Ellen White?
Ellen White?
ping
White was a false prophet on a level seen very little in that day and time. That is the primary origin of the cult that is known as “Adventist”. From a denial of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, to the many other heresies including soul sleep and annihilationism, and a myriad of works-based salvation doctrines - it is among the most insidious and soul-damning of near-mainline “Christian” cults. Which speaks volumes of the group that split off from the Adventists - taking their heresies to new heights of depravity under Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Dang, she wrote some pretty deep stuff for being a drunk.
Here for example, about the Papacy:
Quote:
The Roman Church reserves to the clergy the right to interpret the Scriptures. On the ground that ecclesiastics alone are competent to explain God’s word, it is withheld from the common people. [See Appendix note for page 340.] Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church.
Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour’s teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God’s word that they are light bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error. They see that the truth for this time is plainly brought to view in the Bible; and they feel the power of the Holy Spirit attending its proclamation; yet they allow the opposition of the clergy to turn them from the light. Though reason and conscience are convinced, these deluded souls dare not think differently from the minister; and their individual judgment, their eternal interests, are sacrificed to the unbelief, the pride and prejudice, of another.
Switchel itself was generally not alcoholic, and it was popular hydration for field workers. But rum was sometimes added to it in some settings to make an alcoholic drink.
bkmk
IMHO, neither old-earthers nor young-earthers can exegetically (Bible interpretation without bias) say how old the earth is, as long as we say that God had a very active hand in making the earth and us (so don't say it was through theistic evolution). For centuries there was some back and forth debates over the age of the earth, but no churches were dogmatic about it. It was just something Christian nerds would discuss among themselves.
Until the 7th-Day'ers took archibishop Ussher's young-earth belief and made it dogma. Which IMHO is okay, until, other Christians needed an apologetics response to things like the scope monkey trials. And since most churches hadn't done much research on apologetics at the time, they turned to what the 7th-Day'ers had been saying and ran with it. The next thing you know in a lot of churches you heard messages that you couldn't call yourself a Bible-believer unless you believe God made the earth in a week about 6,000 years ago.
So people outside the church who were considering giving Christ a try might hear that and think, "Hmmm.... I don't know if want to do this if it means I have to give up knowing that the earth is billions of years old. That sounds too much like a cult to me." When in truth, the Bible doesn't explicitly say one way or the other how old the earth is so it's not an argument we have to win. The only argument we have to win (apologetically speaking) is that it requires a lot more religion than I've got to believe that we got here like atheists said which is through a bunch of freak accidents.
The problem I have with 7th day Adventists preference for total abstenation from alcohol, is it is made from an assumption, sometimes from some adventists own anecdotal experience, that all consumption of alcoholic beverages leads to an alcohol addiction and all persons who drink alcohol on any recurring basis, no matter how minor, are alcoholics.
Yet the data on the levels of acoholc consumption versus alcoholism do not support the idea that to consume any amount of acholol beverages at any rate ypu will become an alcholol addict - which is not true.
Some people - SOME - cannot handle alcholol consumption without becoming an alcholic at most and regularly drunk at least. The facts say that is not true for most people. Most people easily self-monitor and control their limited alcholol consumption as an occassional refreshment and not in answering an addiction.
What is this weird culty stuff doing here? All we need to live by is in the Ten Commandments.
Alcohol kills brain cells, but only the weak ones.
What is all this Ellen White stuff even about?