SDA please explain the failed prediction of Ellen White (SDA Prophet)

[BibleLinguist]

Hi BibleLinguist, nice to meet you. Do you have any concerns about being disfellowshipped because of your views?

At the moment, I am in no danger of this. Thank you for your concern.

 

[Supperz0nic]

I can see we're up to page 27 and lots have moved to a different topic. I joined the forum specifically after finding this thread so I am going to respond to the original topic points... If I get ignored because we have moved on, then so be it.

A bit of context about me - I am very familiar with her work as I was brought up in the institution and believed until adulthood. I think it's only fair to look as objectively as possible against these claims rather than blindly defend or prosecute. I was recently asked by people close to me to re-evaluate this topic, so I figure discussion on this post this is a good place to start.

I'll respond to each with my analysis and give each answer a Red (a false prophesy), Amber (potential evidence but remains ambiguous) and Green (clearly not False prophesy) - Obviously this is subjective - debates to be expected.

False prophecy #1.
Jerusalem will never be built up again, Early Writings, p. 75 - EGW FAILED

Jereusalem will be trampled under foot until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Luke 21:24 -Jesus - Fulfilled

#1 My analysis - AMBER - You can read the context of the chapter - she talks about pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the trips taking focus away from Salvation. She clearly makes the statement - "I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things" - but she doesn't say what 'built up' means in context to her claim so its hard to say when the prophecy is true or false. Is built up meaning a constant increase in residents? does it mean more than 1 floor? does it mean constant size increase? You never know if you've hit this prophesy or not. Its also not clear what the purpose of the prediction - it adds no benefit to be in or out of the whole chapter. It adds no new information or no weight to the existing claim.

False prophecy #2
England will attack the United STATES during the civil war Ellen White, Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 259. - FAILED

#2 My analysis - RED - She talks about the American Civil war in the whole chapter - then makes the prediction that England will declare war with the US whilst it is weak and distracted in it’s civil war. Had she said "If England does declare war" then it wouldn't be a prediction - but she said WHEN indicating it will happen, just a matter of time. In late 1881, there was threat of England entering the war (this was written early 1882)- but it never did so it makes sense why she might think this. - Quote "A portion of the queen’s subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. "

False Prophecy #3
The Civil War is a sign the Jesus is about to Return Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 260 -FAILED

#3 My analysis - GREEN - I don't really see this at all. I am not even sure what EGW quote the claim is referring to. Making the claim that Jesus is about to return is in a few places in the Bible so this alone is not false when compared to scripture. Can someone quote the claim from her where it is more specific?

False Prophecy #4
Jesus would return in a few months (1850) Early Writings, p. 58 - FAILED

#4 My analysis - GREEN - I am not sure if something in the online version is wrong around page numbers - but CTRL F only finds 1 reference to "in a few months" So lets assume that's what they mean. In this reference, the context is a vision where an Angel shows her the pouring out of the 7 plagues right before the 2nd coming. My read of this is that the Angel has taken her to the future in time (he does this elsewhere in her writings too). Therefore the claim "in a few months" was not specific to her time period - but more the time period where the Angel had taken her to.

False Prophecy #5 Adventist alive in 1856 would be alive to see Jesus return. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 131-132. - FAILED, they are all dead.

#5 My analysis - RED - I am not sure how anyone can look at this and think its not a failed prophecy. She made the claim, it is obviously not true. "I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: “Some food for worms, [Sister Clarissa M. Bonfoey, who fell asleep in Jesus only three days after this vision was given, was present in usual health, and was deeply impressed that she was one who would go into the grave, and stated her convictions to others.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.”

False Prophecy #6 Christ would return BEFORE Slavery was Abolished.Early Writings, pp 35 - FAILED Slavery was abolished in 1864.

#6 My analysis - GREEN - Nah sorry - I don't see this. It is not made clear which slaves and what country. Assuming this is false because the US Abolished slavery ignores all the other slaves around the world to this day. Another one where the Angel is showing her events at the 2nd coming - not about events happening at the time of her.

False Prophecy #7 She saw Enoch on Jupiter or Saturn Early Writings, pp. 39-40- Failed. No one lives on Jupiter or Saturn.

