1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ellen White a Prophet of God?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by steaver, Jul 17, 2005.

  1. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Born again Catholic,

    Never mind...I just found the link a few posts later. [​IMG]

    Mike [​IMG]
     
  2. Link

    Link New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a tangent, but I would like to comment.

    It does not follow from Ephesians 4:11 that prophets are to boss evangelists around and the evangelists are to boss pastors around. That verse is about ministries, not heirarchy. A prophet is not necessary in governmental authority in the church. An elder might be a prophet, or not a prophet. the prophets in the church need to be submissive to the elders of the church.
     
  3. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    This site is also run by some ex sda's and has some useful information as well as many links.

    http://www.truthorfables.com/SUBJECTS.htm

    Until reading some of this i had no idea what a farce EW and SDA teaching are. Their excuses to these problems with EW are so pathetic it is really hard to believe people can take EW teachings seriously.

    If they compared their excuses to excuses produced by Mormoms regarding Joseph Smith maybe their eyes would be open.
     
  4. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    SDA are not christian, they have an openly works based salvation. if you don't keep the OT sabbath you are damned, and my friend (who is devout SDA) told me about her dietary rules.....laughable.
    There is no basis for Ellen's teachings (make sure if you read her teachings get OLD published, as newer versions of her books omit embarassing info, just like Joe smith's books) outside her mind, and based on her teachings (of certian things eaten arrouse base passions that lead to sin) How Does Little Debbie fit in? they are SDA owned, guess her teachings on food aren't important when money can be made. according to the story i read Little Debbie gives half of it's profits to SDA causes.

    anyway sda's confuse history as well.....if i recall correctly they still teach that the sun turned to sackcloth and the moon to blood in ellen's lifetime.....nevermind that it was caused by a grassfire that covered most of kansas.

    if one simply does a google search for refuting SDA theology you will get plenty of sources showing.......Ellen's plagerism, outright lying, contradicting herself, and her amazing lack of knowledge of scripture.

    thankyou and God Bless


    for the time will come when they will not edure sound doctrine but after their own lusts will the surround themselves with preachers saying what their itching ears want to hear.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The text says "first apostles and second prophets" according to Paul in 1Cor 12

    I suppose you could argue that your deacon or elder should in theory be able to tell some prophet in the Corinth church that their message from God needed "some editing".

    But that is going a little outside of the text that Paul gives.

    I am just pointing out the list that Paul gave.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Look - I realise that a thread of this title probably opens the door to some vaccuous ranting "in general" so I don't mind seeing the expected results.

    As I have already stated - I responded in the early posts with Biblically sound reasons why JWs and Mormons and others would object to Ellen White affirming Bible doctrines that differ with their traditions. But more specifically I pointed to a "general principle" for the 1Cor 14 idea of non-canonical prophets that shows how any cross-denominational evaluation would tend to conclude "not a prophet" for anyone getting a message from God about a doctrine they rejected.

    For example - infant baptizers aren't going to Like Ellen White's statements on believers baptism where she claims to have something other than a personnal doctrinal view.

    The same is true with her messages on free will and on premillennialism and the trinity etc.

    Everyone will gather to themselves their own traiditions and views of doctrines (at least to some extent) and regard any claim to a vision/message that opposes those views to be "not of God".

    This is so obvious - and basic that you would think all could get it.

    The debate (if there is one) has to be dotrinal and sola-scriptura. Simply ranting about Ellen White or "SDAs in general" accomplishes noting.

    In the end there is no shortcut for going to the Bible.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Jim -

    You have done a pretty good job of ignoring these Bible texts. But since they refute your spin on Christian Women - I am wondering if you would consider listening to what Paul said as quoted below or abserving the documented practice of the NT church.

    Any possibility of that -- yet?

    Paul argues that "Each one" had a revelation from God in Corinth. Certainly this has to be at the very least "many" and can not be "Assumed" to exclude women as though they were lesser beings.

    Prophets must be tested by what has gone before them (sola scriptura). But the church is to desire this gift above the others.

    This instruction is a far cry from what many Christians will submit to today.

    In Christ,

    Bob </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  8. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,435
    Likes Received:
    180
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It wouldn't.

    I opened with this question and have stuck to it. Yet you declare it a rabbit trial. Now that is very strange.

    Sorry, not enough specifics. If God gave the vision it would have been very precise. Maybe "two buildings" "exploding in fire balls" "attacked by the forces of darkness" "attacked from the air" "burning from the top down" "crashing to the ground" "thousands dead".

