Featured per the bible, was Ellen White a False prophetess or Not?

Sorry for the delay -- I just noticed this thread on "page 2"

The first Bible test of prophet is in Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light".

And Acts 17:11 is like it "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

So we judge doctrine and prophets by our understanding of the Bible.

"By definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that God told them that believer's baptism by immersion is the only valid form of baptism - is going to be condemned as a "false prophet" by Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics who use the Isiah 8 and Acts 17:11 rule to determine if someone is a false or true prophet etc.

"By Definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that 5 point Calvinist predestination is the truth - is going to be rejected by 3 point Calvinists and by Arminians in both the Seventh-day Adventist and in the Baptist church, along with Methodist rejecting such a person as a valid prophet.

I think we can all see this much.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Most Baptists believe the gifts have ceased, and that they ceased at the end of the first century. That being the case those claiming to be a prophet after that date would automatically be a false prophet. Furthermore a woman putting herself in that class would automatically disqualify herself by virtue of the fact that she is not to teach a man. She is to submit herself to her husband, or the male authority in her family. The truths concerning headship are taught in 1Cor.11:1-16

 

That is true. If the Bible said "test the prophets this way - note that none should exist after the first century - and if someone claims to be one at that time then they are false" or something like that - then having someone claim to be a prophet after the first century - would make them a false one without any need to look further.

However in this case - my response was not so much to the title of the thread - as to the claim/question in the OP of this thread - that you cannot have a prophet that only functions for one denomination and not all denominations.

I am simply trying to show how that does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There were women prophets in the NT, but that's another discussion.

 

That is true. Anna, Philips 4 daughters -- all those in 1Cor 14 who when they came together for worship found that "each one has a revelation" 1Cor 14.

None of whom wrote one word of scripture - and that is no problem for prophets since the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy was never limited to "those who write scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

 

As our Catholic friends like to remind us - in the NT - first century all the saints were members of one single denomination. Thus you could have prophets that ministered to all the saints in that one global denomination.

The first Bible test of prophet is in Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light".

And Acts 17:11 is like it "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

So we judge doctrine and prophets by our understanding of the Bible.

"By definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that God told them that believer's baptism by immersion is the only valid form of baptism - is going to be condemned as a "false prophet" by Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics who use the Isiah 8 and Acts 17:11 rule to determine if someone is a false or true prophet etc.

"By Definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that 5 point Calvinist predestination is the truth - is going to be rejected by 3 point Calvinists and by Arminians in both the Seventh-day Adventist and in the Baptist church, along with Methodist rejecting such a person as a valid prophet.

I think we can all see this much.

in Christ,

Bob

 

A false premise calls for a false conclusion.
By definition no Baptist believes in a "Baptist prophet." We don't believe that prophets exist today. Your whole premise is wrong. There are differences between Baptists, but that is a mark of soul liberty, a Baptist Distinctive which we all hold to very dearly.

One "doctrine" that the SDA church had to rescind (at least I think they did), but taught by EGW, is that all those that did not worship on Saturday, but on Sunday instead had the mark of the beast, 666. That is a doctrine of EGW. It is a false doctrine, or do you believe that, and do you believe that all of the Baptists here are followers of the anti-Christ?

 

1. You are missing the point, I use the Baptist example to give you a doctrine that is Baptist to use as an illustration. In this case - believer's baptism. Surely you are ok with that doctrine.

And surely you will admit with the rest of us - that the Methodist and the Presbyterian would be more than a little convinced that such a doctrine is not supported by the Bible.

I was picking an easy example for all.

2. Now as for your claim that there are no charismatic Baptists holding to the idea of tongues and prophecy still valid for today. (I think some people call them "Bapticostals".)

I wonder if the "Calvary Charismatic Baptist Church" is aware of your decision?
http://www.ccbc.org.uk/

In any case - my argument is not that you must admit to the existence of Baptists such as the "Calvary Charismatic Baptist Church" - my argument was simply to illustrate the point that Methodists would not approve of a message from God that affirm a Baptist point of faith - that is not already held by Methodists.

I think we all could see that.

I was not arguing that the Calvary Charismatic Baptist Church is lost or saved because of its views on the gifts of Spirit still being valid - as compared to your opinions on that point.

I was simply illustrating the problem of testing all prophets sola scriptura across groups with different doctrinal views.

I don't know of any documented history of either Ellen White or SDAs as a church - ever saying such a thing.

I have been in this denomination all my life - and that does not cover the history of the entire denomination - maybe you know something as fact that I have not yet discovered. I am willing to read your historic document making that claim to see if anyone I know has ever heard of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Possibly you forgot this post - from page 1.

=========================================

The first Bible test of prophet is in Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light".

And Acts 17:11 is like it "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

So we judge doctrine and prophets by our understanding of the Bible.

"By definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that God told them that believer's baptism by immersion is the only valid form of baptism - is going to be condemned as a "false prophet" by Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics who use the Isiah 8 and Acts 17:11 rule to determine if someone is a false or true prophet etc.

