from the "19th century protestant rhetoric crowd"? Seems it may very well just boil down to the 'tea and masturbation' debate to determine whether God's gift of prophecy to the remnant church is authentic.
Ellen White writings have no credible peer even after her death yet Dr Taylor suggests that nothing in her work is original. I beg to differ! The accusation that because apologists are perceived to use her writings for the wrong reasons, Ellen White loses credibility, which to me, is not a plausible reason. I still think it is a matter of good old fashioned rebellion: but that's my opinion, I cannot judge the critics as they do Ellen White. So we put her on a judiciary platform to make a case against her and pass judgement on the counsels brought forth through her writings through the workings of the Holy Spirit?
Is that the "maturist" Adventist school of thought? Guilty, until proven innocent: then we believe? This debacle reeks of Desmond Ford school of thinking, who, I might add, may very well have been the founder of modern "maturist" Adventism. Scholars are important in the role they play in the devlopment and study of doctrine but must they first decide what God or his church should believe or do they provide the documented theology of this religious belief? While they have an important role to play in religion, are they the custodians of Truth? Should we believe only what they say? That is just absurd!
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 13th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
Elaine,
(You’ll appreciate this) I’m with you when you’re right, and you may never have been more right than now! LOL
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
Mr Martin Schratt
Were any of those LA fortune-tellers able to predict the recent US/Global economic crash and recession? That would have been a significant prophecy, don't you think? Even the Economic and Actuarial Science experts got caught off-guard on this one.
With regards to your 'ice melting' prophetic powers, I think it would have come in handy during the "Ice Age" that evolutionists speak of, a few million years ago? 😉
You refer to the 100% maxim on a number of issues: prophecy, certainty of dates, reliability and accuracy which demands a 100% answer. That I can't provide.
My faith in God and His word, the prophecies, and the edifying messages given to Ellen White, starts, for me, at the cross, where Jesus took 100% of my sins and redeemed me with His 100% precious blood; and I received His 100% pardon and His 100% righteousness by faith. Now for a chief of sinners, that’s 100% good enough for me. Now where’s my bible to check up on that Zechariah 11 problem you mentioned…
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
I must complement Dr Taylor on such a bold attempt to speak some ‘words’ on behalf of Ellen White after Tom seemed to have twisted his arm a bit. I must further complement him with regards to him been moderate in his ‘adding insult to injury’ words which I think for a die-hard critic is commendable.
He does however throw the baby out with the bathwater when blaming apologists for bringing disrepute to her writings. I know of occasions when her writings have been used incorrectly to attack others but this is uncommon and hardly valid grounds to remove her from the Adventism equation. I think the loathing of her writings has a more sinister plot to it…
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 RonCorson says:
Elaine, I am confused where is there a failure to communicate? Stephen declares: “regarding the Godhead and The Plan of Salvation, I will quote/paraphrase the great Dr. Calvin B. Rock, to wit: if we try to understand it, we will lose our minds; but if we don’t believe it, we will lose our souls.”
He then defends “try to understand it to mean”:
“In other words, finite human minds cannot fully comprehend The Godhead concept, nor The Plan formulated from the foundation of the world.”
Try to understand it now has become fully comprehend.
I then produced someone else’s version of the quote which instead of saying try to understand it, it was try to explain it. Stephen then responded that the lose you mind portion was not figurative but was literal. When I said:
"Trying to explain it to a dim mind or someone so sure of themselves could figuratively drive one crazy."
Stephen responded with:
“Perhaps we have finally stumbled into partial agreement, or at least the reason for the disagreement. Personally, I might substitute “figuratively” with “literally,” and I would prefer not to classify any minds as “dim.” Other than that, I believe we’re onto something.”
Which means Stephen personally would prefer to say: Trying to explain it to someone so sure of themselves could literally drive one crazy
So no, there is not a failure on my part to communicate, nor on Stephen’s part, I know what he is saying, I quoted what he was saying. The failure is that he makes no sense and uses some of the worst logic I have seen in Adventism and that is saying something, because as you know Elaine I have dealt with Eugene Schubert.