#6 My Analysis - AMBER - She never mentions the specific planets, therefore not her prophecy. But as you all know, eyewitness accounts claim she was referring to these planets. If we were able to quote her, it would obviously be RED as the talking of trees and vegetation on these planets is a bit of a stretch. Unless i suppose you think the information we have on those planets being gas giants is made up by the devil which is a possible belief I suppose, given some of the sentiment going around at the moment.

Last additional one that was in the next comment down on the first page... (others were already covered)

MRS. WHITE ALIVE WHEN JESUS RETURNS​

Mrs. White predicted that she would be among "the living saints" when Jesus returned.
"Soon our eyes were drawn to the east, for a small black cloud had appeared, about half as large as a man's hand, which we all knew was the sign of Son of man.... Then there was a mighty earthquake. The graves opened, and the dead came up clothed with immortality. The 144,000 shouted, "Alleluia!" as they recognized their friends who had been torn from them by death, and in the same moment WE WERE CHANGED AND CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM to meet the Lord in the air".
Early Writings, pp 15-16 (emphasis added).

Last comment - My Analysis - AMBER - It is hard to understand if she is referring to seeing herself in the vision or if she is simply referring to the Angel and her following the action between the resurrected and the alive. Again, because these visions seem to be mostly of an Angel showing her of things to come, I would not read this as her prophesying something - but merely telling the story of the Angel taking her into the future and showing her events to come.

SUMMARY - 1 strike you're out - She got 2. I am not coming after her for ambiguity - that alone is not the test of a false profit (although she should know better). And this is a fairly light review of an assessment of one test of Prophesy that the Bible mentions. I understand some of these accusations seem to be far reaching (I agree some of them are) - but I personally hold critical eye over each claim independent of the other, and irrespective of which source the claims come from. If it is confirmed that she made a claim - it should be investigated with an open mind.

 

[Leaf473]

I can see we're up to page 27 and lots have moved to a different topic.

I joined the forum specifically after finding this thread so I am going to respond to the original topic points... If I get ignored because we have moved on, then so be it.

Hi Supperz0nic, nice to meet you

A bit of context about me - I am very familiar with her work as I was brought up in the institution and believed until adulthood. I think it's only fair to look as objectively as possible against these claims rather than blindly defend or prosecute. I was recently asked by people close to me to re-evaluate this topic, so I figure discussion on this post this is a good place to start.

I'll respond to each with my analysis and give each answer a Red (a false prophesy), Amber (potential evidence but remains ambiguous) and Green (clearly not False prophesy) - Obviously this is subjective - debates to be expected.


#1 My analysis - AMBER - You can read the context of the chapter - she talks about pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the trips taking focus away from Salvation. She clearly makes the statement - "I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things" - but she doesn't say what 'built up' means in context to her claim so its hard to say when the prophecy is true or false. Is built up meaning a constant increase in residents? does it mean more than 1 floor? does it mean constant size increase? You never know if you've hit this prophesy or not. Its also not clear what the purpose of the prediction - it adds no benefit to be in or out of the whole chapter. It adds no new information or no weight to the existing claim.


#2 My analysis - RED - She talks about the American Civil war in the whole chapter - then makes the prediction that England will declare war with the US whilst it is weak and distracted in it’s civil war. Had she said "If England does declare war" then it wouldn't be a prediction - but she said WHEN indicating it will happen, just a matter of time. In late 1881, there was threat of England entering the war (this was written early 1882)- but it never did so it makes sense why she might think this. - Quote "A portion of the queen’s subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. "



#3 My analysis - GREEN - I don't really see this at all. I am not even sure what EGW quote the claim is referring to. Making the claim that Jesus is about to return is in a few places in the Bible so this alone is not false when compared to scripture. Can someone quote the claim from her where it is more specific?



#4 My analysis - GREEN - I am not sure if something in the online version is wrong around page numbers - but CTRL F only finds 1 reference to "in a few months" So lets assume that's what they mean. In this reference, the context is a vision where an Angel shows her the pouring out of the 7 plagues right before the 2nd coming. My read of this is that the Angel has taken her to the future in time (he does this elsewhere in her writings too). Therefore the claim "in a few months" was not specific to her time period - but more the time period where the Angel had taken her to.

#5 My analysis - RED - I am not sure how anyone can look at this and think its not a failed prophecy.