    One "specific" you failed to mention... "God's power is what would throw these buildings down".

    Did God's power throw these buildings down Bob?

    Here is what I am trying to say Bob...

    Do you believe God's power destroyed the buildings in NY on 9/11?

    Maybe I wasn't clear the first five times.

    God Bless!
     
  9. yeshua4me2

    yeshua4me2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    so i take it you want biblical reasons she's a heretic.
    from: ellenwhite.org

    In her early career Mrs. White made a number of predictions about Christ's imminent return. The most notable of those was a specific prediction made at a conference of believers in 1856. This statement was later published in the book Testimonies and received widespread attention within the SDA Church. Mrs. White claimed she was shown in vision that some of those present at the 1856 conference would be translated:

    "I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." "Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131

    Ellen often called Jesus "The Son of God" at original creation. We read these words not seeing them as the Arian views they are, for they evoke the question " How was He ‘the Son of God?’" John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:10 show He was YHWH, the Word at creation, but became ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ at His incarnation (Heb 1:5-6) when the Father said "I will become to Him a father, and He will become to me a Son" (cf Lk 1:35). Arians teach he was the ‘Son of God’ by being created or begotten by the Father, and then God created other things through him. So he was only a lesser deity, whose pre-eminence over the angels was conferred to him, by the Father. Ellen G White also held this Christ-debasing view:

    "…yet, Jesus, God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.

    "The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son…The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself." (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 17,18,)

    Walter Rea has shown many of the books and articles credited to Ellen were first written or assembled by her secretaries, Fanny Bolton and Marion Davis, who worked on Desire of Ages, using the work of other Christian writers as their sources. Thus those statements may not accurately portray Ellen’s own view of Christ. This becomes more apparent from some of her other statements written in that time period:

    *

    1897 Rev 8:3 "The ministry of the angel at the altar of incense is representative of Christ's intercession…" (ms 15, 1897).

    * 1900 "The mighty angel who instructed John (Rev. 1:1) was no less than the person of Christ" (ms 59, 1900).

    * 1903 "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (ms 150, SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1129)

    * 1904 "To Christ had been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father" (Testimonies vol. 8, p. 268)

    * 1905 "The instruction…was so important that Christ came…to give it to his servant…" (ms 129; Bible Commentary vol. 7, p. 971)

    * 1905 Rev 10:6 "In swearing by the creator, the angel who is Christ, swore by himself" (ibid., p. 798)

    ellen white is heretical and so is SDA doctrine. that's not my opinion that the Bible's.

    Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


    if you can't trust her prophecies, join true christians and their true christian doctrine

    thankyou and God Bless
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    And I have been arguing that it is pointless to talk about Ellen White IF the basic issue of doctrinal differences with SDAs is the foundational problem.

    It would be much more effective to simply go to those doctrinal differences and show from scripture what is "The correct view". It simplifies the discussion and Ellen White would be considered "false" if a vision that she had was in any way contradictory to whatever that sola-scriptura doctrinal discussion concluded.

    Ellen White's statement on the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit is the "Third Person of the Godhead" -- I know of no non-Trinitarians that make that statement.

    Her statement on Christ is that IN HIM is life "unborrowed and underived" that He is from all eternity ONE with the Father.

    It is a fun game to snippet quote her to try to GET something else -- but it only shows a lack of reading and understanding of SDA history and her role and moving the group into the Trinitarian camp. She was raised as a United Methodist and never held to any non-Trinitarian views MUCH LESS having any message claimed to be from God saying that Christ was not eternal, one with the Father and the 2nd member of the Godhead.

    I hesitate to offer this - since I really don't care to PROVE Ellen White so much as I care to show what the Bible says about specific doctrines that Adventists hold.

    But as for the silly rabbit trail that anti-SDA sites like to set their readers on - regarding the Trinity.

    In scripture God is represented as a man approaching Abraham - but that does not mean infinite God is actually a man. Those who seek to latch on to these little rabbit trails are straining at strawmen rather than simply going for the obvious sola-scriptura Bible based debates on doctrine where REAL differences actually exist.

    Why mess around with the smoke and mirrors "invented" by these anti-sda sites when there are REAL differences that can be compared/discussed/debated??

    Walter Martin saw that this "game was being played" by SDA-bashing sources (like R Hoekema) and quickly concluded that the better approach was to simply take what SDAs ACTUALLY believe and establish the Bible basis for or against it there rather than chasing the endless rabbit trails set out by non-SDA sources who really don't care if SDA ACTUALLY teach what the SDA-bashing groups spew out or not.