Simply put trying to understand is not the same as full or total comprehension and there are no instances of people literally going crazy from trying to explain things or trying to understand things.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Seminary student says:
Do so called "progresives " have a revelant message that I need to hear and help the church to understand ? Well , I think people like Ron Corson misuse and abbuse the word "progressive "I thik Seventh day Adventist should be progressives , and I beleive to a certain exent we have come a long ways .In the beginning of the movement , we did not accept the doctrine of the trinity .and some other areas that we have changed our views based on the "testimony of scripture ".And some others that we need to change , in some areas we have gone "backwards ". Seventh day Adventist was a youth led movement but nowadays the church is led by older people , women in the Adventist church were highly regarded , some even give evidence that we had " ordained Women " " conservatives " long for those years when the church was about 50 years and they say we need to go back , I don't think so . We are in the 21st century and there are certain things that won't work in our culture anymore . I believe that we need " biblical progressives " in the church so they can help us move our church forward . My point is , are " so called progressives " like Ron Corson going to help us move forward , as I said before we need "biblical progressives " but people like Ron wants to start a " revolution in the church " but not based on the bible but on Opinions . So I will ask again , Do progressives have a relevant message ? I don't think so . First of all , we need to move beyond the " irrelevant arguments " . If you don't agree with something , give me something better . If not then , I don't want it.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:
RonCorson,
Knowing how Elaine likes to comment on provocative issues under discussion, and knowing that she has monitored this particular “conversation” without really commenting, is somewhat intriguing, isn’t it?
In order to demonstrate that you have "fully comprehended" what I have attempted to communicate to you, you have chosen to distill our colloquy down to a few basic points; which is fine and understandable, except that it demonstrates that Elaine is right—we have not communicated very well— in that you are (permanently) convinced that 1) (trying to) "understand” means the same exact thing as “know(ing) what it is,” and that 2) you didn’t “get” (as in missed) that the remark having to do with “personally” substituting “figuratively” with “literally” when it comes to “EXPLAINING” either to “someone so sure of themselves” was part of a tongue-in-cheek poke at you.
The fact that you took that, uhm…literally, and ran with it was the straw that broke it for me (and perhaps Elaine) in convincing me (and possibly her) that we are not communicating effectively.
If you don’t “buy” or “accept” the premise or logic behind the paraphrase/quote, or if you don’t think that there is logic behind the quote, fine. We all don’t agree on everything. I can certainly accept that much.
Suffice it to say, that the plan of salvation and the Godhead/Trinity are both topics which have been grappled with by many for millennia. Rock and I contend that attempts to fully grasp and/or explain (try explaining something you don’t fully understand) either one will figuratively (if you prefer) drive one crazy. Whether you accept that or not is not important. What is important however is, if you don’t believe there is a Godhead or do not believe and personally appropriate the plan of salvation, you will imperil your soul. This is not traditional EGW/Adventism, it is basic “fundamental” Christian theology.
Call it what you will, take it or leave it; paraphrasing Bobby Brown, it’s your prerogative.
Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 RonCorson says:
SS writes:
—
Do so called "progresives " have a revelant message that I need to hear and help the church to understand ? Well , I think people like Ron Corson misuse and abbuse the word "progressive "I thik Seventh day Adventist should be progressives , and I beleive to a certain exent we have come a long ways
—
I think I have a relevant message but I suspect people like you have never looked into it and so you often speak out of your own ignorance. So maybe you should inform yourself a little. Read my article on Progressive and Traditional Adventist.
And if you think I have no Biblical backing for my positions look at the other articles on my webpage or my blog.
It seems that you think that because I don't agree with your limited understanding that I have no Biblical reason for my understanding. There must be something about TSDA's that really pushes them to make completely foolish assumptions. Perhaps it is because they think they alone can be right even though they have no evidence or history of being proven right, but perhaps their standards of reason are so low that it is pointless to try and educate them, that at least is the way I am feeling now having read the contributions on this blog.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
Ron,
The first time I read Stephen's quotation of Dr. Rock, I thought it was both dumb and stupid, and still do. The fact that there was seemingly no comprehension of the meaning of this, and continued to use it was both astrounding and aggravating.
Your explanation was getting nowhere with him, which is why I said it was a "failure to communicate" meaning that unless one understands the reasoning, it is incompletely communicated. You were very precise, but it seemed that Stephen kept pushing the point. Maybe he is (or was) a fan of Calvin Rock?
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:
Stephen, your insistence that the Godhead, or Trinity MUST be believed is one is to accept Christianity, has historically been the premise and major doctrine of the fhurch.
If even the Greeks, who were known for their excellent philosophical backgrounds were able to accept this on an experiential basis, and not by words written at Nicea, they wre on the right track, IMHO.
Such acceptance of doctrines: Hell, purgatory, even Heaven, have been major church doctrines with absolutely no evidence that they either exist or that they will be, at some future time.