From what I've seen in posts by pro Ellen White brothers and sisters in Christ here on CF, the response is that it was a conditional prophecy. Have you encountered this line of defense, and if so, how do you respond to it?

She made the claim, it is obviously not true. "I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: “Some food for worms, [Sister Clarissa M. Bonfoey, who fell asleep in Jesus only three days after this vision was given, was present in usual health, and was deeply impressed that she was one who would go into the grave, and stated her convictions to others.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.”


#6 My analysis - GREEN - Nah sorry - I don't see this. It is not made clear which slaves and what country. Assuming this is false because the US Abolished slavery ignores all the other slaves around the world to this day. Another one where the Angel is showing her events at the 2nd coming - not about events happening at the time of her.


#6 My Analysis - AMBER - She never mentions the specific planets, therefore not her prophecy. But as you all know, eyewitness accounts claim she was referring to these planets. If we were able to quote her, it would obviously be RED as the talking of trees and vegetation on these planets is a bit of a stretch. Unless i suppose you think the information we have on those planets being gas giants is made up by the devil which is a possible belief I suppose, given some of the sentiment going around at the moment.

Last additional one that was in the next comment down on the first page... (others were already covered)

Last comment - My Analysis - AMBER - It is hard to understand if she is referring to seeing herself in the vision or if she is simply referring to the Angel and her following the action between the resurrected and the alive. Again, because these visions seem to be mostly of an Angel showing her of things to come, I would not read this as her prophesying something - but merely telling the story of the Angel taking her into the future and showing her events to come.

SUMMARY - 1 strike you're out - She got 2. I am not coming after her for ambiguity - that alone is not the test of a false profit (although she should know better). And this is a fairly light review of an assessment of one test of Prophesy that the Bible mentions. I understand some of these accusations seem to be far reaching (I agree some of them are) - but I personally hold critical eye over each claim independent of the other, and irrespective of which source the claims come from. If it is confirmed that she made a claim - it should be investigated with an open mind.

 

[Supperz0nic]

Hi Supperz0nic, nice to meet you

Likewise Leaf473, thanks for the welcome and nice to meet you too.

From what I've seen in posts by pro Ellen White brothers and sisters in Christ here on CF, the response is that it was a conditional prophecy. Have you encountered this line of defense, and if so, how do you respond to it?

Yes - aware of conditional prophesy as a Biblical concept. I understand the idea puts them in a few different categories - Decrees without condition (e.g. 2nd coming), and Conditional (I.e. if you repent then you will be saved from the prediction)

I suppose a few points;

• In prediction #2, the whole chapter is about the concept of keeping slaves being immoral, war is a waste for all of men, but also how a divided nation will be attacked. So the question is - what is the guidance for anyone willing to listen? Stop slavery - yes the Angel she quotes clearly suggests that slave owners should be punished double what they dealt out. But don't stop it with war... because that is fruitless. And, by the way, because you are divided, that will be your weakness. The whole chapter seems to be a contradiction of sorts making it incredibly unclear what the instruction is. Lastly, the Bible sanctions slavery as a concept. So this message of EGQ seems to be at odds with concepts in the Bible as well - current laws and customs (and my own feelings) aside.
• In prediction #5, she makes the prediction about when Jesus would come - The whole chapter talks about people holding onto worldly aspects of dress and fashion instead of focusing on God. The chapter seems to be a plea for people to focus on God instead of holding onto wealth. But I don't see predictions about the 2nd coming being conditional - it is happening - when might change - but eventually the pin is pulled. So there was nowhere in the chapter claiming that "if people did X or Y, they could stave this off"... It was a call for readiness because it was happening regardless of what anyone wanted. Elsewhere in her writings she confirms this again by recounting a vision with an Angel - She begs the Angel to spare the lives of the damned - but the Angel essentially explains that sooner or later God will make the decision and of course lots of people will not be spared. So given all of this - it seems no benefit to make something conditional. She pleads with people specifically because she claims it is very near - not in the hope that they could extend it.
• Lastly, the theory begs the question - what about the original test for a false prophet? Can we then assume that Adventists now reject the idea that prophets can be tested through this method? What they do with this text that outlines this test of Prophecy? what now if it cannot be logically used?