    Based on the quotes given above it is pretty "obvious" that I can not debate in favor of Christ simply being "an Angel" or not the 2nd member of the Trinity etc.

    So setting that up AS IF that is now the things for me to "defend" will not be a long debate.

    Why not pick a "real" difference??

    On the other hand it may be that you actually object to the Trinitarian idea of "One God in Three Persons". In that case we would have something to compare in scripture.

    In Christ,

    Bob

    [ July 24, 2005, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
  11. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following can also be found at http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/ it taken from-
    "The Ramik Report: Memorandum of Law; Literary Property Rights 1790-1915," by Attorney Vincent L. Ramik

    I would encourage all who have heard or read the many anti EGW materials, to visit this sight, and at least read for yourself what the other side has to say. In this way it will be easier to make an educated decision regarding the matter.

    ELLEN G. WHITE WAS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGER:
    The "right of an author to a monopoly of his publications is measured and determined by the copyright act."Accordingly, "unless the copyright laws were complied with, publication works an abandonment of all further right." Thus, all of the books listed earlier herein which were published and uncopyrighted which may have been used as sources by Mrs. White could not give rise then or now to any proper or responsible accusation of "copying," "piracy," or "plagiarism." These books included, for example, "The Life of Christ" by Hanna, "The Great Teacher" by Harris, "Sketches from the Life of Paul" by Conybeare and Howson, and the remainder of the uncopyrighted works earlier listed herein under the caption "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS."
    A "book -- becomes (when not protected by copyright) public property by the act of publication." Accordingly, all of the earlier noted published, uncopyrighted works were from the time of publication dedications or gifts to the world at large for anyone or all to use legally, freely and unhesitatingly as they wished to any degree and in any manner, with or without acknowledgements.
    Assuming, however, that all of these earlier works noted herein were copyrighted, could a successful suit have been brought against the early Seventh-day Adventist writer? The answer is again in the negative.
    The issue of copyright infringement, quite simply, is "whether the book of the defendant, taken as a whole, is substantially a copy of the plaintiff." No critics have in any of the comparisons set forth earlier herein alleged nor could they have equitably alleged than any book of Ellen G. White's, taken as a whole, is legally substantially a copy of her predecessors. The meaning of "substantially a copy" is well expressed in law and requires that the value of or effort involved in an original work be "sensibly diminished," or the "labors of the original author (be) substantially to an injurious extent, appropriated," that in effect the life, body and meaning of the earlier work be "taken as a whole" absent the exercise of discretion, skill, judgment or the like.
    Mrs. White's sternest critics offer the best evidence available supportive of noninfringement. As an example, the "88 different authors and 400
    _________________
    Holmes v. Hurst, p. 1267, 1270.
    Nebraska v. State General Co., citing Corlies v. Walker, 75 F. 436 (1893).
    Ibid.
    Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., 7F. Cas. 1113 (No. 4095) 1 Bond 540, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 803, 809 (1862).
    Page 14
    references" refer to The Great Controversy, and it is suggested strongly that such utilization by Mrs. White (if true) of this vast reference material evidences skill and use of common materials and common sources of knowledge, and not merely "colorable alterations and variations only to disguise the use thereof." It is inconceivable that even if Mrs. White used 88 different authors and 400 references in The Great Controversy, she could have taken the value of any one of the original works to the degree that it be "sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author (be) substantially to an injurious extent, appropriated" by her usages.
    What in The Great Controversy or any other book of Ellen White's, when "taken as a whole, is substantially a copy" of the works of earlier authors? Here again, when a comparison is equitably made on a one-on-one, book-versus-book basis, and such is the only comparison that can be properly made in law, nowhere have we found the books of Ellen G. White to be virtually the "same plan and character throughout" as those of her predecessors. Nor have we found or have critics made reference to any intention of Ellen White to "supersede the other(s) in the market with the same class of readers and purchasers by introducing no considerable new matter or little or nothing new except colorable deviations."
    The sheer "compilation" of the works of Ellen G. White necessarily reflects her labor and skill. So long as she had not, and the evidence clearly establishes that she did not, draw from any prior works "to a substantial degree," she remains well within the legal bounds of "fair use." Moreover, so long as the materials were selected from a variety of sources, and were "arranged and combined with certain chosen passages of the text of the original work, and in a manner showing the exercise of discretion, skill, learning, experience, and judgment," the use was "fair."
    It is also necessary in judging the writings of Ellen G. White to reflect upon the nature, character and influence of these writings which perhaps are best described by Uriah Smith from Life Sketches (469 et. seq.) as follows:
    -- "Their fruit is such as to show that the source from which they spring is the opposite of evil.
    -- 1. They tend to the purest morality. --
    They reveal the devices of Satan. -- They have aroused and rearoused us to greater consecration to God, more zealous efforts for holiness of heart, and greater diligence in the cause and service of our Master.