This is why the old saying: "Park your brains outside the church door" as there will be many things taught that one should never question: "simply believe as we tell you what to believe.' This worked for most of the history of the Christian church. Since the Enlightenment and questions often proved that the church had made errors, questioners were either executed or excommunicated. When questions cease, no new knowledge is ever discovered.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 RonCorson says:
SS thanks for your Pastoral concern and wise judgments. I can see they have taught you well at Andrews University. (that is sarcasm Stephen, just so you are not confused).
What I have I done in my home churches? many things, in one church i instituted adult Sabbath school classes as that was an academy church when I got there they did not have adult ss class for some reason. Other places I have been involved in starting additional SS classes, I have been a co facilitator of classes. I started an evening soup and salad discussion group at one church. I have taught Junior SS classes and helped institute a Children's Church service program as well as served on nominating committees and chaired nominating committees and served on Adventist School board.Why I even submitted to various Pastors a plan for evangelistic services based upon the idea of introducing people to Christianity, called Christianity 101. Where you teach people the history and the various ways of understanding rather then the assumption that one particular church has it all figured out, let people see the ideas and feel confident that reason can best lead one to Christ rather then the certainty that one church has it all figured out.
By the way how can I hide in a blog which expresses my thoughts and uses my name? My blog does get about 1500 hits a month so hopefully it does stimulate some dialog somewhere but I grant it is not enough, I do wish Adventists were more reasoned and open to dialog but if you are any indication it is not something they teach at our Seminary.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 14th, 2011 Brian Holland says:
Incivility is unhelpful for scoring points for one's side.
Re: With Apologetics Like This, Ellen White Doesn’t Need …
On February 18th, 2011 Tom says:
Thanks Erv for your response to my challenge. I would have responded earlier but have been off line for several days. Like you I have problems with the way some apologists have used her writings, to push blind sided agendas. I have always been put off by the fanatics who fashion her into a battering ram in their zeal to flush out "heresy", what they see as "creeping compromise" and anything else that doesn't fit into their narrow antiquated paradigm. On that I believe you and I will find common ground.
But often I see you as picking EGW to pieces, or "Ellen" as your graciously called her in your response to me. Thanks for sparing me the outdated reference of calling her "Sister White". Ever notice how some of the fiercest Catholic bashers among us use a term that makes unsuspecting onlookers think she might be a nun? Enough of that.
I take my hat off to you. You can toss a bouquet once in awhile her way amidst all the usual brickbats.
As for your scratching your head as to how a simple statement as your blog started out can lead so far afield into other totally nonrelated subjects only goes to substantiate my claim that at times SDA act more like an ecclesiastifcal debating society. Come on Erv, you're loving every bit of it and you know it.
As for the super human manifestations of her standing breathless, holding an 18 lb. Bible in hand with arm outstretched, and quoting scripture as she pointed them out with the other hand, while looking straight ahead makes for good legend. Some claim Davy Cricket was the last man standing at the Alamo. Hmm, since all those inside that garrison were slain, but for exception of one woman and a black slave, who is to prove that was true.
My point is that to stake such claim that this proves she was a prophet from God makes for a weak leg to stand on. Magicians make it look like they can make someone float on air but that doesn't make it so.
If it's plagiarism that one has a problem with, look no further than the writers of the four gospels. Talk about word for word copying!!!
I also try to keep in mind what was going on at the time she penned some of her writings. Was it ever an eye opener to me to find out that at the time she wrote Great Controversy and much of her dire predictions about Sunday laws and persecution of untold magnitude that lie just beyond the horizon, there was a national campaign going on to enact a Sunday law at the federal level of the US government. The Blair Amendment, as it was called, was repeatedly introduced in congress by Senator Blaire, and lobbied for for much of the last part of the nineteenth century. Sabbath keepers were indeed arrested for violating Sunday laws that were enforced at more local levels during this time.
Now don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think the Sabbath will not be an important part of last day events and the fulfilling of prophecy. I just don't happen to think that SDA have it altogether in total on how everything will all play out in the end. Throughout human history man has tried in vain to put God in some kind of box of their own devising, only to find that the way of the Infinate is altogether beyond our ability to totally grasp with our finite minds. That is why we must have faith, which Paul begins the great faith chapter of Hebrews 11 by describing it as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. God gives us enough evidence of Himself for us to believe, which we in turn must have faith that if we follow His leading more will be revealed as we progress. As when one enters a train tunnel, if you walk on the tracks as you proceed, even though it may be dark inside, the substance you hope for is an opening leading out at the other end. The train tracks you are walking on is the evidence that there must be an opposite opening to this tunnel. Perhaps this is too simplistic an illustration, but to me one can either walk forward and stay on the track or step off it and wander around in circles in the dark and get nowhere.