 

[Leaf473]

Likewise Leaf473, thanks for the welcome and nice to meet you too.


Yes - aware of conditional prophesy as a Biblical concept. I understand the idea puts them in a few different categories - Decrees without condition (e.g. 2nd coming), and Conditional (I.e. if you repent then you will be saved from the prediction)

I suppose a few points;

• In prediction #2, the whole chapter is about the concept of keeping slaves being immoral, war is a waste for all of men, but also how a divided nation will be attacked. So the question is - what is the guidance for anyone willing to listen? Stop slavery - yes the Angel she quotes clearly suggests that slave owners should be punished double what they dealt out. But don't stop it with war... because that is fruitless. And, by the way, because you are divided, that will be your weakness. The whole chapter seems to be a contradiction of sorts making it incredibly unclear what the instruction is. Lastly, the Bible sanctions slavery as a concept. So this message of EGQ seems to be at odds with concepts in the Bible as well - current laws and customs (and my own feelings) aside.

• In prediction #5, she makes the prediction about when Jesus would come - The whole chapter talks about people holding onto worldly aspects of dress and fashion instead of focusing on God. The chapter seems to be a plea for people to focus on God instead of holding onto wealth. But I don't see predictions about the 2nd coming being conditional - it is happening - when might change - but eventually the pin is pulled. So there was nowhere in the chapter claiming that "if people did X or Y, they could stave this off"... It was a call for readiness because it was happening regardless of what anyone wanted. Elsewhere in her writings she confirms this again by recounting a vision with an Angel - She begs the Angel to spare the lives of the damned - but the Angel essentially explains that sooner or later God will make the decision and of course lots of people will not be spared. So given all of this - it seems no benefit to make something conditional. She pleads with people specifically because she claims it is very near - not in the hope that they could extend it.

That's essentially my thought regarding prediction #5 - what is the condition that was met such that the prophecy didn't come true? Was there a great revival? Or a great lack of revival? Of course, we wouldn't want to be USA-centric on this, since the second coming is a prophecy for the whole world. Did the whole world have a great revival... And so on.

• Lastly, the theory begs the question - what about the original test for a false prophet? Can we then assume that Adventists now reject the idea that prophets can be tested through this method? What they do with this text that outlines this test of Prophecy? what now if it cannot be logically used?

I've asked the same question. If anyone can purport to give a prophecy, and then say it was conditional when it doesn't happen, what becomes the test of a prophet? I've heard "It has to line up with the scriptures" as a test. But in practice that becomes "A prophet is someone who agrees with me or who I've come to agree with" imo.

I've also heard
(there's a thread about this I can probably find, if you're interested)
that Ellen White's writings are used to correct erroneous interpretations of the scriptures. It looks to me like that would end up being highly circular.

Peace be with you!

 

[Supperz0nic]

I've also heard
(there's a thread about this I can probably find, if you're interested)
that Ellen White's writings are used to correct erroneous interpretations of the scriptures. It looks to me like that would end up being highly circular.

Peace be with you!

Ooo that’s highly controversial. I don’t imagine that many Adventists would agree with that. The Bible is the fundamental benchmark for them - they’d be labeled a heretic.

Even EGW says that if someone contradicts the Bible, they are not to be believed.

I think EGW genuinely believed that she was a prophet - that is clear - her early writings show her obsession with the state of her salvation and the need for her to understand what the correct way to do it is. From the time she was hit with a rock to her conversion, she explains she fell into a deep depression about it. On one hand she felt resentful at God for her situation (she couldn’t participate in school due to her injury - gave up at 12) but on the other hand she then held deep regret for feeling this way when she reflected on how she thought Christian lives need to be so perfect after seeing methodist teachings of perfect young Christians. She had an all encompassing pressure on herself that she would be one of the chosen ones. She also spoke about how she anguished at why she didn’t have any manifestations of spiritual awakening. So something had to give. She wanted that an awakening.

I see a 12 year old putting immense pressure on herself to understand God and his plan for Salvation but also to mean something in the whole movement of the time. The emotional pressure was even worse than someone who was simply a Millerite at the time. They themselves sacrificed everything into the understanding that Jesus was coming very imminently. She had that feeling, plus the feeling of the last few years taken away from her. She essentially was trying to make something of her life since she had so much taken away from early on. That amount of emotional pressure can cause people to do all sorts of things - especially at 12-14 where the body and the brain have powerful hormones that surge through teenagers.