"By Definition" that means that a Baptist prophet who claims that 5 point Calvinist predestination is the truth - is going to be rejected by 3 point Calvinists and by Arminians in both the Seventh-day Adventist and in the Baptist church, along with Methodist rejecting such a person as a valid prophet.

I think we can all see this much.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I think you do Bob. Almost every history I have read about the SDA's have included it. It is well documented. Here is one site that refers to. I don't have time to dig further right now.

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/seventh_day_adventism.html

 

I don't know of any documented history of either Ellen White or SDAs as a church - ever saying such a thing.

I have been in this denomination all my life - and that does not cover the history of the entire denomination - maybe you know something as fact that I have not yet discovered. I am willing to read your historic document making that claim to see if anyone I know has ever heard of it.

As I said - I have never found anything from my own denomination stating that this denomination has ever taught that there was ever a time in our history when "all those that did not worship on Saturday, but on Sunday instead had the mark of the beast, 666".

Your own link is not an SDA publication of any kind.

In your quote of your own link you provide this..

That is not even remotely accurate.

Neither James White nor Ellen Harmon were keeping Sabbath in 1844.

There was no "Following the visions of a 17-year-old" as if this was ever taken as a doctrinal position by those early Adventists not in 1844 not in 1845. Even the "Sabbath Conferences" in the later year when they were studying the Bible for a doctrinal statement of faith for the group - not even they were given doctrine by Ellen White.

The next error in your web site is that although in later years Ellen White had visions on many topics this was not the source of the work of Christ moving to the Most Holy Place on Oct 22, 1844. That information first came from a vision or insight given to Hiram Edson Oct 23, 1844 that claimed to have a vision of seeing Christ moving into the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly sanctuary in 1844. And it was of such a "Burst of insight" more than anything else - that the early Adventists were compelled to form a small Bible study group and figure out if that was indeed the answer to the question of what happened in 1844. No help at all from Ellen Harmon - or Ellen White as they worked through those details in 1844 and early 1845. (you can find this in a number of books - but C. Mervin Maxwell has one called "Tell it to the World" that records this among many others).

It was not until 1847 that Ellen White was given a vision about Christ's work in the Most Holy Place and the Investigative Judgment of Dan 7.


Your web site says this about the "future" issues regarding "Sunday worship".

The web site garbled the fact that the Adventist Church was not keeping Saturday - in 1844 nor in 1845. In 1845 the Bible teaching on the 4th commandment was presented to James and Ellen White and they rejected it. The acceptance of God's 4th commandment came about due to the work of the Seventh-day Baptists. Ellen White was not even in favor of it until after Joseph Bates and others were already on board with that doctrine and promoting it.

The statement above about predicting that some day in the future the test would be brought to mankind regarding the requirements of the Ten Commandments - especially the 4th command is almost right. But even the jumbled facts in that non-SDA source - get the point that this is a prediction about a future event (an event that is still to this day future). It stands as a prediction about the future. If you have some view of the future that disproves it - fine.

But at least get the details right about the claim being made.

in Christ,

Bob

 

To get actual facts about the Seventh-day Adventist church history - one place to start might be.

http://www.adventist.org/world-church/facts-and-figures/history/

Where you will find that the name "Seventh-day Adventist" did not come about until the 1860's.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FONT=&quot]THE GREAT CONTROVERSY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Final Warning, Page 605[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, The Conflict of the Ages in the Christian Dispensation, by Ellen G. White. Pacific Press Publishing Association; Moutain View CA, copyright, 1888, 1907, 1911 by Mrs. E.G. White, Copyright renewed 1939; Text copyright 1950 by the Ellen G. White Publications.] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In simple terms those who go to church on Sunday rather than on Saturday have the mark of the Beast. That is what it says. True, it may be referring to the time of the Tribulation. But it is the thought that counts, isn’t it? [/FONT]

 

"then the line of distinction will be drawn" - sounds like a future event. A prediction about something that will happen in the future. funny thing is - Rev 13 and 14 also read that way - talking about things that will happen in the future.

That was my point. In your statement you claimed that the SDA church taught that this was already the case at some time in the past - but in fact the SDA denomination never claims that.


Andy Stanley, and D.L. Moody both have sermons available online where they explain the serious nature of accepting all ten of the ten commandments. D.L. Moody, R.C. Sproul, The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and C.H. Spurgeon all agree that the Ten Commandments were moral law given in Eden and continue for the saints today.

We happen to agree with them on those key points - the Ten Commandments are the moral law given in Eden, they still apply to the saints today - and it is a serious matter to decide to break them.

How that plays out in the future in terms of Rev 13, and Rev 14 is where we differ.

The simple fact is that we predict that the future events of Rev 13 and 14 will go down a certain way - and apparently you predict that in the future that will not happen.

Time will tell who is correct.

in Christ,

Bob