    -- 2. They lead us to Christ.
    __________________
    Emerson v. Davies et al., p. 864-865.
    Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., p. 809.
    Drury et al., v. Ewing et al., p. 809.
    Lawrence v. Dana, p. 1606.
    Page 15
    -- 3. They lead us to the Bible.
    -- 4. They have brought comfort and consolation to many hearts." --
    Writings of the relationships of God, Satan and men necessarily create resemblances and often times striking resemblances. However, no prior author had ever before united in one work that which was authored by Mrs. White, nor do any of her critics so allege. Critics compare words, phrases, similarities thereof, but never compare the works of Mrs. White "as a whole." One reason suggested is that evidence would indicate that though "materials have been selected from a variety of sources," the same evidence strongly indicates the materials thus selected were "arranged and combined. . . in a manner showing the exercise of discretion, skill, learning, experience and judgment." It is the latter areas where critics fear to tread because had they done such, their only conclusions could be and would be that the writings of Mrs. White did not constituteinfringe-ments of even assumed to be copyrighted works of her predecessors.
    In summary, and again with the assumption that all earlier works were copyrighted, if the issue were court-tested between 1850 and 1915, Ellen G. White would be emphatically held not to be a copyright infringer.
    ELLEN G. WHITE WAS NOT A PLAGIARIST:
    Approached from a legal standpoint, courts tend to categorize a plagiarist as one who was legally guilty of piracy. In other words, courts generally have defined the elements of piracy, and if the appropriator of a book fit the perimeters of illegal piracy, he was labeled a plagiarist. Therefore, the legal showing must be such "that the person accused of plagiarism has in fact copied or imitated another's work, and that he or she has done so in some substantial degree."
    More, however, seems evident from the case law as to what may or may not be an act of plagiarism. If that which was taken was not the "material and important parts" of a book, but the resultant book instead reflects "the effort of his (taker's) own mind," such is not plagiarism.
    One of the most important factors from a legal standpoint between the legal crime of piracy/copyright infringement and the act of plagiarism is the "intention with which such appropriation is made."A plagiarist, therefore, takes from another and utilizes that which is taken with the intent that the appropriated material be viewed as originating with the appropriator and not the originator. Therefore, Paull was eminently correct in concluding
    _______________
    Simms v. Stanton et al., 75F. 6, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 2406, 2414 (1896).
    Reed v. Carusi, 20F. Cas. 431 (No. 11642) 13-16 C.O. Bull. 2146, 2148 (1845).
    Ibid.
    Farmer v. Elstner, 33F. 494, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 970 (1888).
    Page 16
    from a literary viewpoint that the "plagiarist always hopes that he will not be found out" and though more might be added from a legal viewpoint, the intent of the taker is of a paramount importance.
    The major key to the plagiarism issue is the intent of Ellen G. White, and critics and advocates alike appear decidedly in agreement on this point, as evidenced by the following:
    -- "I rather think that Mrs. White was sincere in what she believed and what she wrote and that she believed she was inspired in fact, indeed, she believed it was a revelation." --
    -- "But I am unwilling to believe that Ellen White either consciously or unconsciously was dishonest. . . . the main tenor of her life was wonder-fully good and helpful; she stood for principles that were straight and right." --
    One could hardly impugn the good intentions of Mrs. White when she, herself, seemingly made no effort to hide her sources and indeed acknowledged their value, as follows:
    -- "The Life of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, I regard as a book of great merit, and one of rare usefulness to the earnest student of the New Testament history." --
    The best evidence of the intention of Mrs. White rests in what has been characterized as the grand central theme of her writings, "God's original purpose for the world," "the rise of the great controversy" between God and Satan, and "the work of redemption."
    One certainly perceives from Mrs. White's writings that she was motivated by "the influence of the Holy Ghost" which itself belies wrongful intent, and proceeding with but the highest of motivations and intentions she in fact legally modified, exalted and improved much which others may have thought and expressed. It is impossible to imagine that the intention of Ellen G. White, as reflected in her writings and the unquestionably prodigious efforts involved therein, was anything other than a sincerely motivated and unselfish effort to place the understandings of Biblical truths in a coherent form for all to see and comprehend. Most certainly, the nature and content of her writings had but one hope and intent, namely, the furthering of mankind's understanding of the word of God.
    _______________
    Literary Ethics, p. 45.
    White Lies, transcript, p. 35.
    ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE PROTESTANT HISTORIANS: THE EVIDENCE FROM AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT ON JOHN HUSS by Donald R. McAdams, March 7, 1974, October 1977, p. 231.
    Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 423.
    THE LITERARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DESIRE OF AGES BY ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST by William Hanna, Part II, Chapter 6, Walter F. Specht.
    Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 21.
    Page 17
    Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents, we conclude that Ellen G. White was not a plagiarist and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy.
    By:_______________________
    Vincent L. Ramik
    VLR/skl