Nothing she writes that I am aware of gives the idea someone is suggesting around correcting scripture - i’d like to see that.

 

[Leaf473]

Ooo that’s highly controversial. I don’t imagine that many Adventists would agree with that. The Bible is the fundamental benchmark for them - they’d be labeled a heretic.

Even EGW says that if someone contradicts the Bible, they are not to be believed.

I think EGW genuinely believed that she was a prophet - that is clear - her early writings show her obsession with the state of her salvation and the need for her to understand what the correct way to do it is. From the time she was hit with a rock to her conversion, she explains she fell into a deep depression about it. On one hand she felt resentful at God for her situation (she couldn’t participate in school due to her injury - gave up at 12) but on the other hand she then held deep regret for feeling this way when she reflected on how she thought Christian lives need to be so perfect after seeing methodist teachings of perfect young Christians. She had an all encompassing pressure on herself that she would be one of the chosen ones. She also spoke about how she anguished at why she didn’t have any manifestations of spiritual awakening. So something had to give. She wanted that an awakening.

I see a 12 year old putting immense pressure on herself to understand God and his plan for Salvation but also to mean something in the whole movement of the time. The emotional pressure was even worse than someone who was simply a Millerite at the time. They themselves sacrificed everything into the understanding that Jesus was coming very imminently. She had that feeling, plus the feeling of the last few years taken away from her. She essentially was trying to make something of her life since she had so much taken away from early on. That amount of emotional pressure can cause people to do all sorts of things - especially at 12-14 where the body and the brain have powerful hormones that surge through teenagers.

Nothing she writes that I am aware of gives the idea someone is suggesting around correcting scripture - i’d like to see that.

Here's the thread I was thinking of,

New--SDA General Conference Statement on EGW writings

On June 9, the General Conference Session of Seventh-day Adventists voted to approve a new statement about the writings of Ellen White. You can find the entire statement in the record of business at this link. Eleventh Business Meeting | Adventist Review It indicates that Adventists see Ellen...

www.christianforums.com

especially the opening post and the "Statement of Confidence" in post #4.

I'm interested in your comments

 

[Supperz0nic]

Also, I just caught up on the whole thread (not the best use of a holiday but oh well)

I've asked the same question. If anyone can purport to give a prophecy, and then say it was conditional when it doesn't happen, what becomes the test of a prophet? I've heard "It has to line up with the scriptures" as a test. But in practice that becomes "A prophet is someone who agrees with me or who I've come to agree with" imo.

I was thinking of doing a search for terms around testing prophets in the Bible. There are lists around on google but none that seem to put the tests into clarity for practical application like the thread in this post. I would prefer to summarise with references so that we can easily apply to EGW.

From my own perspective, I generally am not ok with the idea that someone in our ages is able to both claim to have prophetic instructions from God, adjust her views about God as she sees fit (the examples around trinity letters mentioned in this post are a good start - but there are more with her health message) and then lastly hold authority over the application/interpretation of Biblical text. That begs the question- what else did she advocate, but misunderstand and, with further study, perhaps would have changed her mind on had she not died? Assuming you believe Gods instructions don’t change, this suggests, either the original instruction was not God inspired, or the alternative was not God inspired - they can’t both be. And do we take all of her text as God inspired or is it just when she quote’s God/Angels in visions? This is the challenge with the idea of conditional prophecy - lots can be said about the scriptures without contradicting them. All sorts of extreme application in the modern age are possible without contradicting scriptures, if that is all you have to go against. Lots of EGW's text can be directly turned against her - all within the bounds of the scriptures and the concepts of conditional prophecy.

Reading about these circular arguments and caveats, even within this post, gives me shivers up my spine of my times within the church long past. This thread is a perfect example of individuals I would converse with in my church who used caveats and deflections because these questions are logically and practically difficult to answer directly - instead the response was often "oh but did you take it to Jesus? Did you search the scriptures? did you ask for the Holy Spirit?" Instead of just saying "I don't actually know" and entertain that their own view might need, at the very least, re-assessment. It seems to be a very human trait to find it difficult to entertain giving up something you've held dear when people show you evidence that might threaten the logic - the preference for us is to hold onto the bias, especially if others help you confirm it. Even now, my friends are asking me to reconsider my beliefs, and I too come into this thread with a bias - but I am trying to be aware of it and remain as objective as possible. I say all of this with curious enquiry in the hope that someone might show me something I missed.

