A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject: The Dumb Dogs’ Prophecy of Ellen G. White
Is there any Reason to Doubt the Dumb Dogs’ Prophecy of Ellen G. White?
Isaiah wrote:
“His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” Isaiah 56:10.
Ellen White had this verse clearly in mind when she interpreted Ezekiel 9 as a prophecy of the Seventh-day Adventist church/leadership:
Quote:
Here we see that the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God’s power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus “Peace and safety” is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God’s people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together. —Testimonies for the Church Volume Five, page 211.
Is there any reason to doubt Ellen G. White’s dumb dogs’ prophecy? If the sleep of Seventh-day Adventists and the church leadership is being interrupted, what awakening message is being sounded in the forums to awaken this sinful synagogue to the fearful reality of their impending doom, if they do not repent?
I posted this on a rival forum. My proposed subject of discussion was quickly opposed and redirected by hijackers who believe it's a sin to unmask evil in the body of Christ. The following exchange took place:
Yahvist wrote:
That was a bit of an advanced senior-class SDA theology message you opened up here in this topic thread
I am quite aquainted with Seventh-day Adventists. Please, believe me when I say I am for them and not against them. I like seeing them on this forum and I like noticing them give witness to their relationship to Jesus as their Christ. My concern lies more in the manner here online of approaching other members (who are of various church affiliations) in public discussion. Proper propriety in online forums calls for us to think more in group harmony of loving one another. This might cause a rethinking of subjects to be chosen for the sake of the majority being able to participate in the discussion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression you are more comfortable with deep polemics of higher Adventist doctrines with other long-time standing SDA's? Could it be you are thinking that the leaders, moderators and majority of members of TR are exclusively Seventh-day Adventists? And that this Forum will become, or is now, an exclusive for SDA members only place? If perhaps this is the attitude of posting approach, then problems will ensue. From what I have gathered in a number of past TR postings this Forum is not to serve Adventists exclusively.
It is not so that this TheologyReview is an exclusive church centered clique meeting to hash out personal common internal matters. The scope of TR is much broader than a single purpose denominational church. TheologyReview is inter-denominational in format having the goal for interaction with others who are active Christians. However, any non-Christian is warmly welcomed to come, test the waters and swim with us all here as well.
Searching for truth, speaking truth, presenting truth accepting truth and then living out truth in our personal lives brings a peace of heart that each of us is looking for.
Y a h v i s t
Yahvist,
Please forgive my interruption. You are right. SDAs should not be asked to repent. That’s not the purpose of this forum. They should continue, undisturbed, thinking that their system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices will save them, until God alone decides to intervene. It didn’t occur to me that alerting a sleepy, sinful synagogue to the fearful reality of their impending doom is unchristian.
If this forum isn’t for provable issues, such as Satan having the SDA leadership on a very short leash, then I withdraw my question and will let the “sleeping dogs lie.”
Can anyone direct me to a SDA run forum that allows discussions of sincerely held beliefs?
Kevin wrote:
I'm a moderator who is not a SDA, There are some that are and there are some who aren't. This is a CHRISTIAN site. We espouse no one denomination over another. You are free to believe what you will, I just ask that you love and respect those, yes, even those with whom you don't agree.
There is a way to tactfully confront those you feel are in error, but for you to just come on and begin to blast people, that's not tact.
I try to develop relationships with people. This is an online community. It's from that vantage point that I discuss issues in a (try to be) humble and caring way. Things may get heated from time to time, but if people know me then they are less likely to read me wrong, and offer grace when I get too hard.
That said, I welcome you and hope to have times of fellowship and discussion together. God bless you!
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
I don’t believe that I follow your commentary but I will try to understand. Please correct me where I’m wrong. You believe that no denomination is better than another and that this forum is Christian. There are professed Christians on both sides of this question. I believe as SDAs believe: that Babylon is the Apostate Christian Church. Does that mean that I’m required to suppose that the belief that mainline Christendom is Babylon is just as valid as the belief that mainline Christendom isn’t Babylon? If so, how could this forum be Christian and not a true representation of perfect confusion?
You mentioned love. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to love our enemies. What is unloving about my words? How would you contrast my writings with Isaiah’s introduction (Isaiah 1:1-17), Jude’s entire epistle (Jude 1) and the words of Jesus (John 8:31-59)? Exactly where am I less polite than the Bible?
You mentioned respect. I respect the power of evil. I don’t believe that there is anything nice to say about evil. If I’ve slandered evil or exaggerated what evil is, please specify where.
How do you define love and respect? It sounds to me that I’m being forced to tolerate the Babylonian belief that judging evil is a greater evil than doing evil.
Finally, is it possible to post at this forum and assert that your reply is full of a delusive element, empty of substance and Spirit and opposed to the clear example of grace and truth presented in Isaiah 1:1-17, Jude 1 and John 8:31-59?
Can anyone direct me to a SDA run forum that allows discussions of sincerely held beliefs?
All the Seventh-day Adventist forums that receive more traffic than we do practice censorship. This place is as Adventist as you can get but with a twist. We respect freedom. We love relevant discussions. We welcome what isn't welcome elsewhere and accept the straight testimonies the other Adventist forums will not tolerate.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