    By for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
     
  12. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jude 1:9 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

    This Michael, is referred to as the archangel, it is the voice of the archangel that calls forth the dead from their graves at the second coming. There is no reason to believe that the above verse is talking about anything other than the resurrection of Moses from the dead, and the argument the Devil presented to Michael at the event.

    1Thes 4:16 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

    It is the Lord himself that shouts, with the voice of the archangel. The archangel then, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also referred to as Michael. Did not our Lord and Savior say that he was the resurrection, and the life.

    John 11 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:


    John 5:27-29 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
    28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    It is the voice of Christ that brings forth the dead in Christ from their graves when he returns. So Christ, the archangel, and Michael are all the same person but different titles.

    Dan 10:21 "21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

    Dan 12:1-2 "1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
    2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Rev 12:7 "7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,"

    From the above verses it is clear that the title of prince applies to Michael. He is the prince that standeth for thy people, that is the Jews. Christ has always been the mediator between man and God. In this sense, He is the prince that standeth for the people.

    Isa 9:6 "6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

    Daniel speaks of this prince as being connected with the resurrection. When Michael stands up and delivers His people, many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, or graves, will awake. This is clearly a reference to the resurrection.

    Rev 12:7 says that Michael and his angels fought the dragon and his angels. Christ calls the angels his many times in the scriptures, especially in connection with his return and the resurrection.

    Matt 16:27 "27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

    Matt 13:41 "41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;"

    Matt 24:31 "31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

    II Th 1:7-8 "7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
    8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

    The Lord Jesus Christ has many names, or titles if you will, through out the scriptures. Christ is not an angel, but one of His titles includes the word angel. Christ is the commander of the angels, but He Himself is God.

    In the old testament Christ is also referred to as the angel of the Lord. When the angel of the Lord spoke to Jacob, He referred to Himself as God.

    Gen 31:11-13 " 11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.
    12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
    13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."

    When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He was first referred to as the angel of the Lord, and then plainly referred to as the Lord.

    Exod 3:2-4 "2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
    3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
    4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I."

    When Moses asked God in the burning bush who he should say had sent him to deliver Israel, Moses was to say that I Am hath sent you. When Christ was here on earth, he applied this same title, I AM, to himself.

    Exodus 3 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

    John 8 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

    According to Paul, it was Christ that was with the children of Israel when they wandered through the wilderness. Christ is always the one who mediates between man and God.

    1 Cor 10:1-4 "1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
    3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
    4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

    God told the children of Israel that he would send His angel before them. This angel had God's name in Him. This is because this angel was Christ, whom Paul testified was the one who was with the children of Israel in the wilderness experience.

    Exod 23:20-22 " 20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
    21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
    22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries."

    Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
     
  13. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,435
    Likes Received:
    180
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Statements like this ( and this is one among many) is what makes Ellen fail the test of a Prophet. Any Christian who does not see the heresy in these words is decieved and is so by their own choosing.

    Proponents of Ellen White always declare that these anti-Ellen sites are twisting her words. Any seeker of truth who knows a little about the doctrines of the Bible can read her writings for themselves and see that her visions and teachings were not from any angel of the Lord's. Satan always mixes false doctrine with truth. Therefor you have many say, "but what she said here or there is biblical". Doesn't matter. Accceptance of a little bit of lie is all satan needs to render a flock in many ways useless for the Lord.