 

[Supperz0nic]

Here's the thread I was thinking of,

New--SDA General Conference Statement on EGW writings​

On June 9, the General Conference Session of Seventh-day Adventists voted to approve a new statement about the writings of Ellen White. You can find the entire statement in the record of business at this link. Eleventh Business Meeting | Adventist Review It indicates that Adventists see Ellen...

www.christianforums.com

especially the opening post and the "Statement of Confidence" in post #4.

I'm interested in your comments

ahh thanks.

So to quote from your post source.

"We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

Reading that quote - it seems they believe EGW has the correct interpretation of the Bible and therefore use it as a reference to support analysis and interpretation of the scriptures, (which makes sense if they believe she's a prophet). But I don't see this as a claim for them to correct the Bible itself - I don't know any Adventist that argues this - they always say to test against the Bible.

Anyway - the problem with everything here is that, in practice, once you decide to accept a prophet as such, their word is from God and therefore is on equal footing with the Bible. So they can make whatever claim they want now as long as it doesn't directly go against scripture. And this is a problem because, you can't logically disagree with EGW. That would mean rejecting a prophetess and therefore rejecting God's message. So now we're not only debating the spiritual interpretations and practical applications of the Bible, we are now doing the same for EGW as well and all of her guidance about how to behave during the times she lived.

.....

Testimonies to the Church Vol.1

Using the quoted examples here (there are lots of others about similar trivialities with dress or daily practice) There have been some more extreme people in the church that start to use this to justify a certain dress code and behaviour and will use this to chastise anyone who doesn't adhere to everything EGW lays down - treating it exactly like they do with literal Biblical instruction. It becomes as good as instruction from Bible and therefore no different in reality.

 

[tall73]

Assuming you believe Gods instructions don’t change, this suggests, either the original instruction was not God inspired, or the alternative was not God inspired - they can’t both be.

Yes, if the view changed over time, both versions cannot be correct.

 

[tall73]

And do we take all of her text as God inspired or is it just when she quote’s God/Angels in visions?

Review and Herald, September 6, 1906, Ellen White

The statement which you quote from "Testimony," No. 31, that "in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books.​

She claims inspiration for the letters, the articles, and the books.

 

[tall73]

It seems to be a very human trait to find it difficult to entertain giving up something you've held dear when people show you evidence that might threaten the logic - the preference for us is to hold onto the bias, especially if others help you confirm it. Even now, my friends are asking me to reconsider my beliefs, and I too come into this thread with a bias - but I am trying to be aware of it and remain as objective as possible. I say all of this with curious enquiry in the hope that someone might show me something I missed.

I was an Adventist for most of my life, and an Adventist pastor. But eventually I could not reconcile some of the doctrine with Scripture. It was not easy to come to that conclusion. And it is not bad to still review at times, and try to look at it objectively.

 

[Supperz0nic]

Review and Herald, September 6, 1906, Ellen White

The statement which you quote from "Testimony," No. 31, that "in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books.​

She claims inspiration for the letters, the articles, and the books.

Yeah ok - thankyou. This process is opening a lot of old wounds for me but I think it's worth re-assessing past convictions with any new information.

 

[tall73]

ahh thanks.

So to quote from your post source.

Reading that quote - it seems they believe EGW has the correct interpretation of the Bible and therefore use it as a reference to support analysis and interpretation of the scriptures, (which makes sense if they believe she's a prophet). But I don't see this as a claim for them to correct the Bible itself - I don't know any Adventist that argues this - they always say to test against the Bible.

Yes, they would not say that they correct the Bible itself, because they accept the Bible as inspired, and the test of doctrine.

Rather, they say that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture. However, in practice, if Ellen White spells out a view of the meaning of a text you will nearly never see Adventists disagree with that interpretation. Because it would then be an inspired corrector of interpretations, against a non-inspired interpretation, from their perspective.

And in a related argument Ellen White spells out the view that those who bring scriptures arguments that go against Adventist special points of faith are not to be received. She based this not on Scripture, but upon experience in the prior proclaiming of the work.

First Selected Messages, pg 161

​

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.​

​

So they can make whatever claim they want now as long as it doesn't directly go against scripture.

Yes, there is a difference in analyzing her statements about a specific Scripture, and looking at statements about topics not addressed directly by Scripture.

 

[Supperz0nic]

To be fair to them - let's pretend for a minute that I recognised her as a Prophet, that's exactly how I should treat her. She should be able bring instruction to God's people (assuming she met all tests against false prophets) and her words should be taken as additional advice, beyond what is in existing scripture. The problem is when you try to interpret the test of a prophet and apply it against EGW, that the deflection and circular arguments start.

Back to the conditional prophecy examples that were mentioned (Jonah, Isaiah, etc) I am interested in hearing people's view on how you deal with Prophetic messages within scripture that have not come true. Is it just a problem for people who take a literal view of Biblical text or do you just assume not all the facts were made available? When Jesus made a similar claim about coming back within existing lifetimes of the disciples and this didn't happen, what is the explanation for this?

 

[Leaf473]

Thanks for your comments, Supperz0nic I think you and I pretty much agree on these things. I've never been SDA, so that would be a difference in our histories

Back to the conditional prophecy examples that were mentioned (Jonah, Isaiah, etc) I am interested in hearing people's view on how you deal with Prophetic messages within scripture that have not come true. Is it just a problem for people who take a literal view of Biblical text or do you just assume not all the facts were made available? When Jesus made a similar claim about coming back within existing lifetimes of the disciples and this didn't happen, what is the explanation for this?

That's a great question, and my gut reaction is "I don't know for sure."

I'm not really campaigning against Ellen White. I want my approach to her to be the same as with any other teacher:
Do their teachings exalt Jesus, and do they suppress the works of the flesh while encouraging the fruit of the Spirit? (Galatians 5)

You mentioned old wounds from the past, so you may or may not be interested in this, but I wanted to tell you about it -
There's a section here on CF called The Sabbath and the Law. I used to be a frequent contributor, still occasionally take part in a discussion. Here's a link to my latest post. (I can give you some tips so you don't trip over the same landmines I did - if you're interested, that is )

 

[Supperz0nic]

Thankyou Leaf473. Always happy to participate when the subject is of interest.

I actually spend a lot of time reading about Biblical history from an academic view. It gives good context as to how the writers of the books felt and what they were dealing with at the time of writing. Unfortunately that means reading things outside your faith and I seem to recall EGW encouraging members to stay away from things like the books of Apocrypha and other writings of the time. So probably not appropriate for this thread but not sure if anywhere else in this forum caters for this discussion.

Relevant to this thread, if anyone can find advice from EGW of the sorts, this may explain the perception of the Adventist congregation not being particularly well read outside the faith (i suppose it’s my perception as well).

 

[tall73]

Unfortunately that means reading things outside your faith and I seem to recall EGW encouraging members to stay away from things like the books of Apocrypha and other writings of the time. So probably not appropriate for this thread but not sure if anywhere else in this forum caters for this discussion.

Ellen G. White® Estate: The Apocrypha

whiteestate.org

 

[tall73]

Jonah

I think Bob, etc. who have mentioned Jonah are quite correct in citing a scriptural principle in Jeremiah. I don't see that as circular reasoning, etc.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. (NKJV)​

​

God's mercy is such that He relents of disaster when nations repent.

And I do see this as a reason why it is easier to look at straight-forward teachings and comparing them to Scripture, rather than looking at conditional prophecy.

 

[Supperz0nic]

I think Bob, etc. who have mentioned Jonah are quite correct in citing a scriptural principle in Jeremiah. I don't see that as circular reasoning, etc.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. (NKJV)​

​

God's mercy is such that He relents of disaster when nations repent.

And I do see this as a reason why it is easier to look at straight-forward teachings and comparing them to Scripture, rather than looking at conditional prophecy.

Thankyou for responding - that makes sense for Jonah.

But I think Jonah is the easy example because the story tells why the Prophecy never was fulfilled.

Perhaps Jesus is a better example where he makes the claim about returning within the lifetime of those who were there… but obviously never does.