    It always amazes me how people flock to anyone declaring special revelation from the Lord. Doesn't matter what they say contrary to sound biblical doctrine, hundreds if not thousands will follow along. Ellen wasn't the first or last and I am sure many more will follow. The Word of God warns that many false prophets are and will be. It is just sad that there are Christians out there that just aren't satisfied with Jesus Christ. They always think there must be more!

    Bob always says all we need is sola scripture, then why not disregard Ellen White and just follow Jesus and His scripture Bob?

    God Bless!
     
  14. Kamoroso

    Kamoroso New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steaver, the following is your quote in the context which it was written. I have addressed these kinds of issues over and over and over again. People take one phrase from EGW's writings, pull it out of context, and make it contradict the scriptures, or something else that she wrote. Most people simply take these quotes from some internet site that they think is a reliable source, without checking for themselves, and preach it as truth. I have visited many of these sites myself, after finding one lie after another I simply move on. Perhaps you to, should do a little more research about the claims of these internet sites, before you present their lies as the truth.

    As is obvious from the above, Christ's authority was being asserted by the Father, only because there was one who began to question it. EGW is not saying that this authority did not exist prior to this time, but only that the Father set forth the authority of the Son, because He knew what was going on in the mind of Satan. As is obvious from the above, even the angels knew that Christ was the Son of God that had ever stood at the right hand of God.

    Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
     
  15. Nevertheless

    Nevertheless New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, do you agree with Kamoroso that Michael the archangel and Jesus are one and the same?
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree with scripture that the 3 men walking toward Abraham were IN FACT God and two angels EVEN though they are called men.

    You can argue all day long "but the Bible said MEN" -- it does not change the fact that while they may have APPEARED as men - they were in fact 2 ANGELS and God Himself (Jesus Christ is YHWH in the OT that is SEEN for NO one has seen the Father at any time John 1).

    Kam is pointing out that the role of God the Son in heaven as "THE WORD" involves His role as the commander of the Angels the Archangel Michael. I believe that is a "form" he took as "The WORD" that "explains the infinite" to the finite.

    But I do not believe that God the Son was ever - in substance - ontologically "an Angel" any more than I believe that the description of God in Genesis as " a man" walking toward Abraham means that God is in fact ontologically "a man".

    This is in fact the offical SDA position in the 27 FB regarding God the Son.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There are those here who seem to imagine that "BEFORE the angels were CREATED" there was an ANGEL created called Michael.

    This is not the belief of Adventists - the quote above does not claim that God the Son served in the form or role as "Michael" before the Angels were created. INSTEAD it claims that the Son ws fully and completely ONE with the Father BEFORE the Angles were created.

    He is not an "created Angel" any more than God is a "just a man" in Genesis 18.

    AS I said - there are "real differences" why waste time on the trumped up straw men of sda-bashing sites?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Lets take a look at Jesus' scripture for a minute.

    What part of that says "ignore all prophets"??

    I am more than happy to judge them "sola sriptura" and I am more than happy to admit that the FIRST level of testing is "to the law and to the testimony" so -- doctrinal correctness in any message that is supposedly "from God".

    Nathan was wrong in HIS advice to David to BUILD the temple but was right in HIS claim about what GOD said in a divine message that David should NOT be the one to build the temple.

    The high place that 1Cor 12 and 14 place on the GIFT of prophecy and the COMMAND to DESIRE it - is in direct opposition to the spirit of many here arguing that we reject it outright.

    The pattern here has been not only to reject this spiritual gift but ALSO to reject the DETAILS we see about it IN SCRIPTURE!!

    How in the world could I adopt such a model??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is this what you are trying to say?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All I can give is my opinion on that one.

    Is that what you are asking for?

    Do you have some "argument" showing how "My opinion" proves something in terms of "validating preprediction"??

    Do you remember your own word about a prediction evaluated on those parts that CAN be validated??

    Are you going to ever answer this point?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BUT MAYBE what you really mean to say is that GIVEN the VERIFIABLE specifics "NY city, Tall skyscrapers, certified to be fireproof, burning like pitch, firemen unnable to stop it" - THEN EVEN YOU would have to conclude that this is a MATCH (based on the verifiable specifics that is).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How many "other sources" do you have pointing to NY and skyscrapers and fire-proof certification and firemen unnable to put out the blaze of a fireproof sky scraper??

    I am surprised that you would claim to have so many that this is just "another one" unnable to see in it anything "specific".

    Or did you need the "names" of those who died "listed in vision" first?

    Do you have some "arbitrary" detail selected?

    Is that "biblical" in terms of "verification"?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...